Weapons carry on base?

[cwil7280]

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=29317345&nid=157&title=officials-4-dead-including-gunman-at-fort-hood&s_cid=queue-1

 

Although unrelated to flying, due to the recent Ft. Hood shooting, I was curious what the thoughts are of current or prior military members on carrying personal firearms on base? I know there are a lot of arguments on both sides, so I'm curious what you all have to say.

[Yamer]

100% for it.

[brackac]

No thank you. We would never be able to get to work, or leave work, due to all the checks and balances.

[skyreaper]

I think its insane there isnt already some type of liscencing system in place for the military. Something like a conceal/open carry system. 100% for it.

[d10]

Spend some time talking to the bottom 10% of the military and then tell me if you think they should be carrying weapons even in combat.

[skyreaper]

Spend some time talking to the bottom 10% of the military and then tell me if you think they should be carrying weapons even in combat.

Thats why I said some type of system. Seems pretty feasible to me.

[goodfx]

E7 and up, absolutely.

[cwil7280]

I disagree with the E-7 and up. Rank has nothing to do with someone's trustworthiness with a weapon. Maybe it's because I'm from Utah, one of the few right-to-carry states, but I think everyone who wants too should be allowed to carry a weapon. You would be held accountable for your actions of course, but should be allowed nonetheless.

[Joe_P148]

Kinda of dumb to think we carry weapons around all the time on deployment but can't be trusted with them CONUS. Mabye they should re think those rules considering most that carry are responsible gun owners anyways.

[BDP22]

It should be allowed 100%. It is ridiculous that military bases of all places don't allow you to carry. There should at least be some type of licensing. Not allowing carry isn't going to prevent things like this shooting from happening whatsoever.

[cwil7280]

I agree. I know that from a command point of view, if shots were fired and people drew weapons and the wrong people were shot, the media would eat that up. But at the same time, if any group of people should be trusted to carry, it should be the military. Besides, if someone stands up in a group of people and shouts "Allahu Akbar!!" and whips out a gun, it's pretty obvious who the immediate threat is.

[SBuzzkill]

Sure I carry a weapon with ammo when deployed but it isn't my POW. They would issue M16/M4s and M9s when you show up and secure them when you leave before they would ever let you carry your POW on duty.

[cwil7280]

There's no reason not to allow people to carry their own weapons. In fact, I think it would be safer since most people who carry, carry hollow point rounds. The standard issue FMJ rounds, even in the 9mm, can punch through several people and a thin wall before they stop, where as a JHP is designed to lose most of it's kinetic energy in a human sized target, reducing the possibility of extra collateral damage. Also, with military issued weapons, you can't train whenever you want. I know I am a way better shot with my POW than the Beretta because I shoot mine at least once a month. I haven't shot the Beretta for over a year.

[BM1]

I'm in favor of it. As a reservist with a CHL who rarely if ever carries, I do keep my pistol locked up in my car. I travel alot by road (including 250 one way miles to my reserve center) and often pull off the side of the road to take a nap if I get tired. I can't keep my pistol with me on those trips like I do the other 29 days out of the month. I buy and sell cars on the side, and that is about the only time I carry. I also take lots of road trips with the family, 3 to 4 times a year and have to avoid using whatever services the local base has (hotel PX ect.) because I choose to take my pistol along for the other 10 days of the trip where we are camping in the middle of nowhere.

 

They can put as many restrictions and classes on it they want, I would still go through it and think it would be a better option than the "Gun Free Zone" plan in place now.

[Wally]

No dog in this fight, This is a very different Army (and military generally, I assume) than in the olden days (Vietnam era).

It's odd that the institution with exclusive right of societal/political violence is insecure enough in it's selection and training that it leads it to be so restrictive of possession of weapons. After basic training, I felt much more comfortable around soldiers with weapons than people at large, even hunting- which involves, by definition, weapons. Not politically intended, but had Dick Cheney been trained by the military...

[Hotdogs]

Probably not a huge deal if implemented correctly. All kinds of legal/training hoops that will have to be jumped through with regards to the proper use of force, right to self defense, and other UCMJ legalese when it comes to open or concealed carry on base. The difference between carrying at home and in combat is that there is a mission at hand, and weapons accountability/posture is always a concern when it could impede an objective (ND with loss of life). Generally speaking, I think some maybe concerned about letting free reign of a lot of high strung type-A personalities, adding in alcohol, hormones, and immaturity then putting them in one spot. Let me remind of how isolated most military bases are and how a good majority of Marines and Soldiers spend their free time. Not saying all junior service members are a potential risk but its something that has to be looked at before we go all 2nd amendment WRT this issue. I can appreciate this concern on many levels. I can see this being a SNCO/Officer only type of deal if it goes further. All Marine Duty Officers wear a pistol with live rounds during their watch as it is anyways.

[apacheguy]

E7 and up, absolutely.

 

You'd be surprised how many of us do carry concealed on post, despite the rules. With all the crazy asshats in the army, you can't leave it to the MP's to protect you.

[Joe_P148]

Probably not a huge deal if implemented correctly. All kinds of legal/training hoops that will have to be jumped through with regards to the proper use of force, right to self defense, and other UCMJ legalese when it comes to open or concealed carry on base. The difference between carrying at home and in combat is that there is a mission at hand, and weapons accountability/posture is always a concern when it could impede an objective (ND with loss of life). Generally speaking, I think some maybe concerned about letting free reign of a lot of high strung type-A personalities, adding in alcohol, hormones, and immaturity then putting them in one spot. Let me remind of how isolated most military bases are and how a good majority of Marines and Soldiers spend their free time. Not saying all junior service members are a potential risk but its something that has to be looked at before we go all 2nd amendment WRT this issue. I can appreciate this concern on many levels. I can see this being a SNCO/Officer only type of deal if it goes further. All Marine Duty Officers wear a pistol with live rounds during their watch as it is anyways.

I like the way the marines do that with thier staff duty officers. Unfortunately you say "if implemented correctly" I see the marines being able to do that but the Army being as big and ridiculous as it is, I see them making it absolutely ridiculous to carry on post.

[UH60L-IP]

It is not impossible to get a concealed carry permit on post, though that it not what it is called. It is actually an "exception to policy" and issued by the garrison commander of the post if you are military and through the provost marshal's office if you are a civilian/contractor. I personally know of several that have been issued, and why they were issued.

 

I am of the mindset that everyone should be able to carry. While that is my personal belief, I do not believe that it will ever happen. Therefore, I am for something that has at least a slight chance of happening and that is setting a specific rank (or other criteria), additional training, etc.

 

If you can't go along with that then do like many many other people and carry anyway - in your car or on your person. You take the chance of getting caught but then again you can also make the argument that failing to do so means taking the chance of getting killed and that may be worse. Like many things, if enough people push back and simply do it, it will become an issue and something might get changed. Kind of the "they can't punish everyone mentality." If people hadn't done that throughout history women wouldn't be voting and certain segments of the population would still be sitting in the back of the bus. Unfortunately, people have become accustomed to being "sheeple" even if it means getting killed because they willingly obeyed an ignorant, and arguably illegal, order to leave their gun at home.

 

Contrary to popular belief, people do not stop being people and citizens just because they go on base. If a right could arbitrarily be set aside then the supreme court would not have recently tossed anti-concealed carry laws in jurisdictions throughout the US. The only difference with a military installation is that no one has been ballsy enough to carry, get caught, and then fight it. But that doesn't mean you don't have the right to carry - just that it is not yet recognized.

[Yamer]

I'd much rather get caught for violating that policy by saving the post or my own life rather than not violate the policy and die wishing I shoulda coulda.

[aeroscout]

I'd much rather get caught for violating that policy by saving the post or my own life rather than not violate the policy and die wishing I shoulda coulda.

Judged by 12 or carried by 6.

[Ardo09203]

 

You'd be surprised how many of us do carry concealed on post, despite the rules. With all the crazy asshats in the army, you can't leave it to the MP's to protect you.

Ding Ding Ding, we have a winner! I a big advocate for CCW, and I've always said, "if the need ever arises for you to know I have a gun, you will be glad I have it."

[cwil7280]

I hear a lot of talk about the rank restriction to carry. Although that sounds like a quick and easy solution, I have a couple problems with it. Number one; there is no reason that an E-7 or above should have the "right" to defend his life while others don't. Number two; as we all know, there are lower ranking men and women who are more than competent to carry, while at the same time there are the select few higher ranking servicemen who no body thinks should have a weapon. Like, ever. I've only been in for 4.5 years, but I have seen ONE negligent discharge. Who was responsible for it? Not a private, not an airman, but an Army full bird colonel. I think if they were going to allow carry on base in a way that minimizes incidents, they should have a strict application process, shooting requirements, mandatory semi-annual training and testing on clearing procedures, escalation of force, and what to do in case of active shooter, including how to submit to military police upon arrival without posing a threat. The age limit (although I hated this when I was younger) should be 21, the federal legal limit to purchase a hand gun. And finally, there should be a range where members can go to train with their personal weapons when they please. That way, the people who want to jump through all the hoops to carry, can, and those who don't, or are found disqualified for some reason, can't.

[cwil7280]

Just watch out for this guy:

[Hotdogs]

I hear a lot of talk about the rank restriction to carry. Although that sounds like a quick and easy solution, I have a couple problems with it. Number one; there is no reason that an E-7 or above should have the "right" to defend his life while others don't. Number two; as we all know, there are lower ranking men and women who are more than competent to carry, while at the same time there are the select few higher ranking servicemen who no body thinks should have a weapon. Like, ever.

 

Wait, are we really talking about military service members and rights?

 

.....hahahha