This is a discussion on Why can I not carry concealed in Uniform or on Post? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Jim Macklin Call your Congressman [in both states] and explain how vulnerable you feel. Explain the facts as you know them and ...
Why? Gee, I'd guess to defend their lives and the lives of their loved ones? How crazy!!!solider boy wants to carry his gun on base in uniform..why I don't have the slightest clue
It sure is a good thing all those whiny "soldier boys" at Fort Hood didn't have guns - they might have interfered with poor Maj. Hasan's inalienable right to shoot unarmed victims...
Man, following the forum rules against personal attacks is hard sometimes...
A man fires a rifle for many years, and he goes to war. And afterward he turns the rifle in at the armory, and he believes he's finished with the rifle. But no matter what else he might do with his hands - love a woman, build a house, change his son's diaper - his hands remember the rifle.
Start a request mast or equivalent to exhaust administrative remedies - I venture to say it will take you nowhere as I don't forsee any CGs going for it. In the USMC you can request (you do not have a right to) a hearing up to the SECNAV if I remember correctly, and it has to be forwarded as recomended (don't see that hapening either). After you have taken all steps to fix the griveance inhouse, then you may file a law suit against the US, much like the Heller Vs DC case, and maybe don't get NJPd. Some JAG may throw in their 2 cents here, as I remember rummors of AD military being unable to sue the US while on AD, but if it goes against your constitutional rights...
I can no longer keep track of threads as I used to. If you need to contact me, PM me instead of asking me something in the thread. Disclaimer - No legal advice issued anywhere. Take care.
You may disagree, but I believe the right to keep and bear arms is a big deal.
Wow now that is alot to read.
I for one would like the right to carry on post. Alot of things happen on post that would make me feel alot safer carrying my weapon.
In the mean time I have other options that I use legally, not optimal, but the best that can be done.
I would like to add, I despise the term "soldier boy" when it is being used in an obviously derogatory manner. I politely request that it not be used anymore.
When we discuss things we all have opinions and I hope we all know the old saying about opinions. Besides, personall attacks really distract from any substance your post may have had if any.
The question we are discussing is not whether it is legal to carry on base. The question, rather, is why is it not allowed? The only answers we have gotten so far seem to be:
Our soldiers are more prone to violence than civilians, and can not be trusted with firearms.
That's just the way is, it will never change, deal with it
Because that's what the law/regulation/commander says
The first two are just ridiculous. The last just brings us back to the original question: Why?
Just because there is a rule or law, and people follow it, does that make the law just?
I am going to address these somewhat ridiculous assumptions.
Perhaps he has been in combat and had to fire a gun in self defense...or even to eliminate an enemy in an offensive capability. Perhaps he does not to want to be helpless in the event of another mass shooting such as the Fort Hood Massacre or countless others on military bases through out the years.You are making the issue a little more than what it is...solider boy wants to carry his gun on base in uniform..why I don't have the slightest clue...but he is allowed to carry off base but he is not happy with that.
Perhaps he is astute enough to realize that it is not a matter of "if", but "when" it happens again.
You said that you don't have a clue why he wants to carry off base. Perhaps like any other warrior, once you bear arms, you don't want to put them away and the whatever clothes you happen to be wearing at the time have little bearing on that.
.No, he wants to carry his gun everywhere he goes so everybody can see he owns a gun.....so since you think he has a right to do so, lets allow him to carry wherever he goes...like on a plane or maybe even the White House while we are it.....give me a break
On the contrary. Most people that want to defend themselves don't want others to know that they carry, in fact, its the last thing that they want people to know. And really now, why not carry on a plane or at the White House. Most of us that do have a clue realize that the gun free zones are target rich environments that encourage bad things to happen.
I fail to see what some grunt that can be trusted to drive a tank, a nuclear submarine,some of the worlds most advance aircraft or be at the trigger of some of the most destructive weapons that history has ever seen, all of a sudden cant be trusted to carry a handgun in which to defend himself with.
Not only it is ridiculously simple minded to deny a man that right, but it is incredibly stupid.
That is correct. There are a few states left where the citizens of that state do not enjoy the rights of the majority of states. I find it quite ironic that most citizens can defend themselves with a gun if need be, and others will be more vigorously prosecuted than the criminals that tried to kill them if they choose to defend themselves...if they live in those states that don't hand out licenses like they do vehicle registrations.Some people in this country live in states that don't allow anybody to carry guns....some states don't hand out CCW's like they hand out vehicle registrations.
In your mind perhaps. Not mine.So he should be happy that he at least has the right to carry off base .....thats what I am saying
Oh yes. I see where exactly where you are coming from.get it?
Freedom of speech means nothing to those who are too weak in their convictions to speak out against the evil that eating the heart of a nation like a cancer- Billy Graham
AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
Maker of cool things to shoot
How many atacks in the PX or other place on a base is anyone aware of?
My point is that military bases in the US are probably the safest places in the country overall. This one instance is not going to change anything regarding carrying on a military base.
Why must a trained soldier be cast as a lessor citizen. Consider the fact that in basic training, a soldier must have his rifle in his possession 24 hours a day, although unloaded except when at the firing range. Perhaps graduation should entitle them to be evated to the same level of trust as we place in an untrained or inadequately trained citizen.
Even if we assume that an armed soldier may pose some additional danger to his comrades (i.e. accidents, etc.), the concept that the military be bestowed with responsibility to handle and be trusted with loaded firearms is the historic purpose of the military. To say that because the military post is safe, their ultimate safety instead may be entrusted only to civilians is ludicrous and insulting.
Live every day so that you can, with a clear conscience, look all men in their eyes and tell them to go to hell.
As to the question of why, I will quote myself from here.
If a commander authorizes a subordinate to carry a weapon, and the subordinate does something inappropriate, that commander will be faulted.
If a commander does not authorize the subordinate, but the subordinate does something stupid with a weapon anyway, they probably won't fault the commander.
If there is an immediately foreseeable threat, and the commander does not arm the troops, he may be faulted against that.
In this situation, there was no enemy contact expected, so the commander will not be accountable for insisting the troops be unarmed.
The commander has no incentive to arm the troops, and every incentive to disarm them.
That is probably one of the best answers that I have recieved yet, however.
If a commander authorizes a subordinate to carry a weapon, and the subordinate does something appropriate (and saves a life), that commander will be _________?
Fill in the blank please?
Taurus PT 145 Pro .45 ACP
Taurus 24/7 Pro C .9mm
Glock 26 .9mm
Diamonback DB380 .380 ACP
The military only wants their LE entities to be armed on base for the same reason many civilian LEAs despise the idea of private citizen CC, the perception that fewer or no firearms makes for a safer environment.
Desperate people do desperate things in desperate situations.
Heavily medicated for your protection.
Kimber Tactical Custom II, SIS Pro
Given explicit orders to never again issue weapons without the expressed authorization of his higher command.
The solution is not for commanders to authorize troops to carry, because they won't.
If we want our service members to be able to defend themselves, we will have to take the commanders out of the equation.
That I agree with
Taurus PT 145 Pro .45 ACP
Taurus 24/7 Pro C .9mm
Glock 26 .9mm
Diamonback DB380 .380 ACP