Defensive Carry banner

Should Military members be allowed to carry on their installations?

  • Yes

    Votes: 128 91.4%
  • No

    Votes: 6 4.3%
  • Does not matter to me

    Votes: 6 4.3%

Trained Service Members carrying on a installation?

2K views 35 replies 25 participants last post by  scorpion12 
#1 ·
With the recent debates over should millitary service members be allowed to carry on a millitary installation, and the recent incident at Ft. Hood. I would be curious as to see what the fellow Amercians, feelings towards this situation would be. So here is the question:

Do you feel that Military memebers should be allowed to carry on a Military Installation, provided that they have completed all necessary training for their state that their base is located in, and/or any other traning that would be required by the Department of Defense for them to meet the necessary requriments that they have every right to set forth?

Keep in mind that they are allowed to carry off post and when in "plain/civilan" clothes (I have found nothing saying about in Uniform off post either being against regulations), but are not allowed to carry on a military installation, because they are property of the United States Government.

My vote is Yes
 
#2 ·
Actually anyone who is licensed to carry by the state should be allowed to carry on base in my opinion. As a retiree I have to travel disarmed when I want to go to the commissary or exchange, so I rarely go on base.
 
#4 ·
From a practical standpoint, even if Major Hassan was armed, if a dozen other trained and qualified troops were also armed, he would have been shot and stop almost instantly, perhaps with no loss of life.

But the irrational authorities wanted to be sure that a killer had plenty of time to raise the body count, at least that was the effect of the GFZ.

Maybe, to fit with the control model, the Pentagon and base commanders can be required to allow those officers and NCO who request to carry on base and in uniform if they have both a civilian CCW/CCH/CWP and have attended a MP class and qualified and have a clean record that includes at least 4 years service.
 
#5 ·
The right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. This right has been ours forever, before we had fire, before we became civilized, and certainly before we created government. And it will always be our right, forever, regardless of what laws are passed, and certainly regardless of one's military status. This right is as much a part of a person as the heart pumping blood. And it can no more be taken away from anyone than you can take away their heart!

In other words, I vote YES :)
 
#6 ·
Been in and around the military all my life, and I’m also a retired service member. Still, I simply can’t imagine how any post/base commander would ever go along with carry weapons. Besides, this whole Ft Hood thing will effectively slam-dunk any attempt towards such provisions. Also, I worked some investigations and I was shocked to see what goes on inside some of those base housing units. Admittedly, if other friendly's were carrying in the medical processing area, things may have turned out differently.
 
#12 ·
1) We ask these brave soldiers to go risk their lives with death or life-altering injuries, as well as the mental trauma they will carry with them for the rest of their lives.
2) We pay these people a terrible wage, considering what we ask them to do and endure in our good names.

I think the least we can do is allow them the means to defend themselves at all times. I personally would fire any commander who did not trust those under his command with firearms......
 
#14 ·
I am a newly naturalized citizen but I'm also curious as to where it says in the Constitution that military members lose their 1st and 2nd amendment rights when serving their country. That just doesn't make sense to me at all. History indicates that most mass murders seem to occur where people are forced to be disarmed. I am a realist and realize that people ignore the Constitution all the time but that doesn't make it right. It does mean that we should have more courage to defend the constitution and other citizen's rights. If we don't, it won't take long before OUR rights are also taken away.
 
#17 ·
I am a newly naturalized citizen but I'm also curious as to where it says in the Constitution that military members lose their 1st and 2nd amendment rights when serving their country. That just doesn't make sense to me at all. History indicates that most mass murders seem to occur where people are forced to be disarmed. I am a realist and realize that people ignore the Constitution all the time but that doesn't make it right. It does mean that we should have more courage to defend the constitution and other citizen's rights. If we don't, it won't take long before OUR rights are also taken away.
+1

Congrats on your citizenship!
 
#19 ·
IMHO, anyone who voted "No" in this poll needs to be investigated.:image035:
 
#20 ·
A lot of it has to do with training and the requirements for carrying while stationed AND in a duty status while state-side. The most-basic line of thought is that AD members (and I'm active duty) are in the military for war-fighting purposes and carrying a firearm while in the CONUS isn't part of our job discription. Having soliders carrying would bring up a LOT more questions.

Specifically training AD members to allow them to carry, in uniform while at 'home', would cost time and money the military dosn't have. I'm not saying it's right, that's just the way it is.


Having said that, I still voted 'yes'.
 
#21 ·
We don't have a problem with them carrying in a combat zone,we trust them with handguns, long guns,grenades etc.just because they are stateside makes no difference,we are at war,and there is no easier target for a buncha jihadists than unarmed soldiers,Israel is shocked that our soldiers were unarmed.In Israel almost everybody is armed and trained including school teachers.You say sure but Israel has Lebanon and Iran right on their doorstep...Yep and we got them inside our borders.Time to wake up and smell the camel dung
 
#26 ·
We don't have a problem with them carrying in a combat zone,we trust them with handguns, long guns,grenades etc., just because they are stateside makes no difference.......
I believe in your line of thought, but I also believe there would be a lot of people that wouldn't trust us. Having a standing army armed (CC or otherwise) would raise questions/issues. Certinaly not from 'us' but definatly the public at large.

we are at war,and there is no easier target for a buncha jihadists than unarmed soldiers,.....
Agreed

Israel is shocked that our soldiers were unarmed.In Israel almost everybody is armed and trained including school teachers. You say sure but Israel has Lebanon and Iran right on their doorstep...Yep and we got them inside our borders.Time to wake up and smell the camel dung
I been to Isreal and seen what your saying first hand. 'Our' citizens have not had to live with the fear that Iseral does daily. I pray it never comes to that.

Any Active Duty (licensed to carry or not) 'should' have the trust of his or her commands. That just is not reality. My experience has been that nothing happens, or is allowed, until training is conducted.....and that costs money none of the services have and takes time that many of our service members don't haveand won't be alloted. The current POTUS wouldn't even think of granting his commanders that permission anyhow

Our Armed Forces 'should' be armed to protect not only it's citizens but each other as well.
 
#22 ·
The people on here voting no, and trying to give reasons as to why our soliers should be unarmed sound no different than all the antis in Chicago, DC, NYC, and so on.

Admit it, you are against CC to some point if you don't want them carrying.
 
#24 ·
I'm not against them having to meet certain training criteria, similar to a CCP. But I think all should be given a chance, not just certain ranks/titles.

(I really have no idea what NCO is or what it takes to be an officer), but that sounds to me like you're in favor of highly regulated MAY ISSUE.

Not me, the only way to keep it open to (almost) anyone is shall issue.
 
#25 ·
I hate the base laws about weapons.

I lived in the barracks for 4 years. I owned several firearms. In order to legally have them with me, I would have had to keep them in the armory and have to check them out when an armorer was conveniently there, but only after getting a letter from the commanding officer each time. Basically, impossible.

I live in town now, and it's great. I can keep all my guns in my residence without worrying about anything...but I still have to commute to and from work unarmed since I can't just leave it in my truck either when I'm on base. That means if I want to stop and run errands or what not on my way home, I can't carry there either.

I would love to see carry allowed on military installations...by civilians and military, but I could understand reasoning for doing military only. I agree with what someone said though that it would be impossible to get commanders to sign off on that...they want to take every step possible to keep fatalities under their command to a minimum, and they would only see it as military members are going to start shooting each other. Even if the law was changed to say carry would be allowed on military installations, base commanders can still say "not on my base".
 
#27 ·
Hi First Sgt

Rather than me running down the laws and regs you might need to learn by the school of hard knocks so do this.
Make a sign and go to the city hall. The sign should say that the mayor is a dunce and doesn’t have the sense to find his way to work. You will be protected by your first amendment rights. Now do the same thing on a military base but substitute the name of the CG, and take it to the HQ and demonstrate.
Now see if you are protected by your free speech rights. There are very stringent limitations on your free speech. If you advanced to the rank of First Sgt you know that.

