Military Base Gun Policies and Their Impact
Bill Clinton’s presidency was marked by several notable actions, including relationships with young interns, a ban on “assault weapons” that hardly impacted crime, and a controversial gun policy at military bases.
On September 17, 2013, Breitbart News highlighted the implementation of “gun-free zones” at military bases during Clinton’s time in office.
The Washington Times, in an editorial from November 5, 2009, discussed the implications of this policy after the Fort Hood attack, stating that one of Clinton’s first official acts was to disarm U.S. troops on military bases.
The editorial pointed out that these actions prevented military personnel from carrying their firearms and made it exceedingly difficult for commanders to arm soldiers for personal protection. The Times editorial board expressed that if terrorists attacked, they would be met with less resistance than what gunmen faced at Fort Hood, especially in areas like Texas.
John Lott Jr., from the Crime Prevention Research Center, has spoken out about these policies following subsequent attacks, including the one at Fort Stewart. He noted that trained service members, who are proficient with firearms exceeding civilian capabilities, are banned from carrying even 9mm pistols for self-defense on military bases. As I remarked back in December 2019 concerning the Pensacola Naval Air Base attack, such policies leave U.S. military personnel vulnerable.
During his first term, President Trump aimed to reverse the ban on firearms at military installations. However, various distractions, including accusations of Russian collusion, stalled his efforts. In 2015, Trump expressed his disapproval of Clinton’s restrictions, stating that American troops should be armed for their own protection.
One could hope that the recent Fort Stewart attack might spark a renewed conversation about allowing military personnel to carry firearms for self-defense. If not, it’s just a matter of time before someone exploits these unarmed military environments to commit harm.
Our military personnel are invaluable, and they deserve the means to defend themselves against threats, regardless of whether those threats wear friendly or hostile uniforms.
