Concealed Carry on Military Installations? - Maybe!

[Omega]

Anyone catch this: http://www.kvue.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/15/defense-bill-will-allow-concealed-carry-on-military-posts/27390053/

Apparently this was added to the new Defense Bill, but good luck getting some of these Base Commanders to actually allow it.

[rr2241tx]

After the Obama Purge of the top military officers there is little chance that there is a General/Flag Officer remaining on active duty that would even consider allowing concealed carry on base. I never could understand why the President and Congress thought we were reliable enough to carry automatic weapons, command artillery, call in air strikes, bomb the universe flat and at the same time too irresponsible to carry a semi-automatic pistol for self-defense inside the gates. I came to the conclusion that military intelligence was an oxymoron.

[JSnover]

Well, I was told by a much older service member that carrying weapons on base was a lot more common a few generations ago. But as the quality of new soldiers declined a lot of weapons - issue rifles and sidearms - were lost, stolen, sold, misused, etc.
I would support open carry or a requirement to always have your assigned weapon on your person but in the long run I don't think it would work out.

[Love Life]

Why would we ever need guns on base? We have the fake mall cops to protect us. Those guys are not only OAF, but ninjas of the highest caliber.

Lord forbid the most highly trained people in the local area be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves.

I agree with rr2241tx.

[Ickisrulz]

Well, I was told by a much older service member that carrying weapons on base was a lot more common a few generations ago. But as the quality of new soldiers declined a lot of weapons - issue rifles and sidearms - were lost, stolen, sold, misused, etc.
I would support open carry or a requirement to always have your assigned weapon on your person but in the long run I don't think it would work out.


The original post is concerning personally owned concealed firearms, not government issued service weapons.

I can only draw on my USAF experience when it comes to forcing personnel to carry weapons. We all qualified with firearms on a recurring basis, but there are many people I would not want to see forced to run around the base with a loaded gun. They made it through the classes without killing themselves or anyone else, but are not the careful gun people that the majority of legal concealed carriers are.

I doubt the quality of the average military person has decreased in the last few generations. There are good solid people serving--not a bunch of thieves as suggested.

[JSnover]

The original post is concerning personally owned concealed firearms, not government issued service weapons.

I can only draw on my USAF experience when it comes to forcing personnel to carry weapons. We all qualified with firearms on a recurring basis, but there are many people I would not want to see forced to run around the base with a loaded gun. They made it through the classes without killing themselves or anyone else, but are not the careful gun people that the majority of legal concealed carriers are.

I doubt the quality of the average military person has decreased in the last few generations. There are good solid people serving--not a bunch of thieves as suggested.
I never understood why so many people think concealed carry would be safer or more of a deterrent or provide a more effective defense than open carry.

Your second paragraph supports my position much better than it does yours.

If some kid 'loses' a gun, does it matter who paid for it? In 2009 in the parking lot of an Intel wing I helped a young airman find his car. He knew it was black. He did not know what make/model it was. I'm sure that young man has a clean background and could obtain any of the necessary permits to carry and might even think it was cool to do that. But would anyone really be safer around him? Another time in the mid eighties our base was briefly locked down because an E7 left his web belt on the armorers desk as went off duty. The 1911 and two loaded magazines were never seen again.
I retired in 2011. There have been some improvements but there are enough thieves, scammers and morons to convince me this proposal will not work.

[Treetop]

IMO, if the decision is left up to the base commander, he (or she) will probably put some stipulations on the privilege (?) of concealed carry, such as only E-6 and above or, officers only, or some arbitrary age limit. Just my opinion, it's been a long time since I served... Tt.

[JSnover]

The option is probably there already, as long as it doesn't conflict with state/ local laws but I don't know of any base commanders who allowed it.
I have been on bases where guns can be kept in military housing but personnel living in the barracks had to check theirs at the armory. GI firearms were not allowed in either location, but I don't think that applies across the board.

[snuffy]

I can only draw on my USAF experience when it comes to forcing personnel to carry weapons. We all qualified with firearms on a recurring basis, but there are many people I would not want to see forced to run around the base with a loaded gun. They made it through the classes without killing themselves or anyone else, but are not the careful gun people that the majority of legal concealed carriers are.

I wish I had been required to qualify with firearms while in the Air Force. My basic training had a requirement to qualify with the M-16. It was raining hard that day, the pasters on the target were running of the target in a river just by the action of the rain hitting them. Nobody knew where they were hitting, or even IF they were hitting. EVERYBODY qualified! It was over 2 years later that I had to shoot a M-1 carbine 20 shots at a 25 yard target to retain my qualification. I Passed!

