Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

[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

[Old Eagle]

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.

[Joske]

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]

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 (1829).

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.

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).

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]

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]

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]

To heck with guns. I want to know why I can't carry my bow on base.

[J Wolfsberger]

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.

[82redleg]

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.

[DVC]

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

[Pol-Mil FSO]

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.