Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I will not pontificate on the myriad motivational aspects of this issue, that has already been done elsewhere, and in great quantities.

What I will say is that our troops are at their most vulnerable when on a base in the states. There are many rules, laws, and guidelines in place while on a base, and they are all derived from experience. Seen a stupid Military rule? It’s there because someone at one time did exactly what is says not to do. In the best of times, a Member of the Armed Services is treated no better than a well-behaved kindergartener, ask any Veteran. Ownership of firearms and their presence on base are no exception.

Allow me to brief you on the current (as of two years ago) situation regarding personal firearms on base.

1. In order to just purchase a firearm, even off the base in the Camp LeJuene area, you needed your Commands’ express written permission. This included your immediate Commander as well as your Battalion Commander’s signature.

2. The weapon must then be entered into your unit’s armory, where it could be accessed at any time by the armorers. If they decide that they like your new Wilson Combat Custom, they could take it out for a spin. There is nothing you could do, and you would likely never know. Several private firearms developed mysterious “wear-and-tear” issues in my unit…

3. Any weapon on base that was not declared and in transit to or from the armory was highly illegal. CCDW (or equivalent) did not make exception to this factor, and served no on-base purpose except to flag your vehicle at the gate for “Random Inspection”.

4. To remove your weapon from the armory, someone had to be there, and this only happened when there was some reason for your unit to have their armorer actually in the armory (scheduled weapon’s maintenance, range qualification in progress, etc.). This meant that if you wanted your weapon for a private day at the range, you had to schedule it for a day that they would be unlikely to want to help you. Just to open the armory doors alone takes paper-work, and they don’t like having to do it just so you could get your firearm for a few hours.

Are you beginning to see why no one was armed on Fort Hood?

While the suggestion of allowing this nation’s military to be armed even when they are not in a hostile environment is certainly one that makes sense, I believe that another step could be taken that perhaps would make even more sense, and be easy to implement as well.

While in the military, you stand something that is called “Duty”. Everyone does Duty. In the Marines, this meant that once a month (more or less) you put on your uniform, the Duty Belt, carry the Duty Log Book, and stay awake for 24 hours while watching everyone else go about the daily business of training, preparing, and gearing up.

The Duty is an extension of the Command. An order from them is (supposed to be) an order from the Gods of Brass that rule all in the Military. They are prime candidates for armed presence and active deterrent.

If situations like this can’t be stopped from the top, perhaps a more localized solution should be investigated. Arm the Duties and give them supplemental training for the defense of their fellow Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen.

They are all in the military, not the Peace Corps, and they should all have the general concept down that they may in fact have to some day take a life to defend whatever it is that they are assigned to protect. It shouldn’t matter what MOS (Military Occupational Specialty or “job”) they have in the Military, they are all “Riflemen First” at least according to Marine Doctrine. This should be a rather easy and logical step towards the increased protection of our Armed Forces while they are in the States, on base, and at their most vulnerable.

Incidentally, it wouldn’t hurt to allow some trust for individual members that have a recognized CCDW to carry their personal firearms. After all, the weapons I have now are in much better shape and a vast improvement in reliability from anything the Government ever issued me! I also hear tell of a time when a Trooper could take his own weapon (within reason) to combat as a back-up, but that may be an unfounded rumor, and is a topic for a different thread…

The Military may never ease up on the Troops and their possession of private firearms, but they should seriously consider allowing the Duty Officers and Enlisted to carry issued firearms to help with the defense of their brethren. Outsourced security, inconsistent procedural policies, and unobserved fences and boundaries are epidemic in the Modern Military. They deserve the right to defend themselves, and they have an absolutely unassailable host of reasons for considering themselves to be targeted for hostile actions.

