Why Doesn’t the Government Trust Soldiers to Carry Guns on Military Bases, Installations?

2nd Amendment – R2KBA Authors Military S.H. Blannelberry This Week

Probably one of the dumbest and most ironic laws on the books is the ban on concealed carry at military bases and installations. The reason it’s so stupid is quite obvious. Firearms are the essential tools soldier use to protect us from terrorists, despots, and foreign armies. And the U.S. Military goes to great lengths to ensure that every solider is proficient with a firearm. Yet, for whatever reason, the government doesn’t trust soldiers with guns when they’re not training, at a military gun range or in a combat zone.

It’s not only illogical to make military facilities gun-free zones, it’s just downright bizarre. Thankfully, someone is attempting to do something about it — at least ostensibly (I say “ostensibly” because the man is running for president and it’s hard not to see this as a way to pander to 2A supporters. Then again, Cruz is been pretty consistent with his support of gun ownership).

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) sent a letter to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Tuesday requesting that McCain, who is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, consider bringing up the matter for review and discussion.

“The men and women in our military have been at war for over a decade; they understand the responsibilities that go along with carrying a firearm,” Mr. Cruz wrote in the letter. “Yet their Second Amendment rights are removed at the front gate.”

McCain responded by kicking the can down the road to the personnel subcommittee, saying he’d “let them take action if they want to.”

“I think we ought to have the hearing, but we need the input of the military. They’re the ones who are directly affected by this, and I’m not making up my mind until I hear from the United States military,” Mr. McCain told reporters Tuesday.

The notion that we should “hear what leaders in the military think” is a common cop out among federal lawmakers, both Republican and Democrat.

Sen. Thorn Tillis (R-NC) also said he would defer to military leaders on whether soldiers should be permitted to carry on bases.

The policy on guns on military bases.  Makes no sense!  (Photo: KKTV)

The policy on guns on military bases. Makes no sense! (Photo: KKTV)

“I’m always open to good ideas on being able to expand concealed carry privileges,” Mr. Tillis told CNN. “The key though is to make sure the folks on the ground who are responsible ultimately for the safety of soldiers and their families, that they’re comfortable with it.”

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you but Sen. Tillis has it ass-backwards as the soldiers are ultimately responsible for not only their safety and the safety of their families but also the top brass that orders them around. Think about it. If the base is attacked or there is a shooting, who is going to pick up a gun and go confront the threat? It ain’t the head shed, that’s for sure. As it stands right now, military police would respond to the threat as they are the only ones who are armed. But the problem with this is approach is when seconds count MPs are minutes away.

The shootings at Fort Hood prove that point.  As does the shooting at the Navy Yard in 2013. Yet in response to these tragedies, military leaders do not reconsider their stance on banning concealed carry.

“There are a lot of barriers to this idea, and the department’s position — and we’ve spelled this out before — is that we do not support it,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren told CNN following the second shooting at Fort Hood which left three people dead, adding that the cost of training and certification for concealed carry would be prohibitive.

Yeah, that’s a bunch of B.S. Creating a safer environment by allowing trained soldiers to carry concealed is “cost prohibitive.”  Give me a break.  The truth is, as I mentioned, there is no logical reason to oppose concealed carry on military bases. And the fact that lawmakers are deferring to military officials who embrace the gun-free zone philosophy is infuriating. I just want to remind them: As a lawmaker, you make the laws! You decide what makes sense and what doesn’t. And if you get confused on an issue or if you need guidance, there is a document that you can consult called the Constitution that pretty much spells out what you need to know on all relevant and enduring matters. As it relates to this specific issue, please look at the Second Amendment.

Really though, this charade of deferring to military leaders makes me think that deep down lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are uncomfortable with the idea of soldiers freely exercising their right to keep and bear arms. The question I have is why?  If they can use firearms to defend our country why can’t they use them to defend themselves? Beyond that, what are these politicians and military officials afraid of?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Mcrooster May 2, 2015, 11:38 am

    This debate/idea/concept is nothing more than a distraction by Mr. Cruz . Rather than address the REAL issues that face this country, this is a blatant attempt to secure the 2A vote. I have eliminated Ted Cruz from my “short list” of conservative candidates. Not gospel, just my opinion. Right or wrong, please respect it. Thanks!

  • ExNuke April 30, 2015, 4:29 pm

    It really doesn’t matter what any of us peasants think. The reason private weapons were banned on bases is that Clinton was terrified of guns in the hands of his own troops and issued an Executive Order forbidding their possession. The order stands and until we have a President who is not afraid of and trusts the people he commands it will not be changed. Obama rescind an order against guns, not going to happen.

  • Damon April 28, 2015, 11:41 am

    Of course John McCain was going to kick this can down the road. “Accidental discharge” is a sore spot for him. Remember the Zuni rocket that somehow fired itself from a plane on the deck of USS Forrestal? McCain barely escaped with his life from the resulting explosions and fire on that crowded flight deck, and almost 150 American servicemen weren’t as lucky.

    • Joe April 28, 2015, 8:53 pm

      Hell, that idiot probably shot the damm missile himself.
      He was a sub par fly boy at best.
      The only reason he got all those medals was he was the son of a high ranking general in a nepotism fed society.
      Hell he crashed three jets, two of em in training.

  • mark April 28, 2015, 1:06 am

    with the knowledge (from the FBI) of 29 terrorist camps in the u.s. and an isis camp grouped with a drug cartel 8 miles across the border in mexico near a military base, it seems really stupid to not have all military personnel armed at all times waiting for the eminent attack.

  • Lee Kramer April 27, 2015, 11:21 pm

    I served in the U.S. Army, 2nd Armored Division, Division Artillery, Ft. Hood, Texas, 1972-74. I purchased my first personal firearm at that time. I was allowed to keep it on post in my barracks, BUT it along with any ammo had to be kept in the battery arms room. This make it a real pain in the ass to try and retrieve my own property along with all of the paperwork, unless the battery armory was there, and could be found, which wasn’t often, plus he lived 20 mile off post. That always made me wonder what would have happened in an emergency. To my knowledge he was the only one with keys to access that secure the battery arms-room. After a couple of month of this knit-twittery I withdrew my rifle and ammo and simply took them back home.

    The whole time I served arms and ammo were treated like they were some kind highly restricted nuclear device or something of that nature. Every round fired or unfired had to be counted and re-accounted for every time we used anything. This was even more so that even trash accumulated from artillery ammo too had to always be counted and returned. Most of the men I served with had just rotated back from Vietnam. I still remember their scorn and derision in these accounting practices, compared to those in that war zone. As such I always felt like I was an enemy of the Army, never to be trusted considering such stringent accountability. Plus remembering what occurred at those time when the count was off!!! Oh Lord, you might have thought Ft Knox had lost a gold brick when an ammo or ammo trash count was off! It made me wonder how we ever got a shot off at Pearl Harbor because I simply assumed solders were treated no differently then. Later I saw it depicted very briefly in the move ‘Here to Eternity’, trying to get into locked arms rooms just to get ammo while under Japaneses attack. Every time I’ve watched that scene it reminded me of my own experiences with an arms room.

    The only time I ever saw live ammo handled outside of field exercises was when we had division battalion guard duty. Where typically one solder would be place at a sensitive Division installation with only 5 rounds of live ammo. There were areas that were especially prone to break-ins and I always dreaded being assigned to one of those places at certain time of the month and only 5 rounds to defend myself with! It was insane then and it is insane now to allow any military installation to be just another ‘free-fire zone.’ I had a sense of this 40 years ago only to ironically see it happen in two familiar areas at Ft. Hood years later. No surprise at all! I’ve always been grateful to God it never happened to me then and there. I never felt safe at any location I served. I also had little faith in MPs at that time either. They always tended to have the same elite personal opinion of themselves I see so often in law enforcement today. I saw them no differently than myself. Yet I knew how to also use bigger and more destructive weapons than they could start to imagine. Still they could have defended themselves on post and I never could!

    Years later I figured it out. It was all about control, and who in the chain of command was allowed to have it. It certainly wasn’t and still isn’t the low level officers, NCOs or enlisted personnel.

  • Joe April 27, 2015, 8:19 pm

    Trained killing machines are subject to temptation and young ones more so than others.
    Let all of them carry a concealed weapon on base back here in the relative safety of home turf most likely would spark a rise in on base fatalities.
    However, on duty personal should at all times be armed …….period.

