New NDAA authorizes concealed carry on military bases

[domin8]

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.

I joined in 1998. Clinton is the reason I refused interviews for the Yankee White program (presidential and embassy duty).

[domin8]

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.

Let's ask Highland Park and North Chicago that question. Also ask Michael Madigan since the majority of military can't obtain FCCLs.

[domin8]

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.

I disagree about the commanders being smart enough. They make decisions based on what they know. If they don't know how ccw really works they are likely to say, "No."

[kwc]

That places the educational burden on the rest of us to help them understand.

[kwc]

And if this amendment sticks, I will do my part to educate.

[milq]

I disagree about the commanders being smart enough. They make decisions based on what they know. If they don't know how ccw really works they are likely to say, "No."

 

When I was stationed at Camp Lejuene, there was a standing base order that active duty persons were not allowed to carry OFF base. The local gun shops that provided CCW training had been asked to turn away Marines that wanted to take the course. All of the shops I frequented promptly ignored that request and provided discounted training to local Marines.

[kwc]

Several years ago I attended a meeting with a Wing commander regarding efforts to curb suicide risks. The discussion occurred after a command-wide debrief on a suicide that occurred at another installation in which the victim used a firearm to take his own life in his off-base apartment.

 

During the discussion, one of the group commanders suggested requiring personnel living off-base to register their firearms with security forces, in the same way residents of base housing are required to do. Another group commander and the staff judge advocate immediately and forcefully advised against intruding that far into a military member's personal rights. In fact, the 2011 NDAA contains language specifically to prohibit this intrusion.

 

There are glimmers of hope but as I stated before, it will be an uphill battle, regardless. The commanders that support it will figure out a way to make it happen if given the freedom to do so.

[domin8]

Before they take the firearms they should take the bed sheets.

[kwc]

Before they take the firearms they should take the bed sheets.

 

A person who wants to take his or her own life will figure out a way to do it.

 

Statistically, 60-70% of suicides by military members are completed using a firearm. Take away the guns? The bed sheets, razor blades, etc. will become more prominent methods.

[domin8]

Before they take the firearms they should take the bed sheets.

 

A person who wants to take his or her own life will figure out a way to do it.

 

Statistically, 60-70% of suicides by military members are completed using a firearm. Take away the guns? The bed sheets, razor blades, etc. will become more prominent methods.

Just ask any drill instructor.

[chibooey]

While I would really like to see this passed, each installation has it's own mission and it's own security requirements. Ships are different than shore commands, missions on certain bases may require different levels of security even internally on the base. This is doable, but it will take time. Heck, I know the Navy still can't issue a LEOSA ID even with the DOD instruction, so I cannot imagine this working anytime this decade. CO's are risk averse so unless they have to, they won't. (I retired in 92 so many things have changed since).

[Professor Wheezy]

 

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.

 

This could be very interesting for Chaplains. I seriously thought about and looked into being a Chaplain. 4F for asthma. However, they are 100% strict non-combatants. They are not issued weapons or given ANY weapons training, period. They have Chaplin assistants who are regular service members who provide their support AND PROTECTION. It was my understanding they were to NEVER EVER be armed in the field either. It could taint their role as non combatants (not that ISIS or the Taliban or AlQuida would really care - especially for a Christian Chaplain). However, could one now conceal carry under the laws of one's State as long as base commander allowed CCW? Don't know.

[Bud]

 

This could be very interesting for Chaplains. I seriously thought about and looked into being a Chaplain. 4F for asthma. However, they are 100% strict non-combatants. They are not issued weapons or given ANY weapons training, period. They have Chaplin assistants who are regular service members who provide their support AND PROTECTION. It was my understanding they were to NEVER EVER be armed in the field either. It could taint their role as non combatants (not that ISIS or the Taliban or AlQuida would really care - especially for a Christian Chaplain). However, could one now conceal carry under the laws of one's State as long as base commander allowed CCW? Don't know.

 

 

And yet, over 300 Chaplains have been killed in combat and six have been awarded the Medal of Honor.

[domin8]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

This could be very interesting for Chaplains. I seriously thought about and looked into being a Chaplain. 4F for asthma. However, they are 100% strict non-combatants. They are not issued weapons or given ANY weapons training, period. They have Chaplin assistants who are regular service members who provide their support AND PROTECTION. It was my understanding they were to NEVER EVER be armed in the field either. It could taint their role as non combatants (not that ISIS or the Taliban or AlQuida would really care - especially for a Christian Chaplain). However, could one now conceal carry under the laws of one's State as long as base commander allowed CCW? Don't know.

I'm having this very conversation with a chaplain 2 doors down from me. He said he wants to talk more about it, and suggested we go shooting before I move away. He's also moving to California 2 weeks after I move to Philadelphia.

[kwc]

The House and Senate came to an agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today. After the final votes, it will move forward to the President with an amendment requiring the SECDEF to establish a process for the commander of a military installation or facility to authorize military members to carry an appropriate firearm if necessary as a personal or force-protection measure. This stops far short of mandating freedom to carry a concealed firearm, and instead leaves the policy in the hands of the SECDEF and each installation commander to make this determination based on THEIR assessment of the risk.

 

Many believe today's NDAA will most likely be vetoed by POTUS for unrelated reasons (namely overseas contingency operations funding).

 

The relevant text from the NDAA conference report is below:

 

Establishment of process by which members of the Armed Forces may carry an appropriate firearm on a military installation (sec. 526)

 

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 539) that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process by which the commander of a military installation in the United States may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to duty at the installation to carry a concealed personal firearm on the installation.

 

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

 

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process by which the commander of a military installation in the United States, reserve center, recruiting center, or other defense facility may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to the installation or facility to carry an appropriate firearm on the installation if the commander determines it necessary as a personal or force-protection measure. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to consider the views of senior leadership of military installations in establishing the process.

 

The conferees remain concerned about the response times to active shooter attacks on U.S. military installations and facilities. We believe that such response times should be diminished in order to protect U.S. servicemembers and their families. The conferees believe that commanders of U.S. military installations and facilities should take steps to arm additional personnel in order to diminish response times to active shooter attacks if they believe that arming those personnel will contribute to that goal.

 

[kwc]

From the conference report fact sheet:

 

 

Personal Carry of Firearms: Tragic domestic attacks on DOD personnel, including those at Little Rock, Chattanooga, and Fort Hood, convinced Conferees that a one-size-fits-all force protection standard for domestic installations is inadequate, especially where carrying personal firearms is involved. The NDAA makes clear that post commanders are empowered to permit a member of the Armed Forces to carry appropriate firearms, including personal firearms, at DOD installations, reserve centers, and recruiting centers. The Secretary of Defense must implement a policy to so empower post commanders no later than December 31, 2015.

 

At least it's progress!

[MrTriple]

 

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

 

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

As the leaks over the past few years have shown us, just because it expires doesn't mean it still isn't secretly in effect...

[kwc]

As of this afternoon, NDAA has passed through the Senate and is headed to POTUS for a promised veto. POTUS has 10 days to make his decision.

[Quiet Observer]

 

The House and Senate came to an agreement on the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today. After the final votes, it will move forward to the President with an amendment requiring the SECDEF to establish a process for the commander of a military installation or facility to authorize military members to carry an appropriate firearm if necessary as a personal or force-protection measure. This stops far short of mandating freedom to carry a concealed firearm, and instead leaves the policy in the hands of the SECDEF and each installation commander to make this determination based on THEIR assessment of the risk.

 

Many believe today's NDAA will most likely be vetoed by POTUS for unrelated reasons (namely overseas contingency operations funding).

 

The relevant text from the NDAA conference report is below:

 

Establishment of process by which members of the Armed Forces may carry an appropriate firearm on a military installation (sec. 526)

 

The House bill contained a provision (sec. 539) that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process by which the commander of a military installation in the United States may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to duty at the installation to carry a concealed personal firearm on the installation.

 

The Senate amendment contained no similar provision.

 

The Senate recedes with an amendment that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process by which the commander of a military installation in the United States, reserve center, recruiting center, or other defense facility may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to the installation or facility to carry an appropriate firearm on the installation if the commander determines it necessary as a personal or force-protection measure. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to consider the views of senior leadership of military installations in establishing the process.

 

The conferees remain concerned about the response times to active shooter attacks on U.S. military installations and facilities. We believe that such response times should be diminished in order to protect U.S. servicemembers and their families. The conferees believe that commanders of U.S. military installations and facilities should take steps to arm additional personnel in order to diminish response times to active shooter attacks if they believe that arming those personnel will contribute to that goal.

 

 

 

Thanks for posting the actual amendment to the bill. I think it should have included military retirees. Many of us still use the military exchanges, commissaries, lodges, and other facilities.

[chibooey]

It isn't going to matter if Obama signs it or not. No post commander will ever authorize concealed carry on an installation with the exception of specifically authorized military LEO's, and they already have authorization to carry.

 

The 2010 amendment to LEOSA authorized military police who met certain criteria to carry under LEOSA, the only things that was required was the issuance of an identification card by their agency stating that the bearer met the requirements. Still waiting for the Navy to figure out how to issue those ID's....

[kwc]

Thanks for posting the actual amendment to the bill. I think it should have included military retirees. Many of us still use the military exchanges, commissaries, lodges, and other facilities.

 

It clearly doesn't go far enough. Civilians are at risk, too, as are retirees, family members, etc.

 

But it's better than what we have now, if installation commanders implement a program to some degree.

[kwc]

It isn't going to matter if Obama signs it or not. No post commander will ever authorize concealed carry on an installation with the exception of specifically authorized military LEO's, and they already have authorization to carry.

.

 

I'm not convinced all commanders will refuse to authorize carry. There are a few out there who are firmly in the "right to defend" camp that will make such provisions. Time will tell.

 

It certainly won't make much difference in Illinois for non-resident military if carry provisions are tied to having an FCCL.

[OldMarineVet]

 

It isn't going to matter if Obama signs it or not. No post commander will ever authorize concealed carry on an installation with the exception of specifically authorized military LEO's, and they already have authorization to carry.

.

I'm not convinced all commanders will refuse to authorize carry. There are a few out there who are firmly in the "right to defend" camp that will make such provisions. Time will tell.

 

It certainly won't make much difference in Illinois for non-resident military if carry provisions are tied to having an FCCL.

 

Agreed. Let's remove the first obstacle and let the commanders feel some pressure.

[kwc]

As of this afternoon, NDAA has passed through the Senate and is headed to POTUS for a promised veto. POTUS has 10 days to make his decision.

 

The timing is a bit unpredictable at times. House leaders officially signed the NDAA today and sent it to the President. He has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to sign or veto. Looks like Halloween will be a scary day one way or another.

[wkoukios]

I served in the Marines in 1979-1985. We never dreamed of the CCW laws we have today. However, we were we'll armed with our service weapons. We always had a rifle with us. I had a 45 on my side often. Granted it was in condition 2. An active shooter in my day would not have had it so easy. I am not sure CCW is the answer, just let servicemen have access to the weapons they are issued. My bunk had a locking gun rack and I slept with my rifle. CCW on base is no big deal, we know the bad guy can get a gun on base so easy so why overreact about the good people. But, this is the politics of our time. Sad for sure.

[kwc]

I am not sure CCW is the answer, just let servicemen have access to the weapons they are issued.

 

I entered the Air Force four years after you left the Marines (and am still serving).

 

Except for a limited number of personnel whose jobs are specifically focused on security, most AF members didn't then and still don't carry a firearm, nor are we issued one except when deployed.

 

There are cultural differences between the services, and certainly there have been changes over time in the way each service trains and operates now vs. past years. But the vast majority of service members are not appropriately equipped to defend themselves against danger.

 

For its residents and employees, a military installation is a lot like living in New Jersey. Firearms must be registered; it's illegal to carry or even transport unless traveling to an authorized location; etc. I understand good order and discipline, but those objectives can be met without drastically infringing on a service member's (or his or her family's) rights.

[kwc]

POTUS just vetoed the NDAA, citing "budget gimmicks" and inability to transfer prisoners out of Guantanamo as primary reasons. The House likely doesn't have the votes to overcome the veto, so some rework is likely in order. Hopefully the military carry provision will remain intact.

[OldMarineVet]

POTUS just vetoed the NDAA, citing "budget gimmicks" and inability to transfer prisoners out of Guantanamo as primary reasons. The House likely doesn't have the votes to overcome the veto, so some rework is likely in order. Hopefully the military carry provision will remain intact.

Yes, saw that. Sickening. Glad to hear there might still be a slim possibility. Thanks again for your attention to this thread, kwc.

[kwc]

Thanks again for your attention to this thread, kwc.

 

It's an issue very near and dear to my heart--glad to do it.

 

Here is an insightful article from a retired soldier who was stationed at Ft Hood in 2009 when that lone-wolf radical Muslim terrorist decided to go on a shooting rampage:

 

http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2015/10/23/a-soldier-fights-back/

 

 

This statement says it all:

 

As he tried to get the woman to safety and the attack moved closer to his location, Sgt. Ray prepared for offensive action.

 

“At that time, I reached back, swept my shirt back, grabbed for my pistol,” he said. “I looked down into an empty holster. I said, ‘Oh, crap.’ Ultimately what ended up happening is he came around, he raised his gun, [i made sure I was in front of her] and he started shooting.

 

In truth, Sgt. Ray had been forced by Department of Defense regulations to leave his firearm at home that fateful day. And his having to do so played a big role in who lived and who died when violence came calling.

 

“I know for a fact that had I had my firearm that day, I would have been the deciding factor that stopped that terrorist that day,” he said. “I have substantially more training than most soldiers do. And it’s not a matter of fact of if, but when, I would have made that shot, and a lot of people could be alive because of that.”

[OldMarineVet]

kwc, great article. Thank you

 

Here's a similar Fort Hood experience (need to slide curser left to start it from the beginning...)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ANnyqWnsAg#t=134