DoD: USN Pilots want permission to be armed on base - Page 4

DoD: USN Pilots want permission to be armed on base

This is a discussion on DoD: USN Pilots want permission to be armed on base within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm going to start by repeating what I said in my first post, the Military is not going to allow the junior enlisted to carry ...

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84
Like Tree154Likes

Thread: DoD: USN Pilots want permission to be armed on base

  1. #46
    Senior Member Array Cypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    566
    I'm going to start by repeating what I said in my first post, the Military is not going to allow the junior enlisted to carry personal weapons on duty and they certainly are not going to allow them to store them in the barracks.

    I mentioned in another post that when I was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. The Divison Commander's policy was that no Junior Enlisted SM was allowed to posses a personal weapon while assigned to his command, on post or off.

    At roughly the same time the Commander of USARAK (Alaska Command) issued an order prohibiting the off duty carry of concealed weapons for all personal assigned to his command regardless of state law.

    After I got out the 4th infantry division issued an order directing all soldiers regardless of rank assigned to the division to register all personally owned weapons with the command no matter where the weapons were actually located.

    A few years ago the entire Second Brigade Combat Team was locked down and confined to the barracks for three days because an M9 went missing. Are they going to do that every time a personal weapon goes missing?

    I lived in the barracks for 6 years. Based on that experience I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that some of the idiots I lived with had handguns in their possession.

    In my experience with the Army they're going to hold the unit commander accountable if any soldier in his unit has an ND or commits suicide with a personal weapon or has a weapon stolen out of the barracks. The easiest way for the commander to prevent that is to forbid soldiers under his command from carrying personal weapons on post.

    As a side note there is no way I would store a personal weapon in the unit arms room. I know too many people who locked up their weapon clean and got it back fired.
    Bad Bob likes this.

  2. #47
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    I'm going to start by repeating what I said in my first post, the Military is not going to allow the junior enlisted to carry personal weapons on duty and they certainly are not going to allow them to store them in the barracks.

    I mentioned in another post that when I was assigned to the 4th Infantry Division. The Divison Commander's policy was that no Junior Enlisted SM was allowed to posses a personal weapon while assigned to his command, on post or off.

    At roughly the same time the Commander of USARAK (Alaska Command) issued an order prohibiting the off duty carry of concealed weapons for all personal assigned to his command regardless of state law.

    After I got out the 4th infantry division issued an order directing all soldiers regardless of rank assigned to the division to register all personally owned weapons with the command no matter where the weapons were actually located.

    A few years ago the entire Second Brigade Combat Team was locked down and confined to the barracks for three days because an M9 went missing. Are they going to do that every time a personal weapon goes missing?

    I lived in the barracks for 6 years. Based on that experience I wouldn't feel comfortable knowing that some of the idiots I lived with had handguns in their possession.

    In my experience with the Army they're going to hold the unit commander accountable if any soldier in his unit has an ND or commits suicide with a personal weapon or has a weapon stolen out of the barracks. The easiest way for the commander to prevent that is to forbid soldiers under his command from carrying personal weapons on post.

    As a side note there is no way I would store a personal weapon in the unit arms room. I know too many people who locked up their weapon clean and got it back fired.
    While all this mag be true, that doesnít make it the right thing to do. We are in this position, more so the people who are currently in the the military are in this position because people have not fought for what they thought was unattainable. We all know that anyone can get a gun on base as easily as they could bring one past any other gun free zone sign in public.
    We get the government we deserve.

  3. #48
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS1980 View Post
    Not a rhetorical question. Back in the day it was a MarDet commanded by a Captain (or even a 1Lt) with the Sr NCO as a Gunny. So, lots of armed PFCs, LCpls, and such on board. Now that the Navy is caring for itself ship board is it all CPOs and Commanders only?
    I have never been on a carrier other than the midway, but I know the people at the gates of many of the bases Iíve been on are people who some here suggest shouldnít be able to carry a gun on base once they change clothes.
    We get the government we deserve.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #49
    Moderator
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    15,403
    As aircrew we were treated somewhat different than other active duty, on C-141s there was one Flight Engineer and one Loadmaster armed and on C-5s it was one Flight Engineer and two Loadmasters armed for anti-highjacking. Normally E-1 or E-2 Loadmasters did not carry since they were not qualified in their crew positions but once qualified they too carried. Even though some of us lived in the barracks the first shirt gave us a lot of latitude in what we had in our rooms. He knew I reloaded but never said anything about it, there was even one incident where we had a barracks thief (poor fool fell down the stairs twice from the first floor). When asked why he never stole from me he replied that he knew I had guns and was not afraid to use them.
    PPS1980, Poorly and 5lima30ret like this.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."
    A 9MM MAY expand to .45 but a 45ACP will never shrink to 9MM.

  6. #50
    Member Array AndyK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Huntsville, Alabama
    Posts
    268
    Back in the late 70s, early 80s, the AF At least where I was stationed, had a policy of drug testing only those under 25. There was in fact a lot of people during drugs back then and working on planes high. But it wasn't just the young ones. The vets from Viet nam were still smoking pot too.

    I think it is much more a professional group now but they are still members of society who are flawed. If they are to carry, I think stringent training and background checks need to be in place. More so than civilians. JMO.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array WebleyHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    2,686
    There are a lot of overlapping issues here that don't necessarily have the same solutions:

    Are we referring to Active Duty, Reserves or National Guard? Solutions that are acceptable at a local Reserve facility may not be appropriate on a 15,000 soldier post. The "experience" factor is also different, with, lets say, an early 20's E5 on Active Duty versus an early 30's E5 in the Guard or Reserve who may be on the local SWAT Team. My personal experience and input is ONLY on the Active Duty side of things.

    Are we referring to basic access and possession of POWs? Historically, such weapons had to stored in the arms room for barracks soldiers, in family housing, or off-post. All such weapons brought onto post had to be registered with the Command and PMO, and with perhaps the exception of those in family quarters, were not going to be defensive capable. Definitely driving around post with those weapons in your vehicle "just because" has been highly frowned upon without coming or going to a range or hunting area.

    Security of barracks? Maybe there has been a miracle in barracks construction, but during my service in the trans-9/11 era, the barracks were NOT the place for POW storage. The CQ desk had keys to everybody's room, and just the general level of activity was not conducive to weapons being present (Anyone remember Friday or Saturday night after "Payday Activities"?) When I was in college in the 90's (and the same age as most Junior Enlisted) weapons were not allowed in any campus housing (maybe with exception of the Dean for cleaning school owned Shooting Club guns). Moving off-campus allowed me to having anything I wanted in our apartment. Keeping a gun in your car parked on-campus was a gray area. "Shall Issue" concealed carry was just coming on the radar screen.

    What branch? Once again, what works for one may not work for the other. I have no exposure other than with the Army and a bit of Air Force. Is a Marine E5 fundamentally more capable than an Army E5? I have no clue. The Army has multitudes of MP who are armed and are Junior Enlisted, but that is their direct MOS to provide security and policing services.

    Are we referring to open carry of service type sidearms, or a concealed POW? My position is the open carry of a loaded service sidearm should be a mandatory component of the daily uniform of Platoon leadership and up. Obliviously, such carry is more practical for the Company XO than a Soldier pulling the power pack on an M1. Concealed carry is a different animal. Like I stated before, it is such an individual thing that one solider maybe totally responsible and the other one absolutely not. I am torn on the topic of military CCW due my personal experiences with dud Soldiers conflicting with my love of defensive freedom. I have even advocated on this forum for SELECT high school upperclassmen to have the option of being armed on campus, so its not a blanket condemnation of lower "ranking" personnel.

    Direct comparisons to the civilian world are also not applicable to due the shared responsibility of leadership. Does the owner of a small software company get a call at 3:00 am when one of his employees get a DUI? No, but the CO and 1SG of an Active Duty unit definitely does. As others have stated, the way the military is structured, senior leadership (O7 - O10) is on the lookout for anything that could be perceived as increasing gross risk- whether it does in actuality or benefits the safety of an individual is irrelevant.
    Last edited by WebleyHunter; December 19th, 2019 at 09:23 PM.
    M1911A1 and 5lima30ret like this.
    Arkancide- Three self-inflicted gunshots to the head with hands tied behind the back.

    Active Shooter Response- Assess the situation, Position yourself to gain tactical advantage, Engage perpetrator violently (APE).

  8. #52
    Senior Member Array Cypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    While all this mag be true, that doesnít make it the right thing to do. We are in this position, more so the people who are currently in the the military are in this position because people have not fought for what they thought was unattainable. We all know that anyone can get a gun on base as easily as they could bring one past any other gun free zone sign in public.
    The barracks belongs to the Army, it's their right to prohibit guns on their property.

    The entire post belongs to the Army, it's their right to prohibit guns on their property.

    The penalty for being caught on a military installation with a gun is a little more severe than being caught with one in Walmart.

  9. #53
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    The barracks belongs to the Army, it's their right to prohibit guns on their property.

    The entire post belongs to the Army, it's their right to prohibit guns on their property.

    The penalty for being caught on a military installation with a gun is a little more severe than being caught with one in Walmart.
    If someone is committing murder, they donít care what the penalty is for bringing a gun on base.
    OD*, msgt/ret and awoodpd13 like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  10. #54
    Senior Member Array Cypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    If someone is committing murder, they donít care what the penalty is for bringing a gun on base.
    I am aware of that.

