DoD Releases Plan to Allow Personnel to Carry Firearms on Base

[oldpink]

I hate to have to put someone on my ignore list (no one is in it at the moment), but the minute I spot someone not just bull****ting, but being a real 9/11 truther, maybe it's high time that I added my inaugural entry.

 

[mammynun]

Well, as someone who served, I'd say the "No Guns Allowed" was one of the MOST broken rule there was. A large amount of us had pistols in barracks, cars, etc.

I agree that used to be the case for some soldiers, but my experience was that the guys who truly wanted to be armed all the time usually lived off post. I don't personally know of any time one of my guys carried a POW in uniform while on duty. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen... Hell, I once passed a surprise "Health and Welfare" inspection of the barracks with a girl hidden under my bunk... so it's very possible that someone had a .380 in their cargo pocket.

But we lived under the UCMJ which is much more restrictive than civilian law on nearly every subject, and includes several open ended catch-all regulations that can be applied to damn near anything. A good squad/fire team will keep a lot of "transgressions" of the UCMJ from reaching NCO's, and good NCO's will further shield "violations" before they reach officers... but there's no hiding a bullet wound.

 

[drillsgt]

So you think the military should observe ALL things contained within the BoRs, for its members? Ya know, to be consistent. Let's throw in the 1st, 4th, and 5th too.

I've spent a lot of time mobilized over the last eight years I never felt I didn't have 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights?

 

[drillsgt]

I disarm going into a jail setting. Why?

The fact that you are equating jail with military posts/bases says a lot about how you view the people in the military.

 

[mammynun]

This thread has been a walk down memory lane.

As a gun owner, my initial thought, is hell yes, the military should be armed. But reading through this, and thinking back to when I was in, and the stupid **** I did, it might not be such a good idea.

As BBI stated, we were all "trained killers" regardless of MOS. 18 years old, in great shape, trained to whoop the world, and if you weren't working, you were drinking. What could possibly go wrong?

Looking back at it, about the only thing I would change, would be guard duty. I remember being on guard duty, walking around THE ammo dump at Ft Gordon. The Russians were coming to get it, they told us so. They gave me a stick.

Security at military facilities has changed 100 fold since 9-11, compared to when I was in, in the eighties, but I think there should always be armed troops present. Weapons and live ammo were so highly restricted in a non combat environment, that yes, really bad things could happen.

In the military, somebody is always on a watch. They need to be armed! The rules about personal weapons need to be reevaluated. Our service members are targets more today than in the past. It needs to be addressed, and the regs will probably need to change to adapt to changing threats. The punishments for violating them, will be swift and severe. Let's just hope it all works out for the best.

I don't know how guard duty is run these days, but certain posts that dealt with DRF-1 and DRF-9 at Ft Bragg were issued pump shotguns (Winchesters with a hammer, I forget the model number) and 3 rounds of 00 which we weren't supposed to load. As for arming CQ... CQ was often the 1st target when "attacking" another company for whatever stupid reason we believed we had... so that could end badly. I would like to think that guard duty at all posts now has a QRF element that is fully armed, or maybe the MP's have always had such a detail?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The fact that you are equating jail with military posts/bases says a lot about how you view the people in the military.

Lulz. When you can't attack the facts, attack the poster.

Again, I disarm when going into a jail setting. Why? I'm going to be talking to a criminal in a small locked room with no escape. Last week I spoke with a young man who claimed to be a former state boxing champ. He was younger, bigger, and in much better shape than me. In an 8'x8' room with two chairs and a table. Do you suppose that young man could seriously injure or even kill me with his bare hands or with a chair? Yet I disarmed. Why?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just out of curiousity, has everyone posting in the thread read or at least scanned Section 4 of DOD Directive 5210.56?

Everyone? Probably not. The way it's worded, the number of people authorized to carry, even for the 90 day limit, will probably be able to be counted on one hand. Too much risk to the career of the HMFIC who authorized it. I believe we're arguing the general principal, not the specific order at hand.

 

[mammynun]

I've spent a lot of time mobilized over the last eight years I never felt I didn't have 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights?

So a soldier who lives in the barracks can now have a Trump sign in his window? Random "health and welfare" inspections are now optional? A General Court Martial is no longer used?

Those 3 examples violate the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, but are perfectly legitimate under the UCMJ that we agreed to be bound by.

ETA: Then there's restriction and forfeiture of pay for a myriad of reasons... I've seen some good uses that actually protected a soldier, some bad that, IMO, were petty punitive actions based on personal dislike.

 

[drillsgt]

No one above E-4 knew it happened. Nothing official happened. We did not view it as anything worthy of getting an NCO or law enforcement involved in.

Drillsgt,

I'm not going to bother to multiquote. If you think it's "high horsing", that's not how I meant it. However, I'm not going to ignore the con's and go with the romanticized view of military life that many here (most of which can't claim any prior service) seem to have.

1) Yes. It's been awhile. As you state, though, handgun training is still quite lacking. Comparing them to civilians is not a winning statement, as in my county alone we are close to 80 AD/NDs resulting in injury or death. Would you care to guess how many have been veterans, reservists, etc? I'll give you a hint, you'll need more than one hand. Like the young man who was drunk and "cleaning" his guns who shot himself through the hand, and was mostly upset about how "I should know better, I was an armorer in the Marines?" How many non-deployable troops would that be if extrapolated DoD wide? Will concealed weapons save or cost more injuries and lives? In the civilian world, who cares, that's the cost of freedom. In the military, freedom is secondary to the needs of the military.

2) Yes, even well trained people have NDs...although I'd argue there are a lot of cops out there that aren't particular well trained. This is why departments often limit the allowed weapons. You must carry the issued handgun, or from a set list. I, for example, am not allowed to carry single action only pistols due to no official training available and concerns with NDs. Only those who've gone through a week long rifle school can carry a rifle, etc. Surely you understand the threat profile vs the cost of the training accidents and other NDs/ADs.

3) Motorcycles are a great example of the extra restrictions placed on troops. And you know why. How much emphasis is placed on DUI prevention? Or avoiding STDs? Does that risk assessment not apply to firearms?

4) Personally, I'm all for arming recruiters. Their threat profile is different, for one, and the beans may tilt in their favor. A basic handgun defense course could be included in the recruiter training, an M9 issued, and RoE set and adhered to. You and I both know that the DoD is never going to do that for the rank and file, but specialty troops could be an option.

I can see some of your points but I guess it depends on your perception. If you perceive military members as drunken violent mindless degenerates that are nothing more than a national stock number (NSN) i'd probably be wary of allowing them anywhere near a firearm. If however you view them as rational adults and even force multipliers as I do then your perception is probably different. All these alcohol fueled horror stories with young military members are the same ones that the anti-gunners bring up about campus carry. People in this age group who aren't in the military or aren't in college drink too, it's not unique to being in the military i'd say more just age demographic. I'd probably trust a 21 year old E-5 with a gun more than i'd trust a college junior or some gas station cashier somewhere. The age range for the group most likely in the barracks and apparently getting drunk 24/7 can't get a permit/license anyway. If troops were allowed to carry their POW's it would probably much like how civilians do it, there would be a little surge for awhile until it became a PITA and then it would taper off to only those really serious about it. Many would probably opt out like mechanics and others that have to actually work in and around things etc. The biggest benefit would likely be similar to our parking lot bill where service members could have their firearms as they come to and from post. That would have been the biggest benefit I would have liked while at Benning. I don't think it's a valid argument to resist the possibility of our servicemen and women having the ability to protect themselves because you've responded to some ND's. You could apply that logic to anyone in IN even owning guns, forward your stats to the Brady Campaign i'm sure they'd love them.

 

[Woobie]

It's fascinating to see the state of military weapons safety training years ago. As drillsgt pointed out, the safety aspect of the training is very good these days. The proficiency training is sorely lacking, but that is a deep subject I won't delve into. But every soldier is not only trained, but indoctrinated in safe handling in a way you could never hope to accomplish in a week long class.

I will concede that the nature of barracks life poses some real problems.

I am shocked this is coming out of the Obama administration. I thought it would be coming, but under Trump.

After the debacle in Chatanooga, several governors authorized their respective state's national guard to carry. Indiana was one of these. I can't say how DoD will handle its policy, but they could learn from Indiana. It's a simple process. You have to have an IN LTCH. Then you get sent to a class by your unit. You do it on your own time, at Camp Atterbury (on post, not the civilian range). There is a morning class and then an afternoon range session. It was more or less an NRA basic pistol class in the morning, but they moved beyond that level during the range portion. The trainers were top notch. When I was there it was an E-9 who competed in IDPA and a retired O-5 who also competed. One or both was also NRA certified. At the time they had been utilizing an SF NCO, but he wasn't there for my class. I think the class has evolved a bit. I got in on it very early.

Policy wise, it's pretty strict. You can not carry in a tactical environment, or when you have an issued weapon. Under no circumstances do you draw your pistol, except of course for defensive purposes. Violation of this is UCMJ action. There is a list of approved calibers. It must not extend below the blouse of your duty uniform.

It took some time to get people qualified, but they worked hard to get it rolled out as quickly as possible. Now a year and a half later, many many IN guardsmen carry in uniform. The carnage has been unimaginable.

 

[drillsgt]

So a soldier who lives in the barracks can now have a Trump sign in his window? Random "health and welfare" inspections are now optional? A General Court Martial is no longer used?

Those 3 examples violate the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments, but are perfectly legitimate under the UCMJ that we agreed to be bound by.

ETA: Then there's restriction and forfeiture of pay for a myriad of reasons... I've seen some good uses that actually protected a soldier, some bad that, IMO, were petty punitive actions based on personal dislike.

Well, you can't put any sign in your window whether it be Trump or hello kitty so it's not really a good comparison. You are free to support Trump all you want just not in uniform but this applies to non-military jobs as well. As far as health and welfare inspections go they are seldom random and we had to have 'probable cause' to conduct one and we would get JAG sign off as well. We didn't just decide to go search on a whim. What's the issue with General Court's Martial, that's pretty much akin to a civilian court proceeding?

 

[drillsgt]

It's fascinating to see the state of military weapons safety training years ago. As drillsgt pointed out, the safety aspect of the training is very good these days. The proficiency training is sorely lacking, but that is a deep subject I won't delve into. But every soldier is not only trained, but indoctrinated in safe handling in a way you could never hope to accomplish in a week long class.

I will concede that the nature of barracks life poses some real problems.

I am shocked this is coming out of the Obama administration. I thought it would be coming, but under Trump.

After the debacle in Chatanooga, several governors authorized their respective state's national guard to carry. Indiana was one of these. I can't say how DoD will handle its policy, but they could learn from Indiana. It's a simple process. You have to have an IN LTCH. Then you get sent to a class by your unit. You do it on your own time, at Camp Atterbury (on post, not the civilian range). There is a morning class and then an afternoon range session. It was more or less an NRA basic pistol class in the morning, but they moved beyond that level during the range portion. The trainers were top notch. When I was there it was an E-9 who competed in IDPA and a retired O-5 who also competed. One or both was also NRA certified. At the time they had been utilizing an SF NCO, but he wasn't there for my class. I think the class has evolved a bit. I got in on it very early.

Policy wise, it's pretty strict. You can not carry in a tactical environment, or when you have an issued weapon. Under no circumstances do you draw your pistol, except of course for defensive purposes. Violation of this is UCMJ action. There is a list of approved calibers. It must not extend below the blouse of your duty uniform.

It took some time to get people qualified, but they worked hard to get it rolled out as quickly as possible. Now a year and a half later, many many IN guardsmen carry in uniform. The carnage has been unimaginable.

Thanks for the post, sounds like a good program and a pretty painless integration of the policy. Even with prior training it couldn't help but be a good refresher i'm sure. I'd had a lot of carbine training but during my second mobilization all the drill sergeants had to go to a week long advanced class taught by Delta guys so there's always something new to learn.

 

[Woobie]

Lulz. When you can't attack the facts, attack the poster.

Again, I disarm when going into a jail setting. Why? I'm going to be talking to a criminal in a small locked room with no escape. Last week I spoke with a young man who claimed to be a former state boxing champ. He was younger, bigger, and in much better shape than me. In an 8'x8' room with two chairs and a table. Do you suppose that young man could seriously injure or even kill me with his bare hands or with a chair? Yet I disarmed. Why?

So soldiers are a bunch of criminals who would disarm each other to break off post. Lulz to you.

 

[drillsgt]

Lulz. When you can't attack the facts, attack the poster.

Again, I disarm when going into a jail setting. Why? I'm going to be talking to a criminal in a small locked room with no escape. Last week I spoke with a young man who claimed to be a former state boxing champ. He was younger, bigger, and in much better shape than me. In an 8'x8' room with two chairs and a table. Do you suppose that young man could seriously injure or even kill me with his bare hands or with a chair? Yet I disarmed. Why?

Lulz. Let me know when you state some kind of relevant fact.

 

[drillsgt]

^^THIS^^

I spent 21 years in the USAF both active e and ANG as a Security Police/Security Forces and also spent time as a CATM instructor. And joke as one may the USAF had a good firearms training program (SP's were dictated to carry M9's with a round in the chamber and weapon on fire as well as JHP's at stateside bases)

That being said I echo Mammynun, a vast majority of Military members are nowhere near tip of the spear as many (especially themselves) think. And a majority of even the semi Combat folks have mediocre training or worse mindset.

I'm all for them being g able to carry and exercising their rights but to say I don't have some concern from my experiences would be an untrue statement.

We're talking about people carrying their firearm on post as they go about their day like anybody with a permit/license does. If the criteria to do that was to be a 'tip of the spear' operator or have any semi-combat experience most on this forum would have to turn in their LTCH.

 

[Woobie]

Thanks for the post, sounds like a good program and a pretty painless integration of the policy. Even with prior training it couldn't help but be a good refresher i'm sure. I'd had a lot of carbine training but during my second mobilization all the drill sergeants had to go to a week long advanced class taught by Delta guys so there's always something new to learn.

Yes, always. It was far and away better pistol training than anything I had seen before. But the safety stuff was mostly refresher on what we already knew. Like I said, I haven't heard of anything on the civilian side that approaches the safety training culture that exists in the modern Army.

 

[mammynun]

Well, you can't put any sign in your window whether it be Trump or hello kitty so it's not really a good comparison. You are free to support Trump all you want just not in uniform but this applies to non-military jobs as well. As far as health and welfare inspections go they are seldom random and we had to have 'probable cause' to conduct one and we would get JAG sign off as well. We didn't just decide to go search on a whim. What's the issue with General Court's Martial, that's pretty much akin to a civilian court proceeding?

Then things have changed quite a bit.

I'm for letting the military carry in the same way I'm for Indiana issuing a LTCH without a training component... which is to say that I recognise that there's a cost to freedom and I accept it.

I will say that after a mass shooting I've always think "good God, what's the toll going to be if someone in combat arms ever pulls this sh#t?"

 

[ATM]

I hate to have to put someone on my ignore list (no one is in it at the moment), but the minute I spot someone not just bull****ting, but being a real 9/11 truther, maybe it's high time that I added my inaugural entry.

All I did was question who your response was directed to and agree with something Birds Away said in this thread.

Maybe you'll put him on your ignore list, too.

Where was I "just bull****ting"?

 

[Kutnupe14]

All I did was question who your response was directed to and agree with something Birds Away said in this thread.

Maybe you'll put him on your ignore list, too.

Where was I "just bull****ting"?

ATM, you're nothing, if not persistent. Lol

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So soldiers are a bunch of criminals who would disarm each other to break off post. Lulz to you.

Lulz. Let me know when you state some kind of relevant fact.

My fault for assuming the relevant similarity was self evident. While increasing my personal risk, it reduces institutional risk. Not that soldiers are prisoners (although, as I recall, there were some marked similarities), or that they would disarm each other. Is the military's goal reducing personal risk for an individual soldier, or is it reducing institutional risk via losing less troops overall?

To paraphrase:

1) The risk of ND/AD is not zero. I've already laid out the relevant facts for this, and the fact military members have accidentally shot themselves right here in this county this year. There is no requirement for malfeasance or evil intent. ADs can be reduced through proper training (that DoD will never implement widely) but will never be eliminated. It's neither anti-gun nor anti-soldier to recognize this and include it in decision making.

2) Gun owners shoot themselves more often that they shoot bad guys, by a pretty large margin. In the civilian world, that's the price of freedom. It's not simply about the ratio of bad guys shot to ADs, there's significantly more at stake. In the military, freedom is secondary to mission and the individual is secondary to the unit. Unless that's changed as well.

3) Soldiers are humans and citizens, but they are also assets. See #2.