Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

[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.

[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

[Stan]

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 don't see the need for an across the board concealed permit. There's got to be a better method available. Much like you opined, the weapon should be out in the open. That would in fact then support your theory about Hasan. It would be staring him in the face -- although the crazies I've encountered didn't seem to mind that I was also evidently armed.

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.

It wouldn't just be Big Army calling the shots anymore and the first incident would be the last time we discussed this topic

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 terrorist, 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.

This is where I disagree most. Those two incidents should have never seen the light of day and they are far from the first. So Hasan gets a firearm and gets on base. Too many MPs just waving us on by with barely a glance at the base sticker. So what if it takes time to get on base.

When I was at Bliss just about everybody and their grandma had a firearm in their pickup. Those that weren't out in the open ended up on base without as much as an ID check. Hasan proved that theory works.

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.

I'll site five of the worst events I was involved in where age, rank and behavior weren't enough of determining factors.

1980, a 2ID NCO freaks out on the rifle range and downloads a 20-round mag on the entire firing line. Damn good thing his bolt jammed or he'd have reloaded and commenced all over again. We never did figure out which screw came loose !

1981, a communications PFC returns from guard duty just behind me in the line to the armory with a still loaded/round in the chamber, M16. When I asked him to not point that at me and unload it per post rules, he stuck the barrel in my face. With no place to run and hide, I kneed him in the balls and grabbed the weapon as shots rang off into the air.

1990, a Marine Gunny just returns home and does in his family and then himself.

1991, a Marine CPL leaves his post and heads to the "react room" and promptly does Russian Roulette with his S&W model 10.

1998, a former NCO and communications specialist performs Russian Roulette with his Colt Commander

IMO there's enough reason not to grant across the board anything.

[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.

[Stan]

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.

Hey Slap,
Yep, you did, and it was friggin' strange then as it would still be today !

I was trying to find that article you scanned and posted, to put up here again (with your permission of course ).

Now we've got news of military gangs (or is it gang members joining the ranks to learn about firearms and tactics ?). This would indeed not be a good time to have anarchy on a domestic base.

On the overseas base I was on, all the 20 year olds carried guns. Sometimes they even managed to get drunk.

Carl,
That would have been considered normal on base and in a war zone (carrying guns that is).

[carl]

I don't see the need for an across the board concealed permit. There's got to be a better method available. Much like you opined, the weapon should be out in the open. That would in fact then support your theory about Hasan. It would be staring him in the face -- although the crazies I've encountered didn't seem to mind that I was also evidently armed.

I can't second guess you nor Redleg regarding on base concerns. You guys been there, me no. So any questions I ask will just be questions, or observations.

As far civilian concealed carry, I think it works well enough, not perfect but well enough. I don't know exactly what you mean by across the board concealed permit, but there is no reason not to have restrictions on the mentally ill and others who pose a concern. I read once that a pattern of repeated traffic violations is a red flag so you could even tie the permit to that.

In the civilian world, one of the arguments in favor of concealed carry is that the criminal can't see who is armed and who isn't. Therefore he has to keep in his small mind that anybody might be. That idea helps protect even those who aren't

This is where I disagree most. Those two incidents should have never seen the light of day and they are far from the first. So Hasan gets a firearm and gets on base. Too many MPs just waving us on by with barely a glance at the base sticker. So what if it takes time to get on base.

When I was at Bliss just about everybody and their grandma had a firearm in the pick-up. Those that weren't out in the open ended up on base without as much as an ID check. Hasan proved that theory works.

If somebody wants to get an illegal firearm in they will. It just isn't practicable to search each vehicle so thoroughly as to prevent it. Concealed carry would have no effect on that at all.

I'll site five of the worst events I was involved in where age, rank and behavior weren't enough of determining factors.

1980, a 2ID NCO freaks out on the rifle range and downloads a 20-round mag on the entire firing line. Damn good thing his bolt jammed or he'd have reloaded and commenced all over again. We never did figure out which screw came loose !

