Jump to content

New NDAA authorizes concealed carry on military bases


spu69

Recommended Posts

The House voted 370-58 today to support the new version of the NDAA. The Senate should vote next week. Common assumption among Democrats is that POTUS will likely not attempt a veto, despite language that allows Guantanamo Bay to remain open.

 

Of course, if POTUS does veto this one, the House has far more votes this time to override it.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/us-usa-defense-congress-idUSKCN0SU2DE20151105

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The House voted 370-58 today to support the new version of the NDAA. The Senate should vote next week. Common assumption among Democrats is that POTUS will likely not attempt a veto, despite language that allows Guantanamo Bay to remain open.

 

Of course, if POTUS does veto this one, the House has far more votes this time to override it.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/us-usa-defense-congress-idUSKCN0SU2DE20151105

 

The Senate just passed the new version of the NDAA as well, 91 to 3. It goes to the President next who will probably sign it in light of the veto-proof majority vote favoring this legislation.

 

Another step closer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the actual final version of the text included in the legislation:

 

Not later than December 31, 2015, the Secretary of Defense, taking into consideration the views of senior leadership of military installations in the United States, shall establish and implement a process by which the commanders of military installations in the United States, or other military commanders designated by the Secretary of Defense for military reserve centers, Armed Services recruiting centers, and such other defense facilities as the Secretary may prescribe, may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to duty at the installation, center or facility to carry an appropriate firearm on the installation, center, or facility if the commander determines that carrying such a firearm is necessary as a personal- or force-protection measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The president signed the NDAA today. Now we wait for the SECDEF's policy...

 

More info on the NDAA:

 

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/pentagon/2015/11/25/obama-ndaa-defense-bill-military-retirement-overhaul/76302160/

Nice. Now we need to allow for CCL's for out of state military. I forwarded the link to both my State Representative and Senator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As mentioned previously, the SECDEF policy will likely require the member to follow local laws--including having a carry license from the host state.

 

If Illinois continues to discriminate against nonresidents, we have no hope of being able to carry on a military base here.

 

Spec5 and many others here, thanks so much for your continued support!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

allow military base commanders to authorize the concealed carry of firearms on military installations.

 

now will any commanders acutally authorize it - I suspect few and far between

I'm hoping otherwise. I'm pretty sure Lt. Cmdr. Tim White, the CO of Navy Operational Support Center Chattanooga, will authorize it. It's my understanding Tim White used his "unlawfully carried" gun to shoot the terrorist. While the DoD was considering filing charges, Retired Lt Col Allen West's lobbying efforts appeared to influence them not to. Besides understanding the value of arming his people on the base, Tim White would probably like to carry again, if he isn't already :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The SECDEF policy isn't signed yet, but the NDAA policy is already having a minor impact.

 

According to one source, a base commander in TX now allows personnel to leave a firearm in their cars instead of requiring them to be locked up at home or in the base armory. Personnel must possess a TX Concealed Handgun License or one from a reciprocal state.

 

At least they no longer have to be unarmed when traveling to and from the base.

 

Baby steps...

 

http://christianfighterpilot.com/2015/12/07/liberty-university-aids-concealed-carry-and-so-does-dyess-afb/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kwc and oldmarinevet we all have to keep the pressure on. I talked to my Rep about it again just last week at the ribbon cutting for our new City Hall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

"SEC. 526. ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCESS BY WHICH MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES MAY CARRY AN APPROPRIATE FIREARM ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION.

Not later than December 31, 2015, the Secretary of Defense, taking into consideration the views of senior leadership of military installations in the United States, shall establish and implement a process by which the commanders of military installations in the United States, or other military commanders designated by the Secretary of Defense for military reserve centers, Armed Services recruiting centers, and such other defense facilities as the Secretary may prescribe, may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to duty at the installation, center or facility to carry an appropriate firearm on the installation, center, or facility if the commander determines that carrying such a firearm is necessary as a personal- or force-protection measure".

 

I see no specific authorization of concealed carry or the carrying of personal firearms by the military. There is no mention of retirees, dependents, or active-duty visiting other bases. Who knows what policy SecDef Carter may establish​. As noted above, this is only a baby step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The signed version is more vague than the original that was proposed. However, I know that at least some commanders are interpreting the phrase "personal-... protection measure" to mean carry of personal weapons. The discussions ARE happening, with the expectation that the "process" established by SECDEF means exactly this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quiet Observer, the NDAA text does, as you pointed out, only refer to members of the Armed Forces, so yes--unfortunately civilians, dependents, and retirees (and presumably members who are TDY) won't be addressed in the policy.

 

LEOSA may offer additional flexibility for those who qualify, but entry into facilities for any others would require a change to 18 USC 930.

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...