PDA

View Full Version : Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses



DVC
02-08-2011, 03:12 PM
31 JAN letter to the Army Times at http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/army-letters-to-the-editor-013111w/


Let soldiers carry arms
The concealed carry of firearms is against the law on all military bases. Why are those sworn to protect our nation against all enemies prohibited from carrying firearms by shortsighted and risk-averse policies of the past? Our families, units and friends sit defenseless on post. I thought this policy would have changed following the Fort Hood, Texas, massacre, but it has not. Does someone think soldiers are going to shoot at the military police? Are we going to road rage and shoot fellow servicemen and families on post? Are we disarming the whole military to bring the risk of accidental discharge down from .003 percent to zero?

How absolutely ridiculous do these reasons sound after one looks at the carnage and sorrow caused by just one villainous traitor at Fort Hood? Would 13 have died at Fort Hood if even 5 percent of the soldiers in that room had been armed? Would the shooter even have carried out his crime if he knew that his victims would not be defenseless? Maybe not.

At this time, the only people that serve as first line of defenders for our communities are those who carry a pistol despite the possibility of Uniform Code of Military Justice action being brought against them.

We are professionals. Let us carry our weapons. Do not prevent us from fulfilling our oath to duty.

— Sgt. John Koenig, Columbus, Ga.

What do you think?

awesome
02-08-2011, 03:50 PM
I absolutely agree with you 100% and then some.

Stan
02-08-2011, 05:34 PM
What do you think?

There's probably just as many that would argue against concealed carry on a US Military base. I'm an NRA life member and take my gun ownership rights seriously. But, I don't see the immediate benefits of an overall concealed carry on base. Who's next ? The guys that drive in with the trash trucks ? Who's responsible for all this ? The base commander :rolleyes:

I can only imagine the end result that day on Hood if Hasan was faced with 13 firearms from every direction blasting away. If Hasan was considered crazy, it's unlikely that he would have had second thoughts knowing his potential victims were all armed.

Ask Council Member Slapout how his "shootout with a friggin nut-case" went.

I also have a law enforcement ppt with four wounded LEOs and the perp still standing and reloading after being hit with six 5.56 and four .45 rounds.

Honestly, I see a nightmare in the making.

carl
02-08-2011, 06:42 PM
Stan:

Couldn't all the arguments you made be just as easily be made against concealed carry laws in general?

Stan
02-08-2011, 07:06 PM
Stan:

Couldn't all the arguments you made be just as easily be made against concealed carry laws in general?

Hey Carl,
You always seem to pop in with hard questions :D

Having lived on many military bases with obscure firearm laws, spent many years in Africa armed, and lastly my horrific childhood in Maryland, I'll say no, my arguments do not apply across the board. Of all the strange places I've lived, I felt a whole lot safer on base (a US Military base at home) than outside the fence.

I hate to coin the current phrase "if we take away everybody's guns, then only the criminals will be carrying", but I'm certain that's the case.

I sympathize with the general population... If we get rid of the criminals then I'll get off my soap box about needing a firearm (other than for hunting and sport).

As a former LEO where do you stand :confused:

DVC
02-08-2011, 08:16 PM
There's probably just as many that would argue against concealed carry on a US Military base. I'm an NRA life member and take my gun ownership rights seriously. But, I don't see the immediate benefits of an overall concealed carry on base. Who's next ? The guys that drive in with the trash trucks ? Who's responsible for all this ? The base commander :rolleyes:

I can only imagine the end result that day on Hood if Hasan was faced with 13 firearms from every direction blasting away. If Hasan was considered crazy, it's unlikely that he would have had second thoughts knowing his potential victims were all armed.

Ask Council Member Slapout how his "shootout with a friggin nut-case" went.

I also have a law enforcement ppt with four wounded LEOs and the perp still standing and reloading after being hit with six 5.56 and four .45 rounds.

Honestly, I see a nightmare in the making.


I'm not the author of the Army Times letter, but I think the young SGT makes a strong point. Why does the State (Republic?) of Texas trust 21 year old soldiers more that the U.S. Army does? Is competence with a handgun outside the refrain of "best trained, best led, best equipped Army in the history of man" that is a staple of most senior leader speeches?

Stan - Think you have some legitimate concerns but I can't think of any reasonable way, including some tragic fratricide, that having a number of soldiers with CCWs immediately react to Hassan at the Fort Hood shooting could have caused it to be worse than 13 dead and 40 wounded.

carl
02-08-2011, 09:40 PM
As a former LEO where do you stand :confused:

I never had any objection to concealed carry laws. I couldn't see why a citizen should be denied something that I wasn't. The laws seem to have worked out well. There is something about going to the law and saying "I am going to carry a gun" that keeps out the riff-raff. On patrol you try and always assume somebody might have a gun anyway and conduct yourself accordingly. Carry laws don't change that.

I have never been in the service. Guys like you and Ken have a much greater appreciation of the special problems that might arise on a domestic base. Having lived on a big base overseas, one of the things that drives people wild is Big Army (or big whatever) treating everybody like a child. Some kind of carry provision on domestic bases might do a little bit to to relieve that. On the other hand, Big Army probably would make it so onerous as to not be worth it.

On domestic bases too there didn't used to be the possibility of attack on soldiers for being soldiers. After Ft. Hood and the plot against the base in New Jersey that is a real possibility now. Allowing soldiers to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, would make attacks much more problematical for the would be terr, and probably make them less likely. And it would allow the soldiers on the base to feel like something more than a victim in waiting.

Bases in the US make their own rules anyway so if they wanted to keep civilians from carrying concealed weapons, they could do that. They could draw the line wherever they wanted. They could limit it amongst military personnel how they wanted also, age limits, rank limits, behavior limits etc.

On the whole I think it would be good. But it would require the services to trust their people in the same way the states trust their citizens.

carl
02-08-2011, 10:03 PM
If Hasan was considered crazy, it's unlikely that he would have had second thoughts knowing his potential victims were all armed.

Stan:

I forgot. Hasan may not have been afraid to die, but he did want to succeed. If there was a possibility that some of his targets were armed, that would have affected his calculations concerning success.

SlimRickins
02-08-2011, 10:41 PM
think of a bunch of privates with personal weapons living in the barracks. recipe for disaster. with all the craziness that goes on in the barracks. guns are not a good thing for drunk 20 years olds to be carrying. end of story

SlimRickins
02-08-2011, 10:43 PM
I'm not the author of the Army Times letter, but I think the young SGT makes a strong point. Why does the State (Republic?) of Texas trust 21 year old soldiers more that the U.S. Army does? Is competence with a handgun outside the refrain of "best trained, best led, best equipped Army in the history of man" that is a staple of most senior leader speeches?

Stan - Think you have some legitimate concerns but I can't think of any reasonable way, including some tragic fratricide, that having a number of soldiers with CCWs immediately react to Hassan at the Fort Hood shooting could have caused it to be worse than 13 dead and 40 wounded.



Why does texas trust 21 years old more than the Army because Texas doesn't deal with the consequences of soldiers, army leadership does.

carl
02-08-2011, 10:58 PM
think of a bunch of privates with personal weapons living in the barracks. recipe for disaster. with all the craziness that goes on in the barracks. guns are not a good thing for drunk 20 years olds to be carrying. end of story

Why would allowing concealed carry amongst soldiers neccissarily (sic) have to include 20 year olds, soldiers on their first enlistments, or anybody else it was felt would be wise to exclude? You could limit it to whomever you wanted. This is just an uneducated suggestion from a civilian, but maybe you could limit it to soldiers over 25, on their second enlistment who have made a little bit of rank.

On the overseas base I was on, all the 20 year olds carried guns. Sometimes they even managed to get drunk.

slapout9
02-08-2011, 11:24 PM
Ask Council Member Slapout how his "shootout with a friggin nut-case" went.



Stan, I don't know if I ever mentioned the fact that he was a retired Air Force E-9:eek: and to make it worse he was actually working as an Alabama State employee at a State Trooper Station:eek:at the time of the incident, he had even actually successfully impersonated an Alabama State Trooper in order to get information about me. And yes he had a valid CCW permit.

jmm99
02-09-2011, 01:22 AM
Just a thought; but open carry might avoid some concealed carry problems.

Nothing can avoid the nutcase problem. Slap's shootist supposedly would be a rare exception - a CCW permitee who attempts murder. When there is a will, there is a way - you can put together a usable "Sten" gun in a home metalshop.

CCW laws and regs do have constraints. E.g., for Michigan, the whole ball of wax is linked at Michigan State Police, Firearms (http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654---,00.html). More particularly, see Michigan's Concealed Pistol Law - Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html).

And to get into details, look at Pistol Free Areas (http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10947--,00.html):


Individuals licensed to carry a concealed pistol by Michigan or another state are prohibited from carrying a concealed pistol on the following premises:

1. Schools or school property but may carry while in a vehicle on school property while dropping off or picking up if a parent or legal guardian

2. Public or private day care center, public or private child caring agency, or public or private child placing agency.

3. Sports arena or stadium

4. A tavern where the primary source of income is the sale of alcoholic liquor by the glass consumed on the premises

5. Any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other place of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons

6. An entertainment facility that the individual knows or should know has a seating capacity of 2,500 or more

7. A hospital

8. A dormitory or classroom of a community college, college, or university

9. A Casino

"Premises" does not include the parking areas of the places listed above.

A pistol is subject to immediate seizure if the CCW permit holder is carrying a pistol in a "pistol free" area. The following penalties may also be imposed:

First offense: State Civil Infraction, $500 fine, CCW permit suspended 6 months

Second offense: 90-day misdemeanor, $1000 fine, CCW permit revoked

Third and subsequent offenses: 4-year felony, $5000 fine, CCW permit revoked

Furthermore, effective March 29, 2001, per Administrative Order 2001-1 of the Michigan Supreme Court:

"Weapons are not permitted in any courtroom, office, or other space used for official court business or by judicial employees unless the chief judge or other person designated by the chief judge has given prior approval consistent with the court's written policy."

Federal law adds to "pistol-free zones".

And, finally, Proper Conduct During Encounters with Police (http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10941--,00.html):


Responsibilities of Individuals With a CCW License:

1. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol who is stopped by a police officer (traffic stop or otherwise) while in possession of a pistol shall immediately disclose to the police officer that he or she is carrying a concealed pistol either on their person or in their motor vehicle.

Failure to disclose this information to a police officer carries the following penalties:

First offense = State Civil Infraction - $500 fine and 6-month CCW license suspension.

Second offense = State Civil Infraction - $1000 fine and CCW license revocation.

2. An individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall have the license in his or her possession at all times he or she is carrying a concealed pistol. Failure to possess CCW license when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and a $100.00 fine.

3. Upon request, an individual licensed to carry a concealed pistol shall show both of the following to a police officer:

His or her license to carry a concealed pistol

His or her driver license or personal identification card

Failure to show CCW license and Michigan driver license or Michigan personal identification card when carrying a concealed pistol is a State Civil Infraction and $100.00 fine.

4. A pistol carried in violation of numbers 1, 2, or 3 is subject to immediate seizure by a police officer.

If a weapon is seized for failure to possess a CCW license while carrying a concealed pistol:

Individual has 45 days in which to display their license to carry a concealed pistol to the law enforcement agency that seized the pistol and the pistol shall be returned.
If the individual does not display their license to carry a concealed pistol within 45 days the pistol is subject to forfeiture.

To Ensure Safety During Police Encounters

If you are stopped by a law enforcement officer you should:

Keep your hands where an officer can see them.

Cooperate fully with the police officer.

If you have a gun with you, tell the police officer as soon as possible.

Do not make any quick movements, especially toward the weapon.

If in a vehicle at night, turn on your vehicle's dome light.

In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized.

Regards

Mike

carl
02-09-2011, 03:22 AM
Just a thought; but open carry might avoid some concealed carry problems.

That seems to work pretty well at gun stores and shooting ranges.

"In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

We used to do that and nobody ever minded.

slapout9
02-09-2011, 04:01 AM
That seems to work pretty well at gun stores and shooting ranges.

"In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

We used to do that and nobody ever minded.

Yep, we used to take it and put it in the trunk of their vehicle and then continue the interview, traffic citation or what ever.

slapout9
02-09-2011, 04:11 AM
[QUOTE=jmm99;115349]

Nothing can avoid the nutcase problem. Slap's shootist supposedly would be a rare exception - a CCW permitee who attempts murder. When there is a will, there is a way - you can put together a usable "Sten" gun in a home metalshop.

[QUOTE]


On the day of the shooting he was actually seen by my neighbors walking around my house with the Shotgun before I arrived home. He had two more handguns on him and additional 20 weapons and 5000 rounds of ammo(all leagally owned and carried) in his truck which he had hidden in a firebreak. Over time The laws have been changed a great deal since then as far as how these cases are handled. He was very definitely walking down the pathway to murder. Which raises the question of psychological fitness to have possession of any weapon concealed or open carry. 2nd Ammenment folks are howling by now:eek:

jmm99
02-09-2011, 04:23 AM
Carrying weapons is a two-way street for the armed citizen; and LEOs deserve consideration in the mix.

Michigan law, if one has no CCW permit, is (from MSP FAQ (http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586_27094-10953--,00.html#Concealed_Weapons__Non_CPL_Holders_)):


1. If I do not have a CCW permit, may I transport my pistol in a motor vehicle?


MCL 750.231a A person is now permitted to transport a pistol for a lawful purpose if the owner or occupant of the vehicle is the registered owner of the firearm and the pistol is unloaded and in a closed case in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the pistol may be in the passenger compartment of the vehicle unloaded and inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

A 'lawful purpose' includes:

While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.

While transporting a pistol to or from home or place of business and a place of repair.

While moving goods from one place of residence or business to another place of residence or business.

While transporting a licensed pistol to or from a law enforcement agency for the purpose of having a safety inspection performed (registering the pistol) or to have a law enforcement official take possession of the pistol.

While en route to or from home or place of business to a gun show or place of purchase or sale.

While en route to or from home to a public shooting facility or land where the discharge of firearms is permitted.

While en route to or from home to private property where the pistol is to be used as permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

If you live in a relatively safe area (as I do, where car jacking is not a real threat), carrying an accessible weapon in the passenger compartment (even with a CCW) may be more hastle than it's worth. If I'm going to carry anything in my vehicle, it would be a rifle or shotgun in the trunk. Home and office are a little different story.

Regards

Mike

jcustis
02-09-2011, 04:36 AM
I don't think it's a matter of trust. It's a matter of just don't do it.

jmm99
02-09-2011, 05:40 AM
from Slap
Which raises the question of psychological fitness to have possession of any weapon concealed or open carry. 2nd Ammenment folks are howling by now.

and I'm about as Second Amendment as you will find. I'll see your NRA Life membership - that since the 1970s; and raise with involvement in such as the Second Amendment Foundation (http://www.saf.org/). Why I feel that way is laid out in Justice Thomas' opinion in McDonald v Chicago (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf) (his opinion starts at p.67 pdf).

The Second Amendment is more than a protection against the run of the mill criminal. As Tim Sandefer (http://plf.typepad.com/plf/2010/06/justice-clarence-thomas-mcdonald-opinion.html) mentions in discussing Thomas' opinion:


Among the most vital of the rights that the post-Civil War Congress hoped (vainly, as it turned out) to protect was the right of the freedmen to defend themselves against violence at the hands of white supremacists, who were not only armed, but often served in positions of government authority. It was the sheriffs who carried out the Colfax Massacre that Thomas discusses on p. 53 of his opinion, and the local militia commander who led the Hamburg Massacre he mentions the same page. It was to protect the fundamental right of self-defense—along with other fundamental rights, such as the right to earn a living at a lawful occupation—that the Congress enacted the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of the late nineteenth century.

And, of course, the Dred Scott case asserted (as one of its grounds against anyone of African ancestry having any rights as a citizen) that, if they were citizens, they would have the right to bear arms. That was a definite "No, no" to the Dred Scott majority shortly before the Civil War. To that "constitutional logic", we have this modern day poster:

1392

which correctly quotes from the majority opinion (60 US at 416-417 (http://supreme.justia.com/us/60/393/case.html)).

So, as a general rule, citizens should be in a protected class so far as firearms go - where the right of self-defense against "terrorists" (whether state or non-state actors) is one of the factors that make us free and not slaves.

But, folks who exhibit psychological unfitness to possess firearms should not be in a protected class as far as firearms are concerned. The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. Felons present a similar, but somewhat different issue.

The question is how to set up an objective system that will reflect psychological unfitness to possess firearms. The howls will likely come from current ACLU folks (more likely than not gun-controllers), who will object to any kind of psychological treatment reporting system.

Regards

Mike

Pete
02-09-2011, 08:08 AM
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44, § 930

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

82redleg
02-09-2011, 11:32 AM
I know that the military is not strictly held to the Constitution, but explain how ANY fed.gov gun control is justifiable in light of the 2nd Amendment- and I'm not talking about judicial interpretations since then, just the plain meaning of the words in the Amendment itself. To me, it just doesn't pass muster, and any amount of judicial "logic" to justify it is judicial activism at its worst.

Also, explain why the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to state CCW/CCL/whatever, but does apply to everything else- marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.

Now state/local gov't, on the other hand, AIUI, has the ability, under the US Constitution, to regulate gun ownership/carry. This may have changed under the recent supreme court ruling "incorporating" the 2nd Amendment, but in my mind, that whole process is questionable, at best.

slapout9
02-09-2011, 02:15 PM
"Dont take your guns to town, leave your guns at home."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raXKeQ5qFwo

stanleywinthrop
02-09-2011, 03:00 PM
I know that the military is not strictly held to the Constitution, but explain how ANY fed.gov gun control is justifiable in light of the 2nd Amendment- and I'm not talking about judicial interpretations since then, just the plain meaning of the words in the Amendment itself. To me, it just doesn't pass muster, and any amount of judicial "logic" to justify it is judicial activism at its worst.

Also, explain why the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to state CCW/CCL/whatever, but does apply to everything else- marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.

Now state/local gov't, on the other hand, AIUI, has the ability, under the US Constitution, to regulate gun ownership/carry. This may have changed under the recent supreme court ruling "incorporating" the 2nd Amendment, but in my mind, that whole process is questionable, at best.

You can whine about judicial activisim all you want but won't change the fact that ALL federal gun control laws are enacted by CONGRESS. Judges wouldn't be gettin "active" and all about gun control if CONGRESS didn't pass the laws in the first place.

Stan
02-09-2011, 03:04 PM
I'm not the author of the Army Times letter, but I think the young SGT makes a strong point. Why does the State (Republic?) of Texas trust 21 year old soldiers more that the U.S. Army does? Is competence with a handgun outside the refrain of "best trained, best led, best equipped Army in the history of man" that is a staple of most senior leader speeches?

Hey DVC,
While I understand SGT Koenig's point, I don't find it that strong and moreover, I have to agree with Slimrickins: Army leadership gets to deal with her soldiers on base and not the State of TX.


Stan - Think you have some legitimate concerns but I can't think of any reasonable way, including some tragic fratricide, that having a number of soldiers with CCWs immediately react to Hassan at the Fort Hood shooting could have caused it to be worse than 13 dead and 40 wounded.

As a young boy living and working on a PA farm every summer, I probably had more handgun and rifle time than anyone in my basic training course in the early 70s. I never in my life saw such poor marksmanship (shooting at still plastic targets) even when I was 12. Let's face it, other than a few MOSs just how many are effectively trained by the US Army to use a handgun, yet alone draw and accurately fire a concealed handgun under pressure ? I once attended a 6-day anti-terrorism course where we were firing over 400 rounds a day. We were anywhere from arm's length to 3 meters from our targets. Even after that burnout course, some of the student's targets looked like they were hit with 00 buck instead of a double tap from a 9mm !


think of a bunch of privates with personal weapons living in the barracks. recipe for disaster. with all the craziness that goes on in the barracks. guns are not a good thing for drunk 20 years olds to be carrying. end of story

Exactly !
There's already enough going on in the BEQ and now we will introduce loaded weapons :wry:

Stan
02-09-2011, 03:38 PM
I never had any objection to concealed carry laws. I couldn't see why a citizen should be denied something that I wasn't. The laws seem to have worked out well. There is something about going to the law and saying "I am going to carry a gun" that keeps out the riff-raff. On patrol you try and always assume somebody might have a gun anyway and conduct yourself accordingly. Carry laws don't change that.

I don't see the need for an across the board concealed permit. There's got to be a better method available. Much like you opined, the weapon should be out in the open. That would in fact then support your theory about Hasan. It would be staring him in the face -- although the crazies I've encountered didn't seem to mind that I was also evidently armed.


Some kind of carry provision on domestic bases might do a little bit to to relieve that. On the other hand, Big Army probably would make it so onerous as to not be worth it.

It wouldn't just be Big Army calling the shots anymore and the first incident would be the last time we discussed this topic :D


On domestic bases too there didn't used to be the possibility of attack on soldiers for being soldiers. After Ft. Hood and the plot against the base in New Jersey that is a real possibility now. Allowing soldiers to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, would make attacks much more problematical for the would be terrorist, and probably make them less likely. And it would allow the soldiers on the base to feel like something more than a victim in waiting.

Bases in the US make their own rules anyway so if they wanted to keep civilians from carrying concealed weapons, they could do that.

This is where I disagree most. Those two incidents should have never seen the light of day and they are far from the first. So Hasan gets a firearm and gets on base. Too many MPs just waving us on by with barely a glance at the base sticker. So what if it takes time to get on base.

When I was at Bliss just about everybody and their grandma had a firearm in their pickup. Those that weren't out in the open ended up on base without as much as an ID check. Hasan proved that theory works.



They could draw the line wherever they wanted. They could limit it amongst military personnel how they wanted also, age limits, rank limits, behavior limits etc.

On the whole I think it would be good. But it would require the services to trust their people in the same way the states trust their citizens.

I'll site five of the worst events I was involved in where age, rank and behavior weren't enough of determining factors.

1980, a 2ID NCO freaks out on the rifle range and downloads a 20-round mag on the entire firing line. Damn good thing his bolt jammed or he'd have reloaded and commenced all over again. We never did figure out which screw came loose !

1981, a communications PFC returns from guard duty just behind me in the line to the armory with a still loaded/round in the chamber, M16. When I asked him to not point that at me and unload it per post rules, he stuck the barrel in my face. With no place to run and hide, I kneed him in the balls and grabbed the weapon as shots rang off into the air.

1990, a Marine Gunny just returns home and does in his family and then himself.

1991, a Marine CPL leaves his post and heads to the "react room" and promptly does Russian Roulette with his S&W model 10.

1998, a former NCO and communications specialist performs Russian Roulette with his Colt Commander :rolleyes:

IMO there's enough reason not to grant across the board anything.

J Wolfsberger
02-09-2011, 03:41 PM
Exactly !
There's already enough going on in the BEQ and now we will introduce loaded weapons :wry:

Good points, but Sgt. Koenig raises some as well. In particular, it seems bizarre that soldiers on a base like Ft. Hood would be that vulnerable to a nut/fanatic.

On the one hand, we need to recognize the current need for increased, on the spot, immediate response. Terrorism is not a criminal problem, it is a national defense problem. e.g. If Slap is called to a bank robbery in progress, he can be reasonably certain that the robbers aren't going to indiscriminately kill everyone in the bank while he's en route. Law enforcement can contain the situation and negotiate with the perpetrators. That approach is a flat, costly failure with terrorists, or even straight forward mental cases, as Breslan, Ft. Hood and many other situations demonstrates.

On the other hand, having a lot of firearms available can create problems, not only in the BEQ, but anywhere on base where young soldiers, alcohol and women are mixed. (The three things that should never be mixed with alcohol are gasoline, gunpowder and women. :D)

Maybe the right approach is to simply increase the number of people who are always armed on duty. Something along the lines of all officers (commissioned and warrant) and NCOs at E-6 and above. That increases the likelihood of armed response to an attack while the attack is in progress, while avoiding the worst of the disciplinary problems.

Stan
02-09-2011, 03:53 PM
Stan, I don't know if I ever mentioned the fact that he was a retired Air Force E-9:eek: and to make it worse he was actually working as an Alabama State employee at a State Trooper Station:eek:at the time of the incident, he had even actually successfully impersonated an Alabama State Trooper in order to get information about me. And yes he had a valid CCW permit.

Hey Slap,
Yep, you did, and it was friggin' strange then as it would still be today !

I was trying to find that article you scanned and posted, to put up here again (with your permission of course ;) ).

Now we've got news of military gangs (or is it gang members joining the ranks to learn about firearms and tactics ?). This would indeed not be a good time to have anarchy on a domestic base.



On the overseas base I was on, all the 20 year olds carried guns. Sometimes they even managed to get drunk.

Carl,
That would have been considered normal on base and in a war zone (carrying guns that is).

carl
02-09-2011, 04:15 PM
I don't see the need for an across the board concealed permit. There's got to be a better method available. Much like you opined, the weapon should be out in the open. That would in fact then support your theory about Hasan. It would be staring him in the face -- although the crazies I've encountered didn't seem to mind that I was also evidently armed.

I can't second guess you nor Redleg regarding on base concerns. You guys been there, me no. So any questions I ask will just be questions, or observations.

As far civilian concealed carry, I think it works well enough, not perfect but well enough. I don't know exactly what you mean by across the board concealed permit, but there is no reason not to have restrictions on the mentally ill and others who pose a concern. I read once that a pattern of repeated traffic violations is a red flag so you could even tie the permit to that.

In the civilian world, one of the arguments in favor of concealed carry is that the criminal can't see who is armed and who isn't. Therefore he has to keep in his small mind that anybody might be. That idea helps protect even those who aren't


This is where I disagree most. Those two incidents should have never seen the light of day and they are far from the first. So Hasan gets a firearm and gets on base. Too many MPs just waving us on by with barely a glance at the base sticker. So what if it takes time to get on base.

When I was at Bliss just about everybody and their grandma had a firearm in the pick-up. Those that weren't out in the open ended up on base without as much as an ID check. Hasan proved that theory works.

If somebody wants to get an illegal firearm in they will. It just isn't practicable to search each vehicle so thoroughly as to prevent it. Concealed carry would have no effect on that at all.


I'll site five of the worst events I was involved in where age, rank and behavior weren't enough of determining factors.

1980, a 2ID NCO freaks out on the rifle range and downloads a 20-round mag on the entire firing line. Damn good thing his bolt jammed or he'd have reloaded and commenced all over again. We never did figure out which screw came loose !

1981, a communications PFC returns from guard duty just behind me in the line to the armory with a still loaded/round in the chamber, M16. When I asked him to not point that at me and unload it per post rules, he stuck the barrel in my face. With no place to run and hide, I kneed him in the balls and grabbed the weapon as shots rang off into the air.

1990, a Marine Gunny just returns home and does in his family and then himself.

1991, a Marine CPL leaves his post and heads to the "react room" and promptly does Russian Roulette with his S&W model 10.

1998, a former NCO and communications specialist performs Russian Roulette with his Colt Commander :rolleyes:

IMO there's enough reason not to grant across the board anything.

All those incidents are tragic or potentially tragic. But (don't hit me) they are neither here nor there as far as concealed carry goes.

I never had any thing like what happened to you happen to me, but I am always surprised how hostile people sometimes get when they are told not to fool around with a weapon.


Let's face it, other than a few MOSs just how many are effectively trained by the US Army to use a handgun, yet alone draw and accurately fire a concealed handgun under pressure ? I once attended a 6-day anti-terrorism course where we were firing over 400 rounds a day. We were anywhere from arm's length to 3 meters from our targets. Even after that burnout course, some of the student's targets looked like they were hit with 00 buck instead of a double tap from a 9mm !

My opinion is most people who apply for CCW are interested in guns and practice on their own. People with an interest and who practice can pretty often get it right.

Stan
02-09-2011, 04:58 PM
I can't second guess you nor Redleg regarding on base concerns. You guys been there, me no. So any questions I ask will just be questions, or observations.

Hey Carl,
I wasn't looking for more than your thoughts as an LEO, and what takes place on base generally takes place elsewhere, but with far less discipline.


As far civilian concealed carry, I think it works well enough, not perfect but well enough. I don't know exactly what you mean by across the board concealed permit, but there is no reason not to have restrictions on the mentally ill and others who pose a concern. I read once that a pattern of repeated traffic violations is a red flag so you could even tie the permit to that.

Sorry, somewhere in this thread was a hint of "across the board" grants, not you per se.

The Estonians use driving infractions to determine whether a gun owner can continue to use and/or carry a firearm. It's obviously one of many indicators, but seems they threaten withdrawal of carry permits to keep the speeders in line. Hmmm, wonder if a hunter that took more than his seasonal permit, could have his driving license suspended :D


In the civilian world, one of the arguments in favor of concealed carry is that the criminal can't see who is armed and who isn't. Therefore he has to keep in his small mind that anybody might be. That idea helps protect even those who aren't.

Good point !


If somebody wants to get an illegal firearm in they will. It just isn't practicable to search each vehicle so thoroughly as to prevent it. Concealed carry would have no effect on that at all.

I would think that beefing up gate security would still affect some similar to current laxed standards at airports.



All those incidents are tragic or potentially tragic. But (don't hit me) they are neither here nor there as far as concealed carry goes.

I was more or less commenting on your post about the means available with which the military could screen potential candidates for concealed carry on base. My point being rank and age did not play any significant role. They were all nut cases and most in positions of responsibility (which, by default granted them access to firearms).


My opinion is most people who apply for CCW are interested in guns and practice on their own. People with an interest and who practice can pretty often get it right.

My point was basically in response to the best of the best in today's Army. There are not that many of us that are specifically trained like most LEOs to draw and fire a concealed weapon... it's not the Army way :D

DVC
02-09-2011, 05:07 PM
Hey DVC,
While I understand SGT Koenig's point, I don't find it that strong and moreover, I have to agree with Slimrickins: Army leadership gets to deal with her soldiers on base and not the State of TX.



As a young boy living and working on a PA farm every summer, I probably had more handgun and rifle time than anyone in my basic training course in the early 70s. I never in my life saw such poor marksmanship (shooting at still plastic targets) even when I was 12. Let's face it, other than a few MOSs just how many are effectively trained by the US Army to use a handgun, yet alone draw and accurately fire a concealed handgun under pressure ? I once attended a 6-day anti-terrorism course where we were firing over 400 rounds a day. We were anywhere from arm's length to 3 meters from our targets. Even after that burnout course, some of the student's targets looked like they were hit with 00 buck instead of a double tap from a 9mm !



Exactly !
There's already enough going on in the BEQ and now we will introduce loaded weapons :wry:

I think 80% of the population can be trained to be competent with a handgun with 40 hours of instruction and 1000-1500 rounds of ammunition. If competence is an issue, the post could link CCW for active duty on post to qualifying to the same standard the LEOs do on post.

I believe most soldiers will meet the standards of responsibilty and behavior expected of them.

No one seems to propose that LEOs shouldn't have firearms due to the risk of incompetence, irresponsibility, or criminality but, like soldiers, these things do afflict a very small portion of the LEO community from time to time. See:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10565543 Oakland Accidental police shooting

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2010/07/baltimore-police-officer-indicted-for-murder.html Baltimore LEO indicted for killing Marine

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/201473/police_officer_convicted_of_road_rage.html?cat=17 SC LEO convicted of brandishing a weapon during road rage

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05/11/2182187/ex-fort-worth-police-officer-convicted.html Fort Worth LEO convicted of shooting wife’s lover

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/26/atlanta.indictments.ap/ GA LEO kill women in a botched drug raid

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/Former-Ohio-police-officer-sentenced-57-years-for-murder-of/1204197380.html Ohio LEO kills pregnant mistress

http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story/Ex-Memphis-Police-Officer-Convicted-in-Murder-of/lzd-ymnz-kSDqn1KXdscSA.cspx
Memphis LEO shoots and kills mistress

Bad things happen in life and it's all about risk vs. benefit. I think LEOs ought to be armed, even if a very small percentage do stupid or criminal things, and I think the young SGT has a point that soldiers should not be made defenseless victims for the next Nidal Hassan simply because they live and work on an installation.

