New Firearms Policy Released

Story Number: NNS100615-25Release Date: 6/15/2010 3:53:00 PM
A  A  A   Email this story to a friend   Print this story
By April Phillips, Naval Safety Center Public Affairs

NORFOLK (NNS) -- The Navy announced a policy change regarding personal firearms to consolidate and clarify the requirements for those who own these weapons.

The NAVADMIN detailing the new policy is available at The change to OPNAVINST 5530.14E came after a review of existing policy indicated that there were inconsistencies in the way personal firearm regulations were enacted across the fleet, according to Rear Adm. Arthur J. Johnson, Commander, Naval Safety Center.

However, he emphasized that the policy change should not make life more difficult for those who choose to own weapons.

"This policy is more of a clarification than a change," said Johnson. "It's not meant to make owning a personal firearm more restrictive for Sailors. Instead, it aligns policy across the enterprise so Sailors know what's expected of them if they do own a firearm."

One highlight of the new policy is the ability for all Sailors to store their personal firearms in base housing or armories (when space is available), so long as they receive prior written approval from the installation commanding officer. Weapons must be stored in a locked container, a locked gun rack, or secured with approved trigger locks to keep the weapon from firing.

Weapons are still prohibited in other on-base locations, such as bachelor enlisted or bachelor officer quarters, work centers, and vehicles.

The policy also clarifies that Sailors must comply with all federal, state, and local laws, and that concealed weapons are never allowed on Navy installations, regardless of local law.

While the policy change co-locates and clarifies firearms policy, Johnson said there's one thing that hasn't changed.

"The decision to own a personal firearm carries with it personal responsibility," said Johnson. "If you do own a weapon, you must understand the basic rules of gun safety and make sure you follow those rules at all times."

The primary rules of gun safety are: Treat every weapon as if it were loaded; never point a weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot; and, keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire.

Johnson adds two other rules that are important to remember.

"Keep weapons out of untrained or underage hands, and remember that guns and alcohol don't mix," he said.

For more news from Naval Safety Center, visit

6/22/2010 11:42:00 AM
at One Still in uniform: In case you haven't noticed... which I'm pretty sure you haven't... it is not the citizen who conceals a weapon leagally and carries the proper documentation that commits the majority of crimes involving a concealed guns. It is all the people that conceal to conceal. Your statement is void. As a fellow barcode of the federal government, however; I have no choice but to comply with this idiotic regulation. Gun Control is not regulating the 2A out of the BOR!

6/21/2010 8:42:00 PM
I saw this(the US Military is Anti Gun) The Colonel who started the Army Changle Coin Tradition also personaly told me, "The Army is Anti Gun".This "Mentality" totaly Contradicts the Spirt of the Second Amendment. Interestingly other countries frequently allow their military Personel to carry personal/CCW. I know as I also served in the Estonian Defense Forces. there your commander could write the soldier a "License" to carry and they often did. The US Military is plauged with Gangs/Idoits IC

6/21/2010 8:34:00 AM
Anyone who thinks that armed law abiding citizens don't stop crimes needs to do a little fact checking, for starts. Hopefully the Navy learned something from the motorcycle experience. When rider deaths were escalating, instead of banning motorcycles we mandated more training, improved our training programs, encouraged bikers to socialize and share their experience, even created workday events. Fatalities dropped 40% the 1st year (09 versus 08).

6/21/2010 4:24:00 AM
Responding to still in uniform: thank you for serving but allow me to point out that your argument is entirely ad hominem. What empirical research do you present to support your point? Also, the statement about drinking 'NRA Kool Aid' is not helping your credibility. While debating whether a community is or isn't safer by allowing qualified citizens to carry weapons for the purpose of self defense, the rightful choice should be left to the citizen and not a bureaucrat reading situation reports.

6/21/2010 4:04:00 AM
I am certain that every good sailor, soldier, marine, and airman will undoubtedly obey this order, but any mentally disturbed individual such as Maj. Nidal Hasan, a licensed psychiatrist of all people, and Airman Dean Mellberg will not. Herein lies the fallacy with any gun control measure; it never affects the element of society that it intends to target. Therefore, those with ill intend will always be aided by restrictions, while those who obey rules and regulations will be at their mercy. It is a demented irony that most, if not all acts of mass violence occur in venues where the possession of firearms are strictly controlled or even restricted.

6/20/2010 5:43:00 PM
The right to bear arms is under attack every where, I think the higher-ups are wrong.With all the "studies" they do that don't prove anything except someone likes spending money for nothing.By the way,Guys HAPPY FATHER'S DAY! WE need less pencil pushing and more action, when was the last time a desk jockey actually went in the field? Bet they couln't pass the Physical Training Course.

6/20/2010 8:38:00 AM
Our friends here have obviously plenty of experience (or ideas about) running a military installation, but have spent no time reading SITREPs. Besides, having people carrying concealed weapons has never made any country safer - otherwise US streets would be the safest in the world. Enough of the NRA Kool-aid. And I'm no commie, I've spent more time defending the Constitution that many of you cleaning your guns.

6/19/2010 4:58:00 PM
This is a gross violation of the Constitution's 2nd Amendment which is the very document that each service member swears to "support and defend". Rear Admiral Arthur J. Johnson needs to get his head out of his backside and understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed". Education is far better than prohibition. Disarming armed forces personnel is illogical.

6/19/2010 9:45:00 AM
Another Miltary Service is neutered. WoW! Now the criminals know exactly where to go for victims. I was U.S. Army and at post you ony had to store you firearms in the armory if you were enlisted and in common quarters. You could retrive them at anytime you wished. If you live in BAQ or BOQ there was no restriction. Only after Carter came in did this start changing. Progressives clamping down on NCO's first, then even officers. Whatever happened to the trust of the Military. Just sickening!

6/19/2010 8:58:00 AM
Absolutely evil. Well, the patriots in the military who decide to fight against the NWO and the commies in our govt. will know what they must do with their higher level officers when the time comes. Don't understand? Start here: Then share and prepare for what will be required of those who claim to love liberty.

6/19/2010 7:34:00 AM
Unbelievable!!! What about HR 218 the National Concealed Carry for Cops law that was included in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 which was signed into law by President Bush. I'm now a sworn Deputy Sheriff who carries concelead, who travels and stops at military bases for lodging. My handgun is supposed to be in a locked container in my vehicle?? I guess the commissary and lodging facilities will no longer get any more of my money. I'm glad motel 6 will have the light on.

6/18/2010 6:17:00 PM
How absolutely outrageous, and un-Constitutional. This so called Admiral, is a total moron. Funny, he can tell you all about the responsibilities of owning a gun; but is clueless on the "shall not be infringed", part. The navy is made up of a bunch of Marxist dirtbags. The statements made by this idiot Admiral Johnson, in this article; are more then adequate, for a Treason conviction. Bob Fletcher

6/18/2010 7:46:00 AM
This is unbelievable! Officers are required to have an education, attend schools and colleges in furtherance of their career to come up with policies such as this? Mayor Richard Daley and Michael Bloomberg would be proud. Who did the Navy consult for “expert” advice, the Brady Campaign? As someone else on this discussion board mentioned, what is the expected outcome of this ridiculous prohibition? If the military brass were sincere about safety, classes would be made available to teach firearms safety without infringing on anyone’s Second Amendment rights and without creating all this nonsense rules that accomplish nothing in the interest of safety. Sorry, but the Navy missed the mark on this one and revealed that the top brass has something in common with some of their civilian counterparts in corporate America; incompetence.

6/17/2010 11:18:00 PM
The Navy is so Political, right now we are weakend by this policy , I bet fort hood personal would disagree with this policy. The Knee jerk reaction of the Navy has made us look like a bunch of boy scouts who need supervision. When the navy has non exeprience pencil pushers at the helm, this is what you get. Who will protect the nation when we need protection, Officers don't stand posts they sit in a air conditioned office and never stand a post or defend anything but they go home early

6/17/2010 10:57:00 PM
This reminds me of that Steven Seagul movie "Under Siege" where every crew member was disarmed and the domestic terrorist took over the ship with nukes on it.

6/17/2010 10:40:00 PM
Makes sense to me disarm the soldiers and anyone can take over a ship full of sailors and nukes.Just like that movie with Steven Seegul in it that plays a cook on a navy ship thats being taken over by hippie,anarchist domestic terrorist.

6/17/2010 2:59:00 PM
Gun control defined: The theory that people who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft and murder will obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm. In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun? May as well call them the "Unarmed Services" now.

6/17/2010 12:21:00 PM
This is totally STUPID.. This is like telling a Police Officer that he/she is not allowd to carry their weapon into the Police Station. Whats the point. We really need to get these nuckleheads who are making these policies voted out of office.

6/17/2010 10:01:00 AM
According to this article including the text near the end, it's shocking to assume the Navy doesn't teach gun safety and enlists underage sailors. I know that's not entirely true, but what the heck are they thinking by saying such stuff? These guys should be armed at all times and not disarmed. What the heck. A disarmed military? Who would have thought such a thing was possible? Remove the disarming of our military and allow them their 2nd amendment rights NOW!