We got a whole 20 shots with the M-16, we were told NOT to flick the safety to full auto. If we did, we would get kicked back to the beginning of basic training.

Would I have carried concealed back then,(65-69), if allowed. I dunno, no if I would have had to buy the handgun with my own money. Maybe if it were provided.

I always found it odd how supposedly qualified people couldn't carry on base. Knowing how stupid the general puplic is about guns, our enlisted military is comprised to a degree of those same people. Passing a course, along with the willingness to carry would be a good starting point.

[MaryB]

Base commanders could stipulate that everyone who wants to carry complete a NRA conceal carry course and show proficiency on the range. I know some people in the National Guard who should never be allowed near a weapon of any sort. One of them wanted to go to Iraq just so he could kill people... and I worked with him... he was borderline nuts!

[Rufus Krile]

In language school in '70 there were enough firearms in four barracks rooms to arm the entire barracks. This was at Ft Bliss and we were imperiled by some of the nastiest jack rabbits of record... these things would score high on Boone and Crockett and could stand flat footed and service a shetland pony. We built a make-shift suppressor for a 22lr pistol so as not to bother too many of our neighbors. We figured if we got caught there really wasn't much else they could threaten us with... they'd already cut all our hair off and the language school was Viet Namese... we knew where we were going. Ah, the good times.

[Rufus Krile]

140085This'll show some of the firearms... Krag and .45 Colt, shotgun, '73 Winchester/ 38/40 Colt, '95 Winchester/ .45 Colt all portrayed in the picturesque background of scenic tropical west Texas...

[Lonegun1894]

When I was in, we were told we would not be allowed to carry by DOD regs, but our base CO had the right to override those regs. Looking back on things now, I doubt they were completely honest with us on that part, but... Those of us on SRT were told we were required to carry personal weapons, and if any of us didn't have one, our command would provide the funds to purchase a personal weapon, BUT we were not allowed to get caught with it on base. If caught, we would spend 3 days in the brig, and be given our weapon back upon release and told not to get caught again. We never had anyone of us "caught" while I was at this duty station, but we did have a couple times we had to handle situations where we had armed intruders on base, and no one ever asked what weapons were used and no record was kept of who fired. Reports just used the language "assigned weapon" and "SRT member" and no mention was made of caliber, type, etc. From what we were told, this was NOT standard across the different Services, or even standard in our Branch. I also knew of many guys on base who were not part of the SRT, who carried anyway, and would often come out and train with us, so we considered them unofficial members--and wanted them armed.

Personally, I have a lot more faith in the current troops, just like the ones as when I was in, and anyone who served before us than a lot of people apparently do. Now I don't know them all personally, so obviously there are exceptions who should not be armed, but how's this for an idea. Allow concealed or open carry (who really cares which one any of us do as long as we do it), as a matter of "shall issue" with the clause of the unit CO having the right to repeal it only for troops who are being processed out under Dishonorable Conditions. If you're kicking them out for being a problem, I can understand not trusting them armed, but if you trust them enough to keep them and hand them F/A weapons, artillery, explosives, etc, etc, then a pistol of their choosing should NOT be the slightest concern.

[EMC45]

Let me see if I can explain it..... On the base I work on you can buy guns and ammo in the BX, you can own and keep guns (handguns/long guns) in base housing, there is a skeet range were you can shoot to your heart's content, There are 3 hunting areas that you can hunt with bows, shotguns and rifles (centerfire and rimfire) and I am required to carry an M9 Beretta as part of my duties to protect Govt. property. If I have a gun on base in my car or on my person that is not Govt. owned I will be arrested. Makes sense right?

[Bad Water Bill]

So someone like LOVE LIFE who is an E6 with several trips to the sand box is not trustworthy enough to carry in any way BUT a new BUTTER BAR is better qualified simply because he is an officer.

Why?

[Love Life]

BWB- You already know the answer to that. Same reason you get a wet behind the ears butter bar to be the PLT Commander for a platoon for seasoned veteran Marines.


He went to college...

[scarry scarney]

EMC45

Sounds like you and I work on the same base!

[Lonegun1894]

I knew I wasn't going to make a career out of the military the day I told a butter bar to shut up so the rest of us could hear what the Gunny who knew what was going on had to say. Did that as an E-3, and it took me a while to make E-4. :)

[Artful]

Personally, I have a lot more faith in the current troops, just like the ones as when I was in, and anyone who served before us than a lot of people apparently do. Now I don't know them all personally, so obviously there are exceptions who should not be armed, but how's this for an idea. Allow concealed or open carry (who really cares which one any of us do as long as we do it), as a matter of "shall issue" with the clause of the unit CO having the right to repeal it only for troops who are being processed out under Dishonorable Conditions. If you're kicking them out for being a problem, I can understand not trusting them armed, but if you trust them enough to keep them and hand them F/A weapons, artillery, explosives, etc, etc, then a pistol of their choosing should NOT be the slightest concern.

My Question is would it have allowed Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan
(you remember the Ft Hood shooter) to get a weapon on base legally?
http://dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ap_nidal_hasan_fort_hood_shooter_thg_130605_ms.jpg

although granted it may have allowed enough counter "work place violence" shooters to have either dissuaded him from trying it or from shooting so many people before the civilian security personal showed up to stop him.

[Lonegun1894]

Who cares if it would have allowed him to carry it onto the base legally? I will use myself as an example here. I am a Texas resident, and have a TX CHL, and carry at all times. I allowed to carry into a store, say Walmart, while someone else who doesn't have a CHL is not allowed to. Now, I am not going to do this, but say I was to lose my mind and walk into a store that you and your wife are shopping in at the time, and open fire on the people inside for no reason. Do you want you and your wife armed and able to protect yourselves? Do you care if I have a license to legally carry the gun I am using to commit a criminal act with, or is your main concern that the crime I am committing is stopped before anyone gets hurt? As for me, if I am the one in the store at the time some criminal opens fire, it is the violent crime being committed that concerns me, and I could care less if the person broke any laws by carrying it or not. Just carrying it doesn't harm anyone in any way, but using it like the terrorist did at Ft. Hood definitely does. Remember that criminals, by definition, do NOT obey laws. This has been proven over, and over, and over again. You will never save an innocent life by preventing good people from being able to protect themselves and each other from a violent criminal.

[Artful]

My issue is your choice of


as a matter of "shall issue" with the clause of the unit CO having the right to repeal it only for troops who are being processed out under Dishonorable Conditions
I would like to think the CO in Maj. Nasan's case would have been aware enough to want to revoke his carry privileges and maybe that would have sent notice to Maj. Nasan that he was under watch and not try anything on post.

[Lonegun1894]

I meant it in terms of so the Co has no right to refuse the right to carry based on he's just another politician and doesn't like guns, like some seem to, but rather would need an actual valid reason to deny it. I also said being "repeal it only for troops who are being processed out under Dishonorable Conditions". As in, this would not affect the guy who made a simple mistake that can be corrected by normal discipline and who will go on to have a successful enlistment or career, but is aimed at the person who has proven to be a serious and consistent problem and is being booted out because of it. In the case of Hassan, There were plenty of signs to give away his terroristic leanings, but the chain of command was too politically correct to deal with it, and instead stuck their head in the sand and hoped for the best. We all know how that turned out. If they had stepped up and done their jobs, and dealt with him, this would have never happened. Since they refused to do their jobs, and also refused to allow their troops to be armed, as any free man, and ESPECIALLY troops should be, they created a perfect situation for this terrorist to strike and have almost a guarantee that all his victims would be unarmed. The chain of command failed miserably, starting from the Traitor-in-Chief on down, and left the troops unprotected and vulnerable to this ***. Personally, I'd much rather do paperwork than attend funerals.

[MaryB]

I don't have my conceal carry permit yet(rather expensive in MN and $200 buys a lot of ammo instead of a piece of paper saying I know how to shoot a pistol safely) but if carrying large amounts of cash I WILL have a pistol with. As the saying goes "I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!" and take my chances with jury nullification for illegally carrying according to government!

[Rufus Krile]

Hassan did not have the right to carry but was doing so anyway... just like any other criminal. Another problem with a "gun-free zone". Since no one had the right to carry, he was assured of being the only armed practitioner of the religion of peace around. If the right was universal there possibly may have been others there properly equipped. Yes... he still would have had the Beretta but it would not necessarily been lonely. After a lot of undue harassment from some senior NCO's overseas, our platoon sgt casually passed the word that those of us on the reaction force were keeping frags in our turnout kits. It was lollipops, unicorns and rainbows from that point on... An armed society etc etc....

[Bad Water Bill]

With some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, does anyone wish to guess how many murders and shooting incidents will happen in Chiraq over this holiday weekend?

[Lonegun1894]

I hope I'm wrong, but I will guess at least 50 separate shootings, assuming "Chiraq" is Chicago.

[Bad Water Bill]

You assumed correctly about the battleground being Chicago.

Now which DAY is that 50 figure for?

[Lonegun1894]

I meant the whole weekend, but since you're asking which day, I have a feeling I guessed way too low. But will stand by that just to see HOW wrong I was.

[A pause for the COZ]

Unless there is some extreme reason. There is not a General any were that will allow guns to be carried by the mass of soldiers on a military base.
Just wont happen.