SlimRickins
02-09-2011, 06:14 PM
Good points, but Sgt. Koenig raises some as well. In particular, it seems bizarre that soldiers on a base like Ft. Hood would be that vulnerable to a nut/fanatic.

On the one hand, we need to recognize the current need for increased, on the spot, immediate response. Terrorism is not a criminal problem, it is a national defense problem. e.g. If Slap is called to a bank robbery in progress, he can be reasonably certain that the robbers aren't going to indiscriminately kill everyone in the bank while he's en route. Law enforcement can contain the situation and negotiate with the perpetrators. That approach is a flat, costly failure with terrorists, or even straight forward mental cases, as Breslan, Ft. Hood and many other situations demonstrates.

On the other hand, having a lot of firearms available can create problems, not only in the BEQ, but anywhere on base where young soldiers, alcohol and women are mixed. (The three things that should never be mixed with alcohol are gasoline, gunpowder and women. :D)

Maybe the right approach is to simply increase the number of people who are always armed on duty. Something along the lines of all officers (commissioned and warrant) and NCOs at E-6 and above. That increases the likelihood of armed response to an attack while the attack is in progress, while avoiding the worst of the disciplinary problems.

______________________________________

the incident at fort hood was a single incident, we can't arm everybody because of one guy. he would have done this anyway.

IT HAPPENED IN IRAQ in a place where there were tons of armed people and the results were the same.

Stan
02-09-2011, 06:20 PM
I think 80% of the population can be trained to be competent with a handgun with 40 hours of instruction and 1000-1500 rounds of ammunition. If competence is an issue, the post could link CCW for active duty on post to qualifying to the same standard the LEOs do on post.

Hey DVC,
80 percent is a bit optimistic, but I'll bite for now.
The majority of civilian approved courses spend the first day without a round fired and concentrate on things like an intro into the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary to own and use a specific pistol model safely. At that point, the student has yet to even handle a plastic firearm.

Let's be straight about the basic training-level introduced to troops (what is it now, barely 8 weeks ?). Exactly how many hours and rounds of ammunition did you end up with during those 8 weeks of parading around ? Even LEOs don't go from school to concealed carrying Investigative Sergeants overnight. I'll let Carl and Slap cover that realm though.

Competence is an issue for me; I don't want a bunch of 40-hour fanatics running around base looking at every bearded individual as his next target and clutching his holster in the sick call line.



I believe most soldiers will meet the standards of responsibilty (sic) and behavior expected of them.

Most doesn't get it for me. I clearly indicated why in my post to Carl above and I'm but one SNCO in two decades. Multiply that times one million (those reports that don't end up published nor reported to even families).


No one seems to propose that LEOs shouldn't have firearms due to the risk of incompetence, irresponsibility, or criminality but, like soldiers, these things do afflict a very small portion of the LEO community from time to time.

The Brits still do :D
I can't comment on what to do with LEO problem children nor LEO extensive firearms training. But, since this thread is about permitting concealed carry by soldiers on base, all I can do is weigh our LEO members' thoughts herein.


Bad things happen in life and it's all about risk vs. benefit. I think LEOs ought to be armed, even if a very small percentage do stupid or criminal things, and I think the young SGT has a point that soldiers should not be made defenseless victims for the next Nidal Hassan simply because they live and work on an installation.

Point taken.

I've been on posts and bases where a 155mm high capacity round landed on our battalion in formation, a helicopter auto-rotated into family housing and a lone soldier raped and destroyed peoples lives for 3 months... all during peace time. If every instance of "defenseless victims" came up at that time, I can't imagine where we'd be now.

Regards, Stan

Old Eagle
02-09-2011, 07:49 PM
I really don't have a dog in this fight, but with all the accidental discharge problems I saw downrange, I can't imagine that this is a good idea.

slapout9
02-09-2011, 08:16 PM
I was trying to find that article you scanned and posted, to put up here again (with your permission of course ;) ).



Hey Stan,
It's still around the SWC somewhere, I already gave permission when I put it up the first time....I guess I did anyway:D:D people should learn from it, but we don't learn as well as we should IMO.
In general my situation happens more often then you would think:eek: it just doesn't get reported or talked about as much in the media.

CCW in Alabama I haven't checked recently but CCW were void at Government faculties (any level) Church,Sporting events and Bars (anyplace serving alcohol).

Nice discussion from all, both pro and con. I was a CQ-runner in the 82nd Airborne in the fall of 72 or spring of 73 when we had a guy come in and shoot a guy in the platoon bay because he didn't like the music he was playing. The shooter then took his clothes off and climbed in his bunk and went to sleep until the MP's arrived. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was treated and he survived and eventually returned to duty but it took awhile. Guys with guns and booze and testosterone in confined spaces might not really be a good idea.

Joske
02-09-2011, 08:17 PM
After reading this discussion I decided to review the current gun-laws in Belgium, i didnt know them because few people here own guns and thus the need to know the gun-laws is pretty much non-existant.

Now comparing the American and the Belgian sentiment towards guns shows a big difference in mentality. While as shown by the article in the first post, the desire of the writer is to increase the gun availability (here in the context of a military base) as a response to an act of violence (fort hood shooting).
The Belgian mentality (or that of our politicians) is completely the opposite, to limit gun availability.
The current gun-law came into place in 2006 after some racist 18 year old, decided it would be fun to shoot some foreigners and he killed two people including a child. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Van_Themsche
Now the point was that he managed to buy a hunting rifle as a minor without any permit being needed or any restrictions being applied. Now the law still forced him to register the weapon to the local police after he bought it, but this procedure is often described in publications about the shooting as a loophole because it allowed people to buy guns on impulse without any form of control because the buyer only had to register the gun after it was bought, allowing for nut-jobs like that dude to get his hands on a gun.
Now as a result of that shooting the political establishment recognized the need to reform current gun-law's and instead of just passing a law adapting this loophole they opted for a complete ban on guns except for people who were certified hunters or sport shooters ,which came down to about 80 000 people who were allowed to own guns.
In 2008 this law was adapted a bit to allow for ownership of weapons without ammunition but apparently it remains one of the toughest gun laws in the world.
Well not that it actually lowered crime rates or anything, and last year we had something of a crime wave in Brussels when a bunch of criminals started shooting at cops with ak-47's smuggled in from ex-yugoslavia and apparently these guns could be bought in the black market for about 100 euros.

Might have gone a little off topic here, but I found this apparent difference in mentality to be quite interesting.

jmm99
02-09-2011, 09:30 PM
No doubt a vast gulf exists between the USA and the EU with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.

The distinct American mentality is not new. In fact, it goes well back in our history with the first academic discussion I've found dating to William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle-00.htm) (1829).

William Rawle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rawle) (April 28, 1759–April 12, 1836) was an American lawyer.


Rawle was born in Philadelphia, where he studied at the Friends' Academy. He studied law in New York and at the Middle Temple, London, and was admitted to the bar in 1783. In 1791 President Washington appointed him United States district attorney for Pennsylvania, in which capacity he prosecuted the leaders of the Whiskey Insurrection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion).

As the prosecutor of the Whiskey insurgents, Rawle was well acquainted with the limits on firearms use then current in American law - and with the greater limitations in European law. That is clearly stated in his discussion of the Second Amendment, which has three parts (in Chapter X of his book (http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm)).

The first part deals with the more general application of the Second Amendment, as compared to the First Amendment; and the relationahip of the Second Amendment to the Tenth Amendment (emphasis added):


CHAPTER X.

OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
....
The preceding article [Amendment I] expressly refers to the powers of congress alone, but some of those which follow are to be more generally construed, and considered as applying to the state legislatures as well as that of the Union. The important principles contained in them are now incorporated by adoption into the instrument itself; they form parts of the declared rights of the people, of which neither the state powers nor those of the Union can ever deprive them.

A subsequent article [Amendment X] declares, that the powers not delegated to congress by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. What we are about to consider are certainly not delegated to congress, nor are they noticed in the prohibitions to states; they are therefore reserved either to the states or to the people. Their high nature, their necessity to the general security and happiness will be distinctly perceived.

Rawle then moves to the "militia" subclause:


In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

Note that "regulated" had to Rawle a meaning that goes beyond written regulations - a well-regulated clock provides a hint. As to a militia, "regulated" encompassed proper training and discipline to "make good soldiers". That duty, in Rawle's eyes, was imposed on state governments.

Rawle then moved to the "keep and bear arms" subclause, making three points: 1. The right is general and imposed on both Federal and State legislation; (2) Europe has a different take on the right (a mentality to prefer disarmament); and (3) The right is not unlimited (his examples of an insurrection and of an individual criminal were from his experience as a prosecutor):


The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[1] The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

[2] In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more, or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to Protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." [1 Will. & Mary, c. 2.]

An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws. [2 Bl. 412.]

[3] This right ought not, however, in any government, to be abused to the disturbance of the public peace.

An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single, individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace. If he refused he would be liable to imprisonments. [3 Coke's Inst. 160. Hawkins, b. 1. c. 60.]

This post simply expands on the posts by 82redleg and Joske.

We are all agreed, are we not, that the Second Amendment does not control gun policy on military bases - or is there a contention that it does ?

Regards

Mike

carl
02-09-2011, 09:39 PM
Hey DVC,80 percent is a bit optimistic, but I'll bite for now. The majority of civilian approved courses spend the first day without a round fired and concentrate on things like an intro into the knowledge, skills, and attitude necessary to own and use a specific pistol model safely. At that point, the student has yet to even handle a plastic firearm....

Competence is an issue for me; I don't want a bunch of 40-hour fanatics running around base looking at every bearded individual as his next target and clutching his holster in the sick call line.

I've been to 3 Thunder Ranch courses, which should about typify the good shooting schools in the US. The first morning was spent in a classroom, the rest of the time, day and night, was spent on outdoor and indoor ranges. About 1200 to 1600 rounds were fired. The students were men and women ranging in age from mid-20s to their sixties and varied from being complete novices to spec ops types.

They were all extremely serious about things to begin with and the staff would accept nothing less. Everybody came out at least competent and some, including novices, came out a lot better than that. After seeing that I think you can turn out competent, serious minded shooters in just 40 hours of instruction. Of course, it was a bit of a self selected group in that they had to lay out their own money and a week of their own time in order to take the course.

One thing that might be germane to the discussion is the program that allows some airline pilots to carry pistols on the airplane. I believe they have to lay out their own money and spend their own time for instruction. That insures that mostly serious minded people apply for it.

Jason Port
02-09-2011, 11:16 PM
This concept of an on post permit raises too many issues to allow it to be practical
- a platoon sergeant, who already occasionally takes trips to the woodline for counselling now has to do a pat down search. Seriously how do you write up a soldier for misconduct when he might be carrying?

- a soldier who shows up for PT and then showers in the barracks now has to find a place to store the POW. He then goes to the field where a concealed rig is not comfortable/feasible? Weapon left in the car? Weapon locked in an arms room?

- the issues of training go a long way towards reinforcing my "no" vote. Having taught marksmanship at various levels for the Army, there are some non-shooting troopers out there. Moreover many of my friends who have the CCW and who talk a good game should consider themselves lucky they have not shot themselves. Desire to have a CCW or even possession does not equal competent shooter. And 40 hours and 1500 rounds still ain't enough for some.

In any event, this is a can of worms I don't ever see the army/DOD opening. The risks are too high. We are in the reflective belt generation, so if we still have to wear those in combat outposts, weapons on base are non-starters.

selil
02-10-2011, 01:48 AM
To heck with guns. I want to know why I can't carry my bow on base.

DVC
02-10-2011, 02:11 AM
I've been to 3 Thunder Ranch courses, which should about typify the good shooting schools in the US. The first morning was spent in a classroom, the rest of the time, day and night, was spent on outdoor and indoor ranges. About 1200 to 1600 rounds were fired. The students were men and women ranging in age from mid-20s to their sixties and varied from being complete novices to spec ops types.

They were all extremely serious about things to begin with and the staff would accept nothing less. Everybody came out at least competent and some, including novices, came out a lot better than that. After seeing that I think you can turn out competent, serious minded shooters in just 40 hours of instruction. Of course, it was a bit of a self selected group in that they had to lay out their own money and a week of their own time in order to take the course.

One thing that might be germane to the discussion is the program that allows some airline pilots to carry pistols on the airplane. I believe they have to lay out their own money and spend their own time for instruction. That insures that mostly serious minded people apply for it.


I don't have a problem with commanders establishing common sense requirements above state CCW requirements. Examples might be:

1. Be 21
2. Be a corporal or above
3. Qualify on the LEO or CID qual standards.
4. Pass a use of force law test.

To categorically state or imply that servicemembers can't be trusted with CCW priviledges is wrong.

National Parks used to prohibit all guns for the most part. Congress changed the law and now National Parks follow the CCW law of the state in which they are located. Haven't heard any reports of armed mayhem, shootouts at Old Faithful or indications of the end of life as we know it since the change.

Even Stan could feel safe there:D

Pol-Mil FSO
02-10-2011, 07:11 AM
Military bases are like schools in that they are both gun free zones. This means that a terrorist or a lunatic could do a lot of damage before security forces arrive on scene. I work in a secure office building on a military base and sometimes worry that if an armed attacker gained access to the building he or she could kill a lot of persons before armed security personnel arrived to eliminate the threat.

At a personal level, the DOD policy means that I cannot exercise my concealed carry privileges when I am going to and from my workplace. At this current point in time I carry a concealed weapon whenever I can but the DOD restriction limits these periods to evenings and weekends.

I agree that unrestricted carry by everyone on base is probably a bad idea but I think that the limitations mentioned by some posters as to who could carry make sense. I would go a little further and suggest restricting carry privileges to E-6 and above in the enlisted ranks, and O-4 and above in the officer ranks.

82redleg
02-10-2011, 11:31 AM
I agree that unrestricted carry by everyone on base is probably a bad idea but I think that the limitations mentioned by some posters as to who could carry make sense. I would go a little further and suggest restricting carry privileges to E-6 and above in the enlisted ranks, and O-4 and above in the officer ranks.

Only a few people go to the time and effort of getting CCW/CCL as it is. Generally, those who do are not those that commit crimes, with the odd exception (as noted by slapout- but his case would have been excepted by every list of exceptions proposed here). Why don't post commanders recognize state CCW/CCL? Because of risk aversion, lack of personal responsibility and a desire to CYA, IMO. Also, I've seen some O4s (and senior) and E9s that have attrocious weapons handling skills. Its an individual thing, not a rank thing. I still think it should be up to individual choice, not taken away by gov't fiat in fear of "accidents".


This concept of an on post permit raises too many issues to allow it to be practical
- a platoon sergeant, who already occasionally takes trips to the woodline for counselling now has to do a pat down search. Seriously how do you write up a soldier for misconduct when he might be carrying?

Seriously? How long have you been out? Do you think this really happens that often? Soldiers get counseled all the time downrange, when EVERYONE is carrying, why should the states be any different if a few might be? I can't say for certain that "wall-to-wall" counseling never happened in my units, but I'll bet a months paycheck that it didn't happen very often, that my good NCOs didn't do it, and that I would have relieved an NCO in a heartbeat if I'd known about it. It isn't acceptable, no matter how much we fantasize about it. I would have laughed my ass off if in NCO had tried it and gotten his ass beat, and if getting shot is one more deterrent, so much the better.


- the issues of training go a long way towards reinforcing my "no" vote. Having taught marksmanship at various levels for the Army, there are some non-shooting troopers out there. Moreover many of my friends who have the CCW and who talk a good game should consider themselves lucky they have not shot themselves. Desire to have a CCW or even possession does not equal competent shooter. And 40 hours and 1500 rounds still ain't enough for some.

So you support logic training before people can exercise their 1st Amendment rights? The point of the Bill of Rights is to restrict the actions of the gov't, period, full stop. I don't see any room for exceptions in the language of the 2nd Amendment (although I think that it, like the rest of the Constitution's restrictions, should apply to the fed.gov ONLY, and that the incorporation argument is a mistake, not in reading the Constitution, but in the nature of the system). Of course, powermongers and fearmongers who seek to enhance their own power by playing on individual's fear will always win because most people don't deserve their freedom, and are only kept free by the actions of others.


In any event, this is a can of worms I don't ever see the army/DOD opening. The risks are too high. We are in the reflective belt generation, so if we still have to wear those in combat outposts, weapons on base are non-starters.

I agree with your assessment. I just disagree that it is a good thing, as you seem to.

J Wolfsberger
02-10-2011, 12:54 PM
To heck with guns. I want to know why I can't carry my bow on base.

The issue of concealed bows is just too bulky to get into here. :D

slapout9
02-10-2011, 02:40 PM
A question. If the CCW was recognized by the military just exactly how would that make anybody safer? Safety/Security is that what the end goal is?

DVC
02-10-2011, 03:00 PM
A question. If the CCW was recognized by the military just exactly how would that make anybody safer? Safety/Security is that what the end goal is?

If you agree with the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Safety/Security is not the end goal, it's liberty.

On a less philosophical level in a "Fort Hood" situation, CCW has the potential to greatly reduce casualties because "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

Nidal Hassan shot and continued to shoot unarmed soldiers and civilians at the Soldier Readiness Center for eight and a half minutes prior to the police arriving. Officers Munley and Todd shot and incapacitated Hassan 90 seconds after they arrived. Doing the math on 13 killed and 40 wounded, that's 4.3 victims for every minute the attack lasted.

It is highly likely if qualified soldiers were authorized to carry concealed handguns, someone at the Soldier Readiness Center could have stopped Hassan in considerably less than 10 minutes.

Copperhead
02-10-2011, 04:12 PM
Trusting soldiers with loaded weapons? Preposterous!

Next thing you know they'll be requiring deployed personnel to carry weapons and loaded magazines with them at all times or not letting them enter the DFAC on the FOB without a weapon and ammunition.

The attitude of "can't trust 'em with weapons" prevalent in so many of the responses on this thread is the same mentality that has resulted in the reflective belt and clearing barrel approach to risk management. Training soldiers is too hard and trusting them to do the right thing is too risky, so let's slap a band-aid on it and make sure the boys have signed a roster stating they have received the mandatory briefing so my ass is covered.

It never fails to amaze me just how many military and LE personnel are anti-2nd Amendment because of their own smug sense of superiority.

Ken White
02-10-2011, 05:20 PM
Trusting soldiers with loaded weapons? Preposterous!...It never fails to amaze me just how many military and LE personnel are anti-2nd Amendment because of their own smug sense of superiority.I've noticed those things also. Also noticed that if Joe (in a professional as opposed to a citizen or conscripted force) can't be trusted, he shouldn't be there and if he can't shoot, someone didn't teach him...

Risk is reduced by best practice, it never goes away. Risk aversion is 'hated' by most, practiced by way too many.

Addendum: I am compelled by an irate son -- one of two who are career LE types and both of whom put a hitch in the Army -- to add that in his experience, more LE types support the Second Amendment than do not and most also totally support and encourage CCW. I'm sure after he e-mails his brother I will have heard the same thing from both... :(

Ken White
02-10-2011, 05:23 PM
The issue of concealed bows is just too bulky to get into here. :Dthe point??? :D

Ken White
02-10-2011, 05:30 PM
A question. If the CCW was recognized by the military just exactly how would that make anybody safer? Safety/Security is that what the end goal is?Safety is a bicycle helmet and a reflective belt, security is what you put out when you don't want to be caught unaware -- or a blanket one can carry... ;)

Not to worry, the USAF (Armed Forces) will never recognize CCW. Mostly because there is no restriction on weapon type and we can't have such a heinous lack of uniformity (It would cause too many CSMs to have a stroke...). :D

Stan
02-10-2011, 07:13 PM
It never fails to amaze me just how many military and LE personnel are anti-2nd Amendment because of their own smug sense of superiority.

That Sierra might have worked when Clinton was in office and the NRA was in the fast lane, but it doesn't help now. Please find the time to amaze me with something more than Second Amendment speeches.

Ken White
02-10-2011, 10:02 PM
IMO it's a true statement. Are their more people in both professions who don't act that way? Sure. Most do not -- but there are some that do. I think he was merely expressing puzzlement, I know it puzzles me. The West Coast Cop son says it's mostly the upper echelon Cops who are opposed and it's political. The East Coast guy says it's more complex than that and he believes that it's environmental. I think it's in part both of those things plus a genetic tendency. Dunno. Some are smug in their own ability to have or handle weapons but most aren't so it's complex. Regardless, the attitude existed long before Bill Clinton went to High School and when the NRA had well less than a million members. I was briefly a Cop in 1955 and in the Army in 56 and that negative attitude was around both jobs then, never went away completely and in fact, in the Army, is probably a bit better now than it was 15-20 years ago.