For the 2nd amendment rights, go to a city in a state that has OC. Make it Sierra Vista, AZ. Carry your gun all over the city. You are protected by the law to do such.
Then go to Fort Huachuca. You might get in the gate in your car without a search. But when you get in get out of the auto, strap on your handgun and walk around the post and go to the PX. See if you have your rights "infringed" as many would say.

If you do those things and get by with it, I will apologize and realize that you do not lose anything regarding free speech and gun rights when you go into the military service.

There are many senior NCO's and WOs who are extremely capable, and responsible. However, since I would not want junior officers carrying I would not give others a privilege that they do not have. I would not want a company commander prohibited while his 1st Sgt carried. That is my view for better or worse. Not sure how it works today, but in my day "Ranks has it's privileges." But I would make sure they had proper training and skills.

I think that is all I will say about that except that CONUS military installations are among the safest places on earth, and the FT Hood tragedy does not change that. I really see no need to carry weapons on a stateside post. I know you disagree, but then we can disagree and see how we do on the next thread.:wave:

Regards,
Jerry
 
#28 ·
Hi First Sgt

Rather than me running down the laws and regs you might need to learn by the school of hard knocks so do this.
Make a sign and go to the city hall. The sign should say that the mayor is a dunce and doesn’t have the sense to find his way to work. You will be protected by your first amendment rights. Now do the same thing on a military base but substitute the name of the CG, and take it to the HQ and demonstrate.
Now see if you are protected by your free speech rights. There are very stringent limitations on your free speech. If you advanced to the rank of First Sgt you know that. IF?? Now now...

For the 2nd amendment rights, go to a city in a state that has OC. Make it Sierra Vista, AZ. Carry your gun all over the city. You are protected by the law to do such.
Then go to Fort Huachuca. You might get in the gate in your car without a search. But when you get in get out of the auto, strap on your handgun and walk around the post and go to the PX. See if you have your rights "infringed" as many would say.

If you do those things and get by with it, I will apologize and realize that you do not lose anything regarding free speech and gun rights when you go into the military service.

There are many senior NCO's and WOs who are extremely capable, and responsible. However, since I would not want junior officers carrying I would not give others a privilege that they do not have. I would not want a company commander prohibited while his 1st Sgt carried. That is my view for better or worse. Not sure how it works today, but in my day "Ranks has it's privileges." But I would make sure they had proper training and skills.

I think that is all I will say about that except that CONUS military installations are among the safest places on earth, and the FT Hood tragedy does not change that. I really see no need to carry weapons on a stateside post. I know you disagree, but then we can disagree and see how we do on the next thread.:wave:

Regards,
Jerry
I don't disagree with your examples in para 1 nor para 2, however, you still have not cited nor referenced ANY reg that takes away the 1st and 2nd Amendment rights of military personnel. That's all I asked you to cite. As to "Rank Having It's Priveleges", the last time I checked the regs (granted, it's been a few years), the 1st Sgt has authority OVER all enlisted and officer personnel concerning violations of regulations, otherwise "Rank does have it's priveleges". But, that is sometimes overkill when you pull your rank to get a point across. I'm sure based on the experience you appear to have had, you led by example as I did. As you say..I know you disagree, but then we can disagree and see how we do on the next thread...It's always interesting to swap dissenting views on things. Keeps the mind alert and hopefully open to change. I appreciate your views. Look forward to reading more of your posts in the forums.
 
#29 ·
At the very least,NCO's and officers should all be armed with sidearms to protect their troops from a surprise attack on stateside bases,and all it takes is a direct order from their commander in chief and there ain't no Base Commander gonna say not on my base,unless he wants reassigned
 
#30 ·
I just posted this on another thread. 1st SGT, thanks for the great discussion points!!!

It is amazing how gung ho/hardcore people can be when they themselves are not currently in that situation. They think because they did a 3 yr hitch they know, all very interesting indeed.

