Jump to content

New NDAA authorizes concealed carry on military bases


spu69

Recommended Posts

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/15/defense-bill-will-allow-concealed-carry-on-military-posts/27390053/

 

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. House passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the 2016 fiscal year on Friday, including an amendment that would allow military base commanders to authorize the concealed carry of firearms on military installations.

The amendment was written by U.S. Reps. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), John Carter (R-Texas) and Scott Rigell (R-Virginia). The issue made headlines after the 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

McCaul issued the following statement Friday following its passage:

"Texas has twice mourned the loss of our soldiers and civilians after shootings at Fort Hood just north of my district. In 2009, Nidal Hassan walked into Fort Hood's Soldier Readiness Center, shouted Allahu Akbar, and opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 42 others in the most horrific terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Five years later, another shooter opened fire on the base, killing four and wounding 16 others . Enough is enough. We must give our base commanders more discretion and our soldiers more protection. Thousands of my constituents in Texas already exercise this right responsibly. It is time for our service members to be allowed to do the same."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could have just passed this alone, rather than tacking it on this 4th amendment destroying NDAA....

It would have no chance of getting past a veto if it was sent to the White House on its' own and if you believe the that the 2016 NDAA destroys the 4th Amendment, please state how or provide a link proving your point. Here is a link to the complete 2016 NDAA:

 

HR 1735 the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act

 

There was some really nasty stuff in the 2012 NDAA but those all expired at the the end of FY 2012 and are no longer in effect.

 

So what specifically are you referring to and what section is it in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2012 was bad. It led to many things being stopped or discontinued in 2013. Such as Great Lakes 4th of July fireworks. Some things haven't recovered, such as the Hobby Shops for working on cars. The one at Great Lakes never reopened.

 

Concerning CCW on a base, I'm completely for it. Both Fort Hood shootings involved the medical clinic, a place where my wife works at whatever base she's stationed at. Currently military protocol for an active shooter is to shelter in place, barricade doors if possible, etc. Should the shooter get into the room they have no way to defend themselves. Furthermore, barricading the door with your body, should that be your only means to do so, could lead that person to be shot. Just ask the victims of Virginia Tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The full text of the amendment is posted here:

 

http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/CARTER_013513151237413741.pdf

 

The concealed carry question was asked of our 4-star during a commander's call a couple months ago. The response was a light-hearted "no -- I've seen some of you shoot at the range!" It will be an uphill battle, but I believe there are commanders out there who would support it.

 

Note the amendment requires adherence to State training and certification requirements. On military installations within Illinois, only a handful of military members would qualify. Most military members are not residents of Illinois and are therefore barred from obtaining a carry license, even if the NDAA makes its way through to passage with this amendment intact.

 

Let's keep pressing for change in this state!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I would prefer that upon entry into active duty and at the completion of training, every member of the Armed Forces should be armed with either a rifle or a handgun (or both) and required to carry one or the other at all times. Also, when separated, the service member should be allowed to take his weapon(s) home and receive free ammo for qualification and free maintenance for life to include upgraded weapons as the services changed and the required training for the new weapon.

 

But that's just me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I would prefer that upon entry into active duty and at the completion of training, every member of the Armed Forces should be armed with either a rifle or a handgun (or both) and required to carry one or the other at all times. Also, when separated, the service member should be allowed to take his weapon(s) home and receive free ammo for qualification and free maintenance for life to include upgraded weapons as the services changed and the required training for the new weapon.

 

But that's just me

It works for the Swiss, and they have among the lowest violence in Europe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I would prefer that upon entry into active duty and at the completion of training, every member of the Armed Forces should be armed with either a rifle or a handgun (or both) and required to carry one or the other at all times. Also, when separated, the service member should be allowed to take his weapon(s) home and receive free ammo for qualification and free maintenance for life to include upgraded weapons as the services changed and the required training for the new weapon.

 

But that's just me

 

I agree with this, and I didn't serve in the Armed Forces.

 

It works okay for the Swiss, as mentioned above. It would give any potential tyrant pause, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try this again.

 

If any General/Admiral decides not to enforce a law that Congress passes, then his promotion days are over and so is his/her career.

 

All Flag rank (Generals/Admirals) are promoted as authorized by Congress. The President does not have anything to do with their promotions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically, after a promotion board, the president takes the next step by nominating generals/admirals for promotion, and the Senate then grants its approval. So the POTUS does play a role but doesn't have the final say-so.

 

There is a difference between allowing an installation commander to authorize concealed carry, and mandating he or she authorize it. If the amendment sticks, it simply opens the door to allow the option.

 

Depending upon how strongly the Senate feels about the issue of concealed carry, they could choose to deny a promotion on that basis alone, but it would surprise me to see that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I would prefer that upon entry into active duty and at the completion of training, every member of the Armed Forces should be armed with either a rifle or a handgun (or both) and required to carry one or the other at all times. Also, when separated, the service member should be allowed to take his weapon(s) home and receive free ammo for qualification and free maintenance for life to include upgraded weapons as the services changed and the required training for the new weapon.

 

But that's just me

I'll take a 1911 or M-9 now, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will try this again.

 

If any General/Admiral decides not to enforce a law that Congress passes, then his promotion days are over and so is his/her career.

 

All Flag rank (Generals/Admirals) are promoted as authorized by Congress. The President does not have anything to do with their promotions.

 

 

Technically, after a promotion board, the president takes the next step by nominating generals/admirals for promotion, and the Senate then grants its approval. So the POTUS does play a role but doesn't have the final say-so.

 

There is a difference between allowing an installation commander to authorize concealed carry, and mandating he or she authorize it. If the amendment sticks, it simply opens the door to allow the option.

 

Depending upon how strongly the Senate feels about the issue of concealed carry, they could choose to deny a promotion on that basis alone, but it would surprise me to see that happen.

I am grabbing at bits from two people who have a vastly greater understanding of how this "commander" business works than I do. However, the conversation that I see developing is one of whether or not the military leadership will be/could be compelled by congress to allow carry on their installations. If that is the case, we may have just been given a huge motivational tool to get carry allowed on bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people are missing in this thread is "Installation Commander". For example - Old Installation Commander allows CC, change of command today and the new CC does not.

 

See the problem?

 

Has nothing to do with how Generals are promoted.

Correct.. The amendment is worded to now allow an option that didn't previously exist.

 

Installation commanders are charged with supporting and safeguarding the base or post, along with their primary role in executing the mission of the units they command. This amendment frees them to exercise one more tool to safeguard the installation.

 

Will senior leadership express "commander's intent" and influence the installation commander's decision on concealed carry? Perhaps--it happens in many other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For myself, I would prefer that upon entry into active duty and at the completion of training, every member of the Armed Forces should be armed with either a rifle or a handgun (or both) and required to carry one or the other at all times. Also, when separated, the service member should be allowed to take his weapon(s) home and receive free ammo for qualification and free maintenance for life to include upgraded weapons as the services changed and the required training for the new weapon.

 

But that's just me

So Bud, when you get this passed, can you back date it to at least include guys separated in Aug 97?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The military life is one that is tightly controlled. Your First and Fourth Amendment rights are subject to severe limitation by the UCMJ and good order and discipline.

 

Like many of you, I do not like seeing members of the armed forces disarmed at the point they are on the installation. But I will point out that everyone having the ability to carry concealed at all times on a military installation will bring forth a host of problems that the command will need to address.

 

I know this sounds like I am anti-conceal carry for military members. I am not. Just saying this is not a simple thing. Barracks life is not the same as having an apartment. Young service members often use poor judgment, even without guns thrown into the mix. Not saying it can't be done but the command will have to really think about how to employ this.

 

You will also find that commanders are very risk adverse. Bad things happening affects promotion possibilities. If this is left up totally to the command staff, you will have certain restrictions put in that will minimize the risk both to the troops but also to careers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some scenarios for you.

 

A platoon of infantrymen are going out to a training area to practice ambush drills. They are going to be using blanks. Do you really want anyone in that platoon to have live rounds on them?

 

A company is going to practice helicopter rappelling. If you have ever rappelled you know you can sometimes end up upside down. You want the conceal carry pistol to fall out of Joe Snuffy's holster from 80 feet?

 

Losing a service weapon in the field is a serious matter. Everything shuts down until that weapon is found. Are we going to shut down everything when Joe Snuffy loses his personal Glock in the training area?

 

Not everyone on a military installation works in an office environment. So if you allow only them to carry you create a different class of people, because of their duties, who can not carry.

 

Like I said, this is not a simple thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So cops during training at a range with live ammo.......

 

Some cops are practicing rappling down the side of a training tower and one of them slips up and goes turtle halfway down

 

Oh, wait. Irt's the same thing.

 

All an installation commander has to do is ensure that all weapons are clear and unload at the beginning of every training session and personnel carrying are required to use a level III holster.

 

I am always available to solve these and many other dilemmas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why commanders would have the option to decide what is and what isn't appropriate. We prohibit live ammo in our NRA classrooms for a reason. Likewise, there will be training settings where live ammo and concealed carry potentially introduce more problems than they solve. Commanders are plenty smart enough to figure this out, if we only give them the option to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What people are missing in this thread is "Installation Commander". For example - Old Installation Commander allows CC, change of command today and the new CC does not.

 

See the problem?

 

Has nothing to do with how Generals are promoted.

 

Correct.. The amendment is worded to now allow an option that didn't previously exist.

Installation commanders are charged with supporting and safeguarding the base or post, along with their primary role in executing the mission of the units they command. This amendment frees them to exercise one more tool to safeguard the installation.

Will senior leadership express "commander's intent" and influence the installation commander's decision on concealed carry? Perhaps--it happens in many other areas.

That is a question for chaplains and attorneys. The Chaplains seem to be pro 2A. In fact, I had one walk up to me today and say we needed to go to a shooting range before I moved (he's moving to California 2 weeks after I leave Illinois). The JAG attorney I share a driveway with is clueless about 2A issues, thus making him appear anti every time he opens his mouth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...