Academic in any event because it's not going to happen on a broad basis -- there are already some duty and not LE related exceptions -- and as long as the Army maintains its focus on Mass, it should not for the many reasons cited above.

The fact that it won't happen is pretty much a given. That some in the services and LE do not think any civilian should have a weapon and some who disapprove of CCW is also a fact. Unlike the first fact, it isn't terribly relevant. It's just a comment on human factors.

selil
02-11-2011, 02:11 AM
the point??? :D

Actually the point of a broadhead can due severe injury and a well tuned bow is nearly silent.

Pete
02-11-2011, 02:18 AM
Selil is clearly a guy who has paid his dues, that I can tell.


Are their more people in both professions ...
Spoken like a guy who's been there and done that.

Ken White
02-11-2011, 02:37 AM
Actually the point of a broadhead can due severe injury and a well tuned bow is nearly silent.attempts at sub-tile hoomer fell flat. :o

Pete
02-11-2011, 02:49 AM
Ken, what pray tell would your Grandfather at the Louisville Courier-Journal have said about that? Guys like me can be of real assistance to knuckle-draggers when it comes to writing field manuals, not to mention help with menus and road signs.

Ken White
02-11-2011, 02:59 AM
Uh, what's a menu?

selil
02-11-2011, 03:00 AM
attempts at sub-tile hoomer fell flat. :o

Nyah. I'm just trying to derail. I wrote up a long academese post and said.. Nyah. I'd rather be a drive-by.

I'll go run 5 miles in penance.

Ken White
02-11-2011, 03:03 AM
Nyah. I'm just trying to derail. I wrote up a long academese post and said.. Nyah. I'd rather be a drive-by. Not that. This:
I'll go run 5 miles in penance.:eek::eek: -- never run when you can walk, never walk when you can ride -- use the Bike... ;)

selil
02-11-2011, 03:10 AM
Not that. This::eek::eek: -- never run when you can walk, never walk when you can ride -- use the Bike... ;)

Nyah. Earlier this year I completely blew out my ACL while sparring. I'm running as much as I can to get the leg back into shape. I've got a marathon to run, and a 100 miler next year I want to run. I'm slow but I still got some go.

Pete
02-11-2011, 03:22 AM
Just make sure you sing this when you go running:

One-seventy-third
Patch on my shoulder
Pick up your weapon and follow me
We are the Airborne Infantry

Kiwigrunt
02-11-2011, 03:48 AM
...never run when you can walk, never walk when you can ride -- use the Bike... ;)

Me 'n u both.:D

Pete
02-11-2011, 04:43 AM
Uh, what's a menu?
Um, in Kansas City they're something like this (http://www.jackstackbbq.com/images/art/JSBBQ_Dining_Menu.pdf).

Dayuhan
02-11-2011, 04:57 AM
Actually the point of a broadhead can due severe injury

Absolutely... but I'm having trouble envisioning the "concealed" aspect of it all, both for the weapon and the ammunition supply!


Nyah. Earlier this year I completely blew out my ACL while sparring. I'm running as much as I can to get the leg back into shape. I've got a marathon to run, and a 100 miler next year I want to run. I'm slow but I still got some go.

Good luck with that. I kept running for quite a while in hope that a foot injury would work through, eventually had to take up cycling when it became clear that it was not going to work through, and that repeated impact is no longer in the picture. Fortunately I've come to like cycling.

There are places where age just gets you, and recovery is one of them. When the ortho guy starts invoking "long term management" as the goal, beware. Didn't believe him for a while but at a certain point the message becomes unmistakable. Pain doesn't lie.

Stan
02-11-2011, 07:34 AM
Actually the point of a broadhead can due severe injury and a well tuned bow is nearly silent.

And much like an old and wise NCO told Tom "(a machete) doesn't click on empty" :cool:


Are their more people in both professions who don't act that way? Sure. Most do not -- but there are some that do.

Some are smug in their own ability to have or handle weapons but most aren't so it's complex. Regardless, the attitude existed long before Bill Clinton went to High School and when the NRA had well less than a million members.

The fact that it won't happen is pretty much a given. That some in the services and LE do not think any civilian should have a weapon and some who disapprove of CCW is also a fact. Unlike the first fact, it isn't terribly relevant. It's just a comment on human factors.

Ken,
I was referring to perhaps the worst stage (of over abusing the use of Anti and Pro Second Amendment) of the Clinton and NRA era together under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. As I said, I'm an NRA life member and have a nice collection of practical firearms in addition to having had concealed permits. What I don't take stock in is the empty and ludicrous use of "Second Amendment" to support or destroy an argument that is far more complex.

Because most of us herein are military and/or law enforcement, and the subject has more to do with what happens on a military base, I take our opinions and concerns much more seriously. Much more per se than someone arguing for or against gun ownership, standing on the Second Amendment soap box, in a heated political debate without ever having fired a weapon :wry:

Copperhead
02-11-2011, 03:31 PM
As I said, I'm an NRA life member and have a nice collection of practical firearms in addition to having had concealed permits. What I don't take stock in is the empty and ludicrous use of "Second Amendment" to support or destroy an argument that is far more complex.

Because most of us herein are military and/or law enforcement, and the subject has more to do with what happens on a military base, I take our opinions and concerns much more seriously. Much more per se than someone arguing for or against gun ownership, standing on the Second Amendment soap box, in a heated political debate without ever having fired a weapon :wry:

I, too, am a combat veteran, lifelong shooter, own and carry guns and I am an NRA member as well.

So what?

Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein own guns and have permits to carry concealed…’nuff said.

The way you simply dismiss the 2A/RKBA argument is far more telling when it comes to your credibility regarding the issue of gun ownership; whether on post or elsewhere. Furthermore, being military or law enforcement doesn’t make any of us all that special…where I live you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is either current or prior military/LE. It doesn’t make me (or you) any more or less qualified to comment on this thread.

Back to original point of this thread…

The two points I made in my earlier post were that I was frustrated with the notion that we can’t trust soldiers to handle weapons safely and with the surprising number of military and LE personnel (albeit a minority) who are opposed to the idea of the right to own and carry guns as an individual right but rather as something that should only belong to a protected class of citizens of which they are always a part.

I also notice a certain inconsistency in the argument that on the one hand “we (military/LE) are special” while on the other hand “stupid privates” can’t be trusted not to shoot themselves or others in a drunken orgy of destruction in the barracks on any given day; as if “stupid privates” are even LESS qualified to own and carry firearms than their civilian counterparts. Which one is it?

Finally, I am very uncomfortable with this tendency to lump military and law enforcement personnel together. We are very, very different. The fact that many in LE are former military does not change this.

DVC
02-11-2011, 03:31 PM
31 JAN letter to the Army Times at http://www.armytimes.com/community/opinion/army-letters-to-the-editor-013111w/



What do you think?

Though the tread has drifted at times (bow and machete toters:D. Tomahawks anyone?), it seems that there are a number of SWJ forum members that think there is merit in the letter's argument.

How do we get CCWs recognized on DoD installations? Is the National Park model a good one?

Copperhead
02-11-2011, 04:24 PM
How do we get CCWs recognized on DoD installations? Is the National Park model a good one?

That's actually not a bad idea...at least as far as the issue of whether or not anyone (for example a retiree visiting the commissary) can carry on post. Doesn't fix the issue of whether soldiers are allowed to do so.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I submit that every soldier should be issued an M11 pistol and a concealment holster and required to qualify with it. On post and off duty carry become mandatory. It's no longer a CCW issue, but rather a force protection issue. No different than making every soldier carry a weapon on the FOB.

I'm not all that confident that the rent-a-cops do much to keep military facilities secure. Seems to me a second line of defense of trained, armed soldiers will do a hell of a lot more to make them hard targets.

IntelTrooper
02-11-2011, 04:28 PM
I don't know how relevant to the discussion this is, or whether it will change any opinions, but a couple weeks ago here on the Monterey Peninsula we had a captain (non-Navy type) who managed to discharge his concealed, personal weapon in class. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

If something were to be instituted, I don't think rank, age, or time in service would necessarily be good criteria for determining whether someone is allowed to carry on post. We've had Canadian Major General have a multiple negligent discharges in theater so it's not a 100% guarantee. I think some key positions other than MP should probably be armed for the sake of security and I don't think it's something that everyone should be able to do.

For every weapon introduced on post you're increasing the potential for an incident and that is something that should be reasonably mitigated against, but as some have mentioned there are also advantages and those should be weighed in as well.

DVC
02-11-2011, 04:37 PM
That's actually not a bad idea...at least as far as the issue of whether or not anyone (for example a retiree visiting the commissary) can carry on post. Doesn't fix the issue of whether soldiers are allowed to do so.

I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I submit that every soldier should be issued an M11 pistol and a concealment holster and required to qualify with it. On post and off duty carry become mandatory. It's no longer a CCW issue, but rather a force protection issue. No different than making every soldier carry a weapon on the FOB.

I'm not all that confident that the rent-a-cops do much to keep military facilities secure. Seems to me a second line of defense of trained, armed soldiers will do a hell of a lot more to make them hard targets.

No flame here. Substitute M16/M4/Galil/Tavor for M11 and this seems roughly the Israeli approach. All combat arms soldiers, and many support soldiers, are required to take their rifle and one or two loaded magazines whenerver they leave the base including home on pass.

slapout9
02-11-2011, 04:50 PM
Somebody say accidental discharge. Redneck 911 call:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-dg89wr-s

Stan
02-11-2011, 04:58 PM
Copperhead,
Thanks for a better detailed post than your previous !


I, too, am a combat veteran, lifelong shooter, own and carry guns and I am an NRA member as well.

So what?

Good point, similar to my distaste with flying the Second Amendment flag vs stating something of substance.


Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein own guns and have permits to carry concealed…’nuff said.

Don't know them personally, have no real desire to listen to politicians who purport to hold both the NRA card and spout...could care less too.



The way you simply dismiss the 2A/RKBA argument is far more telling when it comes to your credibility regarding the issue of gun ownership; whether on post or elsewhere. Furthermore, being military or law enforcement doesn’t make any of us all that special…where I live you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who is either current or prior military/LE. It doesn’t make me (or you) any more or less qualified to comment on this thread.


Perhaps you consider my posts to be a dismissal of the Second Amendment where I try not to mask things and hop on that soap box. I'm of the opinion that it is little more than a crutch vs stating and backing up one's opinion with facts. Because this current thread concerns concealed carry on a military installation vis-à-vis what is permitted off-base in Texas, who else would be more qualified to discuss the subject ?


Back to original point of this thread…

The two points I made in my earlier post were that I was frustrated with the notion that we can’t trust soldiers to handle weapons safely and with the surprising number of military and LE personnel (albeit a minority) who are opposed to the idea of the right to own and carry guns as an individual right but rather as something that should only belong to a protected class of citizens of which they are always a part.