1981, a communications PFC returns from guard duty just behind me in the line to the armory with a still loaded/round in the chamber, M16. When I asked him to not point that at me and unload it per post rules, he stuck the barrel in my face. With no place to run and hide, I kneed him in the balls and grabbed the weapon as shots rang off into the air.

1990, a Marine Gunny just returns home and does in his family and then himself.

1991, a Marine CPL leaves his post and heads to the "react room" and promptly does Russian Roulette with his S&W model 10.

1998, a former NCO and communications specialist performs Russian Roulette with his Colt Commander

IMO there's enough reason not to grant across the board anything.

All those incidents are tragic or potentially tragic. But (don't hit me) they are neither here nor there as far as concealed carry goes.

I never had any thing like what happened to you happen to me, but I am always surprised how hostile people sometimes get when they are told not to fool around with a weapon.

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 !

My opinion is most people who apply for CCW are interested in guns and practice on their own. People with an interest and who practice can pretty often get it right.

[Stan]

I can't second guess you nor Redleg regarding on base concerns. You guys been there, me no. So any questions I ask will just be questions, or observations.

Hey Carl,
I wasn't looking for more than your thoughts as an LEO, and what takes place on base generally takes place elsewhere, but with far less discipline.

As far civilian concealed carry, I think it works well enough, not perfect but well enough. I don't know exactly what you mean by across the board concealed permit, but there is no reason not to have restrictions on the mentally ill and others who pose a concern. I read once that a pattern of repeated traffic violations is a red flag so you could even tie the permit to that.

Sorry, somewhere in this thread was a hint of "across the board" grants, not you per se.

The Estonians use driving infractions to determine whether a gun owner can continue to use and/or carry a firearm. It's obviously one of many indicators, but seems they threaten withdrawal of carry permits to keep the speeders in line. Hmmm, wonder if a hunter that took more than his seasonal permit, could have his driving license suspended

In the civilian world, one of the arguments in favor of concealed carry is that the criminal can't see who is armed and who isn't. Therefore he has to keep in his small mind that anybody might be. That idea helps protect even those who aren't.

Good point !

If somebody wants to get an illegal firearm in they will. It just isn't practicable to search each vehicle so thoroughly as to prevent it. Concealed carry would have no effect on that at all.

I would think that beefing up gate security would still affect some similar to current laxed standards at airports.

All those incidents are tragic or potentially tragic. But (don't hit me) they are neither here nor there as far as concealed carry goes.

I was more or less commenting on your post about the means available with which the military could screen potential candidates for concealed carry on base. My point being rank and age did not play any significant role. They were all nut cases and most in positions of responsibility (which, by default granted them access to firearms).

My opinion is most people who apply for CCW are interested in guns and practice on their own. People with an interest and who practice can pretty often get it right.

My point was basically in response to the best of the best in today's Army. There are not that many of us that are specifically trained like most LEOs to draw and fire a concealed weapon... it's not the Army way

[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.

[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.

[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.

[slapout9]

I was trying to find that article you scanned and posted, to put up here again (with your permission of course ).

Hey Stan,
It's still around the SWC somewhere, I already gave permission when I put it up the first time....I guess I did anyway people should learn from it, but we don't learn as well as we should IMO.
In general my situation happens more often then you would think it just doesn't get reported or talked about as much in the media.

CCW in Alabama I haven't checked recently but CCW were void at Government faculties (any level) Church,Sporting events and Bars (anyplace serving alcohol).

Nice discussion from all, both pro and con. I was a CQ-runner in the 82nd Airborne in the fall of 72 or spring of 73 when we had a guy come in and shoot a guy in the platoon bay because he didn't like the music he was playing. The shooter then took his clothes off and climbed in his bunk and went to sleep until the MP's arrived. The victim was taken to the hospital where he was treated and he survived and eventually returned to duty but it took awhile. Guys with guns and booze and testosterone in confined spaces might not really be 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.

[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