  • pete April 27, 2015, 7:36 pm

    What is it with you all who want to wear guns 24/7 everywhere? Don’t you know the average young soldier is not even close to mature enough to carry on base? Have none of you ever served or known any young soldiers? God love them for serving but use some common sense. Letting them all be armed on base would mean lots and lots more suicides, fights, crime, etc. And yes, a few times out of a hundred the guns would be used for legit purposes too, but at a very disproportionately high price. Get real.

    • networker67 June 6, 2017, 8:10 pm

      Finally someone with some common sense.

  • BRASS April 27, 2015, 2:43 pm

    I would leave it up to the individual service to establish their own guide lines including description to base commanders and here’s why: It’s infinetly more complicated than just passing legislation for the services themselves.
    As a former sailor and retired career Marine I can state with four decades of personal experience that not all service members are highly trained and competent with small arms. In fact, many whose MOSs, NECs and AFSCs are non-combatant may only touch a weapon at annual qualification or even less when opportunities are interrupted by deployments or other duties.
    No service places a higher priority on individual weapons proficiency than the Marines but not all Marines are equal in weapons training, experience and capability. No one would compare an infantry Marines with an Air Wing Marine and say that their training and competence is equal. My nephew, who retired as an 0369 Master Sergeant and leader of a weapons company with three combat tours has vastly different experience than I did as an 6591 Aviation Ordnance Chief with two combat tours. Even though I qualified for and served a tour as a rifle/pistol team member at a major Marine base and aggressively sought out every opportunity for individual weapons training, my training and experience were far less than my nephews. Most of my proficiency came as a result of my personal efforts to seek training and practice. My Cos invariably would rather have the productivity that came from being at work at the squadron rather than losing me and other Marines for a several days to two weeks for training. They have to deal with a large variety of demands on their Marines to meet annual training requirements such as rifle, pistol, physical, nuclear, biological and chemical, occupational schools, drug, equipment, vehicle and a dozens of others. One of their most difficult duties is to ensure their servicemen and women get the training they need and deserve and still manage availability to the unit in order to accomplish their primary mission. You can’t be proficient in operations and maintenance of computer networks, radars, aircraft, vehicles, motors, communications networks, armor, administration, supply and the hundreds of other things that make our military work without a high percentage of personnel availability and operations schedules that can be promulgated months in advance for complicated coordinated exercises and operations. Consider the more than hectic schedules of Marine squadrons deploying aboard aircraft carriers that have to serve two masters, one when ashore and the other when aboard ship throughout a three year cycle that has them deployed seventy-five percent of the time. Annual rifle range for junior enlisted and pistol range training requirements for senior enlisted and officers is the farthest thing from their minds when the chain of command including the Pentagon is tracking their every move as part of an international emergency deployed force that must be available for combat operations at a moments notice without warning and far away from the infrastructure and logistical assets needed to conduct that training.
    I guarantee that soldiers, sailors, airmen, coast guardsmen and even Marines who have occupations that take them away from weapons will not all be proficient. Some will have gone years without handling a weapon. As a sailor before joining the Marines my training with individual weapons was zero. I had the opportunity to fire a couple aboard ship during repel borders drills, but primary duties went to the gunners-mates and Marines aboard.
    Now retired, with decades of experience including advanced training by professionals, current competitive experience in several action shooting sports and concealed carry permits in three states I feel confident to carry daily and do. I would like the privilege of carrying my personal weapon when I go aboard a military base which often more than once a week. I’m not sure allowing anyone with a civilian carry permit should be allowed to carry on a military base as there are special considerations on bases you won’t find in any civilian environment. I would support allowing division, wing and base commanders to have some discretion in applying a service wide adoption of concealed carry for active and retired service members in civilian clothes such as passing a course of instruction conducted by on base authorities or one specified by them. I would support allowing designated uniformed personnel to carry their issue weapon openly in service gear but not concealed or using personally owned weapons.
    One large consideration of course is that the majority of active duty service members are under the age of twenty-one which is the federal minimum for several categories of handgun ownership, possession and use. Allowing E-5 and above to carry might work or senior enlisted and field grade officers and above surely would. I’m open to a wide variety of methodologies as long as consideration to degrees of qualification and experience is allowed and services are given control.
    Had uniformed personnel with open carry weapons been present at the Fort Hood massacre things would surely have been different, and I would like to think the same if active or retired service members in civilian clothes with concealed carry had been present but, there are so many variables to consider when the proper authorities arrive, that the natural confusion could possibly have contributed to the deaths had non-uniformed personnel with concealed non-issue weapons been acting without communication or coordination of each other or authorities, especially in a cross fire.
    I’m not against concealed carry on our military bases, I just think it takes more thought than just letting everyone with a permit carry with no further controls.

