Open carry on millitary bases?

I am active duty navy and live with in 3 hours of the Washington Naval Yard, so as you can imagine the security around where I live was on high. I was talking to a friend (also AD Navy) we where decussing the pros and cons of service members being able to carry on base. I love the Idea and I would carry every day. Now I understand that there are the same Issues with the wrong people with guns, and we know they exist. But I think that if you had to go though gun safey classes, in depth traning and earn a licence then you should be able to carry on base. What do you guys think?

Arm everyone, and the bad people will only get off one or two shots.

Nightmare said:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Says nothing about the wrong people with guns or safety or training. Good people ought to be armed as they will, with wits and guns and the Truth.

Click to expand...

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of it's own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more god men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." -Jeff Cooper

There are two problems with allowing OC on military bases. In no particular order they are:

1 - military members should, for a varity of reasons, be limited to carrying issued military weapons - at least while officially on duty. When off duty, they should be prohibited from carrying issued weapons, especially if they go off base.

2 - the military has a deep and abiding distrust of the lesser ranks being armed, especially when not in a combat zone. Part of this, IMHO, stems from the fact that stastically speaking, .mil folks have a higher history of horseplaying with weapons than the non-.mil population (or so it seems). I attribute that to the fact that the current attotude obout not allowing the .mil to go armed on base has created the same fascination as we see in little kids who know guns are in the house but prohibited from ever touching or even talking about them.

I just remembered - there is a third issue that needs to be dealt with:

3 - the .mil is fascinated with the notion of moving armed troops in groups (close order drill) as opposed to letting them wander all over the place (again the issue of being unsupervised). Transitioning from long arms to pistols for all ranks might solve that, but it runs smack into the tradition of allowing sidearms only to those 'in charge".

Now, as for civillians on military bases - I agree we should at least be allowed to OC a handgun that we can use, when it becopmes necessary, to kill a soldier and take their rifle and ammo from them in order to even the fight.

stay safe.

MAC702 said:

Arm everyone, and the bad people will only get off one or two shots.

Click to expand...

Amen. They won't live very long, either. Weeds out the gene pool, too. Less problems in the future.

skidmark said:

There are two problems with allowing OC on military bases ... there is a third issue that needs to be dealt with:

3 - the .mil is fascinated with the notion of moving armed troops in groups (close order drill) as opposed to letting them wander all over the place (again the issue of being unsupervised). Transitioning from long arms to pistols for all ranks might solve that, but it runs smack into the tradition of allowing sidearms only to those 'in charge".

Click to expand...

During my twenty, every time we had an exercise, all members, regardless of rank, armed up, including a full load of ammo, just as if we were in a hostile fire zone.

since9 said:

During my twenty, every time we had an exercise, all members, regardless of rank, armed up, including a full load of ammo, just as if we were in a hostile fire zone.

Click to expand...

Don't know where my reply of yesterday went, but it's gone. Anyhoo -

Except for alerts in a few places (Germany along the approaches to the Fulda Gap, Gitmo when the Cuban tanks rolled up towards the wire) ammo may have been drawn from warehouses but was not broken out of cases. Only if there was a live-fire component to an exercise (on a designated and "controlled" live-fire range) the best we could hope for were blanks.

When we were doing civil disturbance control (riot duty) in the late 60s we were were issued live ammo but not allowed to load it unless specifically ordered.

Field exercises - never happened.

stay safe.

To be honest, when I read that service personnel don't carry on base, I was astounded. That just seems wrong. These people are highly trained with weapons, and a military base just seems like the place I would most expect it be mandatory that you wore your service weapon at all times.

Carrying on Base

I love the idea, personally.

We allow our military members to carry missiles at 18 years old without even thinking about it while at war or training. Not allowing them the simple use of a handgun to protect them and people in their immediate error is retarded.

True, there are a lot of hotheads in the military, and lots of them bust loose, being out from their parent's wing for the first time, but the presence of a gun is sobering.

I think that once in a while someone would get stupid and have to be put down, but there would be zero mass shootings. I would feel comfortable being on a base where the majority of people were young and armed.

I think this was pushed by senior military members who want to be able to visually and physically intimidate subordinates. Arm the subordinate and all of a sudden the respect comes out.

I don't think there are more hotheads in the military than elsewhere. I'd say there are fewer. Basic training eliminates many and matures many. I'd say that you are more likely to find hotheads among a group of military-aged non-military than in the military. JMO based on my twenty years in the AF.

MAC702 said:

Arm everyone, and the bad people will only get off one or two shots.

Click to expand...

The bad people will just look for another GFZ...

While in PLDC at Ft Bragg, NC during a field exercise, some local good old boys located 3 soldiers setting up their foxhole.

As the good old boys had live rounds in their guns, they removed the 2 M16's and 1 M60 from the control of the soldiers and unassed the AO.

At that time, Ft. Bragg was an "open post" with a major highway running right thru it. I have no idea how it's setup today, but the point is it was kind of stupid to put the soldiers in that predicament.

As a member of the Honor Guard of our local VFW we carry beautiful M1 Garands during parades and funeral services, firing them with blanks during appropriate ceremonies. Someone might be enticed to relieve us of those weapons that can very easily be converted back to shooting live ammo, so on These occasions I am also wearing my handgun, sometimes open, sometimes concealed, but always with an eye to protection of myself and my Comrades.

Good thread.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Marine Museum in Quantico, Va has any adverse firearms policies against carrying, OC or CC in the museum? Friend and I are thinking of dropping by this coming week. Open from 9-5, free admission. Nothing in the FAQ, though they do have a rifle range.

While I think that military members should be able to carry on base I see some issues (stated in no particular order):

1) Weapons Familiarity/Mindset - At least in the AF, there isn't much focus guns. In fact unless you deploy regularly, it isn't uncommon to not even touch a gun except for once every 1-2 years for qualification. Hell even at my deployed location I have a lot of people who question why we even have our guns since "we will never need them." At home on my last airframe I was viewed as "odd" for desiring to carry a weapon at all (either on or off duty). Then there's the curiousity aspect for those that would want to carry but don't really have any experience with weapons (the "little kid" syndrome as someone else described).

As such I think that both the weapons familiarity and the mindset regarding weapons in the military (and especially the AF) would need to change in order for the masses to safely carry.

2) Gangs and those that snap - The Army and Marines have gang problems (the other services too, but not to the same extent) as gangs have started sending members to the military for training. Also people are more likely to "snap" at home station. Both of these people present problems when armed at home station. The criminals are to potentially feel empowered due to their gun (and either intimidate or actually use it) and some of those that snap are likely to decide to use their weapon on those they blame.

The military needs to better get the gang problem under control and better support those that might snap (PTSD, excessive stress, etc).

3) "Respect" - I would say that too many officers DEMAND respect without actually doing anything to earn it. The gun can make subordinates feel empowered and thus more likely to challenge such less-than-stellar officers. So I can see certain officers not wanting this as it would require them to actually earn their respect instead of simply demanding it.

4) Carrying of weapons when offbase but in uniform - While I'm not against one carrying their own weapon so long as it is equal or better than what the military would issue AND conforms to certain standards (such as compatible with a specific mag and ammo-type), there would be the question of what happens when one leaves the base but is in uniform. We're NOT police (even military police aren't authorized to perform police actions off-base unless its involving another military member), and seeing a bunch of military walking around in uniform with weapons can potentially scare the general populous. Not to mention that invariably someone would do something they shouldn't with their weapon. As such it is a potential PR problem for leadership.


Note that I'm NOT saying that due to these reasons we shouldn't be allowed to carry, but rather that these are the reasons I can see our "leadership" not wanting us to carry. Not to mention that I'm sure plenty are anti-gun as shown by General McChrystal's comments after one of the mass shootings. Personally I think the biggest thing would be promoting a safety mindset, breaking down the curiousity that many would have, having proper training that ANY military member who desires to carry can take, and having serious consequences for those that act improperly with their weapons (like loss of multiple ranks, jail time, CC, AND wage garnishment), but I just don't view enough of our leadership as truly pro-Rights and so I don't see them having any desire to enact something like this.

Very slightly off topic but pertinent. The Marine Museum DOES have a no guns and knives sticker on the door. Also, no dogs, not shoes with wheels.

There was a metal detector and an X-ray conveyer belt, so unfortunately we had to leave the tools in the car. But we went in and discovered the detector was not in service.

I can see why they have that policy though...not. :/

Aknazer said:

4) Carrying of weapons when offbase but in uniform - While I'm not against one carrying their own weapon so long as it is equal or better than what the military would issue AND conforms to certain standards (such as compatible with a specific mag and ammo-type), there would be the question of what happens when one leaves the base but is in uniform. We're NOT police (even military police aren't authorized to perform police actions off-base unless its involving another military member), and seeing a bunch of military walking around in uniform with weapons can potentially scare the general populous. Not to mention that invariably someone would do something they shouldn't with their weapon. As such it is a potential PR problem for leadership.

Click to expand...

soldiers and sailors in WA state carry weapons in uniform all the time, if they're transporting expensive equipment they're usually armed, and if supervising weapons (for instance, weapons being displayed at a public event) an NCO or Petty Officer is usually armed while supervising.

I doubt it would be a problem

I have never been in the military, so my thoughts about on base carry is mute. As I cannot truly relate with the military life style. I will say this, after the Ft. Hood shooting and now the Naval Yard shooting. I heard many ask, How could this happen on a military base? Everyone is armed and look what happened, even heard that on the news. Those that asked that question were in shock when I explained. A military base is federal property, thus a GFZ. Except for the guards at the gates and a few MP's. They are really just like a gated community. If something goes down just like with the rest of the country, they must wait for Military LE to show up.
While I see that there are times that a service member depending on what they are doing, having a firearm on their person may hinder them from doing their job at that time. they should at least be able to have a firearm very handy.
I am in the middle of changing a motor in my car. Wearing a side arm while I am under the vehicle is in the way. But I do have my firearm very close by. Most everyday non-military people think military people are armed at all times.

EMNofSeattle said:

soldiers and sailors in WA state carry weapons in uniform all the time, if they're transporting expensive equipment they're usually armed, and if supervising weapons (for instance, weapons being displayed at a public event) an NCO or Petty Officer is usually armed while supervising.

I doubt it would be a problem

Click to expand...

This is VERY different than letting everyone carry, at least from a leadership POV. Those people are carrying for official duties and have supposedly been vetted to be able to carry, as opposed to just letting anyone carry at any time.

You will also note how I said that these were issues that I could see our "leadership" having with it. The very same "leadership" that has said things like how they don't see what we "need" scary-looking semi-autos for. While I can see there needing to be some controls for those that might truly be a hazard (after all, I've plenty of cops/augmentees pulling duties without a gun due to being in trouble), generally speaking I don't think it would be much of a problem to let the "Armed Forces" actually be armed if they so desire.

when i first heard of this. i thought well, yeah, troops should have personal armament. they should be allowed to carry just like any other citizen

but there is one of the rubs. they are not just citizen they are property of the Federal Government. they will be ordered to attack citizens. this makes them a standing army. history has taught us we should fear a standing army.
if they are allowed to carry around us citizens these same weapons could be used on us. i realize this might be a moot point, since they will be armed when they move against us. but it is still there that they are the government

Military personnel are not "the property of the federal government." Please stop spreading that myth. We are citizens who entered into an admittedly fairly one-way contract with the federal government in which we promise to forego a lot more of our rights than most folks do when they enter into a contract. But, in no sense are we "the property of the federal government." Your assertion fails to consider all the civilian employees, family members, and visitors who have entered into no such contract. Except for certain secure areas on base, usually with a posted list of folks allowed in, and with armed protection beyond the guard at the base gate, folks on Wright-Patt should be as free to be armed as folks walking down Main Street in Fairborn.

Because of the ridiculous rules about guns on base, from the moment I leave the house in the morning, until I get home at night, even when I am not on the base, I must be unarmed because there is nothing to do with my firearm while I am on the base. I can't even lock it in my trunk unloaded! Worse, there are all the dead people on Ft Hood and at the Washington Navy Yard because the only person with a gun will be the guy unwilling to follow the rules but willing to kill.