Federal Bill HB3199 - Repeal Ban On Armed Servicemen

[dc dalton]

Folks, this is a very important bill that needs the support of everyone. The bill repeals the Clinton era ban on servicemen armed on base.

Had this repeal happened sooner Ft. Hood and the DC Navy yard shootings might have been stopped, or at least would not have been as bad.

Get on the phone, email or write your representatives and get them to jump on board and co-sponsor this.

http://amgoa.org/Proposed-Federal-Gun-Legislation-HB3199/Federal-Law/488

 

[deadin]

I didn't realize that Clinton was in power that long..... I was never allowed to be armed on base unless I was was on duty, and then only if the duty required it.

(I joined in 1959 (Clinton was 13) and retired from active duty in 1978.)

 

[AlexanderA]

Whether servicemen can be armed on base is a matter of internal armed-forces discipline. It's not really a Second Amendment issue. It may not be a good idea to have politicians second-guessing military commanders when it comes to micro-managing their commands.

 

[ilbob]

Whether servicemen can be armed on base is a matter of internal armed-forces discipline. It's not really a Second Amendment issue. It may not be a good idea to have politicians second-guessing military commanders when it comes to micro-managing their commands.

I am inclined to agree that political micro-managing is a bad thing, but as I understand it this rule was political micro managing originally and should be repealed to allow commanders to do as they see fit.

My guess is that most of them will opt to keep most service people disarmed.

 

[SilentStalker]

Guys, its my understanding that Base Commanders already have the option of letting people other than MP's, be armed and on the base. They have to have a dang good reason and approval of the commander. And, the commander better make dang sure this person is credible in every way or its his butt lol, but I do believe for the most part they can run their bases how they see fit. I do know that certain people with certain clearances can supposedly be armed on base. I am not 100% on that and most people will tell you that all weapons stay in the armory unless something is needed for training, an event, etc. unless you are an MP. However, I am pretty sure that discretion is left up to the base commander and if he thinks someone should be allowed to carry at all times on the base then he can grant that to certain persons.

 

[Zoogster]

It will happen on its own after enough attacks.

Once those supporting the overseas islamic fundamentalists realize that the military responsible for thwarting thier ability to retain power in the middle east are relatively easy to slaughter in the United States on base because they are predominantly disarmed they may make some direct assaults in the US.

The result will be greater armed presence and greater perimeter defenses on bases.
The lack of a threat to military personel while on base I think largely comes from the belief that messing with the military is messing with a large armed force. This has resulted in the only real threat being from within, being those already on base.
For if it was known how vulnerable servicemen are I can certain see some mumbai style attacks on the very military most of the fundementalists see as the biggest foreign meddler.
And in many cultures military personel are fair game, they are not innocent civilians, and so wholesale slaughter of them is acceptable when they are the enemy. This opens them up to attack from even those that wouldn't go after civilian targets and leaves them vulnerable to a broader range of enemies.

After some armed attacks the military would change its policy in short order.
Until then the military will view young men on base as more of a threat to the base and eachother armed than disarmed and they will remain largely disarmed.

 

[alsaqr]

The bill repeals the Clinton era ban on servicemen armed on base.

Not exactly. i'm surprised you are not aware that its a Bush I era ban. DOD Directive 5210.56 was signed into effect in February, 1992 by the deputy SECDEF. It has been renewed by every administration since.


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...on-military-bases-and-its-not-clintons-fault/

Whether servicemen can be armed on base is a matter of internal armed-forces discipline. It's not really a Second Amendment issue. It may not be a good idea to have politicians second-guessing military commanders when it comes to micro-managing their commands.

Bingo!!! Near here is a small memorial to a man murdered by an off duty Ft. Sill MP over a disagreement in a girly bar. Gun used was the MPs duty weapon.

 

[pwhfirefighter]

But on your daily commute to and from base, you are on your own and outta luck if you should need to defend yourself. I think that part sucks.

Just my opinion.

 

[Torian]

They have "some" discretion, but nothing to the point that would allow the entire uniformed population to carry weapons, or smaller units such as Brigades or Battalions.

The CG for an installation can authorize certain individuals under exceptional circumstances, such as investigations or protection details. It is no replacement for the bill that is being considered here.

I've already talked about this issue with the Provost Marshall on the previous post I had lived on.

