Open carry on millitary bases?

Having served with, and supervised, many young soldiers during my career, I will state unequivocally that there are very few, unless things have really changed drastically in the twenty-two years since I retired, young soldiers that I would not trust with a personal weapon.

Those few that I would not trust were also those that good NCOs were working to put out of the service. And there lies the heart of the problem: During, and after, Vietnam, the officer corps preempted the role and authority of the non-commissioned officer corps. I know that applies in the Army, but I am not at all sure about the Marines, Navy, or Air Force as I have no recent experience with them.

Added to the above is the fact that certain politicians regard the military as the ideal laboratory for social experimentation. An example of this is Dear Leader's recent attempt to change the covers of the Marine Corps.

Nightmare said:

The good old boys are or were active participants in exercises at Ft. Bragg, even to notices being posted in the local news. My post, Gislason-Richter carries M-1 Garands also. It would be nice to suspect that I am not the only member usually armed. There is a thread on a VFW post posting gun-prohibition.

Click to expand...

I was not able to find this thread, care to point me in the right direction?

I am not aware of a VFW wide policy on the carrying of guns, but I could be wrong. Many posts hold gun shows in their halls, might be a problem.... If a specific post and their members want to add a bylaw to say their post is gun free, that's up to them. It can also be overturned, by a change In leadership.

I often carry in the bar area of my post, in Michigan no less, and it is perfectly legal as I am the club manager, IOW the operator of said bar. Of course I do not drink while doing so, as that would most likely put me out of the limits of the law, and is just bad form IMHO, alcohol and guns don't mix. I do take umbrage with the worry of someone simply being IN the bar/lounge area. So what... If they're drinking, THATS the problem.

Happy Veterans Day

Just want to wish all my fellow Vets, Past, Present and Future a Happy Veterans Day, God Bless.... U.S. Army, 1st Bn. 43rd ADA 74-77

Every potential problem raised in this thread can be distilled down to one issue: lack of training. A few folks mentioned it in passing, but didn't really explore the implications.

For numerous reasons (mostly bad ones) the military long ago stopped emphasizing actual warrior/combat skills. One of the primary needed reforms we need to make is that every military member, of every branch, needs to be ready for ground combat. Every one of us should go through an equivalent of Army/Marine Basic Training, with basic infantry training. Basic weapon handling and use should be item one in that cirriculum. After that, then go on to technical/specialized training. During service, every member should be required to fire at least 100 rounds per month (I'd prefer 500) on their primary weapons, which would include rifle, pistol and shotgun. Expensive? Yes, but as Heinlein said "The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military".

Sadly, TPTB (the high brass and the politicians) won't budget for it, are scared of it and won't fight the PC mentality of having a military that isn't ready to fight.

Just my two cents after 23 years in the USAF.

PavePusher said:

Every potential problem raised in this thread can be distilled down to one issue: lack of training. A few folks mentioned it in passing, but didn't really explore the implications.

For numerous reasons (mostly bad ones) the military long ago stopped emphasizing actual warrior/combat skills. One of the primary needed reforms we need to make is that every military member, of every branch, needs to be ready for ground combat. Every one of us should go through an equivalent of Army/Marine Basic Training, with basic infantry training. Basic weapon handling and use should be item one in that cirriculum. After that, then go on to technical/specialized training. During service, every member should be required to fire at least 100 rounds per month (I'd prefer 500) on their primary weapons, which would include rifle, pistol and shotgun. Expensive? Yes, but as Heinlein said "The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military".

Sadly, TPTB (the high brass and the politicians) won't budget for it, are scared of it and won't fight the PC mentality of having a military that isn't ready to fight.

Just my two cents after 23 years in the USAF.

Click to expand...

Well Said!

+1 on my thanks to all of the Vets for their service and sacrifice

im active currently stationed in California. I know this because I FAPD out to PMO for 6 months because im on my way out and couldn't be put in the field. If you transport a weapon that has not been registered with the Provost Marshall Office on base you are committing a crime, punishable by both military and civilian courts. The military is a lot umm how do i put this touchy these days. A lot of people i know who reside on base give their weapons to those who live off base just to bypass the hassle. If your caught going through any gate during a random inspection you are put in handcuffs and detained until your command comes and gets you but the punishment is controlled by PMO to the Convening Authority and with a weapons charge can and usually will end up at the regiment level which usually lands you a special or summary court martial.

