Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

[Pete]

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]

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]

"Dont take your guns to town, leave your guns at home."

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

[stanleywinthrop]

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.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)
FORCE PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP)

Stand-To
Fort Hood Army Internal Review Team
Scroll down to resources for the links

Interim Fort Hood Recommendations Approved

Then Army dot MIL
Protecting the Force: Lessons learned from Fort Hood

And DOD's independent review, 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]

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]

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
UNITED STATES ARMY TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND (TRADOC)
FORCE PROTECTION PROGRAM (FPP)

Stand-To
Fort Hood Army Internal Review Team
Scroll down to resources for the links

Interim Fort Hood Recommendations Approved

Then Army dot MIL
Protecting the Force: Lessons learned from Fort Hood

And DOD's independent review, 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."