Who else should then be making this relatively significant decision? Yet another politician instead of the military that have to live with what comes next. I think those that are opposed to the idea have been up front with why.


I also notice a certain inconsistency in the argument that on the one hand “we (military/LE) are special” while on the other hand “stupid privates” can’t be trusted not to shoot themselves or others in a drunken orgy of destruction in the barracks on any given day; as if “stupid privates” are even LESS qualified to own and carry firearms than their civilian counterparts. Which one is it?

I think I made it quite clear that most of the nut cases were not stupid privates. In fact, I argued that rank and age was not nearly enough to gauge responsible firearms use.


Finally, I am very uncomfortable with this tendency to lump military and law enforcement personnel together. We are very, very different. The fact that many in LE are former military does not change this.

We are different. But, I don't know anyone else that has sufficient background on concealed carry on a military installation and I could care less what Chuck thinks.

Stan
02-11-2011, 05:05 PM
No flame here. Substitute M16/M4/Galil/Tavor for M11 and this seems roughly the Israeli approach. All combat arms soldiers, and many support soldiers, are required to take their rifle and one or two loaded magazines whenerver they leave the base including home on pass.

In fact I second that thought as it has been my beef we are considering permitting concealed carry without training in the use of a sidearm.

DVC
02-11-2011, 05:08 PM
I don't know how relevant to the discussion this is, or whether it will change any opinions, but a couple weeks ago here on the Monterey Peninsula we had a captain (non-Navy type) who managed to discharge his concealed, personal weapon in class. Thankfully, no one was hurt.

If something were to be instituted, I don't think rank, age, or time in service would necessarily be good criteria for determining whether someone is allowed to carry on post. We've had Canadian Major General have a multiple negligent discharges in theater so it's not a 100% guarantee. I think some key positions other than MP should probably be armed for the sake of security and I don't think it's something that everyone should be able to do.

For every weapon introduced on post you're increasing the potential for an incident and that is something that should be reasonably mitigated against, but as some have mentioned there are also advantages and those should be weighed in as well.

Agree competence, not rank, is the more important critieria. But I think there is the assumption on the part of some that if one is not an MP/LEO they are automatically either or both incompetent or untrustworthy when it comes to firearms. That is both wrong and unamerican IMHO.

RE: incidents. I propose it would take an awful lot of ND incidents to rack up the total of 13 dead and 40 wounded that happened at Fort Hood in 10 minutes in NOV 2009 (even in Redneck areas :D)

slapout9
02-11-2011, 05:25 PM
Don't know them personally, have no real desire to listen to politicians who purport to hold both the NRA card and spout...could care less too.


Stan, you don't want to know these people, they eat Tofu and other stuff, they might even be.............Zombies:eek:

Stan
02-11-2011, 05:33 PM
But I think there is the assumption on the part of some that if one is not an MP/LEO they are automatically either or both incompetent or untrustworthy when it comes to firearms. That is both wrong and unamerican IMHO.

Not too sure about being un-American as that presupposes some sort or norms which we obviously don't have. We are also taking about concealed weapons which, in my opinion is a sidearm. Other than specific MOSs, which I believe I was clear about earlier, most soldiers are not trained to use sidearms and certainly not trained to employ a concealed weapon. Probably why a seasoned LEO is a credible source herein.


RE: incidents. I propose it would take an awful lot of ND incidents to rack up the total of 13 dead and 40 wounded that happened at Fort Hood in 10 minutes in NOV 2009 (even in Redneck areas :D)

I would like nothing more to agree with you, but my 23 years tells me otherwise.

Stan
02-11-2011, 05:35 PM
Stan, you don't want to know these people, they eat Tofu and other stuff, they might even be.............Zombies:eek:

And they are active members of the NRA with gun permits :eek:

Just googled Diane (really had no clue who she is). Jeez, she was hot back in the day ;)

Copperhead
02-11-2011, 05:40 PM
And they are active members of the NRA with gun permits :eek:

Stan, just to be clear, I never said they were NRA members...in fact, quite the opposite.

DVC
02-11-2011, 06:44 PM
Not too sure about being un-American as that presupposes some sort or norms which we obviously don't have. We are also taking about concealed weapons which, in my opinion is a sidearm. Other than specific MOSs, which I believe I was clear about earlier, most soldiers are not trained to use sidearms and certainly not trained to employ a concealed weapon. Probably why a seasoned LEO is a credible source herein.



I would like nothing more to agree with you, but my 23 years tells me otherwise.


To say that LEOs are automatically competent with firearms and non LEO are automatically incompetent with firearms, short of some objective measure, seems to be a "some are more equal than others" approach and thus unamerican IMHO.

Stan - I imagine you are a great guy but if I get the honor to meet you, pardon me if I stand a couple of meters away. You seem to have had a lot of bad stuff happen within bursting radius of you when you were on active duty:D. In my double digits of years, been around a couple of NDs but, thank God, never had anyone I knew injured by one.

Stan
02-11-2011, 07:33 PM
Stan, just to be clear, I never said they were NRA members...in fact, quite the opposite.

Sorry, but it was not a hit on you in any way shape or form.

When you get to know Slap (and me) a little better, you'll understand :D

We can always disagree. It's that, or the next thread we post together in will be real short... But we'll all be happy :rolleyes:

Regards, Stan

Stan
02-11-2011, 07:40 PM
Hey DVC,


To say that LEOs are automatically competent with firearms and non LEO are automatically incompetent with firearms, short of some objective measure, seems to be a "some are more equal than others" approach and thus unamerican IMHO.

OK, I'll give it a break :o
So long as everybody completes the Army's (or equivalent service's) close quarters marksmanship course (and the heck with it, the LEOs all have to requalify too) :cool:


Stan - I imagine you are a great guy but if I get the honor to meet you, pardon me if I stand a couple of meters away. You seem to have had a lot of bad stuff happen within bursting radius of you when you were on active duty:D. In my double digits of years, been around a couple of NDs but, thank God, never had anyone I knew injured by one.

According to the FBI's safe distance tables you may want to make that 300 meters, deminer's helmet with visor, ear plugs optional and decent flack jacket :D

Take care... I'm off to dinner with my better half !

DVC
02-11-2011, 07:51 PM
Hey DVC,



OK, I'll give it a break :o
So long as everybody completes the Army's (or equivalent service's) close quarters marksmanship course (and the heck with it, the LEOs all have to requalify too) :cool:



According to the FBI's safe distance tables you may want to make that 300 meters, deminer's helmet with visor, ear plugs optional and decent flack jacket :D

Take care... I'm off to dinner with my better half !

Jeff Cooper said danger, not variety, is the spice of life, so I'll take my chances if we get to meet.

I hope you both have a great dinner - how's the chow in Estonia?

Cannoneer No. 4
02-15-2011, 04:01 PM
Does anybody remember when the custom of commissioned officers providing their own side arms fell out of fashion?

Not much discussion on this thread about Force Protection, or how increasing the numbers of habitually armed troops in CONUS garrisons improves the installation's Force Protection posture. Do CONUS garrisons face threats of similar magnitude as OIF/OEF FOB's? No, they don't. Having all the CONUS garrison troops armed as if they were deployed reeks of fear and makes Hassan's propaganda of the deed wildly successful.

Active-duty enlisted personnel should draw their government issue weapon from the arms room and carry it whenever performing duties the chain of command has determined are best accomplished while armed. Can't very well have the Other Ranks deciding for themselves which duties they will perform armed with their own private purchase concealed carry pieces and which duties they will perform unarmed.

DVC
02-15-2011, 04:33 PM
Does anybody remember when the custom of commissioned officers providing their own side arms fell out of fashion?

Not much discussion on this thread about Force Protection, or how increasing the numbers of habitually armed troops in CONUS garrisons improves the installation's Force Protection posture. Do CONUS garrisons face threats of similar magnitude as OIF/OEF FOB's? No, they don't. Having all the CONUS garrison troops armed as if they were deployed reeks of fear and makes Hassan's propaganda of the deed wildly successful.

Active-duty enlisted personnel should draw their government issue weapon from the arms room and carry it whenever performing duties the chain of command has determined are best accomplished while armed. Can't very well have the Other Ranks deciding for themselves which duties they will perform armed with their own private purchase concealed carry pieces and which duties they will perform unarmed.

Canoneer #4 - a few questions for you:

1. Would honoring state CCWs on military installation reduce the FP posture of those installations?

2. Does the fact that American police are generally armed mean criminals in the U.S. are "wildly successful"?

3. Doesn't the average American expect his armed forces to be armed? Would that average American have preferred an outcome to the Hassan attack of a enlisted soldier drawing his CCW handgun and stopping Hassan to the 13 dead and 40 wounded of the actual event?

4. If you'd been at the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood in the room in which Hassan initiated the attack, would you have preferred to be armed or unarmed?

5. Do you think we've seen the last of "lone wolf shooter" attacks on military installations?

Cannoneer No. 4
02-15-2011, 06:54 PM
1. Honoring state CCWs on military installations could reduce the FP posture of those installations. Is the additional Antiterrorism/Force Protection rapid response capability afforded by soldiers carrying their own personal weapons concealed on post likely to result in more Hassan wannabes defeated or more soldiers killed or wounded by themselves or other soldiers?

2. The fact that American police are generally armed has nothing to do with whether active duty soldiers should be generally armed in garrisons in CONUS.

3a. I don't know what the average American expects. The American Armed Forces have a wide variety of machines with which to kill people and break things. Only the Army and Marine Corps arm most of their troops with individual weapons.

3b. Who really cares what the average American prefers? The Army is not a democracy.

4. If my preferences were a matter of major concern, I would prefer not to be there that day. Commanders decide where and when they want their troops armed. A disciplined force cannot allow large numbers of junior soldiers to pack their own privately-owned heat under their ACU's whenever they feel like it.

5. No. "Lone wolf shooter" attacks have always been rare, but not unknown. How rare are they, really, and how much nut roll should we go through to predict/prevent/mitigate them?

DVC
02-15-2011, 09:21 PM
1. Honoring state CCWs on military installations could reduce the FP posture of those installations. Is the additional Antiterrorism/Force Protection rapid response capability afforded by soldiers carrying their own personal weapons concealed on post likely to result in more Hassan wannabes defeated or more soldiers killed or wounded by themselves or other soldiers? That is indeed the question. I again think it would take a lot of NDs or soldier criminality to cause 13 dead and 40 wounded, even across the whole military. I do not know the statistics for the current situation

2. The fact that American police are generally armed has nothing to do with whether active duty soldiers should be generally armed in garrisons in CONUS. My humble attempt at an analogy. Don't think AQAM would think it a good development for state CCW permits to be recognized on DoD installations. But to be honest, I have no evidence that AQ thinks of the issue at all

3a. I don't know what the average American expects. The American Armed Forces have a wide variety of machines with which to kill people and break things. Only the Army and Marine Corps arm most of their troops with individual weapons.

