Poll: Overwhelming Majority of Military Want Concealed Carry Rights on Home Bases

[Mike]

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...concealed-carry-rights-on-home-bases-n2078602

SNIP

After watching the slaughter at the Ft. Hood terror attack in 2009, the second Ft. Hood shooting in 2014 and most recently in Chattanooga, soldiers stationed at bases and posts here at home are fed up with the military's "gun free" zone policy.

Current Department of Defense policy states, "It is DoD policy to limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not carried."

After Chattanooga, this policy was even more dumbfounding. The FBI had been warning military service members about potential lone wolf terror attacks for nearly a year, yet didn't allow those stationed in recruitment centers any means to protect themselves.

. . .

 

[Dave_pro2a]

NO... more 'special' Rights for those who suck from the government teat.

Equal rights for all.

No more crap like:

 

[HPmatt]

Wasn't the rules regarding carrying on base changed back around Bush/Clinton era? Before that you could carry on base?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[F350]

Your average troop is not qualified to carry a sidearm at all times, having been in the Marines I have seen some real dumb @ weapon handling by the average troop.

I would think anyone who can qualify expert with a pistol should be allowed to carry on base, if you want to carry but can't qualify expert, get some more training, even if you have to go off base and pay for it. Having qualified expert with both rifle and pistol in the Marines (rifle expert is minimum of 215 out of 250, I shot 238; pistol is 345 out of 400 I shot 387; both with off the rack weapons) it isn't all that hard to do. I would guess the average military pistol expert would only be middle of the pack in an IPSC match having shot both.

Just like every Marine has to pass "drown proofing" and there are qualification levels just like marksmanship, don't remember the first two but the top was WSQ (water survival qualified). When at the beach at Lejeune only WSQ could go beyond the buoy lines, only pistol experts should be allowed to carry on base, or maybe sharpshooter, but.....

 

[Dave_pro2a]

only pistol experts should be allowed to carry on base, or maybe sharpshooter, but.....

Questions:
Does the average MP carry a pistol?
Does the average MP have to qualify as expert marksman?

 

[MAC702]

Military "expert" training should not be the parameter. In many cases, you do not learn safe gun handling beyond what to do immediately after loading it at the firing line. Conversely, there are many who would be perfectly safe with a firearm yet their target scores would be less than expert, perhaps far less, yet more than adequate for self-defense purposes.

 

[Grapeshot]

Only the more elite should be allowed to carry.

 

[skidmark]

Your average troop is not qualified to carry a sidearm at all times, having been in the Marines I have seen some real dumb @ weapon handling by the average troop.

I would think anyone who can qualify expert with a pistol should be allowed to carry on base, if you want to carry but can't qualify expert, get some more training, even if you have to go off base and pay for it. Having qualified expert with both rifle and pistol in the Marines (rifle expert is minimum of 215 out of 250, I shot 238; pistol is 345 out of 400 I shot 387; both with off the rack weapons) it isn't all that hard to do. I would guess the average military pistol expert would only be middle of the pack in an IPSC match having shot both.

Just like every Marine has to pass "drown proofing" and there are qualification levels just like marksmanship, don't remember the first two but the top was WSQ (water survival qualified). When at the beach at Lejeune only WSQ could go beyond the buoy lines, only pistol experts should be allowed to carry on base, or maybe sharpshooter, but.....

Qualifying in the military (much like most firearm training classes) has nothing to do with self defense skills. It's target practice at known distances. The "average" military expert would be lucky to get out of the bottom 10 in an IPSC/IDPA match until they gor some practice with the format.

Our military are not "only ones" and their presence on active duty has almost noting to do with their gun handling/self defense shooting skills. How do I know? Because I shot 242 with the M-14 and 395 with the .45. (It's no big deal- kids in Junior Olympics can do it all day long.) When I got to Viet Nam I had a platoon sergeant who was smart enough to send everyone (including REMFs like me) through the Snap Fire course (which is a bear when walking and almost impossible when jogging).

Given the dynamics of military base life the chances of blue on blue shooting is probably somewhere well north of 80%. Just like they made me take a defensive driving class when I got back to The World (where running down mopeds with a 6x6 was more frowned upon) I think large-group FOF training would be prudent. Reducing the size of the Circular Firing Squad probably should be the first subject taught. (I don't care if you are IPSC/IDPA super grand master high poobah - shooting back at someone when there are between 10s and100s of non-threats milling around is going to be more than "challenging".

stay safe.

 

[OC for ME]

Strange, a chain link fence with a US Government Property sign affixed to it requires the citizen to be better trained if he is on one side of the fence, yet mandatory training is a infringement if he is on the other side of the fence...yes, strange indeed.

 

[Bikenut]

Whether in or out of the military ... if you have to meet certain qualifications/standards before being allowed to bear arms then bearing arms is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever sets the qualifications/standards. The purpose of setting qualifications/standards is not to grant those who meet them a special privilege... the purpose of qualifications/standards is to be able to control who is NOT granted the privilege.

