Fort Stewart army base shooting raises questions about military gun policies

A shooting that injured five soldiers in one of the country’s largest military bases on Wednesday has resurfaced on a long -standing policy of the army which largely prevents soldiers from transporting personal weapons on military facilities.

Soldiers from the region who witnessed Fort Stewart’s shooting in Georgia “immediately and without hesitation” tackled the shooter to master him before the arrival of the police, the general of Brigadier John Lubas said at a press conference on Wednesday.

But they did not have firearms to retaliate due to a policy adopted for the first time decades to ensure security by limiting armed members on the military police. The suspect in the shooting, the logistics sergeant. Quornelius Radford, used a personal weapon, said Lubas.

Questions about the reasons why the soldiers had no weapons built online after at least one video of the incident on social networks seems to show the soldiers in security uniform in the middle of a locking which lasted about an hour, instead of withdrawing on the shooter.

Although some have asked why many soldiers from the region during the shooting did not use weapons to defend themselves, others wondered if existing regulations were enough to prevent shooting on the basics. Filming is the last of a growing list of violent incidents in American military facilities over the years – some claiming more than a dozen lives.

Experts claim that there are reasons for long -standing regulations on military bases, despite their limits.

The policy of the Ministry of Defense prohibits military personnel from carrying personal weapons on the basis without authorization of a principal commander, and there is a strict protocol on the way in which the firearm must be stored.

As a general rule, the military must officially check their firearms safe from secure storage to go to the base hunting areas or ranges of shooting, then check all firearms quickly after its sanctioned use. Military police are often the only armed personnel on the basis, apart from ranges, hunting or training areas, where soldiers can handle their service weapons without ammunition.

Federal policy leaves little room for local commanders to use discretion on how politics is applied. This means that the regulation applies even in Georgia, a state with some of the country’s most laxed firearms regulations, where Fort Stewart is located.

Robert Capovilla, founding partner of one of the largest military law firms in the country, firmly believes in the second amendment. But he said that strict firearms on military bases exist for a reason.

“Many of these installations are involved in top secret operations, dealing with top secret information, and because of this, you need increased security,” said Capovilla, a former military prosecutor and defense lawyer. “You just don’t want people to walk in a federal installation with personal weapons.”

He said he went to “almost all the major military facilities” in North America for his work. Whenever he visited an installation, he said that the armed military police had a visible presence almost constantly on the basis. He added that he did not believe that Wednesday’s shooting could have been prevented if the military staff had been armed at the time.

Firearms on military bases are more regulated than most states in some respects, according to the former military prosecutor and defense lawyer Eric Carpenter. But he said that the limits of firearms control over the military bases of the debates of parallel firearms in the public more broadly.

“You are not losing all your rights when you enter the army,” said Carpenter. “Apart from a military situation, the soldier has as much amendment for the second amendment as anyone.”

For example, it could be simple enough for a member of the living service out of the case to put a weapon on the military installation, said Carpenter, because a superior commander cannot regulate the property of firearms.

There are also few legal grounds for leadership to confiscate a firearm when a member of the service presents signs of a mental health crisis or a post-traumatic stress disorder, potentially posing a threat to themselves or for others. In recent years, these shortcomings have been more examined due to mass fire, he said.

“All these rules will not prevent someone from doing what the guy did today,” said Carpenter.

___

Riddle is a member of the body for the Associated Press / Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a non-profit national services program that places journalists from local editorial rooms to account for undercurrent issues.