Press Release:
Congressman Steve Stockman (R-TX 36) Thursday urged his House colleagues to pray for and support the victims and victims’ families of Wednesday’s fatal shooting at Fort Hood, and to support his bill, H.R. 3199, the “Safe Military Bases Act,” which repeals the Clinton-era ban on military personnel carrying weapons on base . . .
“This is the third mass shooting on a military base in five years, and it’s because our trained soldiers aren’t allowed to carry defensive weapons,” said Stockman. “Anti-gun activists have turned our military bases into soft targets for killers.”
“Only the most out-of-touch radical would try to disarm soldiers. It’s time to repeal this deadly anti-gun law before it creates another mass killing,” said Stockman. “This is another tragedy created by anti-gun activists. If members of Congress are protected by loaded automatic weapons in the Capitol they have no right to deny that right to trained soldiers on base.”
“In 1991, just six miles from Fort Hood, we suffered a mass shooting at a Luby’s cafeteria of civilians who by law had to leave their guns in their cars. Texas responded to this tragedy by passing a concealed carry bill allowing civilians to defend themselves in public,” said Stockman “It’s time for Congress to allow soldiers to defend themselves on base before this happens again.”
I have a historical aversion to soldiers carrying arms normally on home grounds but I think regulated on-base carry is a reasonable diversion from that, given the circumstances here.
Up until 1992 the decision was left to base commanders whether or not soldiers could carry on base.
Anyone know how many commanders allowed carry? I got in at the end of 2004, so no personal experience there.
I believe that the number, rounding to the nearest ten-thousand percent was just about, nearly exactly… 0.
In 1990 when the Gulf war began, I was stationed at MCAS El Toro. They started searching cars coming on base. Back then the law in California was that you could carry a hand gun in your car, but it had to be clearly visible, or it had to be locked in the trunk. Bringing a weapon on base was forbidden, as it was on every military base I knew of.
After a couple of weeks, the base commander put out word that nearly 100% of the cars they searched had weapons, and that they were also usually hidden in consoles and door pockets accessible to the driver, and would everyone please stop? They hadn’t taken any action against these drivers because they did it too, but “they are going to have to draw the line somewhere.”
When my squadron was on its way out the door to Desert Shield we drew our weapons but our departure day was continuously delayed. To save the armory from a lot of work, our commander kept all the rifles on the hangar deck, and told the officers to just take their pistols home every night. I carried my M9 in the small of my back all around SoCal for about a week.
They all have firearms at home, Hannibal. What are you afraid of?
A military, ostensibly existent to protect from foreign invaders, increasingly under arms at home in the absence of such a threat. I’d prefer have a very small standing military, to be honest. The old ideal of calling men to be soldiers in time of need from their fields. I said it was a historical aversion, lol. Practically speaking, I guess it makes sense to at least let them defend themselves with small arms.
As a military member, sworn to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, take quite an aversion myself to the idea that another citizen would find ME more likely to do anything in contrast with the Constitution… What makes you think that we’re the threat you face? You have to understand that probably more than 75% of us in the services would completely disobey any order that involves using force against Americans.
I took the same oath as Nick and I agree completely with him. The police force is more likely to use force against citizens than anyone in the military that honors their oath. The police are more bound by politics than the Constitution.
If you have an aversion to military members being armed for defense ANYWHERE, then you should be disarmed as well.
The problem with your argument is that soldiers at home are also citizens in their communities. This draconian law prevents soldiers from being able to carry weapons at home with the same ease that civilians can in states where carry is allowed.
Example: As it stands now, soldiers must register their weapons on base, and to carry the weapon on/off post they must: keep the gun locked in a case that is not accessible by the driver from within the car, keep all mmunition and feeding devices locked separately and also inaccessible by the driver. Then, the soldier must identify with the gate gaurds that they are toting a firearm.
So, to carry off-base on their commutes, they must drive off-base, pull over, unlock their gun and ammo, load magazines, load gun, holster, press on. This must be done on the way to and from work making soldiers targets for criminals who would know exactly when and where to jack somebody for their gun.
Finally some real “common sense”
+1
This may actually pass. If this guy stays loud it may alert even low information voters. Who aren’t gonna understand letting soldiers get shot on base.
Never gonna happen. We’ve made great inroads lately against bad laws all across the country, but this one is going precisely nowhere.
I disagree. This bill can have real traction, because what can the opposition say!?
“Im a Democrat from New Jersey, and I want more dead soldiers?!”
They can say, “shouldn’t we ask the people who know the most about military life if this is a good idea?” and then bring a few generals up to the microphone. Since we know the generals will agree with standing policy unless the White House is wanting to change that policy, you will get a soundbite about how brave the soldiers are, but that garrison is not the place to carry loaded weapons for unspecified ‘safety concerns.’
They won’t do that if the public pressure is high enough.
Why? Because then someone might actually research DoD handgun training policy. And they do nOT WaNt ThAt to HaPPeN.Sally Americana might wonder why it is that Tom Cruise has more handgun training then an Active Duty Marine.
“shouldn’t we ask the people who know the most about military life if this is a good idea?” and then bring a few generals up to the microphone
I’ve never served, but do generals really know “the most” about military life, or are they a few years and pay grades removed from that reality?
DonS, it’s not about what’s really true, it’s always about perception. The American public (heck, I even fall prey to this myself) sees a stern looking dood with stars and salad bar speaking forcibly and articulately and thinks he knows what he’s talking about. Hell, it’s one of the reasons they dress ’em up that way.
Anyone with a star on their shoulder is a politician first and foremost and for some reason they seem to fall roughly in the middle of the Democratic party (i.e. decently left of center) on the political spectrum.
They can say, “shouldn’t we ask the people who know the most about military life if this is a good idea?”
Yes, exactly the tactic they used when it came to “Don’t ask, don’t tell?” Seems like an awful lot of senior military commanders are opposed to homosexuals openly serving in the military – how much did Congress give a damn about that?
No, but there are baptists from Kansas who think that.
Either the president will relent (highly unlikely, unfortunately), or the GOP will win even more in November in both the House and the Senate. The president may then relent (still unlikely, unfortunately), but for sure the next GOP president will end this nonsense. Even if the next GOP nominee is someone like Romney or McCain (Heaven forfend!), he will not have any choice: this plank will have to be part of his platform.
However things shake out, it will be a victory for self-defense rights, sooner or later.
That’s defeatist speech, Comrade.
But seriously, it’ll NEVER go anywhere if we don’t actually get behind it and PUSH.
Now stop dragging and put your shoulder to the wheel, bucko.
Hear Hear!
I’ll be sending an email right now to my congresscritter supporting this bill. I hate to use emotional appeals, so I’ll use logic: you should do so too. Your son, brother, wife, husband,daughter, or sister might be the one who gets to see you again because someone on their base brought POW (privately owned weapon)to the workcenter.
“which repeals the Clinton-era ban on military personnel carrying weapons on base . . .”
The ban should have never happened but let’s be truthful. The ban was started with George H. W. Bush.
A lot of bad stuff started with George H. W. Bush.
Yep. This is the kind of nasty, ugly policy that results from running “moderate” candidates for president. And then a lot of good men have to die before the policy is overturned, when it never should have been made in the first place.
Agreed. W and Jeb should have never left his ballsack.
Actually, it started with Nixon.
Did Nixon ever sign any order or bill? I’m not aware of any.
I did see this article online, but it only discusses Nixon’s opinions on gun control and does not state that he ever took action: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-enterprise-nixon-wished-total-handgun-ban-0
This version of DoD Directive 5210.56, from February 25, 1992 (since replaced by a version in 2011), mentions that it is replacing a directive of the same number that was created on May 10, 1969.
I do not know what the directive from 1969 stated. I haven’t been able to find it online.
Thanks for the reference. Given that 1969 followed upon a banner year for gun control maniacs, it seems reasonable to think that the 1969 version of the DOD directive was very restrictive of self-defense rights, even if we do not have the text. So your point is taken.
Eventually perhaps someone will dig up that text and post it on the web so we can confirm. Like you, I was not able to locate it.
Okay, I didn’t give a reference for my Bush Senior comment because it was elsewhere in the comments. However, before 1992 it was left up to the base commander and not a DoD directive.
Now if our military members can get some protections for when we move to a restrictive state like NJ, NY, MD, so that our legally purchased firearms don’t make us felons when we get stationed in one of those states.
When I was stationed in MA I had to leave all of my scary 20-30 rounders in another state. I found it to be stupid. I wish we could get a ruling against cosmetic weapons bans and magazine capacity limits, but that’s like winning the lottery. Very unlikely.
The absurdity of that situation just shows how those bans need to be struck.
While I have in the past criticized TTAG for diluting the word “hero,” Congressman Steve Stockman is my nominee for a “Gun hero of the day” award.
Good grief. We’re talking about people who have volunteered to protect us, and we disarm them so they can’t even defend themselves, pre-empting state CC laws in the process. We can only hope sanity will prevail.
Wow! Your comment just helped me realize why the statists are disarming military personnel when they have been screaming that only police and military can have guns! Throughout history it has always been an absurd argument to claim that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the military (militia) because, being a government ordained and sanctioned force, of course military personnel would always be armed. (By definition our military must be armed or else they are not a military force.) Well now, with military members disarmed, the statists can point to the 2nd Amendment and say, “See, there are times when government disarms its own military personnel. That is why the Framers wrote the 2nd Amendment only for the militia (military) and that is why the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia (military) and does NOT apply to The People.”
