DoD: USN Pilots want permission to be armed on base

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; Dozens of U.S. Navy pilots have written a letter demanding Capitol Hill lawmakers and top military brass allow more pilots to carry arms on bases, ...

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 84
Like Tree154Likes

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

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    2,190

    DoD: USN Pilots want permission to be armed on base

    Dozens of U.S. Navy pilots have written a letter demanding Capitol Hill lawmakers and top military brass allow more pilots to carry arms on bases, and allow those standing watch at flight schools across the country to be armed in the wake of the deadly shooting at Naval Air Station Pensacola by a Saudi officer training there.

    .....

    "Some pilots say it is inexcusable that a weapons expert like one of the three shooting victims was killed while standing duty unarmed.

    “ENS Joshua Kaleb Watson was a small-arms instructor and captain of the rifle team at the United States Naval Academy. Yet when charged with standing the watch, he was equipped with nothing more than a logbook and a pen,” the letter says."

    No offense but having dealt with DoD "Security" personnel I can say that most of those I have met at several large posts in and around Georgia are a) older, b) out of shape to be polite, and c) relatively appathetic. Why aren't our armed forces allowed to pull the duty armed?

    https://www.foxnews.com/us/letter-na...armed-on-bases
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  2. #2
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,839
    I have been there and duty officers should not be the first, or even second line of defense. Duty officers sit in the duty office and maintain the duty log. They are not supposed to leave their post, so they should not be on the street to get shot at. I have yet to hear of a duty office being attacked.

    Having served as a Navy officer on that base and others, US military personnel (not foreigners) need to be allowed to carry on base AND there needs to be a credible, top tier police force on each base. The base police nowadays are glorified security guards. Base security needs to be substantial enough that off-base civilian LEOs don't need to get involved.

    There are over 21,000 people on the base during the day and more than 130 operational military aircraft. Being a prominent military base makes it a target. It should be properly secured and using duty officers who used to be on the academy shooting team is not the answer.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  3. #3
    VIP Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I have been there and duty officers should not be the first, or even second line of defense. Duty officers sit in the duty office and maintain the duty log. They are not supposed to leave their post, so they should not be on the street to get shot at. I have yet to hear of a duty office being attacked.

    Having served as a Navy officer on that base and others, US military personnel (not foreigners) need to be allowed to carry on base AND there needs to be a credible, top tier police force on each base. The base police nowadays are glorified security guards. Base security needs to be substantial enough that off-base civilian LEOs don't need to get involved.

    There are over 21,000 people on the base during the day and more than 130 operational military aircraft. Being a prominent military base makes it a target. It should be properly secured and using duty officers who used to be on the academy shooting team is not the answer.
    Funny, but I recall OD's going armed. Perhaps I am older than you but your tour in VA65 indicates otherwise.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,839
    Quote Originally Posted by PPS1980 View Post
    Funny, but I recall OD's going armed. Perhaps I am older than you but your tour in VA65 indicates otherwise.
    I can say I was never armed as a duty officer and was never aware of one that was. Some places made you wear a duty belt, which was silly. It meant that under Navy protocol you were "under arms" and required to keep your cover on indoors, but no guns.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Double Naught Spy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,233
    Well, at least the pilots aren't playing any sort of elitist game and only wanting themselves to be armed.

    That they argue that military bases have become soft targets is just plain silly. In the last 50 years, long before any of these pilots were alive, the bases were soft targets.

    The military has traditionally NOT trusted their people with firearms as a general rule when in the US.
    msgt/ret, 5lima30ret and Hoganbeg like this.
    Considering yourself to be defenseless is the first administrative step to becoming a victim.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array retired badge 1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Location
    Pueblo, Colorado
    Posts
    556
    I clearly remember standing guard on US Army installations during the late 1960's and early 1970's, required to carry UNLOADED weapons, even when faced with overwhelming protest crowds.

    I remember attending a USO show in Vietnam. We were required to carry our rifles and side arms, but no ammunition and the BOLTS WERE REMOVED FROM OUR RIFLES during the "filming of American GI's enjoying the entertainment in a combat zone". Political theater at its best.