 

[herrwalther]

I am iffy on this one. I have seen plenty of people in the military whom I would not trust with any firearm for a variety of reasons. Some are just downright not trained in firearm handling. Most security on the smaller posts are not MPs but instead civilian rent a cops, security, or police. These civilians can be armed or not dependent on the post and security posture. I could have a lot more support behind this bill if there were some sort of qualification test to carry a personal weapon on post. Or at the very least a civilian CCW permit.

 

[DNS]

I agree with you, I think if anyone, civilian or military, want to edc then testing and qualification is a must. Should be free to active military too.

 

[Torian]

I am iffy on this one. I have seen plenty of people in the military whom I would not trust with any firearm for a variety of reasons. Some are just downright not trained in firearm handling. Most security on the smaller posts are not MPs but instead civilian rent a cops, security, or police. These civilians can be armed or not dependent on the post and security posture. I could have a lot more support behind this bill if there were some sort of qualification test to carry a personal weapon on post. Or at the very least a civilian CCW permit.

You are missing the point entirely. This isn't about what training or qualifications I should have - we already have this for DUTY weapons. M4, M9, crew served weapons...day / night fire...etc

This is about whether or not soldiers should give up Constitutional rights when they set foot onto a military installation. Who you "trust" with firearms is irrelevant. Do uniformed personnel have a right to carry a personal firearm for PROTECTION?

For crying out loud...can we stop with the blanket judgments and generalizations on military personnel? There will always be dirtbags in any force. When I find them, if they fall under my command, I do my utmost to remove them from the force. Your personal experience is hardly a reflection of the force as a whole.

This country is sending our young men and women directly into harms way overseas, armed with a litany of automatic weapons, but we deny them any semblance of similar rights to protect themselves here in the states. The recent active shooter events that played out show that our military gun free zones are just as much of a failure as civilian versions. In addition, every installation I've been stationed at during the last 5 years have had their LEO force cut for budgetary reasons. The end state is a massive gun free zone, where anyone with a photo ID (no CAC card needed)can get in, target unarmed military / civilian personnel, with the likelihood of an armed first responder intercepting the shooter as very low.

It's time for a dialogue on this subject. The status quo is unacceptable.

 

[Dean Weingarten]

I think a blanket policy is a bad thing, but this has been building since before WWII. I do not know when the first formal policy was written, but it has consistently gotten tighter and tighter over the years.

Base commanders had much more discression before 1992, I believe.

Remember, Bush I was the president to do away with the longstanding tradition of being able to bring back "war trophies".

I was able to carry a personal firearm while working extra duty as a military game warden in 1974, for example (I was one of the few officers available). A civilian that the post commander liked routinely carried a pistol on him while roaming the range.

The thing is, the "idea" that all arms should be locked up was put into place during the current "progressive" era. There should be some mechanism for military people to be able to protect themselves on and off post. It would be a great carrot to induce good behaviour, and taking it away would be a big deal.

Showing that you were entrusted to carry arms would be quite the status symbol.

 

[DSling]

This is about whether or not soldiers should give up Constitutional rights when they set foot onto a military installation. Who you "trust" with firearms is irrelevant. Do uniformed personnel have a right to carry a personal firearm for PROTECTION?

Truth be told, prisoners have more rights then a military member. Yes they (military member) are required to follow the laws off post but there is also the UCMJ. The thing that people that haven't served do not understand is that servicemen do not have the pleasure of the bill of rights.

Another post tracked by the government.

 

[ID-shooting]

I have never served on a base that allowed carrying of weapons off duty or taking weapons out of the arms room unless the duty/training called for it. Basic in 1987 so I know this pre-dates the Bushes and Clinton.

Our mantra back then was that "we gave up our rights so that others may have them." I am sure some form of that still exists.

I knew quite a few numb skulls and snuffys that I would not want armed unless under tight command and control and I am sure that hasn't changed either.

What many don't seem to get is that troops may be seen carrying rifles everywhere but unless at the range or going out of the wire (perimeter security or MP duty aside), no ammo is issued.

We had two instances on Ft Riley, an open base at the time, within a year. One Private was shot in the barracks by a thug from Junction City over some chick and another was killed coming out his base-housing front door in the morning because his wife wanted him dead for some reason. These were in my battalion alone and I am sure there were others. Neither of these caused the Ft Riley command to lock the gates much less change the "no POW" orders.

While there were many I would trust, there were others I would not.

 

[Kosh75287]

Because I've never spent a day in uniform, I'll defer to the assessment of ALEXANDER A about the decision process concerning who may carry firearms on a military base. If it's the decision of the base commander, then so be it. But I don't want some stupid law, promulgated by an excuse for a president who actively AVOIDED military service, tying the hands of the base commander.