I do have constitutional rights. A few months ago we (my unit) received an order to right down all weapons seriel numbers and type of weapons to give to the commander. The weapons had to then be registerd on post, even if living off post in a house that I OWN. The commander would then decide who could keep a weapon and which ones he wanted in the arms room.

A little bird wrote his congressman the NRA and the local news. A simple statement "did that little bird" have the right to defend his family? I can promise you one thing that whole idea was dropped so fast it wasnt even funny. No one was allowed to even discuss that it was ordered.

So tell me I have no constitutional rights. The day I relenquish my right to defend my family because I am defending yours and you have no compassion or support for me ....well that is the day I say Prepare to Defend yourself!!!

To all of the supporters of my right to defend myself Thank You
 
#31 ·
I served with some people that I wouldn't want watching my back in a dark alley much less with a loaded gun. I served with some that I consider pipe hitters I'd walk through hell and back with too.

This is a question that cuts both ways. We do have an unalienable right from God and documented by the Second Amendment of the Constitution to keep and bear arms. But I know some folks that I just would not be comfortable being around with a loaded firearm even if it does violate their rights.

I think that some type of rapid reaction force made up of select individuals that have been vetted would be a smart thing to do given todays situation but guns for all, I can't warm up to that.

These same outstanding young Americans that are under the age of 21 are old enough to go spill their blood but too young to legally drink a beer. That to me is more shameful that not giving them a gun to carry while CONUS.

Be Safe,

NosaM
 
#32 ·
People who vote "No" in this thread while sitting at home with a firearm within reach remind me of Rosie Odonnell for some strange reason...
It's ok for them to protect themselves and their loved ones, but not ok for everybody else. :hand1:

Voted yes (the only rational choice). People should always have the right to defend themselves, regardless of location. (in a park, at a university, in a military base, at the mall, in your own home, etc...)

-Plop
 
#34 ·
Ok, since the door has been opened, I voted no, but then again, I'm caught in the middle on this because I do feel that some should be allowed to prevent such occcurences from becoming blood baths. Whe I was stationed at Chanute AFB, IL back in the early 80s before it closed, we had an incident of shots fired at the East Gate Entrance (Champaign/Urbana) Highway Entrance to the base. We responded not knowing, upon our arrival, the idiot doing the shooting was the Gate Guard, he was firing at the birds, traffice was backed up, people were hiding and scared, he lost it, luckily he obeyed our ordes to lay his weapon down, he was 21 years old.

So yes, I voted no, but I do think somemore then just the Police should be armed throughout the base, response times in minutes is a long time when someone is shooting the place up.
 
#33 ·
I'm glad to see someone has finally started a poll on this subject! Soldiers on base can be just as responsible as civilians that carry legitimately. Soldiers have every right to defend themselves too. God Bless all of them!
 
#35 ·
My earlier thoughts on service and rights.

I do not like to be unarmed. I will however readily admit that there can be circumstances where prohibiting weapons is safer than allowing them.

If a facility has sufficient access control, regularly searches all who enter, and has armed security in sufficient numbers to quickly suppress any violence, then I have no problem with them prohibiting weapons.

If a commander wants to ban weapons, I think he should be able to. But I think he should have met a minimum standard of security before such a prohibition can be enforced.

In the case of Ft. Hood, I doubt the searches were adequate, and judging by the fact that DOD police took 3 minutes to arrive, there was not sufficient security.

These major installations while there security may not be ideal is quite a step above many of our other military facilities. Next time you're at the local mall take a gander at the recruiting offices.
 
#36 ·
It should be all or none. Military and civilians able to carry on base. I think it shouldn't be limited to senior nco's or field grade officers either.... Sure, E-8's and Lt Colonels will be armed... but not all of them are everywhere at once... junior enlisted are more prevalent on bases and they should be afforded the same opportunities that everyone else is to defend themselves.

I know I feel safer in Iraq and Afghanistan with every single military person around me carrying a weapon... they may not be locked and loaded but they do have their ammunition at the ready if it's needed.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top