    I remember serving on outposts in Vietnam when Inspector General teams came in to inspect our units. We buried small arms ammunition and other supplies so our units didn't receive negative reports for having more than the Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) allowed, even though we were way down the end of the supply line and frequently had to scramble and horse-trade just to have enough to get by. A couple of times I recall helicopters being loaded up with ammo and other supplies that were dumped into the South China Sea, rather than seeing a commander get a "gig" on the IG's inspection report.

    As long as the politicians are permitted to spend American service members' lives like dollar bills in an election campaign there won't be any changes.

    I have no problems with Naval aviators being armed at any time. I have no problem with the crews maintaining those aircraft 24/7 being armed in defense of their own lives at any time. I have no problem with American soldiers carrying personal weapons while going to a post facility in Texas where a jihadist impersonator of a US Army medical officer chose to shoot a dozen or more before shot down himself (Major Hassan) after shouting "alahu akhbar" repeatedly. US mainland bases, overseas military installations, recruiting stations, all are manned by service men and women who deserve the right to defend themselves from any threat that appears.

    I will shut up now.

    Former Sergeant, US Army Airborne Infantry (Pathfinders), Vietnam 1969-71. Combat Infantryman Badge, Bronze Star w/V, Army Commendation Medal w/V, Purple Heart w/3 oak leaf clusters, Republic of Vietnam Cross of Gallantry, and a bunch of other fancy stuff to show off on Veterans Day.

  8. #7
    VIP Member Array 5lima30ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Alabama
    Posts
    5,572
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I have been there and duty officers should not be the first, or even second line of defense. Duty officers sit in the duty office and maintain the duty log. They are not supposed to leave their post, so they should not be on the street to get shot at. I have yet to hear of a duty office being attacked.

    Having served as a Navy officer on that base and others, US military personnel (not foreigners) need to be allowed to carry on base AND there needs to be a credible, top tier police force on each base. The base police nowadays are glorified security guards. Base security needs to be substantial enough that off-base civilian LEOs don't need to get involved.

    There are over 21,000 people on the base during the day and more than 130 operational military aircraft. Being a prominent military base makes it a target. It should be properly secured and using duty officers who used to be on the academy shooting team is not the answer.
    ^^^AMEN!^^^^
    bill35738 likes this.
    Retired Police Lieutenant, Former UH-1N Huey & MH-53 Pave Low Gunner, Retired USAF Reserve, Glock Armorer, AL Retired LEO CPP, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, LEOSA Qualified, Active FOP Executive Board Member

    "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" Phil 4:13

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array WebleyHunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    2,696
    It is my long held belief that the daily uniform E6/E7 and up should include the duty sidearm with spare mags. If said leader violates that trust, then they can reflect at Leavenworth. While on active duty, I was shocked at the smoke and mirrors tactics of military security. The only reason it works at all is that the common Joe civilian still thinks the military "gots gunz".
    Last edited by WebleyHunter; December 16th, 2019 at 10:13 AM.
    G26Raven, 5lima30ret and M1911A1 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).

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array 5lima30ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gulf Coast of Alabama
    Posts
    5,572
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I have been there and duty officers should not be the first, or even second line of defense. Duty officers sit in the duty office and maintain the duty log. They are not supposed to leave their post, so they should not be on the street to get shot at. I have yet to hear of a duty office being attacked.

    Having served as a Navy officer on that base and others, US military personnel (not foreigners) need to be allowed to carry on base AND there needs to be a credible, top tier police force on each base. The base police nowadays are glorified security guards. Base security needs to be substantial enough that off-base civilian LEOs don't need to get involved.

    There are over 21,000 people on the base during the day and more than 130 operational military aircraft. Being a prominent military base makes it a target. It should be properly secured and using duty officers who used to be on the academy shooting team is not the answer.
    The fault lays at the feet of the base commander and CNIC. Our military personnel deserve top tier (trained in active shooter incidents) LEO's whether it be civilian or military. Hopefully he and the CNIC will take some big hits and the Navy changes its policies. We shall see...
    G26Raven likes this.
    Retired Police Lieutenant, Former UH-1N Huey & MH-53 Pave Low Gunner, Retired USAF Reserve, Glock Armorer, AL Retired LEO CPP, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor, LEOSA Qualified, Active FOP Executive Board Member

    "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me" Phil 4:13

  11. #10
    VIP Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by 5lima30ret View Post
    The fault lays at the feet of the base commander and CNIC. Our military personnel deserve top tier (trained in active shooter incidents) LEO's whether it be civilian or military. Hopefully he and the CNIC will take some big hits and the Navy changes its policies. We shall see...
    The changes disallowing armed service personnel from providing security are long standing and predate the current CNIC or JCOS members. They, in my opinion, have the opportunity to reverse this modern change and return us to a time when serving members of the ARMED forces were.......odd as it sounds.....actually ARMED.
    5lima30ret likes this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  12. #11
    Distinguished Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    1,400
    Is there a downside to having active duty personnel on base carry?

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,839
    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    Is there a downside to having active duty personnel on base carry?
    I hate to say it, but there is. I am not saying the following is the majority, but it does exist and I have had to deal with it first hand. A segment of Navy personnel is 18-20 year olds who are away from home for the first time and have money in their pockets that they they are not accountable to anyone for. They like to get drunk, chase girls and get into fights.

    That's not as troublesome back home, but when you are military personnel on or near a base, it can create a lot of problems and it happens a lot. I had one of my sailors murder a guy during a drunken fight in the parking lot of a bar in Puerto Rico, using a belt buckle knife. It was a giant mess in the middle of some high-intensity training operations. It was a detriment to military readiness.

    If I were making the decision, I would set a threshold of at least a 3rd class petty officer, who has been through training and had no record of violence in his personnel jacket. I know the 2A purists will disagree, but this is not really a 2A thing. When you are in the Navy and on a base, you are essentially government property. In my experience, that restriction would be the way to go.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  14. #13
    VIP Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    I hate to say it, but there is. I am not saying the following is the majority, but it does exist and I have had to deal with it first hand. A segment of Navy personnel is 18-20 year olds who are away from home for the first time and have money in their pockets that they they are not accountable to anyone for. They like to get drunk, chase girls and get into fights.

    That's not as troublesome back home, but when you are military personnel on or near a base, it can create a lot of problems and it happens a lot. I had one of my sailors murder a guy during a drunken fight in the parking lot of a bar in Puerto Rico, using a belt buckle knife. It was a giant mess in the middle of some high-intensity training operations. It was a detriment to military readiness.

    If I were making the decision, I would set a threshold of at least a 3rd class petty officer, who has been through training and had no record of violence in his personnel jacket. I know the 2A purists will disagree, but this is not really a 2A thing. When you are in the Navy and on a base, you are essentially government property. In my experience, that restriction would be the way to go.
    Our service personnel give up lots of rights that non-serving citizens have and often take for granted. Setting criteria for who can carry on base doesn't strike me as inappropriate. Many rules on federal installations read something like this "licensed in a state to practice", which for the VA means that medical personnel have to hold an unencumbered license to practice in at least one US State in order to have privileges on the VA property but they do NOT have to be licensed in the state in which the federal reservation is located (lots are licensed in states like AL or MS that have the lowest maintenance requirements and fees as a result). So, saying that personnel need to meet CC criteria would not be inappropriate IMHO.
    jmf552 and 5lima30ret like this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

  15. #14
    VIP Member
    Array Pete63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Magnolia, Texas
    Posts
    3,494
    Government to pilots: "I'll let you fly this $15 million dollar jet with machine guns & bombs to practice for war with other threats".

    Pilots: "What about me being able to protect myself, and the millions you spend on training us pilots from threats?"

    Government: "Sorry, you can't be trusted with a gun, as "THOSE THINGS ARE DANGEROUS"!
    NRA Benefactor Life Member
    Live Well, Laugh Often, Defend Yourself
    Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
    This land abounds in ruffians and varmints. Their numbers are legion, their evil skills commensurate.

  16. #15
    VIP Member
    Array PPS1980's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    The Free State of Georgia
    Posts
    2,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete63 View Post
    Government to pilots: "I'll let you fly this $15 billion dollar jet with machine guns & bombs to practice for war with other threats".

    Pilots: "What about me being able to protect myself, and the millions you spend on training us pilots from threats?"

    Government: "Sorry, you can't be trusted with a gun, as "THOSE THINGS ARE DANGEROUS"!
    Exactly (fixed it for you too).
    Pete63, TimBob and Hoganbeg like this.
    __________________
    I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.
    - Thomas Jefferson 1787
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    NRA Life Member - Member GA Carry Organization

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... 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
  •