 

[Torian]

Gentlemen, I can tell we definitely have some people on this thread that wear the uniform, including myself. I respect these opinions.

To set the record straight: I'm quite familiar with UCMJ and the Constitution, since I swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution on my day of commissioning years ago. I have also utilized it to remove soldiers from the force. UCMJ is a tool, and a guide, but not some heavenly body that supersedes the Constitution. I've personally sat in with Brigade Commanders and watched them try to set policy that was unconstitutional, only to be slapped down immediately by the Judge Advocate General (JAG).

As I've stated earlier, base commanders do not have the level of authority to grant a massive POW policy, even if they wanted to. Their authority in this area is fairly narrow, and only applies to special groups or individuals. They have the ability to heavily restrict the carrying of firearms, but in the area of personally owned weapons outside of a duty position...not much.

It would be interesting if we went back in time, to the days of the Continental Army, and asked those soldiers if they felt they gave up their 2nd amendment rights when they decided to serve. Just because we have been accustomed to doing things a certain way for the last 30 years, doesn't mean that it is the RIGHT thing to do.

 

[pwhfirefighter]

I don't necessarily have a problem not being able to keep my weapon on my person while on base. But I do think it is a bunch of crap that I can't keep my weapon locked in my vehicle while on base. As I said, while traveling to Drill, we are on our own. Our safety can not be ensured while off base and security will not accompany us while off base.

After 19 years, I understand what you have to "give up" in order to serve. But to tell military members that they are entrusted with protecting and defending the nation and constitution, but that service members can not take simple measures such as keeping a weapon locked in their vehicle for their own protection and that of their family while traveling is crap, pure and simple.

Serving means you have to accept and follow the rules and keep your opinion to yourself, but it doesn't take away my "right" to have that opinion. And being Guard and due to the fact that base commanders DO have that discretion, I have and will continue to contact my state reps as per my rights under previously mentioned constitution.

 

[herrwalther]

This isn't about what training or qualifications I should have - we already have this for DUTY weapons. M4, M9, crew served weapons...day / night fire...etc

It is about training. The training some MOS positions get is a joke. As a combat arms soldier, yes we receive extensive training in firearms including day and night, reflexive, urban and MOUT warfare etc. But to other soldiers and military not so much. How many people at the Navy DC yard have training on anything but the M9, M4, or M500? I would dare say not many. My wife was 31D in the Army (CID) and she didn't go through anywhere near the firearms training I did. HB3199 makes sweeping notions that everyone in the military is trained with firearms, nothing is farther from the truth. I have nothing against military personnel carrying firearms while on duty, I am for it. I just want a little bit something extra in place to stop PVT Joe Snuffy from buying his first handgun just to carry it on duty when he doesn't know how to use it. I am a proponent for ALL armed people, not just military, to know how to operate their firearm.

 

[leadcounsel]

I so vehemently disagree with the prohibition of Soldiers being able to be armed on base. I don't even know where to begin.

Deleted a bunch of true feelings - because I'm really not 'free' to give my opinions...

I would just uselessly rant if I went on... but I object to it with every fiber of my being.

On topic - I applaud the letter writings and petitions, but it won't change a thing given the current administration and ZERO military appetite to give up power and rights to servicemembers. Rights in the military are taken away, not given.

 

[Torian]

Do you know why it is a joke? Money, time, resources, bias against other MOS...there are many reasons. I have to fight to get to the range twice a year, and usually it is less then that. Did that somehow disqualify me from going to Iraq or Afghanistan, or going on patrols, getting shot or blown up by the enemy? Nope.

I'm a proponent for not making people jump through administrative hoops to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, whether they are civilians or any other uniformed servicemember. So long as their carrying of concealed personally owned weapons is consistent with existing state laws, such as a valid CHL, I would require zero additional training. If that state requires training, then swell...if it doesn't....also fine.

Whether or not someone is trained to your "standard" has nothing to do with their right to protect themselves in the event of an active shooter scenario. Everyone in this Army IS trained with firearms. Some forget that we all are soldiers first...and go through the same mandated weapons familiarization and marksmanship training when we first come in.

Now if you are talking about PVT Joe Snuffy exercising a little common sense...that is another matter entirely. PPT training (contrary to the Army view) will not prevent PVT Joe Snuffy to doing stupid stuff...nor will going to the range repeatedly prevent a ND in the hands of an idiot. We get annihilated each year with a tremendous amount of SHARP training, but do we really think that is what stops sexual harassment or sexual assault? It's a little common courtesy and common sense that normal soldiers should use for these things. This can't be taught. It is a character / personality trait.

I could be convinced to allow SOME training (particularly by JAG), if it was not employed by Commanders as a means to "unreasonably" limit or control who can carry a POW. There is a lot of gray area in what I just said. At least our lawmakers are now having a dialogue on the matter...because if it was left up to Post Commanders, none of them would ever accept this liability...and we would just continue on as we are now.

 

[Delmar]

Interesting discussion indeed.
Lots of folks here complain about their right to self protection being violated or hampered wholesale by an uncaring government, yet those charged with defending this country cannot carry suitable arms with which to defend themselves with?
I figure if they're good enough to pass the requirements to enter the military in order to defend this country then they should absolutely have the right to defend themselves and their family.
A typical police officer carries a sidearm when they are off duty, because they never really are "off duty." Soldiers are also the target of those who hate them just for being in uniform as are LEO's.

 

[herrwalther]

Do you know why it is a joke? Money, time, resources, bias against other MOS...there are many reasons. I have to fight to get to the range twice a year, and usually it is less then that. Did that somehow disqualify me from going to Iraq or Afghanistan, or going on patrols, getting shot or blown up by the enemy? Nope.

I'm a proponent for not making people jump through administrative hoops to exercise their 2nd amendment rights, whether they are civilians or any other uniformed servicemember. So long as their carrying of concealed personally owned weapons is consistent with existing state laws, such as a valid CHL, I would require zero additional training. If that state requires training, then swell...if it doesn't....also fine.

Whether or not someone is trained to your "standard" has nothing to do with their right to protect themselves in the event of an active shooter scenario. Everyone in this Army IS trained with firearms. Some forget that we all are soldiers first...and go through the same mandated weapons familiarization and marksmanship training when we first come in.

Now if you are talking about PVT Joe Snuffy exercising a little common sense...that is another matter entirely. PPT training (contrary to the Army view) will not prevent PVT Joe Snuffy to doing stupid stuff...nor will going to the range repeatedly prevent a ND in the hands of an idiot. We get annihilated each year with a tremendous amount of SHARP training, but do we really think that is what stops sexual harassment or sexual assault? It's a little common courtesy and common sense that normal soldiers should use for these things. This can't be taught. It is a character / personality trait.

I could be convinced to allow SOME training (particularly by JAG), if it was not employed by Commanders as a means to "unreasonably" limit or control who can carry a POW. There is a lot of gray area in what I just said. At least our lawmakers are now having a dialogue on the matter...because if it was left up to Post Commanders, none of them would ever accept this liability...and we would just continue on as we are now.

Yup. The main reason why I would want training for privately owned firearms for military is because of the inequality among MOS in terms of weapons training. I do not expect everyone who carries to be the next season of Top Shot. But a little common sense such as "this is the way the rounds face in the magazine" type common sense. The type of training I am advocating can be covered in a few hours for a large group of people. The "everyone is a soldier first" policy is laughable. Because of limited resources, few jobs outside combat MOS train to the "bare minimum soldier standard."

 

[leadcounsel]

All this talk about 'training...' Show me where training is a requirement under the 2A. And even the lowest trained Soldier probably has more training than an average non-military civilian.

Weird, but I can pass a background check and pay a small fee and get a carry permit in my state. I can carry practically everywhere in this state, and most others.

I can carry everywhere EXCEPT my employers' property, despite the fact that I'm a combat experienced, professionally trained Soldier trusted with making life and death decisions for myself and others. My employer trained me, and I've qualified expert. I've had tons of training... not just firearms but lots of other training that would make me more safe for me, and also deter active shooters by arming me and others like me.

In what world does it make sense that I can be trusted by most states to carry a gun, with little-to-no training, yet the US Army (which trained me, and sent me to combat with several guns) doesn't trust me to carry a gun.

Yep, if that isn't screwy, I don't know what is.

 

[jbrown50]

The problem with active duty military members and their civilian government counterparts, such as myself, is that our lives are considered to be expendable by the general public and the politicians. If a base commander allowed firearms carry onto his/her base all it would take is for one military or government member to abuse that right. It would put that base commander's career into jeopardy and judgment into question.

It doesn't matter how many military members or federal workers are murdered, robbed, raped or kidnapped at work or while going to and from work. The general public considers that to be an acceptable sacrifice in order to prevent just one firearms abuse or mishap by someone under their control, especially while on or in a national treasure.