If you’re not comfortable with having Private Snuffy armed while on base (and having been a grunt myself, I’m not too happy with the idea), let’s make it all E6 and above who have a clean record, and have passed a qualification test.
Also, the SDO, FOD, and SDNCO should be armed as well.
You know why Private Snuffy has an ND with his M9?
Because the DoD doesn’t teach him about his handgun. There’s another article elsewhere on the topic, but as you’re probably well aware military handgun training is a joke. 100 rounds a year? That’s almost nothing. I shoot twice that every time I go to the range, and I’m not an expert shooter. There’s something wrong when -no offense to Law Enforcement- an LASD academy grad has more pistol experience with a Beretta then a Marine .
Having armed junior enlisted means the military finally has to take handgun training seriously, instead of the current farce where someone with an NRA Handgun class has more training then a military member on a plane to the AOR.
That’s spot on. People act like children because we treat them like children. We develop such low expectations and coddle them like helpless, mental-defects, and then act all *shocked* when they make irresponsible decisions.
Train them. Hold them to high standards. Demand they conduct themselves like adults, and they’ll rise to the occasion.
Those that don’t – are OUT.
Well many of the mil members like my self who would carry, already do. I just can’t carry on base. I do agree most of mil weapons training courses are complete garbage.
exactly right, sd3
This is what I’ve been saying for years.
But it’s more important to fund boondogle F-35’s than to properly train personnel.
Didn’t you get the memo?
Having met a lot of private Snuffies, I won’t agree with that assessment. Sometimes people do stupid things because they are just stupid people. Most privates are not stupid, but there’s always that 1%. A SAW gunner in my battalion in Iraq had an ND. You can’t say that the man was not well trained.
The issue, though, is if the cost of that 1% stupid idiot having an negligent discharge is sufficient to disarm the 99%. I say no, but I’m not going to pretend that there aren’t going to be lapses in judgment.
To repeat, dereliction of duty of the chain of command, starting at the TOP, to adequetely train their personnel.
If I had ever failed, in a similar manner, to teach any of my troops their primary jobs, such that they could not keep aircraft airworthy, I’d have been Art15’d or C-M’d.
And my leadership has NEVER gotten anyone killed…..
exactly. handgun training is generally poor for ordinary Soldiers even if they are issued a pistol when deployed. Many Soldiers get ZERO handgun training, just rifle marksmanship.
I have a simple fix for negligent discharge concerns:
(1) Provide QUALITY training for personnel who want to be armed.
(2) Require that their sidearm is ALWAYS in a holster that covers the trigger, whether it is on their hip or in a gun safe.
(3) Mandatory one year prison sentence for negligent discharge while cleaning their handgun.
(4) Mandatory two year prison sentence for negligent discharge while out-and-about unless there is a bona-fide attack under way.
What is so hard about this?
Those punishments are harsh. There are a LOT of military members. I think non-judicial punishment will suffice. Counseling, Letter of Counseling, Letter of Reprimand, Article 15, etc.
I’m sure the army would like unlimited time and money to train every pvt. on everything, but those two things aren’t available.
It doesn’t take “unlimited” funds.
It merely requires prioritizing personnel training over contractor boondogles like the F-35.
So you are OK with someone else deciding if you can defend yourself? If we are ok with sending Americans overseas to give up their life for our freedoms, we should be ok with allowing them to defend themselves here the same way the rest of us can. Your post reads like “I support the 2nd amendment but..”
Yep, and it’s as easy as the Army Chief of Staff issuing an order specifiying that all on duty personnel of the appropriate ranks be armed just like they were before WWII.
Do what is easy to do and then work from there. A bill must pass both Houses of Congress and get to President to sign it. Not going to happen. The suggested alternative just takes a stroke of the pen from a four star.
The Army COS who signs that order will surely be called upon the carpect and fired.
Surely not, because at this point even Obama could not deny the command element firearms while on duty. We aren’t talking about Private Snuffy, we are talking about the likes of SGM Basil Plumley
Have we not been watching the same administration?
I’m with you, Woody.
Off duty arming every young enlisted person could easily lead to chaos. Many young EM are still immature, impulsive and/or irresponsible even after training, and sometimes more so after training as they become ever more confident, invincible and at times reckless. Having low ranking EM sporting firearms in the barracks or shipboard is just asking for trouble. In addition securing every individuals firearm in shared quarters would lead to constant problems with theft and some ND’s.