Can someone translate the above into English, possibly using sentences, paragraphs, capitalization, and punctuation? It's way too early in the morning for me to try to decipher what is being written!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I think he said.....if you get caught with a gat, on base, you get in big trouble.....just a guess though.

PavePusher said:

Every potential problem raised in this thread can be distilled down to one issue: lack of training. A few folks mentioned it in passing, but didn't really explore the implications.

For numerous reasons (mostly bad ones) the military long ago stopped emphasizing actual warrior/combat skills. One of the primary needed reforms we need to make is that every military member, of every branch, needs to be ready for ground combat. Every one of us should go through an equivalent of Army/Marine Basic Training, with basic infantry training. Basic weapon handling and use should be item one in that cirriculum. After that, then go on to technical/specialized training. During service, every member should be required to fire at least 100 rounds per month (I'd prefer 500) on their primary weapons, which would include rifle, pistol and shotgun. Expensive? Yes, but as Heinlein said "The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military".

Sadly, TPTB (the high brass and the politicians) won't budget for it, are scared of it and won't fight the PC mentality of having a military that isn't ready to fight.

Just my two cents after 23 years in the USAF.

Click to expand...

I agree. It blows me away that when I volunteer for advanced weapons training or inquire about hand-to-hand training that my fellow Airmen think I'm crazy or a gun nut. While deployed I regularly hear things like "I don't know why we carry this [M9], I don't trust other AF people with it and we should all just hit the deck anyways if there's an active shooter." So many AF personnel don't realize that they're in the military and think that they have no reason to be prepared to employ their weapon or face someone in close range or hand-to-hand combat. Now I'll admit that as an AF member you are highly unlikely to need such things in most jobs, but part of being in the military is being prepared and being able to flex IF it is needed.

This attitude of "I'm in the AF, I don't need to be prepared for real combat" just drives me up the wall. And for those of us who want the training there's nothing that we can currently volunteer for to get it.

You can but you have to change AFSC's...

I think retired military folks with LEOSA qualifications should be able to carry as all military/Security Police folks are authorized under that act to carry in all states as long as they meet the criteria.

Chief1297 said:

You can but you have to change AFSC's...

I think retired military folks with LEOSA qualifications should be able to carry as all military/Security Police folks are authorized under that act to carry in all states as long as they meet the criteria.

Click to expand...

Even if you change AFSC's (MOS for you non-AF) you can only carry when on duty, unless you're talking about one of the more "special" AFSC's out there (at which point they are likely considered "on duty" 24/7 anyways). Also no, those with LEOSA shouldn't be able to carry on base. LEOSA needs to go away as we need to do away with such special privileges for different groups of people. Generally speaking, if you have access to the base then you should be able to carry a weapon on the base. And yes I'm sure there would certain specific exceptions (such as foriegn nationals, certain jobs like the janitor, or Airman Snuffy who did something to get said right revoked while on base), but that would be the exception and not the rule.

Aknazer said:

Even if you change AFSC's (MOS for you non-AF) you can only carry when on duty, unless you're talking about one of the more "special" AFSC's out there (at which point they are likely considered "on duty" 24/7 anyways). Also no, those with LEOSA shouldn't be able to carry on base. LEOSA needs to go away as we need to do away with such special privileges for different groups of people. Generally speaking, if you have access to the base then you should be able to carry a weapon on the base. And yes I'm sure there would certain specific exceptions (such as foriegn nationals, certain jobs like the janitor, or Airman Snuffy who did something to get said right revoked while on base), but that would be the exception and not the rule.

Click to expand...

I could live with that.

Aknazer said:

...And yes I'm sure there would certain specific exceptions (such as foriegn nationals, certain jobs like the janitor...

Click to expand...

What do you have against the janitor?

MyWifeSaidYes said:

What do you have against the janitor?

Click to expand...

You mean besides the fact that they are sub-contracted out to the point of regularly needing an escort while cleaning buildings? Nothing. But it would come down to vetting in regards to such people being allowed to carry and I don't see the vetting or supervision of certain jobs being up to par to be allowed to carry. Or at least not while on-the-job, and unless they have some other reason to have access to the base (dependent, retiree, etc) chances are they don't have the privileges to go anywhere else except to/from work. Thus, when exactly would they be able to carry outside of their car?

skidmark said:

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.

Click to expand...

Some minor quibbles (for the record, 23 years and counting USAF):

1. Military personnel should be issued a weapon upon entry to Basic, and keep that weapon at the ready until the end of their term of service, on duty or off. If they are worth guarding while on-duty (fences and armed guards around the base), they are worth enabling them to protect themselves off-duty as well. And in their work locations. If the WNY, Ft Hood and Fairchild AFB haven't taught us this yet, we need to simply shut down the military, as we are hopeless.

2. Show your stats? I'd say, seeing it from the inside, it's much more a product of the zero-safety-defect-for-promotion menatality of the Brass. If an Airman stubs her toe, and you weren't there to prevent it, it's a mark against you, enlisted or officer. If there is a problem in actual weapons handling demonstrated by stats, then it can be solved by a. Selecting better personnel, and b. Better training. Because, believe it or not, 95% of all military weapons training is crap. Or no training at all. For the USAF, only Security Forces and SpecOps get regular weapoins training. The rest of us get a 10-hour class every year or three, and only immediately prior to a deployment or overseas change-of-station. The Navy is similar, and only actual combat positions in the Army get better. From what I've heard, the USMC is leaning this way as well.

3. Old Doctrine. No-one does close-order drill on the battlefield unless they are suicidal.

3.b. Ummmm.... May I point out that we are fairly likely to be on your side, unless things get much more horribly screwed up than I think they will? So yeah, have a plan for every contingency, if possible, but please make sure of who your allies are. Just sayin'... 8>)

Mommajo said:

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.

Click to expand...

Sorry, not really that well trained, in the majority. See my reply immediate above this one.

This can be fixed.... but it would mean buying one or two fewer C-17's or F-35's.

papa bear said:

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

Click to expand...

Why do you think so poorly of our decision-making skills, and ability to refuse illegal orders?

PavePusher said:

Why do you think so poorly of our decision-making skills, and ability to refuse illegal orders?

Click to expand...

I notice this perception from those whose military experience is based upon "Top Gun" and other Hollywood offerings.

While I mostly agree with what has been said here I would go one step further. It is my opinion that military personnel should be required to carry an issued firearm when on base/post. Barring some medical or disciplinary reason to prohibit an individual from carrying. And carry open or concealed should be optional when off post in uniform. It should also be optional when in civilian attire. Again barring some special circumstance. Their military id card should be a recognized carry permit if the weapon is concealed.

Further it is my feeling that young people in the military today are just as smart, just as brave and just as patriotic as ever. It is time we recognize they are also just as responsible as anyone else. (It goes without saying this includes our more experienced military people as well).

Irfner

PavePusher said:

Why do you think so poorly of our decision-making skills, and ability to refuse illegal orders?

Click to expand...

Bernymac said:

I notice this perception from those whose military experience is based upon "Top Gun" and other Hollywood offerings.

Click to expand...

Because the National Guard helped with the Katrina weapon confiscations. And then there's people like that Bateman in another thread, or the Gen. that stated he doesn't understand why civilians "need" an M4, or even my own co-workers who have been blown away by the fact that I like/enjoy guns (I like ALL types of weaponry, not just guns and that confuses them even more), with some having no problem if there was a gun confiscation. Thus it is already shown that there's plenty in the military who would likely follow such illegal orders, and would do so while seeing no problem with their actions. The question then becomes, would enough refuse the orders and would those in positions of authority refuse them? At which point I think it would depend on the service and just which job we were talking about. Since, after all, anyone can be turned into an MP-augmentee to carry out such an order.