New military gun policy may not mean more guns on base

2015-10-19T12:54:13-04:00

From: Military Times

Lawmakers want to loosen rules for service members to carry weapons at stateside bases for personal protection, but their efforts appear unlikely to put more guns into troops’ hands.

In the wake of the July mass shooting that killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tennessee, negotiators working on the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill included language to give military installation commanders more leeway over who can carry “an appropriate firearm,” including some personal weapons.

The provision requires the secretary of defense to establish a new policy by the end of the year, although a promised presidential veto of the broader defense policy bill on unrelated budget matters could delay that.

Lawmakers said the issue is a matter of force protection and safety.

“(We) remain concerned about the response times to active shooter attacks on U.S. military installations and facilities,” lawmakers wrote in report language connected to the legislation. “Commanders should take steps to arm additional personnel … if they believe that arming those personnel will contribute to that goal.”

But that “if” remains a controversial argument both in and outside the military.

The National Rifle Association and several Republican presidential candidates have pushed for looser gun rules for troops in recent months, arguing that “gun-free zones” increase the danger for law-abiding citizens by preventing them from defending themselves.

Gun control advocates have argued the opposite — and so has the Defense Department.

Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Thomas Crosson said the department does not support arming all personnel, a position strengthened after multiple safety reviews following the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., in 2013.

“Some of the top reasons are safety concerns, the prohibitive costs of use-of-force and weapons training and qualification costs,” Crosson said. “However, DoD guidance does provide flexibility to component and installation commanders to arm additional personnel based on necessity.”

Nothing in the defense authorization bill language would force a change in that stance, although it could strengthen individual base commanders’ position to arm more troops if they can argue a broader safety need.

Lawmakers emphasized that the policy changes would not supersede any state or local firearms laws. Gun-control activists see the new provision as representing only minor changes at best.

“I don’t think the Defense Department is going to bow to pressure from the NRA,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “We trust they’re going to to the right things, their commanders will make the right decisions to keep bases safe.”

At least two service members involved in the Chattanooga shooting were carrying personal weapons during the attack, in possible violation of current military rules, and unsuccessfully returned fire in an attempt to stop the homicidal gunman.

Whether even the ambiguous new gun provisions survive to become law remains uncertain.

If President Obama follows through with his threat to veto the defense policy bill, the Republican-controlled House and Senate are likely to attempt an override. But the House approved the bill by a margin that was already 20 votes short of enough support for an override, and Senate Democratic leaders have promised to support a presidential veto in their chamber.

Lawmakers then would be forced to renegotiate a new authorization bill, and Capitol Hill staffers could not say whether the gun provision would be guaranteed to remain in any future drafts.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/10/18/ndaa-gun-policy/73980228/

Lawmakers want to loosen rules for troops to carry guns for personal protection, but they aren't forcing a major change.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 12:55 PM

2015-10-19T12:55:55-04:00

Personally I don't see an issue with concealed carry on base. If one is responsible, shouldn't be an issue.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 1:11 PM

2015-10-19T13:11:15-04:00

well ... as long as there are armed personals ... no just one. That is my problem with my NOSC right now ... only one armed MA to protect us.

Conceal carry should be allowed ... but that is above my pay grade to decide ... sigh...

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 19 at 2015 1:14 PM

2015-10-19T13:14:31-04:00

This is not a meaningful policy change. This still gives commanders the ability to say no for no reason that they simply do not agree with it. A more meaningful change would be to allow anyone who can lawfully carry off base to do so in the same manner on base unless there is a legitimate reason to prevent someone from doing so (i.e. suicide threats, threats against others etc).

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 19 at 2015 2:03 PM

2015-10-19T14:03:01-04:00

One cannot expect commanders to relax rules in the face of the CINC’s strong support for more restrictive gun control measures across the board.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 2:56 PM

2015-10-19T14:56:31-04:00

If you can legally carry outside the post, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to carry inside the post. A simple commander's memo kept inside your vehicle and continue provost martial registration. Local commander's should be able to restrict usage for cause. I hope this will get approved before the terrorists figure out there are 200 or so unarmed reservists with access to an arms room with no ability to self defend. How long until a disgruntled radical right wing nutjob attacks a reserve center while they are turning in weapons. Highly visible, highly vulnerable, high payoff.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 21 at 2015 7:40 AM

2015-10-21T07:40:01-04:00

I don't know about anyone else but, I for one do not want to be caught in a gun fight without a gun. Everyone on base should be carrying.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Aug 21 at 2017 6:06 PM

2017-08-21T18:06:26-04:00

I don't want goof balls bringing guns on base. This is Arizona, it's crazy out there. Half of those militiamen shouldn't be around sharp objects

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Aug 22 at 2017 2:16 PM

2017-08-22T14:16:54-04:00

It was stated that if there was a danger of threat against others then that person shouldn't be carrying... think about it..

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Aug 22 at 2017 3:41 PM

2017-08-22T15:41:42-04:00

The way this should work is that the Security Forces, MPs, or whatever your branch calls them should do the following:
1) You should have a conceal carry permit for your state to even apply for on base/post permit
2) The Base Sec Forces/MPs etc should hold a training class on Deadly Use of Force
3) You qualify as part of the certification process with one of your personal weapons once a year
4) They give you a card stating you have met all the qualifications so if you are checked you have the proof.
If it is a little bit painful to get, not everyone would go after it. The ones that truly want to carry will and the base has a record of who they are.

Response by PVT Raymond Lopez made Aug 22 at 2017 9:21 PM

2017-08-22T21:21:28-04:00

I HAVE A MARVELOUS IDEA LET US DO AWAY WITH THE PROTECTION UNITS FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON DOWN!

Response by Hunter Febes made Aug 23 at 2017 10:55 AM

2017-08-23T10:55:15-04:00

I feel if your on base you should carry a weapon/firearm because there are things that can happen. Like shootings or maybe your base gets ambushed you never know what can happen. Everyone on base should be ready to take out and neutralize all possible threats. But that is my beliefs

Response by Lt Col George Roll made Jan 10 at 2019 9:23 PM

2019-01-10T21:23:17-05:00

The Armed Forces carry individual weapons overseas they dont shoot each other. But here in the US commanders are unwilling to allow the same Armed Forces personnel to carry the individual weapons that the States have issued Concealed Weapons Permits for.
This is a blatent violation of the 2nd Ammendment. As it applies to the very personnel who defend it. The Moslem Major at Ft. Hood who killed 13 soldiers before a armed pregnant civilian security guard wounded him. By the way she was an army reservest who would not been allowed to carry a gun if she had been on reserve duty. Ironic isnt it!