There is a reason they lock up all the arms when units return to base and not on deployment. That reason has nothing to do with arms security.
They do not want armed solders who are not armed under their orders. They fear mutiny far more.
What would happen if every solder has access to a fire arm and they ordered a deployment that was unpopular and the solders refused to muster?
The MP's come out and make them muster. Now what happens if the unwilling are armed???

Not gona happen.

[TXGunNut]

I think concealed carry on our military bases is a good idea, that's why I don't see it happening. I avoid gun free (free fire) zones whenever possible. That's not an option for our Armed Services members. Sad situation indeed.

[LuckyDog]

With some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, does anyone wish to guess how many murders and shooting incidents will happen in Chiraq over this holiday weekend?

So, how many incidents were there?

[Bad Water Bill]

So, how many incidents were there?

The latest figures I heard were 12 DEAD and 64 WOUNDED.

You are wounded IF the bullet enters the body and IF you go to seek medical attention.

That is the way the top cop (streetlights) keeps the count down.

Just being creased only gives you credentials on the street but not with the police.

[Lonegun1894]

Guess you were right, I was too low!

[Ickisrulz]

Unless there is some extreme reason. There is not a General any were that will allow guns to be carried by the mass of soldiers on a military base.
Just wont happen.

There is a reason they lock up all the arms when units return to base and not on deployment. That reason has nothing to do with arms security.
They do not want armed solders who are not armed under their orders. They fear mutiny far more.
What would happen if every solder has access to a fire arm and they ordered a deployment that was unpopular and the solders refused to muster?
The MP's come out and make them muster. Now what happens if the unwilling are armed???

Not gona happen.

You have got to be kidding!

[Lonegun1894]

You have got to be kidding!

+1! Comments like that make me wonder if the person making the statement has ever been in and knows how troops act/react, or just imagines how they themselves would while having no personal military experience.

[Gus Youmans]

Lonegun1894,

I served in the Army for over twenty years in both the enlisted and officer ranks and I am agreement with those who say it is not a good idea to allow unlimited carry among soldiers. Almost all of my service was spend with troops at squad, platoon, company, and battalion-level, not on higher level staff, and have too many personal observations of poor judgment, bad behavior, and criminal misconduct to ever be convinced that all soldiers should be allowed to carry without restriction. Oddly, some of the soldiers who I would pick to go into combat with would also be the last soldiers I would allow to carry in garrison. No general officer in his right mind is going to allow any soldier who is not on duty to carry unless there are extensive training and certification programs put in place.

I am in favor of soldiers being allowed to carry if they have been approved by their chain of command, have received appropriate training in the use of deadly force as it pertains to self-defense (not combat), and have demonstrated an appropriate level of proficiency with the firearm they are going to carry.

Just wanted to stoke the fire a little bit, so I welcome your responses.

Gus Youmans

[LuckyDog]

The latest figures I heard were 12 DEAD and 64 WOUNDED.

You are wounded IF the bullet enters the body and IF you go to seek medical attention.

That is the way the top cop (streetlights) keeps the count down.

Just being creased only gives you credentials on the street but not with the police.


Going back a few years, I guess my wife's uncle wasn't an "incident". Coroner asked the family when he was shot.


Entire family was like ¿:holysheep ? No one knew he had been shot!

They guess it was when he was a cabbie and had less then desirable "friends".

:)

[Bad Water Bill]

Good thing it was not a Chiraq coroner that examined my grandfather when he died.

At his funeral the pastor talked about what a kind gentle man he was.

The undertaker was standing next to my dad and chuckled at the pastors remarks.

At the end of the services dad asked the man JUST WHAT THE XXXX WAS SO FUNNY.

The undertaker said :yes while we knew your dad he was all of those things but where did he collect the 9 bullets he carried to his deathbed?
















Dad just smiled and said "talk to the Texas Rangers".

[Lonegun1894]

Gus,
I understand your concerns with regard to some of the behavior problems exhibited, but personally, if I trust you and am willing to go into combat with you armed, then you are just as welcome to be armed around me at any other kind of job in garrison, or at my home for dinner, or anywhere else for that matter. Yes, there will always be a few bad apples, but denying a service member the right to be armed and protect themselves because "someone" may do something stupid, is the same as you or me being denied that same right now that we are both out, because some criminal somewhere committed a crime. Nevermind that neither of us is said criminal, or had any involvement in his crime, but we could, in theory, also go and commit a crime, if we were so inclined.

[Chili]

Here is the skinny on concealed carry http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/CARTER_013513151237413741.pdf in a nutshell: for military only who possess a vaild state issued CCL and who maintain current military weapons qualifications; the installation commander may allow concealed carry and as a force protection multiplier.