Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

[DVC]

31 JAN letter to the Army Times at http://www.armytimes.com/community/o...ditor-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]

I absolutely agree with you 100% and then some.

[Stan]

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

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]

Stan:

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

[Stan]

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

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

[carl]

As a former LEO where do you stand

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.

[Stan]

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

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

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

[DVC]

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

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.

[SlimRickins]

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.

[Stan]

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

[J Wolfsberger]

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

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. )

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.

[SlimRickins]

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. )

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.

[DVC]

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

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/201...or-murder.html Baltimore LEO indicted for killing Marine

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

http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/05...convicted.html Fort Worth LEO convicted of shooting wife’s lover

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/2...ndictments.ap/ GA LEO kill women in a botched drug raid

http://www.necn.com/Boston/Nation/Fo...204197380.html Ohio LEO kills pregnant mistress

http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news...n1KXdscSA.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.

[Stan]

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
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

[carl]

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.

[slapout9]

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 and to make it worse he was actually working as an Alabama State employee at a State Trooper Stationat 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]

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. More particularly, see Michigan's Concealed Pistol Law - Frequently Asked Questions.

And to get into details, look at Pistol Free Areas:

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:

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]

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]

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]

[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