And every anti gunner worth his/her salt would love to be in a position to set the qualifications/standards in order to be in control who is not granted the privilege of bearing arms.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

Only the more elite should be allowed to carry.

After a thorough self assessment.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Whether in or out of the military ... if you have to meet certain qualifications/standards before being allowed to bear arms then bearing arms is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever sets the qualifications/standards. The purpose of setting qualifications/standards is not to grant those who meet them a special privilege... the purpose of qualifications/standards is to be able to control who is NOT granted the privilege.

And every anti gunner worth his/her salt would love to be in a position to set the qualifications/standards in order to be in control who is not granted the privilege of bearing arms.

+1

 

[MAC702]

Whether in or out of the military ... if you have to meet certain qualifications/standards before being allowed to bear arms then bearing arms is not a right but is a privilege controlled by whoever sets the qualifications/standards. ....

You have few rights in the military, far fewer if you signed up for it, and the last man drafted retired several years ago.

 

[WalkingWolf]

You have few rights in the military, far fewer if you signed up for it, and the last man drafted retired several years ago.

IIRC signing up for the military is a contract. The contract also requires an oath to the US constitution, I do not believe that rights are surrendered other than any other contractual employment. They certainly do not give up their right to self defense. Originally before a standing army was formed, the militia was required to be armed.

While on duty the soldiers are under the same obligations as anybody with a employee relationship, you follow the employers rules, or lose your job. It is up to the government to provide the training for soldiers, they should have no say so on civilians on military property. IMO I do not have much faith in training for safe gun handling, it will not change a idiot into a safe person. In fact with trained government agents we have impressive proof it does not. Time, and time again untrained LAC stop threats without any training, and those with training fail miserably.

 

[HPmatt]

After a thorough self assessment.

So you propose a mental test? For each service? Same for Army and Marines and Navy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[skidmark]

After a thorough self assessment.

So you propose a mental test? For each service? Same for Army and Marines and Navy?

Marines will need to think about that. Army & Navy will just reach behind themself, grab hold, and report "Yes, I have one."

:lol:

stay safe.

 

[Dave_pro2a]

So you propose a mental test?

I propose that whenever people are asked if they'd like more freedom, there's a 50/50 chance they will say "Yes."

Conversely, whenever people are asked to curtail freedom there's a 50/50 chance they will say "Yes."

But when it comes to the 2A, the only legitimate 'qualifying test' is an individuals self-assessment of skills, knowledge and fortitude..

 

[Aknazer]

Wasn't the rules regarding carrying on base changed back around Bush/Clinton era? Before that you could carry on base?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a law passed back in 1949 IIRC, and one that was vetoed by the President but overridden by Congress. It gave base CC's the ability to ban such things as carrying on the base. This law, the year it was passed, and the specific sections of it are posted on a sign when you enter the base, but it's been awhile since I've taken the time to thoroughly read the sign.

NO... more 'special' Rights for those who suck from the government teat.

Equal rights for all.

No more crap like:

Generally I would agree, but this time I don't. The base is a gated and fenced area which is property of the government and designated as a controlled area. When you enter you're agreeing to allowing them to search you at any time regardless of the reason. You will also see this again posted at various places. Thus I see them requiring training or flat out denying one the ability to carry as not much different from a store or personal property banning such carry for the same reasons. That said I do believe that the military (and others others properly vetted/trained) should be able to carry. In regards to the fear of blue-on-blue I fail to see how that's different from the threat of such a thing happening when a regular civilian uses their gun to prevent some type of crime. I also think that if training is mandatory to carry then the military needs to make it reasonably accessible to all of those that have access to the base and otherwise qualify (much like how not everyone who has access to the base is authorized to use things like the gas station, BX/PX/NEX, commissary, etc). If one has to supply their own gun+ammo for the training that's fine, but the training itself should be made available. I mean it is the "armed forces" so why exactly aren't we allowed to be armed and why aren't we getting proper weapons training to be armed if that's the concern?

Now government places that don't have such controlled access (such as the Post Office and various other buildings) should NOT require such things. The government is doing nothing to protect the people of such places and the access to such places isn't restricted.

 

[omahaoutdoors]

If you believe military personnel should have to reach expert marksmanship levels to carry, I think you're missing something. The average citizen doesn't have as much as training as the average military serviceman, so I see no reason to restrict. As others have stated, testing and practical self-defense are two different things. However, perhaps mandatory additional training in self-defense on a military base would be a good idea (whether they carry or not).

 

[Freedom1Man]

Why CC only? I believe that the military should open carry on post. Make it part of the uniform even.

This is OCDO (OPEN CARRY dot org) so why are we pushing for CONCEALED CARRY?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk