• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Poll: Overwhelming Majority of Military Want Concealed Carry Rights on Home Bases

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
Why CC only? I believe that the military should open carry on post. Make it part of the uniform even.

This is OCDO (OPEN CARRY dot org) so why are we pushing for CONCEALED CARRY?

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
I think they should have the freedom to choose much like I think citizens should have the freedom to choose without needing a permission slip. Though I can understand some people pushing CC as I've heard the fear that citizens wouldn't like seeing armed military members on US soil.
 
Last edited:

F350

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
942
Location
The High Plains of Wyoming
If you believe military personnel should have to reach expert marksmanship levels to carry, I think you're missing something. The average citizen doesn't have as much as training as the average military serviceman, so I see no reason to restrict. As others have stated, testing and practical self-defense are two different things. However, perhaps mandatory additional training in self-defense on a military base would be a good idea (whether they carry or not).
I was in the Marines; I've seen 18-20 year old big city boys (particularly minorities, sorry but true) even after Marine Corps weapons training that i wouldn't trust with a BB gun let alone a handgun. When people say military/police get expert training in weapons i almost break a rib laughing, in my Marine company there were 4 guys that were not allowed to handle a weapon without 1-1 supervision; when I rode on patrol with a sheriff's deputy buddy who was the department chief firearms instructor the most dangerous thing I did was assist in firearms qualification. Had one deputy that was having trouble on the line, turned to ask for help and just barely missed shooting my buddy.

Yea, maybe qualification is just target practice but to make expert requires more than a little familiarity with weapons, which far too many of our youth today do not have.
 

PerBast

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Ft. Jackson, South Carolina
New to Open Carry and on active duty

New to the Open Carry scene and live in Greenboro NC. I carry my handgun pretty much everywhere, but run into issues when I head off to work. I am in the military and we are barred from having our weapons secured in our vehichles on government property. So, I have to choose to not carry my handgun to and from work to ensure I do not wind up in the hotseat.

We have security that is armed, so while at work I feel safe. But it is that drive to and from work has the increased risk.

Michael
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
New to the Open Carry scene and live in Greenboro NC. I carry my handgun pretty much everywhere, but run into issues when I head off to work. I am in the military and we are barred from having our weapons secured in our vehichles on government property. So, I have to choose to not carry my handgun to and from work to ensure I do not wind up in the hotseat.

We have security that is armed, so while at work I feel safe. But it is that drive to and from work has the increased risk.

Michael
And I would still want to be armed in the workplace. As Ft. Hood, Navy Yard, and other incidents have shown once the gate is breached you're just a sitting duck until armed individuals can get on scene. I've also heard a story about some activists who managed to get onto a flightline and paint some planes with various phrases. If they were able to get on base and paint a B-52 that was on 20min alert imagine what could have been done if they were out to actually hurt military members.
 

PerBast

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
44
Location
Ft. Jackson, South Carolina
Thank you for the warm welcome

Thank you for the warm welcome. I am in hopes of getting involved with the posts on the Open Carry forum.

Not sure where I techically originally hail from. I left my home in Oregon back in 93 and have not been back. Calif, Texas, Nevada, NC and SC have been my home since. Each with their own little quirks with the gun laws.

Thanks again.


First thanks for your service and welcome to NC and the forum.

hope you contribute to the NC state thread with your OC'g experiences here in NC as it benefits us all.

since you didn't state where you original hail from...have you seen this document from the NC Atty General:
http://www.ncdoj.gov/getdoc/32344299-a2a7-4ae5-99fd-9018262f64ac/NC-Firearms-gun-Laws.aspx

again welcome

ipse
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,668
Location
here nc
And I would still want to be armed in the workplace. As Ft. Hood, Navy Yard, and other incidents have shown once the gate is breached you're just a sitting duck until armed individuals can get on scene. I've also heard a story about some activists who managed to get onto a flightline and paint some planes with various phrases. If they were able to get on base and paint a B-52 that was on 20min alert imagine what could have been done if they were out to actually hurt military members.
referencing your story you seem to have neglected to provide the caveat at the top of the site's page:

please

quote This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2012) unquote.

additionally, it would seem there are no other main stream news medium outlets which reported this incident and personally being aware of the perimeter security protocols involved with the buff...especially during a raised defcon environment...nobody would have lived to tell the story let alone get close enough to paint any aerocraft on the flight-line.

sigh...now will you tell us another bed time story which is similar to this conjured fantasy.

ipse

edited...seems a group were involved in damaging a buff around thanksgiving of 1983 but there was no O'Reilly listed nor any mention of 'shareplows'...still seems mr O'Reilly's imagination has the better of him if his wiki states he participated in 1991 which occurred in '83. ah we have turned our story into a time traveler event...nice touch. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/17/nyregion/the-region-7-are-sentenced-in-b-52-vandalism.html
 
Last edited:

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,336
Location
Valhalla
referencing your story you seem to have neglected to provide the caveat at the top of the site's page:

please

quote This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2012) unquote.

additionally, it would seem there are no other main stream news medium outlets which reported this incident and personally being aware of the perimeter security protocols involved with the buff...especially during a raised defcon environment...nobody would have lived to tell the story let alone get close enough to paint any aerocraft on the flight-line.

sigh...now will you tell us another bed time story which is similar to this conjured fantasy.

ipse

edited...seems a group were involved in damaging a buff around thanksgiving of 1983 but there was no O'Reilly listed nor any mention of 'shareplows'...still seems mr O'Reilly's imagination has the better of him if his wiki states he participated in 1991 which occurred in '83. ah we have turned our story into a time traveler event...nice touch. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/17/nyregion/the-region-7-are-sentenced-in-b-52-vandalism.html
Nice find.

IMO - many (most?) base/post security is somewhat lax - some do not apparently have ammo for their weapons. Seems like so much security theater w/o the ability to respond and defining post orders. Observe and report could be said the be the order of the day.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,668
Location
here nc
Nice find.

IMO - many (most?) base/post security is somewhat lax - some do not apparently have ammo for their weapons. Seems like so much security theater w/o the ability to respond and defining post orders. Observe and report could be said the be the order of the day.
grape, when the security of the buffs is concerned coupled with the bogus article's claim it occurred during heighten defcon and there were allegedly nuclear payloads on board ~ the nice security detail are armed to the hilt w/deadly force authorized.

ipse
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,336
Location
Valhalla
Originally Posted by Grapeshot

Nice find.

IMO - many (most?) base/post security is somewhat lax - some do not apparently have ammo for their weapons. Seems like so much security theater w/o the ability to respond and defining post orders. Observe and report could be said the be the order of the day.
grape, when the security of the buffs is concerned coupled with the bogus article's claim it occurred during heighten defcon and there were allegedly nuclear payloads on board ~ the nice security detail are armed to the hilt w/deadly force authorized.

ipse
I was thinking more of normal front gate security, some who are non-military contractors. I should have made that clear.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,265
Location
northern wis
Here's a link to an article arming base security The comments are interisting

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/02/five-rounds-as-us-army-guard.html


I was either in, or worked for, the U.S. Army for over 30 years. During that time I had some experience with what guards were issued for ammunition. My brother brought my attention to a video done about F-15s in Bitburg, Germany, in 1981, at the height of the cold war, only a few year before NATO won. It is titled "The Wing". In the video you can see the Tech Sergeant being issued magazines. He is issued four magazines, all have rounds in them. He makes sure his chamber is clear, and inserts one magazine. In the screen-shot (about 7:26 on the video) you can see the other three magazines in his left hand. They are clearly 30 round magazines for the M16 or variants.

If they were loaded with 28-29 rounds each, I would be pleasantly surprised. I was surprised to see that he received four magazines with rounds in them. It would not make sense to issue him four magazines with five rounds each, when he could be issued one magazine with 20 rounds.
 
Last edited:

325rto

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2013
Messages
93
Location
Fayetteville, NC
Here's a link to an article arming base security The comments are interisting

http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/02/five-rounds-as-us-army-guard.html


I was either in, or worked for, the U.S. Army for over 30 years. During that time I had some experience with what guards were issued for ammunition. My brother brought my attention to a video done about F-15s in Bitburg, Germany, in 1981, at the height of the cold war, only a few year before NATO won. It is titled "The Wing". In the video you can see the Tech Sergeant being issued magazines. He is issued four magazines, all have rounds in them. He makes sure his chamber is clear, and inserts one magazine. In the screen-shot (about 7:26 on the video) you can see the other three magazines in his left hand. They are clearly 30 round magazines for the M16 or variants.

If they were loaded with 28-29 rounds each, I would be pleasantly surprised. I was surprised to see that he received four magazines with rounds in them. It would not make sense to issue him four magazines with five rounds each, when he could be issued one magazine with 20 rounds.
When I was stationed in Vicenza, Italy, we were tasked with providing guards for our off-site basic load storage area. We were issued 18 rounds in an M-16 magazine at the beginning of our shift. Back at the caserne, the Quick Reaction Force, which was restricted to the company dayroom, awaited with their issue weapons in racks and live ammo. It was a 20 minute drive from the caserne to the BLSA.
 

Satdiver

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2015
Messages
19
Location
Las Vegas, NV
CC & OC on base

the requirements should be the same as those for the civilian population to carry on base for both CC & OC. The base should have to follow state laws in this regard.

You will always have those that are "scary" at handling a firearm in both the military and civilian world. It is what it is, just like you would not deny an elderly person who qualified at their CCW course a license, you shouldn't restrict the military, because they didn't shoot Expert.

I hate when I have to go on base and leave my gun at home and would like to see this changed as well.

Maybe when Donald Trump gets elected he can change it.

:lol:
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
referencing your story you seem to have neglected to provide the caveat at the top of the site's page:

please

quote This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2012) unquote.

additionally, it would seem there are no other main stream news medium outlets which reported this incident and personally being aware of the perimeter security protocols involved with the buff...especially during a raised defcon environment...nobody would have lived to tell the story let alone get close enough to paint any aerocraft on the flight-line.

sigh...now will you tell us another bed time story which is similar to this conjured fantasy.

ipse

edited...seems a group were involved in damaging a buff around thanksgiving of 1983 but there was no O'Reilly listed nor any mention of 'shareplows'...still seems mr O'Reilly's imagination has the better of him if his wiki states he participated in 1991 which occurred in '83. ah we have turned our story into a time traveler event...nice touch. http://www.nytimes.com/1984/07/17/nyregion/the-region-7-are-sentenced-in-b-52-vandalism.html
https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5363 - 1991 event

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/secrobins.pdf - 1978 event, involves an A1C who had access to the jet.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/security.htm - Shows various other incidents sabotage and what not. It mentions vandalism on a B 52 in 1992 at a RAF base but the link doesn't work. O'Reilly is specifically mentioned in the 1991 link.

When I was originally told about the event I was a SF augmentee (2005) and wasn't told any other information outside of the fact that protesters had compromised the security of a B 52, vandalized it, and that it was down for a few days while they worked to take care of the incident and that it caused a mission to be scrubbed. Whether the story I was told was true, false, and/or exaggerated I obviously have no way to know or confirm. But as the links show there's at least some truth such things happening even if the story as relayed to me wasn't 100% accurate. Or it could be that if it was only paint that had to be cleaned up (which was what I was told, don't know why that would scrub a mission though unless the "mission" was something like a public showing once the plane was off of alert) that it simply didn't get reported in any reasonably trackable manner.
 
Last edited:

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
grape, when the security of the buffs is concerned coupled with the bogus article's claim it occurred during heighten defcon and there were allegedly nuclear payloads on board ~ the nice security detail are armed to the hilt w/deadly force authorized.

ipse
Except that while deadly force is authorized you still have to account for the surroundings. So sure they "could" have shot the protesters and legally been fine...except that behind the protesters was a plane with live nukes. While I HIGHLY doubt stray shots could cause the nukes to go off, I still wouldn't want to be the one to explain why the casing is cracked or some other damage. And if the protesters stopped and complied it then becomes even harder to justify politically even if legally you were authorized due to it being a PL1 asset.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,668
Location
here nc
(1) https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/5363 - 1991 event

(2) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/secrobins.pdf - 1978 event, involves an A1C who had access to the jet.

(3) http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/ops/security.htm - Shows various other incidents sabotage and what not. It mentions vandalism on a B 52 in 1992 at a RAF base but the link doesn't work. O'Reilly is specifically mentioned in the 1991 link.

When I was originally told about the event I was a SF augmentee (2005) and wasn't told any other information outside of the fact that protesters had compromised the security of a B 52, vandalized it, and that it was down for a few days while they worked to take care of the incident and that it caused a mission to be scrubbed. Whether the story I was told was true, false, and/or exaggerated I obviously have no way to know or confirm. But as the links show there's at least some truth such things happening even if the story as relayed to me wasn't 100% accurate. Or it could be that if it was only paint that had to be cleaned up (which was what I was told, don't know why that would scrub a mission though unless the "mission" was something like a public showing once the plane was off of alert) that it simply didn't get reported in any reasonably trackable manner.
(1) did you notice there is no 'af ltrhead' on this official document? nuff said...
(2) previously debunked as misreporting by this credible new reporting website.
(2) of course they told the newbie augmentee about the legend of vandalized activities...and i bet you truly believed your service recruiter could get you 'eagles' on your collar within a year of enlisting. or were you the bloke whom they sent to base supply for a yard of flight line or gallon of prop wash?
(3) didn't you find it interesting to note that apparently NONE of the links worked?

as for showing you when the trespass incident occurred, w/o o'riley in attendance, that is documented and cited.

incidents occur, however they are not publicized immediately or they are 'pulled' from the military like bad wisdom teeth. and then, the report is misreported to make some point or that point by main/stupid internet news agencies as catastrophic. and idiot savants grab the reports as a cause de celebre or cause du jour and add them to their conspiracy legends and they become folk lore.

case in point: http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil.../nuclear-tipped-icbm-damaged-in-diy-accident/

begrudgingly reported by the AF almost two years after the event..the shock and awe scare to the public generated etc., is tremendous sales to the sites who reported it...the legends have begun...even those who are privy to the actual facts will begin to twist the mundane detail to high level of incompetence or even purposeful negligence or shall we read in tomorrow's news that APPLE is defending itself from the AF OSI's techs who want in the maintence crew's electronic devices to assure it wasn't....TERRORISM.

sooo augmentee...take it for what it was...you got punked by the SF team so you would be hyped up to do at least a mediocre job while being a SF augmentee...

ipse

yes everything on al gore's invention is the TRUTH....
 
Last edited:

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Current Department of Defense policy states, "It is DoD policy to limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military and civilian personnel.
Currently Department of Defense policy stands in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment, "the supreme Law of the Land," which reads, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Our Founding Fathers specifically intended this right to be absolutely, applicable to all government entities in all branches and at all levels including local, county, state, and federal.

After Chattanooga, this policy was even more dumbfounding. The FBI had been warning military service members about potential lone wolf terror attacks for nearly a year, yet didn't allow those stationed in recruitment centers any means to protect themselves.
I wasn't aware of the FBI intelligence or warning. If it indeed existed, which I have no reason to doubt, and if commanders were aware of its existence, which I have every reason to believe they would through their OSI contacts, then the commanders of those who were killed or wounded, up to and including the Commander in Chief, Obama himself, should be held liable for their orders which contributed to our Armed Forces members being unable to protect themselves. Furthermore, all charges against the Navy officer who used his own weapon in self-defense should be immediately dropped. If they are not, I will be in line petitioning Donald Trump to pardon him the second he is convicted, with an offer to immediately return to active duty in a station commensurate with his training and abilities.

Your average troop is not qualified to carry a sidearm at all times, having been in the Marines I have seen some real dumb @ weapon handling by the average troop.
Admittedly, some people in the military are just dangerous around firearms. There's a reason military range controllers are themselves armed. I do not, however, think this applies to "most." Having hit the military range approximately eight times in my career, and seen all manner of individuals of all ranks and specialties stepping up to the firing line during the 20 years between 1989 and 2009, I would estimate that percentage to be less than 10%.

I would think anyone who can qualify expert with a pistol should be allowed to carry on base, if you want to carry but can't qualify expert, get some more training, even if you have to go off base and pay for it. Having qualified expert with both rifle and pistol in the Marines (rifle expert is minimum of 215 out of 250, I shot 238; pistol is 345 out of 400 I shot 387; both with off the rack weapons) it isn't all that hard to do. I would guess the average military pistol expert would only be middle of the pack in an IPSC match having shot both.
I concur with your IPSC assessment. However, I do not concur with your assessment that only those who qualify expert should be allowed to carry on base. Most people, including approximately half of the security forces personnel with whom I trained, did not meet the expert qualifications. If "Qual" is good enough for security forces (and the Army/Navy/Marine's MP) personnel, then it's good enough for me. As for me, I missed expert by 1 round while going through officer training, but I qualified expert throughout my career, including on the M8, M-9, and M-16. Yes, depending on their assignments and/or specialties, some officers get to qualify on the M-16. :)

Qualifying in the military (much like most firearm training classes) has nothing to do with self defense skills. It's target practice at known distances. The "average" military expert would be lucky to get out of the bottom 10 in an IPSC/IDPA match until they gor some practice with the format.
Ok, rub it in... :)

Our military are not "only ones" and their presence on active duty has almost noting to do with their gun handling/self defense shooting skills.
I read the remainder of your arguments, but the FBI study of the 160 active shooting incidents from 2000 through 2013 (Source) says the following:

40.0% were stopped by suicide, usually after the arrival of law enforcement

40.0% met the new federal definition of "mass killing," where three or more individuals were killed

Only 2 incidents of the 160 (1.25%) involved more than a single shooter

5 shooters in 4 incidents (2.5%) remain at large

In the 63 incidents where the duration could be correctly ascertained, 44 (70%) ended in 5 minutes or less, and 23 (37%) ended in 2 minutes or less

Thus (from above), 100% of the 63 incidents where the duration could be ascertained ended in 5 minutes of less.

"Even when law enforcement was present or able to respond within minutes, civilians often had to make life and death decisions, and, therefore, should be engaged in training and discussions on decisions they may face."

I take this last one to indicate two things:

1. To the government: STOP infringing on the right of the people keep and bear arms, even on military bases and in government installations. Our Founding Fathers wrote our Second Amendment for good reason.

2. To the people: Be ready to stop an active shooter, for the above statistics indicate that if we don't, more people will die, and long before law enforcement arrives.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,337
Location
Nevada
...In the 63 incidents where the duration could be correctly ascertained, 44 (70%) ended in 5 minutes or less, and 23 (37%) ended in 2 minutes or less

Thus (from above), 100% of the 63 incidents where the duration could be ascertained ended in 5 minutes of less...
Which of that is from a source, and which is your own conclusion? Because my assumption is something is not right there. Most stats like that would have me believe that the 23 that ended in 2 minutes or less are part of the 44 that ended in 5 minutes or less.

This seems even more so when 70+37=107.

I qualified expert throughout my career, including on the M8, M-9, and M-16. Yes, depending on their assignments and/or specialties, some officers get to qualify on the M-16.
I must confess ignorance here. I don't know what the M8 is in this context, and you have piqued my curiosity. I found it odd how many of us officers did not care to qualify with personal weapons during the many times we were given the opportunity to do so. Perhaps being in the Navy was the main correlating factor, though. Me, I relished every opportunity to shoot. I qualified expert with the M1911A1 and the M16A2.
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,668
Location
here nc
hey since9, you should post your epistle over in the corporation rights thread as there is NO flagrant violation of NADA, NOTHING, anything!!

last time i checked, the nice service members who serve or have served, raised their hand and signed their contract voluntarily to join the armed services to make a better life for themselves.

the DoD civilians do exactly the same as the pay scale is higher and provides better and longer benefits, for the most part, then available to the outside work force!

the retiree, such as your self, abide by the norm because they like their disability, retirement, medical, B/PX, and commissary benefits.

oh yes you can say they suck off the tit of the government all you want...oh wait did i hear you state you are disavowing your retirement benefits to advocate against this perceived flagrant unconstitutional policy ~ then i might be impressed with your rant.

now after 20 + as an elite flyboy, you are now publicly complaining about the armed forces policies as flagrant unconstitutional?

i'm sorry, could you explain why didn't you complain while in, or would that have caused someone to visit your PRP which could affect your flying status or would you have P.Off your CO which could have been just as prejudicial.

sorry while you are disgusted with this perceived slight, but the practice has been that way in this country's armed services since it was created...whether the muskets w/bayonets, were stacked upright outside a group of tents as they bivouacked in a field or put in the armory while sheltered in place at garrison. oh yes the officers maintained their sidearms to assure there were no wayward members acting out. is that what you are upset about...you can't carry to assure no wayward members act out?

now, instead of a flipping rant to this group about flagrant anything, which is nothing more than incitement of people who can not affect a change, so therefore doesn't work worth a flip, to a change of tune towards actively championing and campaigning to those policy makers (oh the sorry congressional leaders) who can affect the change in policies you seek.

ipse
 
Last edited:
Top