    • Paul April 27, 2015, 4:28 pm

      Well said Marine! Honestly, congress should butt out. As you said, this should be the base commanders call. Wasn’t the Fort Hood shooting at a special services facility? Even on base, there’s a lower likelihood of uniformed presence there, so that may not be the best example. It is a better example of how early warning signs of mental instability should be heeded.

      Semper Fi!

  • Russell W. Thomas April 27, 2015, 2:20 pm

    I voted for McCain and Tillis, but they are COMPLETLY WRONG on this issue, and therefore I will have to re-think any further support of either of them. It is ABSOLUTELY ASSININE to DISARM our ARMED FORCES! All military personnel go through basic training, which teaches them firearms safety and marksmanship, at a FAR GREATER INTENSITY than most states Carry Concealed required training, usually one day, with minimal shooting. ALL military personnel should be required to not only qualify with a rifle and a handgun at a minimum with a minimum of two annual requalification’s, four times annually preferred. Thereafter, all military personnel should be issued a handgun and a semi-auto rifle, with a requirement to carry the handgun at all times when in uniform, and by federal law should be exempt from state laws, allowing the carrying concealed when off duty. The exempt status would be afforded as the military training would far exceed that required for civilians for a Carry Concealed permit. Likewise, military personnel should be exempt from the 21 age rule. It is ludicrous that we train men and woman below 21 to be combat military personnel, send them all over the world, and put them into REAL WARS, where they live with military issued firearms 24/7/365, to protect themselves, other military and civilian personnel and to protect foreign citizens as well. Where the hell is the COMMON SENSE of McCain, Tillis, the Commander In Chief, and the entire citizenry of the US? What is it about “Armed Forces” that they don’t understand? We have MILLIONS of legitimately armed, law abiding citizens carrying concealed handguns, with FAR LESS TRAINING than our UNARMED MILITARY. Don’t think that the enemies of the US, the Terrorists, the Nut Jobs, haven’t taken notice that our ARMED FORCES ARE NOT ARMED! Wake up America, demand from your Representative that they pull their heads out of their posteriors, quit slinging Bovine Manure and allow our ARMED FORCES to be ARMED, for the continued safety and security of this great country.

    • Paul April 27, 2015, 4:53 pm

      Are you aware that the military does not use semi-auto rifles? I would have loved it if I was issued a rifle and handgun at taxpayers’ expense! However, your suggestion would cost us a ton of money.

      Anyone who has ever stood in line to turn their weapons in prior to liberty will disagree with your recommendation to mandate
      carry when in uniform. Our schedules were overloaded enough that I cringe at the thought of how much more time that would have taken away from me!

      If you haven’t seen them yet, peruse Brass’s & Former Marine’s comments herein regarding the aptitude of individual service members. Yes, we have the finest fighting force in the world, but it is made up from a cross section of our society, thus many lack any interest in firearms beyond what The Gunny instills. When they carry on the battlefield, there is a very thorough and heavily layered leadership structure to supervise. Small unit leaders, even in the infantry where we are supposed to be weapons aficionados, expend significant energy observing weapons handling; inspecting chambers, magazine pouches, and pockets for saved rounds; and accounting for ordnance.

      I agree with the 21 year old comment, and would extend that to alcohol as well, but that would have to be across society, not just for military.

  • Mike Johnson April 27, 2015, 1:30 pm

    Like everything else these days, Those in power at the top ‘know better’ than the rest of us – time to reconvene the ‘Convention of the States’, aka: Continental Congress and GET RID of ALL the politicians and bureaucrats currently ‘feeding at the public trough’!

  • Jonathan April 27, 2015, 12:55 pm

    Rhetoric, pure and simple. McCain is going to sit on his hands as is Tillis. Pass the buck around until people stop paying attention to it. And the canard about asking the opinions of senior military leaders is laughable; the flag officers they typically consult are often the farthest removed from the reality on the ground and in the ranks. Saying that “the cost of training and certification for concealed carry would be prohibitive” is pure bull$#!t. First of all, to carry concealed, one must first obtain a concealed carry permit, which is administered by the state, and whose cost is paid by the individual. There is ZERO cost to the DoD. If the armed forces want to add complexity and cost (which they always do), make carrying concealed on base contingent on obtaining a civilian CCW permit + qualifying on the pistol range. Many service members are already qual’d on the pistol to begin with, and adding a few people to the range roster each year won’t be cost prohibitive. Hell, most scheduled pistol ranges on base here are under-filled.

  • Garnzomatic April 27, 2015, 10:59 am

    Yeah, like it was the military’s decision to end don’t ask, don’t tell. That decision to void the military’s wishes on homosexuals being open in the military came from the PC crowd of politicians, not the brass. Same with women in combat, Chaplains actually allowed to be Christian, and on and on we go. So, no… while pandering to the press and the libs in the coat closet again, the pols defer to the military? WTF?

  • Former Marine April 27, 2015, 9:33 am

    Service members being able to freely carry guns on bases. Well that seems like a good idea, especially with the epidemic of rape that is currently occurring in our military (both among men & women & no this is not being blown out of proportion by the media).
    My buddy who was an MP in Germany in the 80’s used to get off post & he & his shift mates would go smoke hash at the local hookah bar till it was time to go on shift again. While I was in the Corps one of our armorers was selling just about every drug imaginable out of the armory & literally one out of every three Marines I served with were doing some sort of illegal drug, usually marihuana, or cocaine. The army guys I knew preferred weed & crack. Different cultures I suppose, but I digress…
    Most of the rest of us were alcoholics & the ones who were “clean” because of the hours of PT, well most of the were on steroids.
    I am a Marine & I support our troops, but not every service member is a hero or even a good person. I know I’m going to take a lot of flak for this. I don’t care.
    When you’re wrong you’re wrong. Just like that cop in South Carolina who is charged with murder for shooting that man in the back was wrong some of our service members are wrong.
    As an aside I’m also a cop. I understand most cops are doing their job & so are most service members, but there are bad apples in both. There are more service members (last I checked active duty army alone was near the total for all LEO’s in America at every level, although those numbers may have dwindled due to Obama cuts) thus more bad apples slip in & the potential for tragedy is much more serious.

    • Paul April 27, 2015, 4:21 pm

      Although the drug use dropped of dramatically once we started peeing in a bottle, I agree 100%!

      Semper Fi!

    • Caleb April 27, 2015, 4:33 pm

      They test for drug use in the military these days. I don’t know of a single Marine or soldier who abused drugs during my enlistment.

      • Former Marine April 27, 2015, 10:20 pm

        They tested when I was in too, now that was well over a decade ago so things may hBe changed, but when I was in it was so easy to get around the drug testing you pretty much had to want to get caught for them to catch you.
        Even then, a lot of times if you were an otherwise “good Marine” (or sailor, or soldier) you’d get an article 15 & maybe miss out on your good cookie.

  • Paul April 27, 2015, 9:07 am

    A lot of people do not understand the details of this topic. First, when I was in the Marine Corps, the policy regarding firearms on base was issued by the commanding general of the base. Most bases had similar policies, although I was aboard one where the policy only forbade personal arms in the barracks. You could keep them in your (locked) car and use the base ranges during times allotted for recreational shooting. Second, military installations typically follow the laws of surrounding municipalities (which is why under 21 can’t drink on base clubs). If your base is in DC for instance, the CG’s policy would need to be in compliance with DC law. Third, for those of you who haven’t served, I appreciate your support to the finest troops in the world by standing up for them, their level of responsibility, and the aplomb with which they carry it out. Please realize however, that you may be a tad naive about what happens in an environment where people on the pointy end of the spear live in extremely close quarters and consume frat-like quantities of alcohol.

    Now for the logistics of it all: Most of our military needs to be ready to deploy, often on short notice. Who owns the quarters in which our troops reside? Who owns the unit’s facilities, such as the armory? The government, of course. What happens to those quarters and facilities when the unit deploys? With the exception of a married service member whose family resides aboard the base, another unit will take over the facilities, and excess personal effects are boxed up for long term storage. If firearms are part of the personal effects, the disposition thereof is immensely more complicated, even before considering what various civil entities may decide constitutes the “transfer” of a firearm. Our military units do not have the resources to ensure a privately owned firearm is legally transferred, especially when a unit is deploying.

    In essence, the local military policies have more to do with a unit’s readiness for rapid deployment than anything else.

    As for the FT Hood shooting, it is nice to Monday morning QB it and say a concealed carrier would have stopped it cold. That may or may not be reality; though remember, that same general who signs the policy for personal firearms aboard his base is the same one responsible for the security aboard that base.

    • Former Marine April 27, 2015, 9:38 am

      Nicely said sir.
      Heck you did a better job in your response than in mine.
      Also, Semper Fi.

    • DaveGinOly April 27, 2015, 4:43 pm

      Although most military bases adhere to the law of the jurisdictions in which they find themselves, as far as what types of carry and ownership they permit their troops, this is only a nod to the local jurisdiction to provide seamlessness between what the individual troop can do on base and just outside the gates. Military posts are insular possessions of the United States government, and the states in which they are located have ceded their jurisdiction over both the land (territorial jurisdiction) and crimes that might occur there (subject matter jurisdiction). In some cases, states have kept certain subject matter jurisdiction (such as jurisdiction over capitol offenses – this is called “limited jurisdiction”), or they share jurisdiction over certain subject matters (again, usually capitol offenses – this is called “concomitant jurisdiction”). However, I’d be willing to bet that no state has maintained jurisdiction over firearms transfers on any base where the state has otherwise ceded jurisdiction to the federal government.

      There are two reasons why I believe this to be the case. First, jurisdictional matters over almost all extant military bases were settled at a time when such laws didn’t exist, so there’d be no need to have reserved the state’s subject matter jurisdiction over firearms laws that didn’t exist and nobody could have predicted. Second, if any such laws did exist at the time the federal government was negotiating the cession of a state’s jurisdiction over an installations located within the state, the feds would probably resist the state’s maintenance of its jurisdiction over firearms transfers for fear of how those laws might interfere (or even prevent) day-to-day transfers of firearms from arms rooms to troops, and between the troops themselves during the course of their duty. It would be much easier for the feds to say “trust us to handle it,” because they wouldn’t want to give the host state the ability to interfere with firearms transfers of any kind on the post.

      You could argue that a state couldn’t interfere with firearms transfers made during the course of duty on the post, even if they had maintained subject matter jurisdiction over private firearms transfers. And you’d probably be correct. But on the other hand, can’t you just imagine a progressive state legislature attempting to interfere with the military with such laws? This is why I think the feds would reject an attempt by a local jurisdiction to maintain subject matter jurisdiction over firearms transfers – it’s the easiest way to just avoid the problem.

    • Gunny H December 11, 2015, 2:21 am

      Well said. Marine Corps and Navy bases are some of the safest places in the US and abroad. I am a retired Marine and know for a fact that weapons in garrison, especially the barracks, is not a good idea. Firearms can, however, be kept in base housing or locked in your vehicle for temporary visits. Each base is different though like the previous poster mentioned.

  • Joe April 27, 2015, 8:28 am

    You really have to wonder why anyone enlists anymore – given the lack of trust, treatment of veterans, etc. I think you have to be incredibly naive at this point, or willing to overlook the fact that there’s a good chance you’re going to get screwed by your own government.

  • Bob Q April 27, 2015, 7:00 am

    Another case of losing track of the reason a regulation was enacted. Prior to the racial and anti-war rioting in the 60s and 70s, issued weapons in the military were the responsibility of the individual serviceman. Crew served and unissued weapons were maintained in armories, but individual weapons were issued to the individual. When domestic unrest broke out, the “danger” of someone stealing all the weapons maintained in barracks, or dishonest servicemen selling weapons to violent groups caused the creation of the expensive, secure unit and base armories where all weapons were to be stored for safekeeping.

  • Jim April 27, 2015, 5:54 am

    Simple solution is to allow open carry of our service sidearms while in uniform. Police open carry while in uniform and so should active duty military members.

    • Paul April 27, 2015, 9:15 am

      Military members whose duty necessitates being armed are in fact armed. Having all troops under arms at all times while in uniform would require an extreme level of logistical support, along with a reduced level of security of military arms (keep in mind the primary arm is select fire).

      • DaveGinOly April 27, 2015, 3:59 pm

        Another problem is that most troops who are assigned a firearm (not all are), are assigned rifles, carbines, and man-portable machine guns (e.g. M249). Relatively few troops are assigned a handgun. How many troops who are assigned weapons larger than handguns will want to carry them around? If the troops are allowed to carry on their bases, it should be openly, and the guns should be the personal firearms of those who choose to carry. Troops should also be able to apply for concealed carry permits from the local (state) jurisdictions in which their posts are located, and, once securing such a permit, be able to carry concealed on their posts. Cost to the U.S. military? Practically zero.

      • Caleb April 27, 2015, 4:25 pm

        I was an infantry Marine for four years, and if I was in garrison, I was disarmed.

      • Mikehnj April 27, 2015, 5:31 pm

        I’m not sure which way to go on this issue. Having served, although in the post jimmy carter years,, but here’s what I have 2 cents….Yes they are trained to use firearms, but always under supervision.and most are young, straight out of school. what I am trying to say is I wonder if they have the forethought of the consequences of carrying and use of a firearm. Given the liberal propaganda in our schools, semi-socialist exploitation media, and lack of clear moral standards these days, i will wait for comprehensive training in boot camp, and secondary training before allowing unrestricted carry by service memebers

      • Damon April 28, 2015, 11:47 am


        Just as each member of a platoon has an assignment (SAW gunner, radioman, etc.), detail one member of each platoon as “Base Security Specialist”, and issue a pistol and accoutrements for when garrisoned.

      • Eric May 2, 2015, 2:06 am

        I served in the Air Force, back when Reagan was president. I served most of my time on a British Air Base (now shut down). Even then, no one was allowed to carry a weapon except military police, and others whose job necessitated it. I never understood why. When we bombed Libya, we soon received terrorist bomb threats from that country. All personnel who lived off-base (such as myself) were told to check their vehicles for bombs every day before entering/starting them each day, on their way to work. As another measure of precaution, the military police stopped every vehicle at the gate and checked the undersides with a mirror on a pole. A devastating bomb did, actually go off in the London subway during that time, 60 miles south of our base. On-base, we had no protection except for the military police. With all this going on, we were still denied our right for self defense.

        I remember asking a buddy of mine (working there at the same place as me), if he thought we’d survive a direct attack, if it happened quickly. Once we agreed that it was not likely, we made plans to go a.w.o.l.!

        Haha! I’m not in the military anymore, so I can be honest! And I’m not saying I wouldn’t have fought for our country (or England). I very likely would have! But I was determined not to stay on that base just to get my butt blown off by well-armed enemy forces.

  • Brian April 27, 2015, 4:55 am

    The people who make laws in this land, say you can not have a gun, on a Military base, in your control.

    Yet they walk with armed bodyguards? Hullo! How do we say double standard?

    An issued Rape prevention kit, times two. Two lady soldiers, on a bus in Israel, slung rifles, a backpack, instead of a purse!
    We could do the same, this is your issued rifle/pistol/sub gun, you have been trained in it’s use, it stays with you, all day, and every day, loaded! Oh! We could not trust either the population or the Service people? Pity.

    The Major in Fort Hood? Would he have pulled out his pistol? If all those soldiers, walking about, had slung, loaded M4s.
    He was not one of the martyr variety Muslims? And he has still not been tried and shot!

  • DRAINO April 26, 2015, 5:57 pm

    Good thought. Term limits would be a start. Being a politician wasn’t meant to be a full time career. That should start the ball rolling….next…????

    • bob wakefield April 27, 2015, 7:30 pm

      How about “no person serving” shall be allowed a net worth of greater than 2 million dollars. No person serving will receive a salary of more than $100,00 dollars annually. No paid lobbyists of any type. It would be a capital crime to buy government.

  • Army127 April 25, 2015, 3:59 am

    Here is my issue with this whole ridiculousness. Look on almost any foreign military base and that countries military carries their weapons on base in case of an attack or a shooter like Ft. Hood twice! This shouldn’t even be some question of concealed carry at all. You go on base check into your armory and pick up your side arm! Off duty and on base you can carry your personal weapon or duty weapon openly so there is no mistake that our soldiers are armed always and ready for anything! This whole thing is so stupid as it should be a none issue and immediately implemented before something even worse happens. I was in the US Army for 14 years before I was injured in Iraq in 2009. So this is coming from an enlisted SSG who was in the trenches where we need the weapons to protect ourselves, each other and our families. This Congress and the upper Military leadership are so detached from reality and just worried about looking good and saving their own asses, that they wouldn’t know how to do something right if it hit them in the face! I agree that it’s time to replace everyone and start fresh, but who do we trust? What happens when all these new people we elect get the power and all the money and gifts from the lobbists and ultra rich boneheads? It just goes back to the way it is now, doesn’t it? So how do we overhaul everything to the point where big government stays out of States every day affairs and laws, like it was designed to do by the founding fathers and our Constitution? That’s the Trillion dollar question isn’t it? The elephant in the corner of the room! You get my point. So without a real complete dismantling of the corrupt and disgusting system of today. We really just go back to same old same old, no? I think yes. So my question to everyone who reads this is tell me, or everyone, how to put everything back to the way it was supposed to be in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of this once great Nation of ours? Well get to it people!

    SSG. G OUT
    “Death Waits in the Dark”

  • DRAINO April 24, 2015, 10:34 am

    DUH! you know what they are afraid of…..loss of control. They don’t mind if its THEM (the Govt) making the decisions as to who and when soldiers/marines/seamen/airmen are armed. But as always…..free thinkers are a threat to them. Someone may take their control away and THEN what would they do? Remember….the government has to save us from ourselves….we aren’t smart enough to be free people and take care of our own problems. I am beginning to think this is the mindset of even the Republican party. These greedy turds need to go!!! We need fresh people who are NOT political puppets to be voted in.

    • bass3rd April 27, 2015, 9:36 am

      This is brilliant. The only thing you have to do to ensure not having new greedy turds in office( and their aides), IS TO LIMIT TERMS TO TWO YEARS, regardless of office held. NO MORE LIFETIME POLITICIANS OR LOBBYISTS! You serve two years and then you go back to your regular normal civilian duties as the barber, or mailman, or mechanic or whatever you were before your service. The civilian population wont have to provide politicians with lifetime pensions, or private offices, or armed bodyguards. We, as Americans have forgotten that this is our country and not the political turds we have elected into office. We need to take America back and start deciding our future and our children’s future. We are not mindless morons that the politicians have decreed that we are. We balance our budgets every year, they have not. We stand accountable for our every action, they hide behind loopholes and terminology used. Wake up people, RECLAIM AMERICA!

    • JOE CHAMBERLAIN April 27, 2015, 9:45 am


    • Jonathan Olenick April 27, 2015, 9:59 am

      When I was overseas all the officers were armed 100% of the time. Jon

    • Cooleemee Edd April 27, 2015, 3:54 pm

      Yes! I am retired from the US Army and I work on a major military post as a contractor. I surrender my 2nd Amendment rights when I leave my home every Monday through Friday morning and don’t get them back until I arrive back at home in the evening. For 50 minutes, twice a day, I drive to and from work unarmed. So that means for 10 out of 24 hours a day – or 50 hours per week, I am deprived of my God-given right to protect myself. One day, I returned to my home to find that it had been burgled, and my two children were at home when the burglar returned for more…with a knife! Good thing the 12-year old “sicced” the dog that bites on him (and he WAS bitten)!! When the SHTF on post, I want to be able to defend not only myself, but the rest of my co-workers and young soldiers who won’t be able to get to their duty weapons in time to react. Let’s get our federal government to let us at least have our firearms in our vehicles, even if they will not let us carry them inside to our work-places. I’m not “paranoid,” but I am, in the words of my county sheriff, my own “first responder,” as the cops can only show up afterwards to ask “Wha happened?!?”

    • OldMan April 27, 2015, 6:21 pm

      It makes sense really…….. The usa govt allows many ISIS supporters, gang members and Hostile to the usa Moslems INTO the military. There would be another mass murder? on a base.?

Send this to a friend