FINALLY: Bill Proposed To Make It Easier For Military To Have Personal Firearms Wherever They Live


The U.S. military has been abused by the current administration horribly. Frustratingly, the current administration, like the Obama and Clinton administrations before it, treats the military like a social experiment instead of the fighting force to protect Americans and Americans’ rights that it was created to be.

We could go through a multitude of examples, but one easy one to pick is how members of the military, even though they are thoroughly trained on the safe and proper handling and use of firearms, aren’t allowed to carry firearms on bases and military installations, with the exception of Military Policy (MPs). That gun ban on bases went into effect under Bill Clinton. In fact, it was one of his first actions when going into office in March 1993. That gun ban made the horrible Fort Hood mass shooting possible in 2009 in that no one was immediately able to return fire against the shooter when he attacked other military personnel. And, according to at least one source, the Fort Hood shooting “was the deadliest mass shooting on an American military base.”

What you may not know is that Americans living a rather nomadic lifestyle, like military members, often have difficulty with getting personal firearms because their state of residency may not be where they live, and they may move regularly (or constantly, if they live in an RV, for example).


A recently introduced piece of legislation aims to prevent that difficulty so that members of our military and other people living nomadic lifestyles can have an easier time having legal access to their firearms in more places. Caden Pearson writes,

A bill reintroduced in the U.S. Senate aims to fix the problems faced by people who live a nomadic lifestyle or don’t have a permanent address and wish to register a firearms license.

The Traveler’s Gun Rights Act would allow people who live full-time in RVs, have multiple homes, or are military personnel and their spouses to register alternate addresses on Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) paperwork.

Currently, firearm buyers are required to list an address on ATF paperwork, but PO Boxes or Private Mailboxes (PMBs) are prohibited. This restriction adversely affects full-time travelers, many of whom live in their RVs year-round and rely on PO Boxes or PMBs to receive mail.

U.S. Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) introduced the legislation in a bid to remove what they see as an unfair denial of Second Amendment rights for Americans with unique living situations.

“No law-abiding American should be denied their Second Amendment rights,” Crapo said in a statement. “Military spouses and RV owners are just two examples of full-time travelers who are blocked from obtaining a firearm under current law. The Traveler’s Gun Rights Act is a commonsense solution that will finally address this oversight.”

This legislation is a good idea. No American citizen should be denied their legal rights just because the government wants to track them (you didn’t really think gun registration and firearms licenses were about anything else, did you?), and the idea behind this legislation would make it easier for more law-abiding citizens, especially members of the military (who, of all people, should know how to be safe with a firearm) to have legal access to their guns.

That’s how it should be.



  1. The next thing to tackle would be the prohibition of carrying concealed or otherwise of firearms on Military Reservations by Military Members and/or Concealed Carriers.

    While deployed in combat zones, we were ORDERED to always have on our person our assigned Battle Rifle (and/or pistol if issued) and at least 30 rounds of live ammunition. Somewhere on that plane ride home, we (Servicemembers) somehow lose the trust of our superiors so much that, once home, we can no longer be trusted with the same firearms that we carried for a year in a combat zone. What changes on that plane ride home?

  2. I am a firm believer in the Constitution as our forefathers wrote it, including all but one Amendment. Since the right to bear arms often rests on the definition of ‘Militia’, maybe we need to redefine what it takes to own a firearm. What if we tried to appease both sides of the argument with an Amendment to the Second Amendment. Let’s define militia as anyone who has served and was not dishonorably discharged, or is still serving, in the regular military or the reserves. In order to prohibit political influence on gun ownership, the military will be directed to accept anyone into service as long as they were not mentally ill or had a criminal record. Since every military branch have people in jobs not directly in combat, physical limitations, such as blindness, deafness, or obesity, would not deny them from serving. Even if some of these people have to be given makework jobs, they would all go through boot camp, which would involve proper exercise, diet, and various combat training courses, including firearms. If boot camp also taught the basics of Constitutional law and the legalities of war, then we would know that every single citizen legally owning a firearm would be properly trained not only in the use of a firearm, but in the reasons why it should be used.

    • We already know the meaning of militia. We don’t need to re-define it to appease anti- constitutionalists. The Whole purpose was to keep guns in the hands of the people, not just the government or its military.

    • If you don’t believe in the Second Amendment, then you don’t believe in any amendment or in the Constitution itself.

    • Being a retired Marine as a GySgt.
      Mustang Capt (ret) I can become one man wave of sudden death, blood, guts, and destruction. That alone makes me a MILITIA! HA HA !

      WHAT 99% of taxpayers do not understand Wrangler, is that Police
      DO NOT have a constitutional requirement, to protect
      PRIVATE PROPERTY we are responsible for our own protection!!!
      Which makes the 2nd Amendment
      Equal to and even a higher priority to
      the rest when it comes to protecting yourself and loved ones from someone who may be attending to kill you your loved ones and others . Especially with an AK/AR etc. We should be legally permitted to have equal fire power.

      Don’t ya think pilgrim?
      Semper Fi

  3. I agree, protection should not and can not be tied to a physical address. We are nomads even if we have a home to go to after work. Being able to defend ourselves is something that is not tied to an address. Tell this to the guy the “Good Samaritan” helped.

  4. There is nothing wrong with extending to the DEFENDERS of the country, the ability to own, and carry, firearms. Nothing in the Second Amendment, which military are sworn to protect, says they can be stripped of their guns by politicians who claim they are serving their country, while they are really SERVICING their country. The bill should broaden to extend to retired, as well as active duty. Theri oath to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, does not terminate when their active duty is over.

  5. Other than the MP/SP forces on a base, EVERYONE else on base is defenseless! When Nidal Hassan began his shooting on base at Killeen,Tx, there was only one who responded right away! No one ELSE could! Likewise, when the recruiters are assaulted, they have NOTHING with which to defend themselves, save maybe STAPLERS! Yes, these can leave a nasty puncture, but would only enrage further any attackers in their assaults. NONE of the above, save those MP/SPs, have any recourse if attacked on base! Troops should AT LEAST be able to defend themselves and their families!

Comments are closed.