3b. Who really cares what the average American prefers? The Army is not a democracy. ? Whoa.... isn't this part of what a republic is all about? The Army isn't a democracy but it serves one. If Congress says DoD must recognize state CCWs as the NPS now does at National Parks and POTUS signs it, I bet many senior leaders will think it was a great idea all along.

4. If my preferences were a matter of major concern, I would prefer not to be there that day. Ok, why can't we all just get along? Commanders decide where and when they want their troops armed. Yep. A disciplined force cannot allow large numbers of junior soldiers to pack their own privately-owned heat under their ACU's whenever they feel like it. What is your support for this contention? Seems like saying " A disciplined force cannot allow large numbers of junior soldiers to own POVS ?"

5. No. "Lone wolf shooter" attacks have always been rare, but not unknown. How rare are they, really, and how much nut roll should we go through to predict/prevent/mitigate them? I think it was W.E.B. Griffin that said you only really need a handgun when you need it really bad

Mine in bold.

Stan
02-16-2011, 03:09 PM
There are literally hundreds of links covering FP and Fort Hood. Having just recently performed FP for visiting Sailors and having tons of time on my hands to read through reams of regulations, I recommend some light reading on the current thread.

A very general overview placing blame and responsibility on the installation commander:

Military Operations (http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r525-13.htm)
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)
FORCE PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP)

Stand-To
Fort Hood Army Internal Review Team (http://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2010/06/28/)
Scroll down to resources for the links

Interim Fort Hood Recommendations Approved (http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=13456)

Then Army dot MIL
Protecting the Force: Lessons learned from Fort Hood (http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/01/15/33006-protecting-the-force-lessons-learned-from-fort-hood/)

And DOD's independent review (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf), which has some equally depressing and promising recommendations:

There's a every so slight recommendation revolving around Active Shooter Tactics and the lack thereof on bases. Sadly, the review concentrates more on identifying the threat and lack of communications as the problem.

slapout9
02-16-2011, 03:47 PM
I grew up near a SAC Base in Orlando,Fl. in the late 50's early 60's. I don't exactly remember when they stopped doing it but as part of the Base protection policy a certain number of their officers were required to be armed with a handgun at all times regardless of their actual assignment for that day. Reason being was if the Commies (a real threat back then) tried to infiltrate the Base and take it over there would some means to slow them down until a proper response could be mounted. Maybe a better policy would be to bring back something along those lines? Just thinking out loud.

DVC
02-16-2011, 05:47 PM
There are literally hundreds of links covering FP and Fort Hood. Having just recently performed FP for visiting Sailors and having tons of time on my hands to read through reams of regulations, I recommend some light reading on the current thread.

A very general overview placing blame and responsibility on the installation commander:

Military Operations (http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/regs/r525-13.htm)
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)
FORCE PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP)

Stand-To
Fort Hood Army Internal Review Team (http://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2010/06/28/)
Scroll down to resources for the links

Interim Fort Hood Recommendations Approved (http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=13456)

Then Army dot MIL
Protecting the Force: Lessons learned from Fort Hood (http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/01/15/33006-protecting-the-force-lessons-learned-from-fort-hood/)

And DOD's independent review (http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/DOD-ProtectingTheForce-Web_Security_HR_13Jan10.pdf), which has some equally depressing and promising recommendations:

There's a every so slight recommendation revolving around Active Shooter Tactics and the lack thereof on bases. Sadly, the review concentrates more on identifying the threat and lack of communications as the problem.

Thanks Stan - hope the dinner went well. Appreciate the links. Have read most of the unclas .mil Fort Hood things I can get my hands on.

Obviously this CCW issue is only part, maybe a small part, of the question/solution (my view). But I think it is hugely important to soldier morale and warrior ethos. Besides the physical tragedy, some of the saddest things out of the Fort Hood incident were quotes of soldiers saying things like "at least if I was downrange (deployed) I could have defended myself."

Stan
02-17-2011, 02:12 PM
Thanks Stan - hope the dinner went well. Appreciate the links. Have read most of the unclas .mil Fort Hood things I can get my hands on.

DVC,
Dinner at the Argentina (http://www.argentiina.ee/) was great ! Huge grilled tiger shrimps and 250 gr of beef tenderloin :p


Obviously this CCW issue is only part, maybe a small part, of the question/solution (my view). But I think it is hugely important to soldier morale and warrior ethos. Besides the physical tragedy, some of the saddest things out of the Fort Hood incident were quotes of soldiers saying things like "at least if I was downrange (deployed) I could have defended myself."

DOD's review showed some promise by at least recommending the active shooter program. Looking at both the LEO and Army reviews following attendance at the IMS Anti-Active Shooter Tactics course (http://www.defensereview.com/article-on-israeli-anti-active-shooter-tactics-techniques-and-procedures/), this sounds like a step in the right direction without trying to simple mirror what is authorized off-post. I gather this training would probably serve the soldiers well in nearly any environment.

DVC
02-17-2011, 04:17 PM
DVC,
Dinner at the Argentina (http://www.argentiina.ee/) was great ! Huge grilled tiger shrimps and 250 gr of beef tenderloin :p



DOD's review showed some promise by at least recommending the active shooter program. Looking at both the LEO and Army reviews following attendance at the IMS Anti-Active Shooter Tactics course (http://www.defensereview.com/article-on-israeli-anti-active-shooter-tactics-techniques-and-procedures/), this sounds like a step in the right direction without trying to simple mirror what is authorized off-post. I gather this training would probably serve the soldiers well in nearly any environment.

Thanks Stan - sounds like a delicious dinner. I think the Israeli approach to active shooters has a lot of merit - did some training with the IDF on related problems.

Just to stir the pot a little - the IDF allows the rough equivalent of CCW of personal handguns for qualified NCOs and officers and, in my experience, tends to deal with active shooter situations as a team effort of all armed people (LEO, military, civilian) in the area responding as quickly as possible to the situation.

Does this track with your experience of the training?

Stan
02-18-2011, 04:50 PM
Just to stir the pot a little - the IDF allows the rough equivalent of CCW of personal handguns for qualified NCOs and officers and, in my experience, tends to deal with active shooter situations as a team effort of all armed people (LEO, military, civilian) in the area responding as quickly as possible to the situation.

Does this track with your experience of the training?

The experience I had with IDF instructors in Africa was similar. Their training concentrated on a potential D-Day and the Zairian Special Presidential Division mimicked nearly every aspect save perhaps respecting innocent civilians :D

Out of curiosity I checked out the current regs for Israel regarding weapons and found this.



Firearms in Israel (http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/israel-firearms.htm)

Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.
P.O. Box 270143
Hartford, WI 53027

Many have asked about the easy availability of firearms in the State of Israel, and whether or not they can bring their guns with them when visiting or settling there. Some have visited Israel, or have seen photographs of people walking the streets in Israel carrying firearms.Nearly everyone interested in the preservation of the Second Amendment in America points to Israel as proof of how ordinary citizens, armed and trained, are a deterrent to crime and terrorism. And it's true! However,a quick glance at the rigid gun laws in Israel will show that it has far stricter firearms laws than many people, including myself, previously thought. Enjoy reading the translation as much as I enjoyed translating the document!

In liberty,
Rabbi R. Mermelstein

DVC
03-02-2011, 06:31 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/03/02/world/europe/AP-EU-Germany-US-Airport-Shooting.html?ref=global-home

Stan
03-02-2011, 08:18 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/03/02/world/europe/AP-EU-Germany-US-Airport-Shooting.html?ref=global-home

Dude, this is a stretch, even for you ;)

This is impressive though...


Still, a member of the U.S. House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Patrick Meehan, said in Washington that it looked like a terrorist attack. The chairman of the subcommittee that focuses on terrorism and intelligence added he did not have all the facts yet and was still being briefed.

Now why would a rational person even say Sierra like that?


subcommittee that focuses on terrorism and intelligence

Not sure about the latter :D

Heh, he even tried to compare concealed carry rights to those States that recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

Since we probably will never get Germany to approve Florida State carry permits in Frankfurt while riding on buses :rolleyes: Maybe we could get the Air Farce to participate in better force protection measures instead of piling onto buses, relatively on time, altercations with strange folks, etc.

DVC
03-02-2011, 09:38 PM
Dude, this is a stretch, even for you ;)

This is impressive though...



Now why would a rational person even say Sierra like that?



Not sure about the latter :D

Heh, he even tried to compare concealed carry rights to those States that recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards.

Since we probably will never get Germany to approve Florida State carry permits in Frankfurt while riding on buses :rolleyes: Maybe we could get the Air Farce to participate in better force protection measures instead of piling onto buses, relatively on time, altercations with strange folks, etc.


Agreed on Germany recognizing U.S. CCWs. and I don't know anything about this shooting beyond the NYT piece. Should U.S.A.F.s crews carry (issue .gov) handguns? Probably be tough to get the countries they're traveling to to OK it. Seems like the European approach to violent crime is self defense is a no-go; better to be a compliant victim.

DVC
03-02-2011, 11:04 PM
Agreed on Germany recognizing U.S. CCWs. and I don't know anything about this shooting beyond the NYT piece. Should U.S.A.F.s crews carry (issue .gov) handguns? Probably be tough to get the countries they're traveling to to OK it. Seems like the European approach to violent crime is self defense is a no-go; better to be a compliant victim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362247/Two-killed-Frankfurt-airport-shots-fired-near-bus-carrying-soldiers.html

Stan
03-03-2011, 05:23 PM
Agreed on Germany recognizing U.S. CCWs. and I don't know anything about this shooting beyond the NYT piece. Should U.S.A.F.s crews carry (issue .gov) handguns? Probably be tough to get the countries they're traveling to to OK it. Seems like the European approach to violent crime is self defense is a no-go; better to be a compliant victim.

This whole scenario is puzzling. The German’s that patrol the airport are not some cheap private security apparatus and the conspicuous automatic weapons they carry mean business.

But yet, they were not paying much attention to the parking area surrounding a huge target. The Airmen were flying commercial and not permitted firearms… is going around. Huh ? Back in 2005 we flew from here to Frankfurt with our side arms and on the USAF transfer bus with us was an armed MP escort right up to our departure aircraft.

DVC
05-18-2011, 09:08 PM
http://www.jcs.mil//content/files/2011-05/050211131552_Guardian_Antiterrorism_Journal_Spring _2011.pdf