color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Are you crazy, man??????
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Poll: Overwhelming Majority of Military Want Concealed Carry Rights on Home Bases
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Aknazer
Regular Member
I think they should have the freedom to choose much like I think citizens should have the freedom to choose without needing a permission slip. Though I can understand some people pushing CC as I've heard the fear that citizens wouldn't like seeing armed military members on US soil.
Last edited:
F350
Regular Member
I was in the Marines; I've seen 18-20 year old big city boys (particularly minorities, sorry but true) even after Marine Corps weapons training that i wouldn't trust with a BB gun let alone a handgun. When people say military/police get expert training in weapons i almost break a rib laughing, in my Marine company there were 4 guys that were not allowed to handle a weapon without 1-1 supervision; when I rode on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy who was the department chief firearms instructor the most dangerous thing I did was assist in firearms qualification. Had one deputy that was having trouble on the line, turned to ask for help and just barely missed shooting my buddy.
Yea, maybe qualification is just target practice but to make expert requires more than a little familiarity with weapons, which far too many of our youth today do not have.
PerBast
Regular Member
New to Open Carry and on active duty
New to the Open Carry scene and live in Greenboro NC. I carry my handgun pretty much everywhere, but run into issues when I head off to work. I am in the military and we are barred from having our weapons secured in our vehichles on government property. So, I have to choose to not carry my handgun to and from work to ensure I do not wind up in the hotseat.
We have security that is armed, so while at work I feel safe. But it is that drive to and from work has the increased risk.
Michael
New to the Open Carry scene and live in Greenboro NC. I carry my handgun pretty much everywhere, but run into issues when I head off to work. I am in the military and we are barred from having our weapons secured in our vehichles on government property. So, I have to choose to not carry my handgun to and from work to ensure I do not wind up in the hotseat.
We have security that is armed, so while at work I feel safe. But it is that drive to and from work has the increased risk.
Michael
First thanks for your service and welcome to NC and the forum.
hope you contribute to the NC state thread with your OC'g experiences here in NC as it benefits us all.
since you didn't state where you original hail from...have you seen this document from the NC Atty General:
http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx
again welcome
ipse
hope you contribute to the NC state thread with your OC'g experiences here in NC as it benefits us all.
since you didn't state where you original hail from...have you seen this document from the NC Atty General:
http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx
again welcome
ipse
Aknazer
Regular Member
And I would still want to be armed in the workplace. As Ft. Hood, Navy Yard, and other incidents have shown once the gate is breached you're just a sitting duck until armed individuals can get on scene. I've also heard a story about some activists who managed to get onto a flightline and paint some planes with various phrases. If they were able to get on base and paint a B-52 that was on 20min alert imagine what could have been done if they were out to actually hurt military members.
PerBast
Regular Member
Thank you for the warm welcome
Thank you for the warm welcome. I am in hopes of getting involved with the posts on the Open Carry forum.
Not sure where I techically originally hail from. I left my home in Oregon back in 93 and have not been back. Calif, Texas, Nevada, NC and SC have been my home since. Each with their own little quirks with the gun laws.
Thanks again.
Thank you for the warm welcome. I am in hopes of getting involved with the posts on the Open Carry forum.
Not sure where I techically originally hail from. I left my home in Oregon back in 93 and have not been back. Calif, Texas, Nevada, NC and SC have been my home since. Each with their own little quirks with the gun laws.
Thanks again.
referencing your story you seem to have neglected to provide the caveat at the top of the site's page:
please
quote This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2012) unquote.
additionally, it would seem there are no other main stream news medium outlets which reported this incident and personally being aware of the perimeter security protocols involved with the buff...especially during a raised defcon environment...nobody would have lived to tell the story let alone get close enough to paint any aerocraft on the flight-line.
sigh...now will you tell us another bed time story which is similar to this conjured fantasy.
ipse
edited...seems a group were involved in damaging a buff around thanksgiving of 1983 but there was no O'Reilly listed nor any mention of 'shareplows'...still seems mr O'Reilly's imagination has the better of him if his wiki states he participated in 1991 which occurred in '83. ah we have turned our story into a time traveler event...nice touch. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/17/nyregion/the-region-7-are-sentenced-in-b-52-vandalism.html
Last edited:
Nice find.
IMO - many (most?) base/post security is somewhat lax - some do not apparently have ammo for their weapons. Seems like so much security theater w/o the ability to respond and defining post orders. Observe and report could be said the be the order of the day.
grape, when the security of the buffs is concerned coupled with the bogus article's claim it occurred during heighten defcon and there were allegedly nuclear payloads on board ~ the nice security detail are armed to the hilt w/deadly force authorized.
ipse
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Nice find.
IMO - many (most?) base/post security is somewhat lax - some do not apparently have ammo for their weapons. Seems like so much security theater w/o the ability to respond and defining post orders. Observe and report could be said the be the order of the day.
I was thinking more of normal front gate security, some who are non-military contractors. I should have made that clear.
Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
Here's a link to an article arming base security The comments are interisting
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/02/five-rounds-as-us-army-guard.html
I was either in, or worked for, the U.S. Army for over 30 years. During that time I had some experience with what guards were issued for ammunition. My brother brought my attention to a video done about F-15s in Bitburg, Germany, in 1981, at the height of the cold war, only a few year before NATO won. It is titled "The Wing". In the video you can see the Tech Sergeant being issued magazines. He is issued four magazines, all have rounds in them. He makes sure his chamber is clear, and inserts one magazine. In the screen-shot (about 7:26 on the video) you can see the other three magazines in his left hand. They are clearly 30 round magazines for the M16 or variants.
If they were loaded with 28-29 rounds each, I would be pleasantly surprised. I was surprised to see that he received four magazines with rounds in them. It would not make sense to issue him four magazines with five rounds each, when he could be issued one magazine with 20 rounds.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/02/five-rounds-as-us-army-guard.html
I was either in, or worked for, the U.S. Army for over 30 years. During that time I had some experience with what guards were issued for ammunition. My brother brought my attention to a video done about F-15s in Bitburg, Germany, in 1981, at the height of the cold war, only a few year before NATO won. It is titled "The Wing". In the video you can see the Tech Sergeant being issued magazines. He is issued four magazines, all have rounds in them. He makes sure his chamber is clear, and inserts one magazine. In the screen-shot (about 7:26 on the video) you can see the other three magazines in his left hand. They are clearly 30 round magazines for the M16 or variants.
If they were loaded with 28-29 rounds each, I would be pleasantly surprised. I was surprised to see that he received four magazines with rounds in them. It would not make sense to issue him four magazines with five rounds each, when he could be issued one magazine with 20 rounds.
Last edited:
325rto
Regular Member
When I was stationed in Vicenza, Italy, we were tasked with providing guards for our off-site basic load storage area. We were issued 18 rounds in an M-16 magazine at the beginning of our shift. Back at the caserne, the Quick Reaction Force, which was restricted to the company dayroom, awaited with their issue weapons in racks and live ammo. It was a 20 minute drive from the caserne to the BLSA.
Satdiver
Regular Member
CC & OC on base
the requirements should be the same as those for the civilian population to carry on base for both CC & OC. The base should have to follow state laws in this regard.
You will always have those that are "scary" at handling a firearm in both the military and civilian world. It is what it is, just like you would not deny an elderly person who qualified at their CCW course a license, you shouldn't restrict the military, because they didn't shoot Expert.
I hate when I have to go on base and leave my gun at home and would like to see this changed as well.
Maybe when Donald Trump gets elected he can change it.
:lol:
the requirements should be the same as those for the civilian population to carry on base for both CC & OC. The base should have to follow state laws in this regard.
You will always have those that are "scary" at handling a firearm in both the military and civilian world. It is what it is, just like you would not deny an elderly person who qualified at their CCW course a license, you shouldn't restrict the military, because they didn't shoot Expert.
I hate when I have to go on base and leave my gun at home and would like to see this changed as well.
Maybe when Donald Trump gets elected he can change it.
:lol:
Aknazer
Regular Member
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5363 - 1991 event
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/secrobins.pdf - 1978 event, involves an A1C who had access to the jet.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/security.htm - Shows various other incidents sabotage and what not. It mentions vandalism on a B 52 in 1992 at a RAF base but the link doesn't work. O'Reilly is specifically mentioned in the 1991 link.
When I was originally told about the event I was a SF augmentee (2005) and wasn't told any other information outside of the fact that protesters had compromised the security of a B 52, vandalized it, and that it was down for a few days while they worked to take care of the incident and that it caused a mission to be scrubbed. Whether the story I was told was true, false, and/or exaggerated I obviously have no way to know or confirm. But as the links show there's at least some truth such things happening even if the story as relayed to me wasn't 100% accurate. Or it could be that if it was only paint that had to be cleaned up (which was what I was told, don't know why that would scrub a mission though unless the "mission" was something like a public showing once the plane was off of alert) that it simply didn't get reported in any reasonably trackable manner.
Last edited:
Aknazer
Regular Member
Except that while deadly force is authorized you still have to account for the surroundings. So sure they "could" have shot the protesters and legally been fine...except that behind the protesters was a plane with live nukes. While I HIGHLY doubt stray shots could cause the nukes to go off, I still wouldn't want to be the one to explain why the casing is cracked or some other damage. And if the protesters stopped and complied it then becomes even harder to justify politically even if legally you were authorized due to it being a PL1 asset.
(1) did you notice there is no 'af ltrhead' on this official document? nuff said...
(2) previously debunked as misreporting by this credible new reporting website.
(2) of course they told the newbie augmentee about the legend of vandalized activities...and i bet you truly believed your service recruiter could get you 'eagles' on your collar within a year of enlisting. or were you the bloke whom they sent to base supply for a yard of flight line or gallon of prop wash?
(3) didn't you find it interesting to note that apparently NONE of the links worked?
as for showing you when the trespass incident occurred, w/o o'riley in attendance, that is documented and cited.
incidents occur, however they are not publicized immediately or they are 'pulled' from the military like bad wisdom teeth. and then, the report is misreported to make some point or that point by main/stupid internet news agencies as catastrophic. and idiot savants grab the reports as a cause de celebre or cause du jour and add them to their conspiracy legends and they become folk lore.
case in point: http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil.../nuclear-tipped-icbm-damaged-in-diy-accident/
begrudgingly reported by the AF almost two years after the event..the shock and awe scare to the public generated etc., is tremendous sales to the sites who reported it...the legends have begun...even those who are privy to the actual facts will begin to twist the mundane detail to high level of incompetence or even purposeful negligence or shall we read in tomorrow's news that APPLE is defending itself from the AF OSI's techs who want in the maintence crew's electronic devices to assure it wasn't....TERRORISM.
sooo augmentee...take it for what it was...you got punked by the SF team so you would be hyped up to do at least a mediocre job while being a SF augmentee...
ipse
yes everything on al gore's invention is the TRUTH....
Last edited:
since9
Campaign Veteran
Currently Department of Defense policy stands in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment, "the supreme Law of the Land," which reads, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Our Founding Fathers specifically intended this right to be absolutely, applicable to all government entities in all branches and at all levels including local, county, state, and federal.
I wasn't aware of the FBI intelligence or warning. If it indeed existed, which I have no reason to doubt, and if commanders were aware of its existence, which I have every reason to believe they would through their OSI contacts, then the commanders of those who were killed or wounded, up to and including the Commander in Chief, Obama himself, should be held liable for their orders which contributed to our Armed Forces members being unable to protect themselves. Furthermore, all charges against the Navy officer who used his own weapon in self-defense should be immediately dropped. If they are not, I will be in line petitioning Donald Trump to pardon him the second he is convicted, with an offer to immediately return to active duty in a station commensurate with his training and abilities.
Admittedly, some people in the military are just dangerous around firearms. There's a reason military range controllers are themselves armed. I do not, however, think this applies to "most." Having hit the military range approximately eight times in my career, and seen all manner of individuals of all ranks and specialties stepping up to the firing line during the 20 years between 1989 and 2009, I would estimate that percentage to be less than 10%.
I concur with your IPSC assessment. However, I do not concur with your assessment that only those who qualify expert should be allowed to carry on base. Most people, including approximately half of the security forces personnel with whom I trained, did not meet the expert qualifications. If "Qual" is good enough for security forces (and the Army/Navy/Marine's MP) personnel, then it's good enough for me. As for me, I missed expert by 1 round while going through officer training, but I qualified expert throughout my career, including on the M8, M-9, and M-16. Yes, depending on their assignments and/or specialties, some officers get to qualify on the M-16.
Ok, rub it in...
I read the remainder of your arguments, but the FBI study of the 160 active shooting incidents from 2000 through 2013 (Source) says the following:
40.0% were stopped by suicide, usually after the arrival of law enforcement
40.0% met the new federal definition of "mass killing," where three or more individuals were killed
Only 2 incidents of the 160 (1.25%) involved more than a single shooter
5 shooters in 4 incidents (2.5%) remain at large
In the 63 incidents where the duration could be correctly ascertained, 44 (70%) ended in 5 minutes or less, and 23 (37%) ended in 2 minutes or less
Thus (from above), 100% of the 63 incidents where the duration could be ascertained ended in 5 minutes of less.
"Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face."
I take this last one to indicate two things:
1. To the government: STOP infringing on the right of the people keep and bear arms, even on military bases and in government installations. Our Founding Fathers wrote our Second Amendment for good reason.
2. To the people: Be ready to stop an active shooter, for the above statistics indicate that if we don't, more people will die, and long before law enforcement arrives.
Which of that is from a source, and which is your own conclusion? Because my assumption is something is not right there. Most stats like that would have me believe that the 23 that ended in 2 minutes or less are part of the 44 that ended in 5 minutes or less.
This seems even more so when 70+37=107.
I must confess ignorance here. I don't know what the M8 is in this context, and you have piqued my curiosity. I found it odd how many of us officers did not care to qualify with personal weapons during the many times we were given the opportunity to do so. Perhaps being in the Navy was the main correlating factor, though. Me, I relished every opportunity to shoot. I qualified expert with the M1911A1 and the M16A2.
Last edited:
hey since9, you should post your epistle over in the corporation rights thread as there is NO flagrant violation of NADA, NOTHING, anything!!
last time i checked, the nice service members who serve or have served, raised their hand and signed their contract voluntarily to join the armed services to make a better life for themselves.
the DoD civilians do exactly the same as the pay scale is higher and provides better and longer benefits, for the most part, then available to the outside work force!
the retiree, such as your self, abide by the norm because they like their disability, retirement, medical, B/PX, and commissary benefits.
oh yes you can say they suck off the tit of the government all you want...oh wait did i hear you state you are disavowing your retirement benefits to advocate against this perceived flagrant unconstitutional policy ~ then i might be impressed with your rant.
now after 20 + as an elite flyboy, you are now publicly complaining about the armed forces policies as flagrant unconstitutional?
i'm sorry, could you explain why didn't you complain while in, or would that have caused someone to visit your PRP which could affect your flying status or would you have P.Off your CO which could have been just as prejudicial.
sorry while you are disgusted with this perceived slight, but the practice has been that way in this country's armed services since it was created...whether the muskets w/bayonets, were stacked upright outside a group of tents as they bivouacked in a field or put in the armory while sheltered in place at garrison. oh yes the officers maintained their sidearms to assure there were no wayward members acting out. is that what you are upset about...you can't carry to assure no wayward members act out?
now, instead of a flipping rant to this group about flagrant anything, which is nothing more than incitement of people who can not affect a change, so therefore doesn't work worth a flip, to a change of tune towards actively championing and campaigning to those policy makers (oh the sorry congressional leaders) who can affect the change in policies you seek.
ipse
last time i checked, the nice service members who serve or have served, raised their hand and signed their contract voluntarily to join the armed services to make a better life for themselves.
the DoD civilians do exactly the same as the pay scale is higher and provides better and longer benefits, for the most part, then available to the outside work force!
the retiree, such as your self, abide by the norm because they like their disability, retirement, medical, B/PX, and commissary benefits.
oh yes you can say they suck off the tit of the government all you want...oh wait did i hear you state you are disavowing your retirement benefits to advocate against this perceived flagrant unconstitutional policy ~ then i might be impressed with your rant.
now after 20 + as an elite flyboy, you are now publicly complaining about the armed forces policies as flagrant unconstitutional?
i'm sorry, could you explain why didn't you complain while in, or would that have caused someone to visit your PRP which could affect your flying status or would you have P.Off your CO which could have been just as prejudicial.
sorry while you are disgusted with this perceived slight, but the practice has been that way in this country's armed services since it was created...whether the muskets w/bayonets, were stacked upright outside a group of tents as they bivouacked in a field or put in the armory while sheltered in place at garrison. oh yes the officers maintained their sidearms to assure there were no wayward members acting out. is that what you are upset about...you can't carry to assure no wayward members act out?
now, instead of a flipping rant to this group about flagrant anything, which is nothing more than incitement of people who can not affect a change, so therefore doesn't work worth a flip, to a change of tune towards actively championing and campaigning to those policy makers (oh the sorry congressional leaders) who can affect the change in policies you seek.
ipse
Last edited: