Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

[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.

[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.

[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.

[slapout9]

A question. If the CCW was recognized by the military just exactly how would that make anybody safer? Safety/Security is that what the end goal is?

[DVC]

A question. If the CCW was recognized by the military just exactly how would that make anybody safer? Safety/Security is that what the end goal is?

If you agree with the Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," Safety/Security is not the end goal, it's liberty.

On a less philosophical level in a "Fort Hood" situation, CCW has the potential to greatly reduce casualties because "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away"

Nidal Hassan shot and continued to shoot unarmed soldiers and civilians at the Soldier Readiness Center for eight and a half minutes prior to the police arriving. Officers Munley and Todd shot and incapacitated Hassan 90 seconds after they arrived. Doing the math on 13 killed and 40 wounded, that's 4.3 victims for every minute the attack lasted.

It is highly likely if qualified soldiers were authorized to carry concealed handguns, someone at the Soldier Readiness Center could have stopped Hassan in considerably less than 10 minutes.

[Copperhead]

Trusting soldiers with loaded weapons? Preposterous!

Next thing you know they'll be requiring deployed personnel to carry weapons and loaded magazines with them at all times or not letting them enter the DFAC on the FOB without a weapon and ammunition.

The attitude of "can't trust 'em with weapons" prevalent in so many of the responses on this thread is the same mentality that has resulted in the reflective belt and clearing barrel approach to risk management. Training soldiers is too hard and trusting them to do the right thing is too risky, so let's slap a band-aid on it and make sure the boys have signed a roster stating they have received the mandatory briefing so my ass is covered.

It never fails to amaze me just how many military and LE personnel are anti-2nd Amendment because of their own smug sense of superiority.

[Ken White]

Trusting soldiers with loaded weapons? Preposterous!...It never fails to amaze me just how many military and LE personnel are anti-2nd Amendment because of their own smug sense of superiority.

I've noticed those things also. Also noticed that if Joe (in a professional as opposed to a citizen or conscripted force) can't be trusted, he shouldn't be there and if he can't shoot, someone didn't teach him...

Risk is reduced by best practice, it never goes away. Risk aversion is 'hated' by most, practiced by way too many.

Addendum: I am compelled by an irate son -- one of two who are career LE types and both of whom put a hitch in the Army -- to add that in his experience, more LE types support the Second Amendment than do not and most also totally support and encourage CCW. I'm sure after he e-mails his brother I will have heard the same thing from both...

[Ken White]

The issue of concealed bows is just too bulky to get into here.

the point???

[Ken White]

A question. If the CCW was recognized by the military just exactly how would that make anybody safer? Safety/Security is that what the end goal is?

Safety is a bicycle helmet and a reflective belt, security is what you put out when you don't want to be caught unaware -- or a blanket one can carry...

Not to worry, the USAF (Armed Forces) will never recognize CCW. Mostly because there is no restriction on weapon type and we can't have such a heinous lack of uniformity (It would cause too many CSMs to have a stroke...).

[Stan]

It never fails to amaze me just how many military and LE personnel are anti-2nd Amendment because of their own smug sense of superiority.

That Sierra might have worked when Clinton was in office and the NRA was in the fast lane, but it doesn't help now. Please find the time to amaze me with something more than Second Amendment speeches.

[Ken White]

IMO it's a true statement. Are their more people in both professions who don't act that way? Sure. Most do not -- but there are some that do. I think he was merely expressing puzzlement, I know it puzzles me. The West Coast Cop son says it's mostly the upper echelon Cops who are opposed and it's political. The East Coast guy says it's more complex than that and he believes that it's environmental. I think it's in part both of those things plus a genetic tendency. Dunno. Some are smug in their own ability to have or handle weapons but most aren't so it's complex. Regardless, the attitude existed long before Bill Clinton went to High School and when the NRA had well less than a million members. I was briefly a Cop in 1955 and in the Army in 56 and that negative attitude was around both jobs then, never went away completely and in fact, in the Army, is probably a bit better now than it was 15-20 years ago.

Academic in any event because it's not going to happen on a broad basis -- there are already some duty and not LE related exceptions -- and as long as the Army maintains its focus on Mass, it should not for the many reasons cited above.

The fact that it won't happen is pretty much a given. That some in the services and LE do not think any civilian should have a weapon and some who disapprove of CCW is also a fact. Unlike the first fact, it isn't terribly relevant. It's just a comment on human factors.

[selil]

the point???

Actually the point of a broadhead can due severe injury and a well tuned bow is nearly silent.

[Pete]

Selil is clearly a guy who has paid his dues, that I can tell.

Are their more people in both professions ...

Spoken like a guy who's been there and done that.

[Ken White]

Actually the point of a broadhead can due severe injury and a well tuned bow is nearly silent.

attempts at sub-tile hoomer fell flat.

[Pete]

Ken, what pray tell would your Grandfather at the Louisville Courier-Journal have said about that? Guys like me can be of real assistance to knuckle-draggers when it comes to writing field manuals, not to mention help with menus and road signs.

[Ken White]

Uh, what's a menu?

[selil]

attempts at sub-tile hoomer fell flat.

Nyah. I'm just trying to derail. I wrote up a long academese post and said.. Nyah. I'd rather be a drive-by.

I'll go run 5 miles in penance.

[Ken White]

Nyah. I'm just trying to derail. I wrote up a long academese post and said.. Nyah. I'd rather be a drive-by.

Not that. This:

I'll go run 5 miles in penance.

-- never run when you can walk, never walk when you can ride -- use the Bike...

[selil]

Not that. This: -- never run when you can walk, never walk when you can ride -- use the Bike...

Nyah. Earlier this year I completely blew out my ACL while sparring. I'm running as much as I can to get the leg back into shape. I've got a marathon to run, and a 100 miler next year I want to run. I'm slow but I still got some go.

[Pete]

Just make sure you sing this when you go running:

One-seventy-third
Patch on my shoulder
Pick up your weapon and follow me
We are the Airborne Infantry