6/17/2010 1:46:00 AM
Well, looks like the Navy just did a good job of telling criminals and terrorists who will make good unarmed victims. The only ones made safe by gun control are those wishing to do others harm! This country has been neutered!

6/17/2010 12:06:00 AM
After 20 years of Air Force active duty, 29 years of Navy Civil Service time, extensive fire arms training including 2,000 rounds of live fire and concealed carry permits in 35 states, I don't understand not being alowed to be able to defend myself on base.

6/16/2010 10:36:00 PM
Anyone who would disarm our soldiers on our own military bases have blood on their hands. Remember Ft. Hood! When seconds count the police are minutes away. Terrorists and other dangerous killers will always prefer unarmed and defenseless victims. Why are civilians trusted to carry concealed weapons in most states yet members of our ARMED FORCES are not trusted to carry concealed weapons on our own military bases?!?!?! Disgusting!

6/16/2010 8:38:00 PM
My Dad served in the Navy through WWII and Korea. He served on destroyers, light cruisers, tenders and battleships. He had dementia for many years and was unaware of the Clinton policy to disarm all US based military personnel. He passed away last year... may God rest his soul. He was not much of a gun nut, owning 22LR and 16 gauge bolt actions, neither were ever fired. But I'm not sure he would have approved of the disarmament of military personnel.

6/16/2010 7:48:00 PM
I was Army. During that time I didn't own a private firearm. I left them behind when I went active duty. However, had some #### like this come down, I'd have had two or three firearms in my quarters immediately upon receiving such inane and anti-2A #### The Navy now, the other branches soon. I am disgusted by such a cowardly decision on the part of ranking officers. Pathetic.

6/16/2010 7:38:00 PM
The "clarifications" surely were run past Senators Feinstein and Boxer. What true military officer would even hint at registration of firearms and not provide that base commanders shall provide for on base storage of firearms and make special provisions for competative shooters, both officers and enlisted. If our men/women cannot be trusted with firearms, who can? If not, why are they in the Navy (military)? I am becoming suspicious that the Navy is no longer an "armed service".

6/16/2010 6:56:00 PM
Let me see...If one is married and lives in base housing they are "allowed" to own a firearm, but if they are single, nope, sorry, no gun for you. I guess I missed that in the Second Amendment. I also like the requirement to store the gun "locked". Same idotic logic that the District of Columbia espouses, too bad the Supreme Court disagreed. Single folks should have the same rights, period. A locked gun is of no use, and speaking from experience, there is violent crime on bases too.

6/16/2010 6:13:00 PM
didn't the people that made these Navy restriction on personnel owning guns swear an oath to defend the constitution? Shame on you then for weakening the Second Amendment. Shame on you for forsaking your oath!

6/16/2010 5:45:00 PM
May as well ban private firearms possession, because they don't do any good locked up in the armory. No concealed weapons? What a great idea! Make it even easier for another Ft. Hood massacre by radical Muslims. Military officials are getting dumber by the minute, worse than most liberal politicians. I'm glad I told that Navy recruiter to go to Hell back in high school.

6/16/2010 5:00:00 PM
I think is a serious misjustice to prevent the highest trained military in the world to be prevented from carring a firearm on a military installation. How many people would have been saved if someone had a firearm at FT. Hood?

6/16/2010 2:07:00 PM
This is an outrage and the epidemy of arrogance! These men and women are entrusted to protect our freedom, yet here their own commanders have the power to capriciously and frivolously create obstacles to their Second Amendment rights. Firearms safety cannot be achieved by creating more hassles or by compromising what little right to privacy these fine men and women may have, but by seeking out education and training. While Admiral Johnson’s comments on responsible firearms ownership and handling are irrefutably correct, the requirements of registering guns with the installation commanders, notifying security, transporting firearms in the trunk or disassembling them, and not allowing vetted personal to carry concealed firearms for their own protection is ludicrous. Putting ignorance aside, what exactly is this suppose to accomplish?

6/16/2010 1:04:00 PM
More confusing than ever.

Comment submission for this story is now closed.
A Sailor takes aim while competing in a fire arms training simulator during the 2009 San Diego Surface Line Week
Official U.S. Navy file photo.
August 19, 2009
Navy Social Media
Sign up for email updates To sign up for updates or to access your subscriber preferences, please click on the envelope icon in the page header above or click here.