The Supreme Irony of Fort Hood is that this happened on an Army Base, by an Army Officer, and it was ultimately resolved by a “Townie” SWAT Police Officer whose unit was called in to “help the Soldiers”.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot indeed…
:smoke23:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
315 Posts
Well written. I agree 100%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
The US is not the only country that run things this way there are other country’s in "North" America that follows those same rules that are mentioned above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
to get rid of a bad rumor soldiers are not allowed personal weapons in a theater of operation ie: iraq,afgan. but i agree we should be alowwed to carry on post i think some people would even say its are constatutional right.....i guess i would like to see what comes out of this if anything
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
I was stationed with the 2/2 ACR in Bamburg Germany many years ago. There was a very bad racial conflict going on between many of , the black, white, and Hispanic's and they basically divided up the city into go-nogo areas. I was so bad infact that when I hade CQ (Charge of Quarters) that my runner and myself were issued 1911's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,465 Posts
Evil Monk: I like your post that started this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,219 Posts
It is a good idea. But military members would still be at risk out in town, or on their way home if they live off base. Why not allow any Career disignated military member, that can legally carry, to carry onto the base and secure weapon in vehicle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,513 Posts
At my last unit, they changed up the duty rules to where the Staff NCO on duty would have an M9 and a full magazine. The duty NCO and ADNCO's were not armed though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,219 Posts
to get rid of a bad rumor soldiers are not allowed personal weapons in a theater of operation ie: iraq,afgan. but i agree we should be alowwed to carry on post i think some people would even say its are constatutional right.....i guess i would like to see what comes out of this if anything
There are a lot of constitutional rights that are not applied to military members.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
It is a good idea. But military members would still be at risk out in town, or on their way home if they live off base. Why not allow any Career disignated military member, that can legally carry, to carry onto the base and secure weapon in vehicle.
Nah! Your suggestion does not exclude career Muslin psychiatrists. I would take a new private right out of basic over those support staff direct commission types any day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,499 Posts
There are a lot of constitutional rights that are not applied to military members.
Very true. You do kind of sign away alot of rights when you join the Military. I don't agree with it but, that is the way it is realistically.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I have theories about what the Military truly is in a political/societal sense, but those are perhaps better suited to another forum.

Many rights are signed away, but it is a necessary evil. You can't have dissent in the ranks, you can't have questions about "why?" on a battlefield, and you can't accept anyone's refusal to follow a lawful order.

This however, is different. This is not JUST about the 2A, this is about our Military's right to defend themselves, their buddies, and their base. It is amazing to consider that many arguments concerning 2A from various "interested parties" refer to the Amendment as a guideline for the Military or at most concessionally, a Militia. Yet "Armed" Services Personnel are the ones who end up with the least amount of rights and means for self-defense here AT HOME.

All the training, and none of the tools. Told daily to "be vigilant", "keep your head on a swivel", and that "complacency kills", yet not allowed the means to act on anything that might be a clear and present danger.

Sorry, I took this one personally. Having recently gotten out, I am still close to the culture. Top Brass should be ashamed and horrified by this travesty...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
Agreed. +1.

Are you beginning to see why no one was armed on Fort Hood?
Unintended consequences of treatment of people like kindergarten children, over time codified into rules & regs. Same as everywhere else.

Until we realize that a well-armed society is altogether safer, via the ability of individuals to withstand attack on the instant of attack, we'll continue to have what happened at Fort Hood, Luby's and a hundred other venues where predators found unarmed victims for the taking.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,106 Posts
The Supreme Irony of Fort Hood is that this happened on an Army Base, by an Army Officer, and it was ultimately resolved by a “Townie” SWAT Police Officer whose unit was called in to “help the Soldiers”.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot indeed…
:smoke23:
I was under the impression that she was a US Army Civilian Police Officer, not a Kileen PD officer. Army Police patrol posts in conjunction with MP's.
Gonzo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
Not going to dispute anything said, however, much of the rules pertaining to Commanders signature and your weapon being stored in the armory applied only to soldiers living in the barracks.

When I was at Benning and Polk and Lejune, anyone living in on post housing or off post were not held to these rules.

1SG (ret) USMC Infantry '64 - '68/ US Army Infantry '75 - '95
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,644 Posts
SCOTUS told us in Heller that:

[firearms] prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
It seems to me that the requirement that people living on base keep their firearms locked up in the armory would make them "impossible for use" and fail constitutional muster...

We need a case to bring this to light.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,326 Posts
It seems to me that the requirement that people living on base keep their firearms locked up in the armory would make them "impossible for use" and fail constitutional muster...

Yeah, but I'm sure the interpretation would be that people willingly sign away their rights/expectations in exchange for being in the military, hence the "employer's" control of the weapons is justified ... otherwise, it would be an armed military on U.S. soil, and all that. W.A.G., but I'd bet the chips would fall exactly this way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
"Constitutional" is a word that has little meaning to a Member of the Armed Services. Even Double Jeopardy is no longer in play. Do sommething stupid out in town, and you'll face Civilian and UCMJ charges both.

It is a necessity however, to promote Unit Cohesion and Uniformity. You basically sign away 4 years per enlistment to join a Socialist Sub-culture of America whose only purpose is to defend it with everything it has.

It's all part of the price you pay. "Sacrifice" to a Service Member means more than a possibility of loss of life and limb, it also means a definite loss of rights and Traditional American Privilages.

This situation throws into stark contrast though, the need to re-examine the Military's policies concerning the 2A.

Or so it would seem...
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top