Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 97

Thread: Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

    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?
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-08-2011 at 08:52 PM. Reason: Citation in quotes, not italics

  2. #2
    Registered User awesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6

    Default Agreed

    I absolutely agree with you 100% and then some.

  3. #3
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Where will you draw the line ?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    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.
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  4. #4
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Stan:

    Couldn't all the arguments you made be just as easily be made against concealed carry laws in general?
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  5. #5
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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
    If you want to blend in, take the bus

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  8. #8
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  9. #9
    Registered User SlimRickins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg, NC
    Posts
    4

    Default idiotic

    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

  10. #10
    Registered User SlimRickins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Fort Bragg, NC
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DVC View Post
    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.

  11. #11
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SlimRickins View Post
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  12. #12
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default What about open carry ?

    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

  14. #14
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    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.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

  15. #15
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    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.

  16. #16
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    [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

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Exactly

    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):

    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

  18. #18
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I don't think it's a matter of trust. It's a matter of just don't do it.

  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default I'm not howling

    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. Why I feel that way is laid out in Justice Thomas' opinion in McDonald v Chicago (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 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:

    Gun Control - Dred Scott.JPG

    which correctly quotes from the majority opinion (60 US at 416-417).

    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

  20. #20
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default U.S. Code

    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Vietnam collection (lessons plus)
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 06-27-2014, 04:40 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-14-2010, 02:38 PM
  3. Conference on Professional Military Education
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-08-2006, 10:58 PM
  4. Iraqis Adapt British Military Academy as Model
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-27-2006, 09:16 AM
  5. Better Jointness Needed Between Military and Diplomats
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-18-2006, 11:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •