Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
50,610 Posts
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'.:yup:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,286 Posts
I think they have a case of cranialretumeyetice ; )
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,469 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,470 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
911 Posts
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.".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
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?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,322 Posts
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.
I know lots of civilians who are in high stress situations daily but somehow manage to NOT shoot each other.

I do not advocate every soldier required to keep his rifle slung and loaded but we certainly have the opportunity here to be reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,708 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
I'm retired USN (20yrs) and work on a USAF base (civil service). My job sometimes requires me to report at odd hours for urgent to emergency situations. Normally I don't go about at o'dark thirty unless absolutely necessary and then I definitely carry.

But at o'dark thirty from house to base I'm defenseless.

I have a security clearance, a CHL, and almost 40 years of military/federal service.

I would not object to carrying concealed or in the open while on base. I felt less secure after the shooting a Langely, VA when that guy walked the road to CIA HQ shooting people with an AK. I feel less secure when in queue at 0700, in the dark, waiting to get on base and I and my co-workers are sitting ducks. It's a shame that the military expects us to protect the American people but we are not allowed to defend ourselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I am currently active duty and deal wirth the Army's PC CYA mentality daily. The easy way to do this is that anyone who permanent party at the installation should be able to carry in accordance with state law (I.e. national parks in Feb 2010). Anyone on a training status will continue as now with checking weapons into the armory. The higher security areas on post (headquarters, ammo depot, intelligence areas) would be off limits except for parking lots outside of the secure area.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,245 Posts
Our soldiers and sailors are forced into a position where they cannot protect themselves on the way to work and returning home. This is common knowledge. They are good enough to go overseas and put theirself in harms ways for all of the world, but are sitting ducks while state side. Houston, we have a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
94 Posts
i came up with an idea that might work and still allow commanders control on post so here it is please tell me what you think:

1. soldiers wanting to carry on post must have a valid ccw for that state.

2. you must attend a post/base safety class and qualifiey at military standards on the weapon or weapons you will or would be carrying

3. must have writen promission from you battlion commander 0-5 and above to carry

4. ANY ucmj action can cause you to lose the right to carry on post by the command of your batalion commander for any length of time .

5. you must surender your weapon when order to by anyone in your chain of command when reciving punishment of any kind .

6. where you can and cant carry is still determinded by the post commander

7. NO CIVILAN may carry on post with out the same prosess completed in lue of a commander a CIVILAN post rep will have to sign off on them carrying .

your thought please

SPC.Castro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
737 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
1. Some states do not require a license, and many recognize out of state licenses. May issue and non-issue states would also render this useless in many places. I'd prefer to see reasonable universal standards of issue.

2. I don't want to limit this to major military installations. I'm actually quite a bit more concerned about recruiters, and reserve component troops who are assigned outside of the "secure" areas.

3. With this requirement, we might as well not even bother. If commanders were interested in allowing troops to defend themselves, service members would already be armed.

4 and 5 sound good.

6. This would also render this endeavor pointless. Commanders would declare the entire installation off limits. The post CDR in Alaska declared no carry for his entire command, on or off post.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top