Restricting and requiring the Staff Duty Officer, Staff Duty NCO, Field Officer of the Day, on duty officers and NCOs e-5 and above, and key *on duty* personnel such as EM assigned to fire guard duty or deck watch would be a manageable and reasonably secure way to go. A 24 hour arms room should be maintained. Open carry, locked and loaded.
Certainly a great opportunity to better train and practice shooting, when to shoot, and when not. Unfortunately it would also require command shift in doctrine which under this administration is highly unlikely. And even if it were possible, no CO wants his/her career derailed by an errant low ranking EM/EW.
Here’s the thing, Roscoe: while I partly agree with you based on 21 years in service, I think that in many ways the military ENCOURAGES young enlisted troops to be immature by making every decision for them and not holding them accountable for their own actions. Why is a 19 year old Soldier not trustworthy to have a gun in the barracks when a 19 year old civilian can have a gun in his house, and there isn’t even an NCO around telling him when to wipe his ass? Why is a 21 year old Soldier not allowed to carry a gun on post, when a 21 year old civilian can carry one off post? (depending on state laws).
A Soldier that can’t be trusted to carry a gun should not be a Soldier in the first place.
Why are idiots in our military?
Simple. Because people are not held to account for screwing up. There were five guys in my basic training flight who really belonged at Burger King.Yet they graduated , because it was too much paperwork and hassle to get rid of them. In our modern , coddling military, being an idiot isn’t an obstackle to a military career.
Our military’s management philsophy is back-azzwards. The military hires idiots because the leftists in power mandate it-don’t want a lawsuit or anything- then the military sets policy to prevent the damage when said idiots screw the pooch, thus neutralizing the point of the military’s existence .
How about we hire smart people ,no convicts, and set our rules as if we actually want to have a deadly military instead of a social program.
Good enough to die, not good enough to exercise their rights or legally drink. I see where you are going, I know stupid people, so no one should be allowed to carry except for “X.” Sounds familiar.
Maybe we should stop enlisted untrustworthy Snuffys.
We are supposed to have a professional volunteer military – and for the most part it is – that doesn’t need to be led by the nose as if they are unwilling conscripts.
folks, lets not dig up who created the original bill to ban carry on-base CONUS because obviously time and circumstances change things. It makes perfect sense to us now to be armed in any theater whether it is at home or aboard. however, 20 years ago the thought was around cost of arming soldiers as well as some thought of safety and training. This bill is appropriate for present time and it may pass given the threats of today. Personally I would like to see base security in CONUS to be what we had/have overseas….the threat is on our home soil just as much. So don’t turn it purely political but instead agree that it makes sense today. Tomorrow may be a different story but we will cross that bridge when the time comes. Honestly I would sleep better with a couple thousand armed Marines, Army and Air Force folks in my backyard ready and willing..and trained without a doubt.
It wasn’t a bill, it was a DoD dierctive. You are correct that it doesn’t matter in the big pciture but if someone is going to bring it up and credit it to the wrong person, the person who brought it up loses all credibility on the matter.
Actually, the Department of Defense directive limiting the carry of firearms to authorized security personnel came out under George H. W. Bush in February 1992. The Army regulation that reflects that directive was published in March of 1993. It’s all in black and white:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
From the bill summary (linked above), it seeks to repeal (2) Department of Defense Directive Number 5210.56, entitled “Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DOD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement and Security Duties.” This is the directive initiated under Bush Sr. While most point the blame at Clinton for Army reg 190-4, which expands on 5210.56, the initial restrictive measure was accomplished before Clinton.
When I was at Ft. Belvoir in the late 1950s, all privately owned guns had to be registered with the Provost Marshal and stored in the individual’s company arms room. I don’t recall any stated rules about personal carry, but you had to check out your gun from the arms room if you wanted to use it. I bought a lot of guns in Alexandria while I was stationed at Belvoir, and they lived in the arms room until I went on leave and took the latest batch home.
I can’t speak for the Army’s official policy then, but once upon a time in a far away place (1968-69 Georgia), I kept the unit’s Arms Room (read Wall Locker). As I remember, we used a hand-receipt system. I handed back any G.I.’s personally owned weapon anytime he wanted it. Some kept them in their own foot or wall lockers unless or until they knew about an inspection going to happen. Others kept them in their POV.
The only incident I recall was that one soldier hid his pistol in the woods so he could get it if he couldn’t find me, and someone stole it. Always suspected his good buddy.
When I was in (1996-2001, Ft. Benning Georgia) all personal weapons had to be stored at the unit arms room when not in use. You were not allowed to have them in your car unless you were on your way to the range; or you could keep them in your house if you lived off post. You were not at any time allowed to carry them on your person unless you were at the post range. The unit arms room was about 20 miles from our quarters, and the only time you could check them out was between 1000-1600 M-F on normal working days. No holiday hours, no weekend hours. Don’t even get me started on the ammo situation (let’s just say at one point I checked about 1000 rounds into the arms room, and when I got a day off a month later only 100 rounds could be found. God help you if you had 5.56 ammo, it was automatically assumed to be stolen and the MP’s were notified). This created an effective state of safe queens for all personal firearms and weapons (they included a ban on knives and similar items for troops in the barracks). Reloading supplies were right out the window. I don’t know how draconian the current rules are regarding personal firearms, or even if they vary from unit to unit or post to post. . To be completely fair, there were a lot of people in my unit I wouldn’t want armed, starting with my CO. I don’t feel it is right to disarm them. They should have the option of carrying or not, as most others do in most states.
This was war time and we were always short-handed everywhere. No such thing as working hours, especially in a Huey training unit. Top was an old WWII sergeant and he ran things his way–for the soldiers. Can’t speak for other units.
As Ralph say downstream, we were just cannon fodder for the politicians and Pentagon types (but I repeat myself).
Only the dopers acted crazy enough that I wouldn’t have trusted them armed. The criminals were scary, too, though. Just like civilian life.
An idiot general spoke on various talking heads shows on TV a few hours ago. He advocated keeping the Clinton military base weapon banning in place to prevent soldiers just back from the battle field with all that environment there being translated to the home base. He implied the soldiers would not be able to restrain themselves from massacring one another. if soldiers need care after they return home, they should and MUST receive that care, not a messed up, put them at the end of the list VA care. Otherwise, trust the soldiers to be able to defend themselves better than an MP which may be 5 minutes away.
After all, the mentally unsound, the criminals, and the Muslim jihadists will not obey the ban on weapons on U.S. military bases and just like movie theatres, school buildings, Luby’;s cafeteria, shopping malls, and universities they find easy soft targets which do not fight/fire back. That is why they choose such places to wreck havoc, wound, and kill.
It seems that the anti-veteran propaganda from the Vietnam War era will never leave us. Even generals are now subscribing to the stupid notion that combat turns soldiers into either criminals (see, e.g., the Haditha “scandal”) or victims (of PTSD or any number of other things), but never into courageous men who selflessly serve their country.
It went away for a while, the Gulf War sort of wiped it away. People have a natural aversion to bashing respectful, clean shaven, young, honest, hardworking men and women who volunteered to defend their country. But then the weather underground took over the Dem’s and the white house, and it became cool again to bash the military as psycho druggie baby killers. You just watch, you think fort hood and the naval shipyard were an attack? Just watch the budget for military vets shrink in the budget as the politicians contempt for the military grows.
Amen! And God Bless Texas!
I can’t see how the left can possibly object to this law. After all, aren’t they the ones that say that only the police and MILITARY should have guns?
Yeah! That is what they ALWAYS say, police and military only. Except after hurricane Sandy, his royal lowness mayor Bloomburg, didn’t want armed National Guard troops to help with security in the streets. He preferred his “highly trained” police to handle it alone. I think it was that he had more direct control over the city police vs, the state National Guard.
Long overdue. The troops and civilian employees should have never been disarmed. It is shameful that GEN Casey, instead of blithering about “diversity,” didn’t get the regulations abolished after the first massacre at Ft. Hood. It will be even more shameful if it isn’t done now.
I joined in summer of 00′ and could not believe that with all the training in weapons and tactics even the average infantryman goes through, you can’t carry on base. When I went through R.I.P.(before it was R.A.S.P., ha I get to sound old), a few of the instructors talked about turning sheep dogs into sheep by disarming us on base.
In my experience during the 80s, personal firearms had to be logged into the arms room. However, individual military commands provided & maintained their own security, instead of the “rentacop” approach currently in use. The military knows beffer too. Case in point, immediately following 9-11-2001 regular infantry units were armed & provided gate & perimeter security to the installation I was on.
While I wouldn’t expect every PV2 wandering around to be packing a pistol, sr. NCOs & company-grade officers ought to be.
What a bizzarro world where most citizens can now carry a weapon in most public places; and our soldiers are left defenseless because of irrational fears.
This will go nowhere — even if passed, the senate will shut it down. The senator is not wrong, but this is political football
After the Navy Yard shooting I talked with several people who work there, both Navy and contractors. They ALL resoundingly objected to my idea that people in the military should be able to carry weapons on base. When pressed as to why, they sort of waffled in their responses. When I persisted, in every case it boiled down to their deeply held belief that there were enough enlisted men/women who were frankly not bright enough to be trusted with a firearm.
I still think it is a good idea, but a careful and measured approach will have to be used. On-base carry will have to be limited to certain ranks and above, require periodic qualification, and probably be tied to tenure in service (and maybe on that specific base) as well.
We’ll see.
The “reason” why they all objected to carrying on base is that they live in DC or Alexandria/Arlington, Virginia or Montgomery County, Maryland, where almost no one knows anything about guns and the default political position is well to the left of Hillary Clinton.
I’ve never served, but I have family who has. Inspections and training are part and parcel of the military. Why not make basic sidearm handling, use, and qualifications part of that? Work out the particulars at the Pentagon, but the basic idea I think would work would be to make the issue of sidearms to on-duty soldiers the norm. But with:
– random spot checks by superiors and regular inspections. “Private – show me your sidearm!” – the superior would check to make sure the weapon is safely presented, clean (within reason – if you are deployed it might just be a little dirty), and functional. Load and unload a magazine, chamber a round. As you were.
– Monthly qualifications. Again if you are deployed in a war zone, this could probably be waived, since you are “qualifying” every day.
– In this case, the weapon is registered, to the individual soldier. If it goes amiss, it’s on the soldier who is responsible for it.
– And dare I say off-base open carry on US soil? It could help with normalizing firearms with the population as a whole again.
I’d love monthly quals. Maybe DHS could share some of their ammo with us, their agents get to shoot 10x as much as we do.
What is bizarre is that I, a mere POTG with no LEO or military credentials, shoots 10x more a year than your average soldier in a non-combat zone it seems.
Re the inspections though, way back in the mists of antiquity, soldiers used to carry their swords all the time, in the camp, out of the camp, home, and on the battlefield. Part of their routine was to care for and maintain that sword, and in most armies, this was part of the inspection. The commander/leader made sure his men were fit and that their swords were sharp and they knew how to use them. No one disarmed them in camp.
And yet somehow we made it out of the Renaissance!
This, over all other gun laws, should get the traction that it deserves. What’s the common gun-control-person’s mantra? Only people with the proper training should have guns.
Last I checked, all soldiers went through boot where they learned how to fire their weapons.
If any anti gun nut says no to this bill, it’ll show the above excuse to be what we all know it was the first time we heard it…b.s. posturing in an attempt to keep guns out of private hands no matter what lies and ignorance they have to spew.
The vast majority of Joe’s, to include MP’s, have very little training in the use of pistols. The average Soldier fires just 116 rounds through their M4 a year and the average MP fires just 100 rounds a year through their pistol. Preliminary marksmanship training is usually an hour or two the day before the range, then Joe qualifies and cleans their weapon only to not see it again for six months. Other than the door kickers, most Soldiers have little training or experience with weapons. Even the four rules that we all know were just recently adopted by the Army, but they are just the “Four Rules of the Range”, meaning they are only taught the day before qualification. It’s like ST said above, most troops are not all that well trained when it comes to firearms.
I don’t think he’s saying military is all superior, he’s pointing out the hypocrisy of them saying only the police and military are properly trained to use guns, then disarming the military. Pistol qual in the Navy is less than a box of fmj ammo once a year for watch standers, its pretty much identical to the range portion of the Texas CHL course, funny enough.
I must have lucked out. I was a former MP in the Marine Corp and we did a lot more than 100 rounds per year. But we did have a decent training department and civilian officers. We went through a pistol course at least once every 3 months which included the navy qualification, night/movement courses, and shoot/don’t shoot scenarios. We ran the courses multiple time until we ran out of ammo. Then add the USMC basic pistol qualifications which I did at least twice a year. Not to mention SIM rounds, days at the ISMAT, and use of air soft pistols for room clearing and active shooter training. I know it is still not much but it is better than the 100 rounds constantly posted here.
Thank you, Congressman Stockman. Honestly, I don’t see why the Feds can’t just allow soldiers in Texas to use a Texas CHL with personal firearms on base. A background check still applies, but a Texas CHL is free to active military, what a deal!
Still gotta pay for digital fingerprints and the class. Its much easier to get a Virginia CHL for military, you just need a copy of your LES, passport photo, and fingerprints from your MP’s plus $100 for the license. Only place its not good is Florida. It doesn’t get you out of the NICS check though like the Texas one.
Steve Stockman is a bit of a kook. He came to our Marine Corps Ball in Houston a few years ago immediately after he was elected to Congress. He fell asleep at the table next to mine for most of the evening. I think campaigning is tiring.
As I was saying, he is a bit of a kook and I’m glad he’s not going to be our Senator, but I do very much like what he does in the House.
Have the talking heads on MSNBC blamed Bush for this event yet?
I honestly think they like to push the idea that is what them who disarmed the military and schools and not Atwood and Bush.
Start a petition. Do something to aid this!!
Hey all, as much as I want to believe it was the Dems that disarmed our bases, it was Bush the first. The DoD directive came out on Feb 25, 1992. Clinton didn’t take office until Jan 1993. here’s a link to the directive —> http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf
This actually has a really good chance of passing the house, but Reid is not going to allow it to come to a vote in the Senate, and Obama won’t sign it. He’s not going to let there be a vote on anything that can be used against them in the Fall elections.
How about every duty nco has a weapon. It wouldn’t be a big deal to install a shotgun rack in each duty hooch and have accountability that way. “I snm have assumed post as x company nco. I have in my possession (1) duty logbook,(1) M9 pistol S/N xxxxxxx with (46) rounds of ammunition and one M870 shotgun with (4) rounds of buck. There are/are not any special orders. All General orders remain the same.”
Require a sign off sheet on weapons rack every hour. And logbook entry to maintain accountability of weapons.
Easy peasy. PROBLEM SOLVED.
how about just not accepting crappy recruits that you don’t trust, unless “the big one” breaks out.
then you wouldn’t need so many restrictive regs.
That’s a lot more difficult.
Not going to happen. America loves its soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen, but to the Feds and bureaucrats who run this country, military personnel are nothing but cannon fodder, fit only to die for the regime. It’s harsh to say so, but it’s true.
It always struck me as ironic that Soldiers are expected to carry arms while representing our country abroad, but cannot carry personally owned weapons on post.
Sadly, I must admit that the historical reasons for this are that some small percentage of Soldiers have always been unreliable and untrustworthy, and military regulations are designed with the lowest common denominator in mind. 99% get treated like crap because 1% can’t be trusted.
My proposed solution: if you don’t trust a Soldier enough to let him/her exercise their constitutional right to bear arms, then THEY SHOULD BE DISCHARGED. The Army would be much better off without nutcases and gangbangers in the barracks anyway.
While the sentiment is nice, there’s just too much thievery in barracks and wanton drunkenness.
Used to be in my old battalion, if we went to CAX (desert training) as a battalion, (a 4-5 week training package) we’d roll back to base the next month and at least 3-5 people had their rooms broken into and stuff stolen. Sad but true. There’s turds who do stuff like that. Throw in the possibility of weapons being grabbed and I’m sure the thievery would go up even higher.
your example points to a bigger problem: the military is way too accepting of low quality troops.
I’m fully aware of the problems that occur in barracks. However, the vast majority of Soldiers are reliable and responsible, and shouldn’t be punished because of the knuckleheads that the Army (and other services) refuse to deal with properly.
I agree, but I think it’s not going to be easy to fix.
A politician making sense? The end must be nigh!
This has a half-decent chance of passing. That punts the choice back to the base commanders, who will react by absolutely not updating their “no guns on base” policy letters, however.
If you want a star, you’d want to avoid being “the guy who let soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines” kill each other/themselves/have stupid accidents. Nobody became a wing king by taking a political risk.
Letting the base commander make the decision will get us exactly no where. Everything about the military is safety, safety, safety. When I run on the base that I work at, I am supposed to wear a reflective vest, even in broad daylight. No headphones while running, either. Before you drive home you are supposed to perform a composite risk assessment to identify, mitigate, and control risks. On TDY, we are supposed to request hotel rooms between the 2nd and 5th floor to maximize safety, and we’re supposed to inspect our rental car every morning for underbelly bombs.
If given the choice, no base commander will allow guns on base.
If you look at the bill in the link, the “law” preventing base carry is a DOD regulation, not a US law passed by Congress. I do not think Congress should micro manage DOD regulations, and the choice about on-base carry should be up to the services and the DOD.
More importantly, even if Congress passes the law and the President signs it, the U.S. Supreme Court will likely strike it down as unconstitutional. Why? Because our Constitution clearly says the President is the Commander in Chief of U.S. military forces. That being the case Congress has no Constitutional authority to mandate anything with respect to the actions/policies/conduct of the military.
Interestingly, all of this seems to be another case where things have slowly gone left of center over time. There was a time back before the Reagan years, that soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines often had weapons on post. A good friend of mine, who was a bachelor-officer at the time, reported to his ship on the West Coast (California, no less) with several shotguns, multiple revolvers, and a rifle or two. None of the senior officers objected and nobody was in the least bit alarmed or upset. The only comment he got was, “congratulations, Mr. Johnson. You’ve managed to increase the size of the armory by three-hundred percent…” My dad would routinely return from TDY with pistols that he’d bought wherever he’d been at, and, again, nobody batted an eye.
I’ve found it’s typically senior officers who don’t want enlisted personnel carrying weapons for defensive reasons on base. I see no bad things happening if service members were allowed to carry on base.
To those who seem outraged that the military offers very little pistol training, I just want to point out that most military members will never be issued a pistol. Rifles are standard. Pistols, militarily, are an afterthought issued only to those who can’t carry a rifle because of their job description. With some notable exceptions, of course. Your average grunt will not be trained with the pistol, because wars are not won with pistols.
Most watchstanders, the people likely to be closest to a shooter until the cops get there, mostly carry pistols. Rifles may win wars, but most people aren’t infantry. You have about a 75% chance in a regular watch rotation of carrying a pistol, higher as you increase in rank. The low guy tends to get the rifle.
I’ve read a number of comments regarding how immature young soldiers /sailors /Marines are and how that makes carrying dangerous… I’m fairly certain that’s a similar argument to what the antis use. Also incorrect. My battalion had exactly zero NDs over a 9 month period in Iraq, and we never took our hands off our rifles, except for the 6 showers I had during the first half of my deployment. They were only unloaded, but magazine inserted, only while sleeping. And then only sometimes, when we *really* felt safe. (or on the rare occasion when we stopped by a big base). Mistakes are few and far between, but frankly, I’d rather those mistakes be made and dealt with, rather than side stepped. I’m more bothered by the straight up fact that little old lonesome me at my house, with a pistol, am more capable of defending myself from armed attackers than the 3000 or so Marines who lived in my barracks cluster at night. Even the armed OOD would have taken a few minutes to hoof it to the barracks. it’s unacceptable. Just as unacceptable as telling the rest of the populace that they should be comfortable with waiting 5-10 minutes, if they’re lucky, for police to take care of the psycho who’s trying to kill them now.
I just wanted to say that as an active duty military member I am effectively without my 2nd amendment right to posses a firearm for personal protection for my entire duty day. That includes my travel to and from base, so in reality every moment I step out of my house during the week. This is because I cannot bring a weapon onto base. I am denied my right of self preservation because of this. My only option to be armed on my commute would be to park outside the visitor center and walk four miles to my unit.
I feel that I have less gun rights than the average citizen…
Storage unit near base. Just sayin’.
I like the idea of putting up “gun free army zone” signs around the base for a thousand yards in every direction. That will make the bases safer, right?
Enough is enough.
How many military servicemen and women need to die from firearms?
This is where I have to side with the gun control crowd and agree that weapons are bad.
I suggest firearms, especially assault rifles, be banned in all branches of the military, and handguns get a limited capacity of 3 rounds.
Combat troops should also not be issued any ammo in case someone wants to commit suicide or a warcrime.
I hope Feinstein reads this, and takes it up with the Pentagon.
I hope Feinstein reads this, and takes it up with the Pentagon.
I want to be a fly on the wall during THAT conversation. 😀
Has our civilian “leadership” forgotten that we are in a de facto war? Jihadists have declared war on us, and are waging a war of terrorism against us. That fact alone should justify an increase in armed military personnel on our military bases, a tempting target for these fanatics.
The increased security of discouraging, or swiftly ending, the insane acts of violence and murder by the mentally unbalanced is a secondary benefit of broadening that armed population.
And I thought it would be common sense to allow senior NCOs, officers, MPs, and those assigned guard duty to carry ready-to-use firearms.
If this is what happens when ONE person does a spree killing on a military base, you would have to dread what would happen if a more organized assault by more determined people occured. I am thinking something on the scale if the event at Mumbai.
this is a safe act i can support!
there’s one thing i don’t get. if only the MP’s have guns on base, how exactly are we supposed to repel a surprise spec-op attack, hmm? the first thing they would do is secure the armory and take out the MP’s.
i mean, heeellllllooooo!! a madman can kill dozens of personnel on a military base! that’s pathetic! a team would be devastating.
Clinton era ban? You mean George Bush Sr!!!! Clinton, Bush Jr, and Obama merely upheld it!
Simply astounding that the US military would think so little of its personnel and their safety that they would permit military bases to be free fire zones for mentalists.
It has become a trait of Al Q’aida to attack the softest of targets, when they are most vulnerable. Mosques around the world are buzzing with young jihadists preparing to roll out onto US bases.
Weapons training should include retention and maintenance of weapons. How can this happen if they are in storage elsewhere? Someone has royally screwed the pooch on this one. God help America.
Technically soldiers are defended by personnel with automatic weapons, just like congressman. Are congressmen allowed to concealed carry while in session? Kinda doubt it, but I do think this is a step in the right direction. Putting a sign up saying that something isn’t allowed isn’t going to make it any safer, not sure why politicians think that it will.
Comments are closed.