Posted on Nov 22, 2016
14
14
0
There are folks that you work with that should not be permitted to drive, much less carry a concealed weapon. Do you feel safe? Further, should concealed carry instruction be mandatory/voluntary first?
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/troops-concealed-handguns-armed-military-recruiters
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/troops-concealed-handguns-armed-military-recruiters
Posted in these groups: 
Firearms and GunsFirearms Instructor
Firearms and GunsFirearms Instructor
Edited 8 y ago
Posted 8 y ago
Responses: 22
TSgt Terence LaPoint You do realize the potential SM carrier has to meet Federal regulations, State regulations AND receive the commander's approval BEFORE they can be authorized to carry a personal concealed weapon?
This is a NON issue, just like concealed carry at the state level.
The single most law abiding demographic in texas is those that have been approved to carry a concealed weapon. No group of citizens is more law abiding and trustworthy, then LTC holders. Add on top of that the commander's knowledge of the personnel in his/ her command and there is no reason to fear those approved to carry a personal weapon.
So unless the Air Force has a significant issue with irresponsible commanders unwilling to perform thier duties... Even the Air Force should not see a significant issue here.
This is a NON issue, just like concealed carry at the state level.
The single most law abiding demographic in texas is those that have been approved to carry a concealed weapon. No group of citizens is more law abiding and trustworthy, then LTC holders. Add on top of that the commander's knowledge of the personnel in his/ her command and there is no reason to fear those approved to carry a personal weapon.
So unless the Air Force has a significant issue with irresponsible commanders unwilling to perform thier duties... Even the Air Force should not see a significant issue here.
(16)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - one soldiers also have there 2nd Amendment rights. Also can you point to a place that has had problems like you have described after that state has lessened or removed gun laws?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - You know what? I'll play your silly little game. How about you show me states where it hasn't happened to prove your point. That's if you can find any data that doesn't include the number of violent crimes and then make sure you separate the civilians from the soldiers. It shouldn't be a hard task, and you have a four day to crunch the numbers.
Or you can stop hiding behind that paper thin argument of "show me the numbers" that don't exist other than states that have weak CCW requirements have increased numbers of gun violence (which is not what we are focusing on). My concerns are from my actual observations of soldiers engaging targets in civilian clothes or in uniform with a concealed carry weapon, most of whom already have a CCW. From my actual observations, conducted numerous times over the course of a decade, I have seen soldiers repeatedly make the same dangerous mistakes because of a lack of previous training, poor prior training, bad habits, or sheer ignorance. I see these things occur in higher rates among soldiers than I do with civilians because many of them get to skip some of the requirements that civilians have to meet.
As to the 2nd Amendment, let's look at the phrase, "A well regulated militia".
While the phrase was never specifically defined by the founding fathers, it has been determined numerous times to mean that part of the right to bear arms means that you need to be skilled to use those arms so that you can take them up in defense of yourself or the nation. I want to focus on that commonly accepted definition of "skilled" part, because it is important.
Many people, including most soldiers themselves, believe that they are skilled in the use of firearms when in fact only portions of the military are. Even fewer are specifically skilled to use pistols. Matter of fact, your average Infantryman (the largest single MOS in the Army if I recall correctly) has no experience firing a pistol. Yet these guys are given a pass because it is assumed they meet the "well regulated militia" criteria imposed by the 2nd Amendment in terms of being skilled with arms (specifically pistols). Furthermore, most soldiers who do have experience carrying pistols in the Army only know the M9 Berretta, which is not a pistol that a smart man would choose for a CCW.
The big difference between before the change and after the change is that before the change, soldiers who had CCWs usually also shoot on the weekends and are familiar with their firearm. Now that the Army is going to allow soldiers to conceal carry on duty, most soldiers will want to do so because what is a soldier without weapon. So you have an influx of inexperienced people buying pistols who will most likely get the required CCW without showing any proficiency whatsoever because of their status and assumed proficient who are being called upon to be a part of force protection...I mean if you can't see the issue here as being presented from an experienced guy with literally thousands of hours of range time firing hundreds of thousands of rounds then you are refusing to see reality.
Or you can stop hiding behind that paper thin argument of "show me the numbers" that don't exist other than states that have weak CCW requirements have increased numbers of gun violence (which is not what we are focusing on). My concerns are from my actual observations of soldiers engaging targets in civilian clothes or in uniform with a concealed carry weapon, most of whom already have a CCW. From my actual observations, conducted numerous times over the course of a decade, I have seen soldiers repeatedly make the same dangerous mistakes because of a lack of previous training, poor prior training, bad habits, or sheer ignorance. I see these things occur in higher rates among soldiers than I do with civilians because many of them get to skip some of the requirements that civilians have to meet.
As to the 2nd Amendment, let's look at the phrase, "A well regulated militia".
While the phrase was never specifically defined by the founding fathers, it has been determined numerous times to mean that part of the right to bear arms means that you need to be skilled to use those arms so that you can take them up in defense of yourself or the nation. I want to focus on that commonly accepted definition of "skilled" part, because it is important.
Many people, including most soldiers themselves, believe that they are skilled in the use of firearms when in fact only portions of the military are. Even fewer are specifically skilled to use pistols. Matter of fact, your average Infantryman (the largest single MOS in the Army if I recall correctly) has no experience firing a pistol. Yet these guys are given a pass because it is assumed they meet the "well regulated militia" criteria imposed by the 2nd Amendment in terms of being skilled with arms (specifically pistols). Furthermore, most soldiers who do have experience carrying pistols in the Army only know the M9 Berretta, which is not a pistol that a smart man would choose for a CCW.
The big difference between before the change and after the change is that before the change, soldiers who had CCWs usually also shoot on the weekends and are familiar with their firearm. Now that the Army is going to allow soldiers to conceal carry on duty, most soldiers will want to do so because what is a soldier without weapon. So you have an influx of inexperienced people buying pistols who will most likely get the required CCW without showing any proficiency whatsoever because of their status and assumed proficient who are being called upon to be a part of force protection...I mean if you can't see the issue here as being presented from an experienced guy with literally thousands of hours of range time firing hundreds of thousands of rounds then you are refusing to see reality.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
SFC (Join to see) - I will give you 2 articles about Arizona and how there crime rate has fallen after open carry.http://extranosalley.com/arizona-crime-rate-after-open-carry/ http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/07/16/study-concealed-constitutional-carry-less-crime/ more people with CCW's or law abiding people with guns is a good thing.
Arizona Crime Rate After Open Carry | Extrano's Alley, more than a gun blog
UPDATEThe FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2011 shows continuing decline in Arizona’s violent crime, homicide, robbery, and assault numbers, with a slight reduction in the number of rapes but an increase in estimated population that sent the rape rate up slightly. In general, violent crime rates declined at the expected rate.End Update
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - Except we aren't talking about crime rates...and Arizona is rated 17th highest in gun related deaths. On top of that the title of your article states open carry, and as we previously discussed concealed carry is different from open carry. Concealed carry requires different holsters, different draw techniques and even different pistols designs than open carry. Those soldier who only have experience with pistols from military are familiar with open carry, not concealed carry.
While Arizona does require a CCW applicant to, "demonstrate competence with a firearm", they accept, "Evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces". Which is a little contradictory because most soldiers generally only have firearms experience with rifles, not pistols.
So Arizona has looser CCW requirements and has less crime, but is still 17th in the nation for gun related deaths. I would speculate the root cause for that is that higher gun ownership rates result in higher incidences of firearms related death (obvious). I would also speculate that more guns in the hands of less experienced people is also a contributing factor (i.e. the soldier who gets a CCW without any experience with a pistol or even being required to show proof of training with a pistol).
While Arizona does require a CCW applicant to, "demonstrate competence with a firearm", they accept, "Evidence of current military service or proof of honorable discharge or general discharge under honorable conditions from the United States armed forces". Which is a little contradictory because most soldiers generally only have firearms experience with rifles, not pistols.
So Arizona has looser CCW requirements and has less crime, but is still 17th in the nation for gun related deaths. I would speculate the root cause for that is that higher gun ownership rates result in higher incidences of firearms related death (obvious). I would also speculate that more guns in the hands of less experienced people is also a contributing factor (i.e. the soldier who gets a CCW without any experience with a pistol or even being required to show proof of training with a pistol).
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
As the article is written, I think we are doing the right thing. Commander's approval is required so that means not every private is running around with a weapon. And I would hope not every LT also! I would like to see some process in place that ensures SMs know how to handle concealed carry and everyone won't just assume because a SM fumbled his way through BRM in BCT, he is GTG. After all the LTs, SMs, BRMs, and BCTs, I had to throw in the GTG!
(6)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I follow your reasoning LTC Joseph Gross My concern is this will put the gate guards in the middle. Under current policy, weapons are not allowed on base, easy solution if one is found/discovered during a routine vehicle check. Will the installations be issuing an installation permit? Will those permits have reciprocity with other bases in the area or while on TDY? Lots of questions needing to be answered on this.
(1)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
LTC (Join to see) - Definitely a lot of issues to flesh out. I'd say the answer should be yes on reciprocity and there should be some system of clearing people to carry on post. Gate guards will continue to be gate guards. Mostly rentacops who wave you through with the occasional MP or SF to check up on them.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
LTC Joseph Gross I don't see there being a problem with the gates. It should just be a simple change in there instructions and yes there are a lot of issues with this that need to be taken care of all of the where's, how's, who's, when's, and why's. I am sure that it can be taken care of but the guards at the gate will follow what the rules are that a put out to them. Also with any change in policy there are always growing pains.
(0)
(0)
MSG Mitch Dowler
The installations are to issue documentation of the authorization to carry to the individuals approved.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Yes, if required by the state they are stationed in. However, my personal feeling is also that states should look at the military member's training as sufficient to grant in states where training is required.
(5)
(0)
LTC Joseph Gross
TX doesn't require a SM to participate in the range portion of training if he has a current Range Qualification card. But we do require that he take the course. Having been through the course, I support that position because most people won't know the laws of the state in which they reside.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google