Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56, arm our military personnel and provide for MILITARY SECURITY on our bases.

DOD Directive 5210.56 provides that DOD personnel may only be armed for "...missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DOD assets or persons’ lives." Specific strategic/nuclear assets are under armed guard, but otherwise military personnel are prohibited from carrying their weapons - duty or personal - on base. In most instances, even armed security personnel (most often contracted) are required to carry unloaded weapons (condition 4 - no magazines inserted or rounds chambered).

In the light of the more than 17 attacks that have occurred on bases since 1994, we petition the government to immediately repeal DOD Directive 5210.56.

Arm our soldiers.

MILITARY SECURITY for military bases.

No more shelter in place orders.

They defend US; arm them to defend themselves.

We The People Petition: IMMEDIATELY Repeal DOD Directive 5210.56

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND:

For those who are unfamiliar with this directive, here are the most important parts. Emphasis is added.

"a. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
b. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL WITH FIREARMS SHALL BE LIMITED AND CONTROLLED. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. Evaluation of the necessity to arm DoD personnel shall be made with the consideration of the possible consequences of accidental or indiscriminate use of those arms. However, THE OVERRIDING FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO ARM ARE THE MISSION AND THREAT. ARMING DOD PERSONNEL (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) SHALL BE LIMITED TO MISSIONS OR THREATS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEED TO PROTECT DOD ASSETS OR PERSONS’ LIVES. DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties."

Since this is the US, guarding a military installation (with the exception of certain strategic/nuclear assets) is considered to be a low threat mission. On many military installations,  security personnel are generally contracted from one of the defense contractors; whether contracted or military police, security either carry weapons at condition 4 (no mag inserted and no round in the chamber) or they carry no weapons at all. The Beirut bombing (which preceded this directive) was possible in part because the base guards were required to carry their weapons at condition 4. By the time they inserted their mags and chambered rounds, the bombers had already cleared the gates and were closing in on the barracks.

The base CO has no authority to override this directive. The fact is, all weapons not being used for training purposes or actual missions are locked in the armory, and unless an order is received to distribute those arms, they are unavailable for use by all base personnel. Even personal firearms must be secured. The CO may keep designated personnel available or on call, but not on continuous duty according to this directive unless there is an imminent threat.

Dr. Ben Carson For President...

I received an email today from runbenrun.org, an organization set up with the purpose of drafting Dr. Ben Carson to run for the presidency in 2016.  This is an email I sent to the organization explaining why, at this moment, I cannot support a Carson candidacy:

John,

In many ways, I am in favor of Dr. Carson running for president.  In fact, I STRONGLY supported the idea of drafting him to run for president.

Then I heard him give his stance on the Second Amendment; it is unsupportable.

This is a transcript from the Glenn Beck Show less than a month ago:

Dr. Carson: "Uh, guns, there's a reason for the Second Amendment. People DO have the right to have weapons. With this argument that's been going on, the way we solve it is we ask what is each side afraid of, and then we address it that way."

Glenn Beck: "Do I have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon?"

Dr. Carson: "It depends on where you live. I think if you live in the midst of a lot of people, and I’m afraid that that semi-automatic weapon is going to fall into the hands of a crazy person, I would rather you not have it." (emphasis added)

Dr. Benjamin Carson On Gun Control: "It Depends On Where You Live" | RealClearPolitics

Sorry, but I have to agree with Dana Loesch on this one. If Dr. Carson decides to run for President, his stance on the Second Amendment is a deal breaker. My right to own and carry firearms is a Constitutional right that is not up for compromise because someone is afraid of my exercise of that right, and frankly, Dr. Carson does not have the right to decide WHERE I may own a semi-automatic firearm, either.

Our Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.  We already have too many politicians in Washington who are out to dismantle those rights, and Dr. Carson's willingness to consider possible limitations on those rights based on A) the fears of those who have been brainwashed to think that firearms are evil and B) where HE perceives it proper for someone to own a particular class of firearm based on his own fear regarding the potential of someone stealing it from me is something to which he will need to give SERIOUS reconsideration.

As long as he holds this stance, there are too many who will not even consider voting for him.

I'm one of them.

Sincerely,