The Army Chief of Staff doesn't want Troops carrying weapons on base, concealed or otherwise. How do you feel about that?

SCPO Carl Wayne Boss — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 23:56:41 -0400

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee today and stated:

“In terms of carrying privately owned weapons on military bases, concealed, privately owned weapons, that is not authorized. That is a DOD policy. I do not recommend that it be changed. We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond... his statement continued.

Response by SCPO Carl Wayne Boss made Apr 9 at 2016 12:12 AM

SCPO Carl Wayne Boss — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 00:12:28 -0400

Should our Nation's Military Service Personnel be required to give up the right of "Self Defense" ... Is so called "Law Enforcement Response" on Military Installations any quicker or surer than that anywhere else in the country... if so... why did 13 Soldiers die at the hands of a single Jihadi nut (in an Army Uniform no less) at Fort Hood (Workplace violence... really) ? And what of the Recruiters in Chattanooga that were murdered.

It's not the same World we grew up in 30 or so years ago... we might as well get used to it... The Jihadists have told us they're coming for us... They've not yet forgotten what "The Crusaders" did to them 1500 years ago and are still mad about President Andrew Jackson sending a Naval Fleet and a Company of Marines to Tripoli in the 1830's... Apparently they're holding a grudge... there have been 40 odd attacks since 9-11... how many more do there have to be... before we take them seriously? Jus' wonderin'?

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 9 at 2016 1:08 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 01:08:12 -0400

I think he's made a mistake. Disarmed military forces incapable of self protection are the height of absurdity.

It is time to arm the armed forces.

https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint

The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...

Response by CW2 Nick Ivanovic made Apr 9 at 2016 7:45 AM

CW2 Nick Ivanovic — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 07:45:00 -0400

Why not? Does he feel it will make it safer?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 8:51 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 08:51:05 -0400

I would like to know what is he afraid of why does he not want soldiers to be caring on base? now I understand that there should be some limitations however why not allow it.

Response by CPL Evan Garrison made Apr 9 at 2016 9:33 AM

CPL Evan Garrison — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 09:33:50 -0400

I've always found it amazing that the government spends a ton of money to train and outfit soldiers with everything a warrior needs. We are trusted in battle, yet as soon as you return to the garrison environment soldiers apparently are no longer looked at as responsible adults. Many may argue that it is not needed (since installations have MPs), or there is a problem with how to ensure accountability.

The thing is many service members are licensed and carry either concealed or openly off post everyday. Maybe the government should stop treating service members like they are in a Boy Scout camp, this is the United States military and professional warriors should be treated accordingly.

Response by Maj John Bell made Apr 9 at 2016 10:46 AM

Maj John Bell — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 10:46:37 -0400

Disclaimer - This is not an indictment of women serving in the Marines. It is an indictment of testosterone in the less than 1% of young males who have a bad reaction to it.

I once stepped out to inspect guard mount only to find a full blown fight between two Marines that had done everything but fix bayonets, as they battled with their rifles as "war clubs". The topic of debate; Who was going to ask out the new female legal clerk. The end result, A Sergeant of the Guard (SOG) and Corporal of the Guard (COG) who went to the infirmary for busted fingers, a busted nose, and a fractured occipital orbit; and two junior Marines tried and convicted at a Special Court-Martial, then removed from Barracks duty. Thank God the SOG and COG got to their magazines pouches before they did.

With today's threat I don't think it is a good idea to leave SM's unarmed on base. I also don't think it is a good idea to arm them, when they are not under close supervision.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 9 at 2016 12:13 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:13:21 -0400

I know of no Federal facility's that authorize Privatley owned weapons to be carried or concealed, why should a military installation be different?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 12:29 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:29:21 -0400

When you need it help is only 5-10 minutes away in the form of a SPC who is probably hungover. Great...

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Apr 9 at 2016 12:57 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 12:57:09 -0400

Of all the tragedies lately involving mass shootings, three things always seem to catch my attention:
1. ALL of the shootings have been in "gun-free" zones.
2. Only the shooter was armed.
3. Law Enforcement always arrives just in time to clean up the aftermath.

Maybe it's time we allowed the "Armed Forces" to be just that. ARMED.

Response by SSG James Elmore made Apr 9 at 2016 6:57 PM

SSG James Elmore — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:57:07 -0400

I believe that if military personnel wish to conceal carry privately own weapons on post that it should be allowed but regulated just like law-enforcement is. If you are licensed by your home of record or state of station and you're willing to qualify with the weapon you are going to carry (once or twice a year just like we already do with our military assigned weapons) then it should be allowed!

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 9:50 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 21:50:37 -0400

There's no real reason to deny otherwise lawful carry on base.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 11:13 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 23:13:08 -0400

My Dad, Army Air Corps navigator instructor (B-17s) and airfield professional Civil Engineer, told me that during WWII that U.S. Code directed commissioned officers to take all appropriate actions to prevent crimes against people and property, they could be armed when judgement and situation demanded it. Was this not true? If so, why is it not true today? Protect the innocent & the U.S. Constitution! Free the Oppressed.

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Apr 9 at 2016 11:26 PM

MSgt John McGowan — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 23:26:45 -0400

I could be wrong but I believe the AF is working on a plan on how to issue side arms to certain Airman. That it was allowed by regulations. The shooting at Ft Hood clearly showed enough police or around. And the Marines were just targets. Wonder how the General is guarded?

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Apr 10 at 2016 1:00 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:00:29 -0400

There needs to be a balance. The Military Police of every base should be armed and Unit Officers of the day and area guards should be armed. There could perhaps be a command decision where some members of the command are armed throughout the day on a rotating basis.
Call me cynical but I think that an unlimited amount of service members carrying will result in more negligent discharges and deaths injuries than attacks will.

Response by CPL Randy Bautista made Apr 10 at 2016 1:28 AM

CPL Randy Bautista — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 01:28:08 -0400

I'm reading the comment and I'm just in aww as how so many of use beleive that soldiers having weapons is an issue. If you beleive an individual am shouldn't be able to carry at all time then he shouldn't be in the service. How can you not trust somebody with your life at home where it didn't even matter but have full and complete trust where it counts... I hope I made some wheels turn

Response by PO2 Skip Kirkwood made Apr 10 at 2016 9:47 AM

PO2 Skip Kirkwood — Sun, 10 Apr 2016 09:47:51 -0400

Active duty service members should have the same rights as civilians, with a little common sense mixed in. No going armed while drinking; no weapons in certain environments (hospital operating rooms, for example). But everybody should have the basic right of self-defense, and with what is happening and has happened (Lackland, Fort Hood, Spokane, etc.), that means the right to be armed.

Response by SPC Kevin Schober made Apr 11 at 2016 11:15 AM

SPC Kevin Schober — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 11:15:55 -0400

I believe what it comes down to is very basic and simple. Liability .

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2016 12:28 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:28:34 -0400

It's been proven that more guns increase the likeliness of gun violence. The whole concept of a "good guy" with a gun can stop a "bad guy" with a gun is erroneous.

Response by Sgt Michael Rambo made Apr 11 at 2016 2:48 PM

Sgt Michael Rambo — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:48:30 -0400

As to the question of armed members of the military. I think a good solution would be to base this on rank and experience. For instance, if you were an E-5 and above, an Officer rank, or in Special Operations. Another thing to do would be setup a class for those who do wish to carry about applicable laws, situational awareness, and especially how to de-escalate high stress situation. I don't expect every person to be trained in law enforcement procedures but those things would be good whether you carry or not.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Apr 11 at 2016 5:22 PM

SFC Marcus Belt — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:22:29 -0400

Well yeah, 'cause you can't trust a bunch of guys with guns...with guns.

Which ensures that at the crisis point, the bad guy will be the only one with a gun in a gunfight.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2016 6:25 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:25:45 -0400

personell on base are not permitted to have personel weapons for a reason period. if i lived on base and was a hunter my weapon would be secured in the armory, period. we have mp's/sps take take care of law enforcement, if you live off base good for you but their are proceedures, if you have a weapon it gets checked, and is locked up untill ready to leave base, of course i say this from experience, but that was a long time ago

Response by SGT Philip Keys made Apr 11 at 2016 6:59 PM

SGT Philip Keys — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 18:59:24 -0400

Ok I'm reading a lot of comments that say only guys rank xxx ir higher should be allowed to carry. Sorry to break the news just because you're a certain rank doesn't mean you're the sharpest tool in the shed. These privates in a battle zone are laying down serious fire power on the enemy with a lot more than a pistol. If the military member gets a CCW and takes the appropriate classes I think they should be allowed to carry. Not 100% of the time dont need someone dropping a glock during PT as an example. But if they are good enough to fight for this country they should be good enough to carry a weapon to protect themselves while they are state side.

Response by Maj Marty Hogan made Apr 11 at 2016 8:04 PM

Maj Marty Hogan — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:04:51 -0400

Great question. I will answer in a different direction. In my job I see a lot of issues involving people being depressed, bi-polar, etc. Yep- it gets worse every year. There are several I would have reservations arming and even question their ability when deployed in making decisions under pressure- regardless of being armed or not. I see both sides of the issue and personally have a concealed carry license and exercise that right at times.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2016 8:07 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 20:07:22 -0400

The day will come when someone decides to engage our troops in Garrison with an all out assault. I hope we are ready.

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2016 10:58 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 Apr 2016 22:58:18 -0400

I will say having loaded weapons at or near the barracks on the weekends is a recipe for disaster

Response by SGT Robert Riley made Apr 12 at 2016 1:46 AM

SGT Robert Riley — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:46:28 -0400

If adequate law enforcement were just enough, we wouldn't have had that massacre at Ft.Hood, a while back. I am quite sure, a few well trained NCOs and soldiers with concealed weapons would have made a hell of a difference on that day. On most bases, the MPS are so thinly stretched, that they can't be everywhere, which is why this DOD policy of carrying privately owned weapons is a crock of s--t! And we can thank HRC's husband for that one.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Apr 12 at 2016 1:51 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 01:51:04 -0400

It's legal for me to carry a concealed handgun in more than half the states of these United States. I've passed the training and I have no criminal conduct or psychological issues that would restrict me. Beyond what is mandated by concealed carry laws, I have been further trained on firearms safety by the Army.

I don't think the argument is that every service member should carry: that's not smart or realistic. I think the argument is that those service members who have taken the steps to carry concealed in their local communities, should have that right extended onto base.

That process alone will eliminate some of the chaff.

I'm concerned with the CoS's position because in my view it perpetuates the concept that we're too uncivilized and undisciplined to be trusted with anything other than fighting wars, which I expect and accept from civilians who've never served, but from the CoS, it's disappointing.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2016 2:07 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 02:07:10 -0400

It boggles my mind that when we deploy we are mandated to carry automatic weaponry and live ammo. Sometime during that flight home, we somehow lose the trust of those who put those weapons and ammo in our hands and trained us to use them.

Prior to the Army I was a Corrections Officer, where I had to qualify on a handgun (S&W M&P 40). I am qualified on the M-9 pistol. Currently I am licensed by two states to carry concealed. Whenever I am not in uniform/at work, I am armed, carrying in "Condition Red" (magazine in, round in the chamber). Yet I cannot carry on post.

But a Private who went to MP AIT and (I would wager) is not as highly trained on pistol marksmanship (I have seen 31E MPs try to qualify at Fort Leavenworth) or firearms handling can carry while on duty anywhere on post.

It's just another reason why I will not reenlist.

Response by SSG James Bigbie made Apr 12 at 2016 4:31 AM

SSG James Bigbie — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 04:31:00 -0400

When I first went to West Germany in 1983, I was assigned to 11th ACR. Going on border patrols, we carried magazines for our M-16's that had tape over the top to insure we wouldn't load them unless absolutely necessary, meaning after the other side fired. Are you really surprised that commanders don't trust service members now?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2016 6:00 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 06:00:11 -0400

I seriously pray that we do not have another incident that could have been prevented by allowing CCW permit holders to exercise the right they have anywhere else within the United States. Should we incur such an incident then I believe all of the personnel who advocated for this position should be held accountable for that loss of life. Any Officer or NCO who can not trust his/her men has either done a poor job of training them or has outlived his/her usefulness within the Military service. There are those amongst us who have no desire to defend themselves. This fact is evident, even within the States that allow CCW it is a minority who ever apply for a license. We should not deny anyone who is able to meet the standards set forth by the regulating commission the right to defend themselves. Who cares that they can not defend anyone else because I believe that anyone who doesn't value their own life probably isn't responsible enough to have a CCW. Maybe that's Darwin's Law coming into play people who do stupid things sometimes don't live through them. Many who have a CCW seldom carry as it is inconvenient to go home and arm themselves before going out to dinner when the rest of their day is spent on a Federal installation where arming themselves before going to work is illegal.

Response by MSgt Joseph DuPont made Apr 12 at 2016 8:13 AM

MSgt Joseph DuPont — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 08:13:39 -0400

So that way Ft. Hood can happen again

Response by MSgt John McGowan made Apr 12 at 2016 10:05 AM

MSgt John McGowan — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 10:05:29 -0400

I am certain that the people at Ft Hood would disagree with General Milley. A man with a weapon could and did kill way to many at Ft Hood. And how many Marines were killed lately. And how about ROE in Iraq. And how many were lost in safe zones over there. Afgans could have ammo but God forbid our troops having ammo. About a stupid lot making all these rules up. We taalking about US soldiers, marines , navy and air force. Our Americans. We don't give them the support they need and to me that is unAmerican.

Response by Sgt Jamie Grippin made Apr 12 at 2016 11:55 AM

Sgt Jamie Grippin — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 11:55:10 -0400

Suicide rates in the military still out pace those in the civilian sector. Gun ownership increases the death rate of suicide simple because you are more likely to complete the act. You don't get to change your mind after you pull the trigger. We have all lived in the barracks at one point and been to the enlisted/NCO clubs. Second Amendment aside do you really want all those 18-22 years olds carrying and creating a free fire zone. I love my guns but responsabile ownership must come first.

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Apr 12 at 2016 1:14 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 12 Apr 2016 13:14:33 -0400

How I feel about it is that the General made a decision he felt was right based on all the facts and information available, which includes weighing the pro's and con's, risks and benefits. Like all other decisions made by senior leaders, you have to trust that it is a sound decision and comply with it. Whether I agree or disagree with it is irrelevant. I am sure that some of the factors in the decision include historical data such as suicides, undiagnosed mental issues, concealed criminal history, and violent crimes committed by military members on and off post. Another factor is how to regulate and control it to ensure compliance, as it cannot just be the wild west. Also, what effect will it have on good order and discipline? Leaders counseling subordinates or administering corrective actions can find themselves in awkward position when the ass they are chewing for f*&king up has a 9 strapped to it. It may be naïve to think that everyone is uniform is mature and responsible to conceal carry, just as it is naïve to think that no one in uniform drives drunk, does drugs, beats their wives, steals from their buddies, or is secretly affiliated with a gang/extremist group. The ACoS had many factors to consider in this decision, and apparently he feels the risk trumps the benefit, no pun intended. So, how I feel about is not much different than any other policy I agreed or disagreed with, its a done deal, comply, and move on.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made Apr 14 at 2016 1:44 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:44:49 -0400

Very simple. You are military, you should ALWAYS be armed. On base, off base. On leave. Does not matter. If you can carry a weapon in battle, there is no reason you should not carry one otherwise. Many other countries require it, in fact.

I am sick and tired of liberals and their bullshit.

Response by LTC Troy P. Thomas made Apr 14 at 2016 2:55 PM

LTC Troy P. Thomas — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:55:28 -0400

I believe the issue is deeper than just on post. What about Soldiers stationed at recruiting stations and on college campuses across the Country? There are not security checks at the gates and the last MP to police a Military Science Building on Campus X or Recruiting Station Y was a minute ago.

Response by MSG Don Burt made Apr 14 at 2016 8:53 PM

MSG Don Burt — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 20:53:24 -0400

I'm for it and NO we don't have sufficient law enforcement on our installations....get rid of the Rent a cops and put MP's back on duty in stronger force and let them take charge!

Response by SFC J Fullerton made May 3 at 2016 11:42 AM

SFC J Fullerton — Tue, 03 May 2016 11:42:47 -0400

There have been countless gun related incidents with Soldiers over the years, and they continue to happen. During my career, there were several shootings on posts involving disgruntled Soldiers and members of their unit. Ft. Bragg and Campbell in particular. Then there is stuff like this that just recently happened. As much as we want to trust young Soldiers to be responsible adults, they are still going to do stupid things. Thankfully, no body was accidently shot. POW's on post/base may not be a good idea.
http://www.wsmv.com/story/31871892/4-fort-campbell-soldiers-accused-of-shooting-at-ky-lake-island

4 Fort Campbell soldiers accused of shooting at KY lake island

Four Fort Campbell soldiers are behind bars after allegedly opening fire from the middle of a lake.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made May 3 at 2016 12:09 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Tue, 03 May 2016 12:09:59 -0400

Why don't we just dis-arm active duty altogether? I mean, hell, we cannot trust them to be armed on or off base so we definitely should not be sending them to other countries with guns. Nope, we need to get rid of all the guns and send them to fight with..... a knife and... a radio so they can call in drones and F-35's when they see a bad guy.

I am so sick of the liberal bullshit. Liberals are so quick to send those of us that serve to die for them miles away and do their bidding but when it comes to having being home and close to them, they want us neutered and cowered behind chairs and desks. And as for those military or former military that are on the same bandwagon as the liberal sheep, you are even worse because you are telling those that have walked beside you on the line that you do not trust them.

Response by PO1 Todd B. made May 3 at 2016 1:28 PM

PO1 Todd B. — Tue, 03 May 2016 13:28:38 -0400

You know, you have to wonder if this is not tied to the obama civilian push to remove firearms in another way... If, someday, the SHTF and things go south they know that armed civilians will stand and not allow them to destroy the Constitution... Allowing military to also be armed would be an even more problem especially since most would also stand and uphold their oaths to the Constitution. Keeping the military disarmed, means the government at least retains control of that sector....

Our countries current path is not sustainable. From the debt and economic situation to the way the country has turned against itself, something has to give... and when it does, I have no doubt there is every intention of the government taking advantage of it to the extreme.. and trying to force things they otherwise may not have been able to accomplish. A disarmed military would sure be much easier to control than an armed one...

Response by SPC Brian Mason made May 3 at 2016 1:36 PM

SPC Brian Mason — Tue, 03 May 2016 13:36:46 -0400

Seeing as soldiers off base have already been killed this policy is BS. I am a Veteran and a CCWP holder. The Constitution trumps the ACoS as does my rights to defend myself. It's makes NO sense that those who defend our country can't carry something to defend themselves unless they are deployed.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made May 3 at 2016 11:29 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Tue, 03 May 2016 23:29:10 -0400

I agree with it. There is not enough evidence to show that change would have any benefit, in fact quite the opposite. Since the majority of shootings on base are carried out by a service member, making it easier to carry on post increase the likelihood of shootings. On top of that, the number of violent crimes on installations is miniscule when compared to the rest of the country.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made May 4 at 2016 10:20 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 04 May 2016 10:20:41 -0400

His base, his rules but I think he's wrong...DEAD WRONG!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2016 11:47 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 04 May 2016 23:47:57 -0400

he has armed security ?

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made May 6 at 2016 2:27 PM

MSG Jay Jackson — Fri, 06 May 2016 14:27:03 -0400

Busy day today on Rally Point. Now why would we alloy anyone to carry a weapon on a military base because they paid 150.00, shot 40 rounds and the state could not find a violation to deny them a permit? Do we want that soldier that is on his way out of the Army by way of chapter for misconduct to be packing? I will answer, they already are! How can the gate guards check every car for weapons? They cannot! By the way feel free to check me anytime boys, I know you are watching:). So I say that if you are trusted by the COC, have a valid permit from the state then you should be allowed to carry your weapon as you would out side the gate. As for retirees we should only have to show the Ole Blued Id Mafia card of membership, and away we go. If the Army sent me to fight around this world for 25, then it should trust me to help secure the homeland, right? Plus when you went to the VA it might speed up the service and insure you quality of care improves!!:) Ok that was a joke ok.

Response by SSG(P) John Newcomb made May 9 at 2016 6:34 PM

SSG(P) John Newcomb — Mon, 09 May 2016 18:34:10 -0400

I disagree. If you are a military ID card holder and have a permit to carry off post, I think that it would only increase the ability to respond to threats. If they can carry in foreign countries and carry in the civilian world in our own country, I don't see why they can't carry on base.

Response by CPT Earl George made Jun 17 at 2016 11:42 PM

CPT Earl George — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:42:31 -0400

I had my own weapons in my BOQ when I was on different posts. It was nice in Germany because many times I had to carry a weapon daily on duty because of things happening in that country while I was there. I used my own 45 so that I did not have to sign out one every day and I usually carried 6 magazines with me. We even had a terrorist group attacking US officer clubs back then. Officers were rarely questioned if they were wearing a sidearm back then.