    I don't see your point though.

    ETA We can argue the right or wrong of it all night long but the fact is you are never going to see concealed carry for anybody that has a permit allowed on post.

    At best it'll be the CO, Platoon leaders, Senior NCOs and whoever is standing watch. They are not ever going to let some random E3 walk around any post with a personally owned concealed weapon. It doesn't matter how much you don't like it it's never going to happen.
    Bad Bob and msgt/ret like this.

  11. #55
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    I am aware of that.

    I don't see your point though.

    ETA We can argue the right or wrong of it all night long but the fact is you are never going to see concealed carry for anybody that has a permit allowed on post.

    At best it'll be the CO, Platoon leaders, Senior NCOs and whoever is standing watch. They are not ever going to let some random E3 walk around any post with a personally owned concealed weapon. It doesn't matter how much you don't like it it's never going to happen.
    The point is, your argument is no different than arguing in favor of any other gun free zone. If someone wants to go shoot a bunch of people there is little stopping them. The solution is obvious, we all know what it is, yet we are going against it. Like I said, people are allowed to have guns on Texas guard bases. I know thatís state of Texas not DOD, but the point remains that it can be done.
    OD* and msgt/ret like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  12. #56
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by WebleyHunter View Post
    Direct comparisons to the civilian world are also not applicable to due the shared responsibility of leadership. Does the owner of a small software company get a call at 3:00 am when one of his employees get a DUI? No, but the CO and 1SG of an Active Duty unit definitely does. As others have stated, the way the military is structured, senior leadership is also on the lookout for anything that could be perceived as increasing gross risk- whether it does in actuality or benefits the safety of an individual is irrelevant.
    Using that same logic, if a bunch of people were murdered in the software store, and a bunch of people were murdered in a mechanic shop on base, the responsibility would not be treated the same. Iíve seen extremes with military ďleadershipĒ. Some who are willing to put others lives at risk just for an award, and Iíve seen others who will stop just short of bubble wrapping everyone to prevent anything bad happening for an award. Their performance may not be good, but they donít care about that. I donít view either of these extremes as good leadership.
    We get the government we deserve.

  13. #57
    Senior Member Array Cypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    The point is, your argument is no different than arguing in favor of any other gun free zone. If someone wants to go shoot a bunch of people there is little stopping them. The solution is obvious, we all know what it is, yet we are going against it. Like I said, people are allowed to have guns on Texas guard bases. I know thatís state of Texas not DOD, but the point remains that it can be done.
    I'm sorry, I'm not arguing anyting I'm telling you that the military is never going to allow it.

    If I remember right you said they were allowed to have guns in their cars? Which is not on their person. Have you ever been to a National Guard Armory? (There's no such thing as a National Guard base.) The Colorado Springs Armory is Maybe 5 acres

    And again, none of this debate is going to change the fact that like it or not it isn't going to happen
    Bad Bob likes this.

  14. #58
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm not arguing anyting I'm telling you that the military is never going to allow it.

    If I remember right you said they were allowed to have guns in their cars? Which is not on their person. Have you ever been to a National Guard Armory? (There's no such thing as a National Guard base.) The Colorado Springs Armory is Maybe 5 acres

    And again, none of this debate is going to change the fact that like it or not it isn't going to happen
    Iím just saying how I think it SHOULD be, and what I think we should push for. And no I donít think Iíve been on a national guard base. The Texas guard bases are state property. There people are only allowed to carry in their vehicles, but itís still a step in the right direction. The only one Iíve been on has a few branches of military on it though.
    We get the government we deserve.

  15. #59
    Senior Member Array Cypher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    566
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Iím just saying how I think it SHOULD be, and what I think we should push for. And no I donít think Iíve been on a national guard base. The Texas guard bases are state property. There people are only allowed to carry in their vehicles, but itís still a step in the right direction. The only one Iíve been on has a few branches of military on it though.
    Who are we pushing it with? The Pentagon already said it's up to the unit Commanders. The unit commanders don't care anymore what you think now than they did when you were on active duty. That is their career on the line and they are not going to risk it to let some brain-dead E-2 pack on post
    Bad Bob likes this.

  16. #60
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    7,011
    Quote Originally Posted by Cypher View Post
    Who are we pushing it with? The Pentagon already said it's up to the unit Commanders. The unit commanders don't care anymore what you think now than they did when you were on active duty. That is their career on the line and they are not going to risk it to let some brain-dead E-2 pack on post
    Are we sure itís the E2 that is brain dead? Throughout this discussion I was thinking about the picture of the Army Officer, I think it was in the Army Times when the Sig went into service that was demonstrating his inability to hold/shoot a gun properly. Itís their career, but someone elseís life.
    We get the government we deserve.

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •