Quote Originally Posted by Pol-Mil FSO View Post
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".

Quote Originally Posted by Jason Port View Post
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.