November 6th, 2009 06:10 PM
Federal facilities; let's write a bill
With the ongoing discussions about Ft. Hood, and specifically the prohibition on carry on military installations, I figured now might be a good time to discuss how best to correct this situation.
Here's where I'm coming from:
Events overseas show that our enemies have a growing propensity to attack softer targets. They don't attack military facilities so much as they attack recruiting stations, buses of soldiers coming home from training, and marketplaces.
Attacks and attack conspiracies on military facilities in the U.S. seem to be on the rise (e.g. New York City, Ft. Dix, Ft. Huachuca, Little Rock, and now Ft. Hood).
An attack was carried out with some degree of success even on a facility with relatively (compared to non-military facilities) high security procedures.
Federal and military facilities have varying degrees of security (some more, and many less than Ft. Hood)
It is evident that the security provided is not completely effective in stopping these attacks.
It is unlikely that we can increase the security budget enough to make a real difference.
It is also evident, that many servicemembers do not meet the standards of most states to qualify for a concealed carry endorsement.
Here's a couple of ideas I've had:
1. Set a minimum standard for security at a federal facility. This would involve complete access control, searches of all persons entering, and armed security personnel at a designated ratio to non-security personnel.
Any facility that did not meet such requirements could not restrict the carrying of weapons.
Problems I see with this are that military commanders would still prohibit carry as a sort of unofficial policy, or they would divert funding to meet security standards while neglecting other obligations.
2. Establish an endorsement for carry on federal property. Here I would imagine a shall issue process with requirements similar to the states.
I see this as an issue because military commanders should have a wide degree of control over what happens within their commands.
Maybe we can come up with something worthwhile to present to our representatives.
November 6th, 2009 06:31 PM
The major who carried out this dastardly deed could have easily had a permit (if they were allowing them), but then there could have been a lot of others who were armed who could have prevented the 'spree'.
The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member[/B]
November 6th, 2009 06:58 PM
Daddy W. wrote: "1. Set a minimum standard for security at a federal facility. This would involve complete access control, searches of all persons entering, and armed security personnel at a designated ratio to non-security personnel."
Possibly a good idea, but it won't happen. The big shots where I used to work opposed any security upgrade even after 9-11. Always, there is a head in the sand attitude regarding even the prevention of ordinary crime. "It won't happen here," is the prevailing attitude.
We always had folks working at night and on weekends for various reasons. We couldn't even get the suits to seriously consider a magnetic key card system with swing gates to the parking lot; or color coded badges with the color code being rotated so you could quickly tell if someone didn't belong---typically a previous employee who came back to visit or show family around, not a bg. Good area lighting wasn't even a priority with the safety officer.
Suits don't want to divert money from programs. Bad stuff is random, and it is so so easy to go around blind to the possibilities. It is also too easy to condemn those who make the suggestions as "potential troublemakers" who are "rocking the boat," and irrationally seeing danger where none exists.
November 6th, 2009 07:28 PM
I think they have a case of cranialretumeyetice ; )
A Native Floridian = RARE
IT'S OUR RIGHTS>THEY WANT TO WRONG
November 6th, 2009 08:05 PM
Shall issue and mandatory permit to concealed carry to all DOD military and civilian personnel not being treated for stress related illness. Six year sunset provision to address unforeseen issues in final legislation.
November 6th, 2009 08:15 PM
I think we can all agree that the likelihood of this (CC on fed property) happening is slim, but I also believe that it's something that should happen.
The anti playbook dictates that you should never let a good crisis go to waste (the Brady bunch has already related it to pending legislation), I'll bet a shiny nickel that there will be increased weapon restrictions on soldiers as a result of this.
The military can do a lot to restrict the rights of service members, but they must do so in accordance with the laws of the land. If the law were properly written, the generals and admirals would conform.
If we can't get it exactly how we want it, what smaller step can we work toward? Incrementalism works for the anti side, it can work for us too.
Perhaps we can combine the two ideas where a facility with certain security requirements could prohibit those with the federal endorsement?
November 6th, 2009 08:21 PM
Are you saying issue a permit to everyone who qualifies, or everyone who applies and qualifies?
Originally Posted by tiwee
A significant portion of the military and DOD civilians wouldn't qualify for a state permit based on criminal record, or age.
Perhaps we could start with something similar to the program for commercial pilots?
November 6th, 2009 08:59 PM
Sorry, this is a little off point.
The day after the Oklahoma Fed Building Bombing. The DoD facility I worked in had a mandatory search of every person entering the building. I remember standing a few people back from a four star General who was not too happy to be waiting in a line to enter his building.
To this day, even through 9/11, I've not been subject to mandatory searches.
Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
November 6th, 2009 09:35 PM
There is a reason all soldiers are not carrying weapons at a military base.
They are in high stress training at an age where hormones and passions run high.
If every recruit had a gun, there would be shootings every day.
This shooter wasn't some guy off the street. He was a major with a M.D. degree, and had access to anything.
November 6th, 2009 09:47 PM
Another law to make clear what should already be clearly covered by the 2A...
Then how do we address family members, employees and visitors in federal property?
I think this is another Heller Vs DC matter. Someone needs to file a law suit an let it run its course. Maybe we can hear Scalia saying something like "so, when the crazy psychiatrist starts shooting at me in a no-gun zone, and no police officers are around firing at him, I am supposed to run back to wherever my firearm is stored at, maybe a car or the base armory or the front entrance of the federal building locked up at the security office, retrieve it, then run back to where I was at and THEN defend my loved ones and self...? I don't think so.".
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.
November 6th, 2009 10:34 PM
Everyone who applies and qualifies. Many would not have a permit. Many would not carry that had permits. The criminals, however, would not know who was and who wasn't. That is the idea.
Originally Posted by Daddy Warcrimes
November 7th, 2009 01:41 AM
I know lots of civilians who are in high stress situations daily but somehow manage to NOT shoot each other.
Originally Posted by Guns and more
I do not advocate every soldier required to keep his rifle slung and loaded but we certainly have the opportunity here to be reasonable.
"Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18
Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
Paramedics With Guns Scare People!
November 7th, 2009 09:23 AM
So we will need to consider:
What categories of people will be able to apply.
Under what situations will the endorsement be invalid?
Service members are probably the first category we should look at, then civilian employees, the family members residing in government housing, then contractors, then unaffiliated visitors.
Anyone not eligible to purchase a handgun should be denied. No felons, adjudicated mental defectives, anyone under 21, and domestic violence convicts.
I agree that in some situations, carry should be prohibited. Military in an initial entry status are the first to come to mind. Any time that they are armed for the performance of their duties, privately owned weapons should be forbidden. This of course would have to be written carefully else commanders would daily issue M-16s with no ammo just to keep Johnny from packing.
November 7th, 2009 10:33 AM
Here is my two cents...First off I'm in the Army and I have my permit. Second, the wonderful state of GA allows you to carry with your military ID as your weapons permit so you don't even have to apply for one here. Also I know a lot of service members who have permits. It all comes down to the federal laws. When I was a Drill Sergeant at Ft. knox, at least one DS per platoon had a Nine mil with them to protect the Soldiers/wpns. Plus we carry our wpns everywhere we go when we're deployed, so why can't we do it in the states? We can be trusted and aloud to protect ourselves over there, but not at home? This horrific shooting at Hood, should open peoples eyes. We wear American Flags on our shoulders to show that we are at war, yet we have to just sit back and watch our brothers and sisters in arms be murdered in our own land.
November 7th, 2009 06:28 PM
Recon is correct. Hundreds of thousands of American GIs have carried locked and loaded in free fire zones for decades. General disorder and mayhem did not occur. Our group did not kill each other.
A winning military changes tactics to meet different threats. There is a new threat today on our gun free federal installations. It is time we got some leadership from those responsible for the lives of the men and women on their installations. Let's do something sooner rather than later to make it unsafe for those that would kill us and our children on our own bases.
My wife and I go on base every month or so. For the long trip there and back and while on post, we are without self protection. My son is a civilian working on a military installation. He is unable to protect himself to and from work and while working. Why should any of us have to take the risk? My son has security clearances that I never even knew existed. How is it he cannot be trusted to carry self protection.
Many military and civilians have or had security clearances. The background investigations for those clearances are extensive and thorough. Certainly enough to merit a concealed carry chit. There are so many ways to get this done. However, it takes courageous people who are not career first types of commanders.
Somewhere out there is a flag officer that cares more for the people in his or her command than for that next star. Some flag officer out there is willing to be the first to show that concealed carry on base will not destroy good order and discipline. Some flag officer out there knows the citizens that conceal carry have not turned the streets and towns of our country into blood baths. Some flag officer out there knows that, had five or ten people been concealed carriers at Ft Hood's tragedy, the toll would have been less. Somewhere is a commander willing to try something new in the face of changing threat stateside.
By livewire in forum Defensive Carry & Tactical Training
Last Post: December 19th, 2010, 03:44 AM
By jbum in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 6th, 2009, 10:42 PM
By QKShooter in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: July 25th, 2006, 09:54 PM
By Steelhorse in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: May 9th, 2006, 01:43 PM
By jarhead79 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 16th, 2006, 11:14 PM
Search tags for this page
conceal and carry federal buildings parking lots
conceal carry on federal installations
federal facility definition parking lot
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors