INHOFE INTRODUCES GUN BILL TO PROTECT SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SOLDIERS, EMPLOYEES OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE [More]When I read that, my first thought was, "Oh, great, just what we need--more "Only Ones."
But it's not that at all. It prohibits requiring extra bending over.
This is a good thing.
This is a good start, but it still would not have prevented the shootings at Ft. Hood. As long as the soldiers or civilians are on Post (DoD property) they must still have any Privately owned firearms registered with the MP's. Also, the problem is that self-defense carry is not a good enough reason to have a firearm either on your person or in your vehicle. Unless you're transporting the weapon to a range on post, or if you're hunting can you justify carrying a privately owned firearm.
ReplyDeleteIf they change that stipulation to allow self-defense carry, maybe it will have an actual impact.
Just to clarify my abive comment...I did not mean i think that self-defense is not a good enough reason. that's the military's philosophy...well, at least the Army's.
ReplyDelete