Federal facilities; let's write a bill

Daddy Warcrimes · November 6th, 2009, 07:10 PM

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.

Brainstorm...GO!

retsupt99 · November 6th, 2009, 07:31 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'.

Hopyard · November 6th, 2009, 07:58 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.

hogdaddy · November 6th, 2009, 08:28 PM

I think they have a case of cranialretumeyetice ; )

tiwee · November 6th, 2009, 09:05 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.

Daddy Warcrimes · November 6th, 2009, 09:15 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?

Daddy Warcrimes · November 6th, 2009, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tiwee

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.

Are you saying issue a permit to everyone who qualifies, or everyone who applies and qualifies?

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?

varob · November 6th, 2009, 09:59 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.

Guns and more · November 6th, 2009, 10:35 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.

cagueits · November 6th, 2009, 10:47 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.".

November 6th, 2009, 07:10 PM	#1
Daddy Warcrimes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: MO Posts: 608	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. Brainstorm...GO! __________________ "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger" DW blog

November 6th, 2009, 07:31 PM	#2
retsupt99 VIP Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Central Florida Posts: 22,726	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'. __________________ "That I cannot do." "Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks." *********************************** NRA Life Member

November 6th, 2009, 08:28 PM	#4
hogdaddy Distinguished Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: N/E Florida Posts: 1,218	I think they have a case of cranialretumeyetice ; ) __________________ WE SAY GRACE & WE SAY MAM IF YA AINT IN THE SOUTH WE DON'T GIVE A DAM / WE CAN SKIN A BUCK & RUN A TROUTE LINE & A COUNTRY BOY CAN (SURVIVE)>>HANK JR.

November 6th, 2009, 09:05 PM	#5
tiwee Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Ozarks Posts: 1,004	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. __________________ Amendment 2 advocate - Trying to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

November 6th, 2009, 09:15 PM	#6
Daddy Warcrimes Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: MO Posts: 608	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? __________________ "and suddenly I can not hold back my sword hand's anger" DW blog

November 6th, 2009, 07:58 PM	#3
Hopyard VIP Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: College Station Posts: 2,835	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, 09:59 PM	#8
varob Distinguished Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Virginia Posts: 1,273	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! -Tony Soprano

November 6th, 2009, 10:35 PM	#9
Guns and more Senior Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Fl Posts: 830	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, 10:47 PM	#10
cagueits Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Puerto Rico Posts: 844	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. Take care.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode