spu69 Posted May 16, 2015 at 01:41 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 01:41 PM 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 More sharing options...
Trevis Posted May 16, 2015 at 01:49 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 01:49 PM They could have just passed this alone, rather than tacking it on this 4th amendment destroying NDAA.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spu69 Posted May 16, 2015 at 01:54 PM Author Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 01:54 PM They could have just passed this alone, rather than tacking it on this 4th amendment destroying NDAA....Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFC Stu Posted May 16, 2015 at 02:07 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 02:07 PM I spent 30 years in the military and won't go to any place I can not carry a concealed firearm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adjc Posted May 16, 2015 at 02:47 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 02:47 PM ^^20 yrs, but this ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted May 16, 2015 at 02:50 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 02:50 PM 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 More sharing options...
Stevepk Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:00 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:00 PM Being retired USAF and still working on base I will GUARENTEE you very, very few Installation Commanders will approve carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:29 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:29 PM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:42 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:42 PM 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 More sharing options...
Bud Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:42 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:42 PM 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 More sharing options...
milq Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:47 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:47 PM I like the way you're thinking on that Bud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xwing Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:51 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 03:51 PM 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 More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted May 16, 2015 at 05:34 PM Share Posted May 16, 2015 at 05:34 PM It's a win if Obama signs it but a small one. Given our anti gun administration do you think any 2 star general hoping for 3 is going to allow.it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanook Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:19 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:19 AM 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 More sharing options...
Bud Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:59 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:59 AM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:24 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:24 AM 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 More sharing options...
DomG Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:30 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:30 AM 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 meI'll take a 1911 or M-9 now, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted May 17, 2015 at 02:21 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 02:21 AM Way back when I was still in HS, (about 50+ years ago) you could buy a 1911A1 from CMP for about $70.00. I can remember all kinds of pistols being sold through CMP and they were all on my dream list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted May 17, 2015 at 02:36 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 02:36 AM 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 More sharing options...
domin8 Posted May 17, 2015 at 03:18 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 03:18 AM Is this the NDAA that gives a 1.3% pay raise, or 2.3% pay raise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevepk Posted May 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 11:53 AM 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:27 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 12:27 PM 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 More sharing options...
Danielm60660 Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:08 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:08 PM 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 meSo 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 More sharing options...
SFC Stu Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:36 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 01:36 PM I retired in 1996. My choice as Bill Clinton had won his second term as President and I had no reason to serve under this draft dodger. I think that this is another tool to allow commanders to help keep troops safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedriver Posted May 17, 2015 at 08:38 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 08:38 PM This is really backwards why do we trust our military with hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment but we can't trust them being armed with a firearm to protect themselves and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WtJen Posted May 17, 2015 at 08:59 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 08:59 PM 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 More sharing options...
WtJen Posted May 17, 2015 at 09:19 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 09:19 PM 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 More sharing options...
Bud Posted May 17, 2015 at 10:51 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 10:51 PM 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 More sharing options...
kwc Posted May 17, 2015 at 11:00 PM Share Posted May 17, 2015 at 11:00 PM 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 More sharing options...
domin8 Posted May 18, 2015 at 06:23 AM Share Posted May 18, 2015 at 06:23 AM 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.