NDAA Contains Military Firearm Carry Provision


kwc

New member
The U.S. House and Senate have both passed the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) with veto-proof majorities. It is headed to the President now for signature.

One provision of this policy bill requires the DOD to establish a process by which installation commanders *may* allow military members to carry weapons if necessary for personal or force protection purposes.

It remains to be seen how this policy will take shape and how many installation commanders will actually decide to allow it. I envision a formalized, force protection augmentee program with required training and government-issued weapons instead of a broad recognition of right-to-bear, but who knows how this will ultimately land.

While this is a far cry from allowing full 2A rights, at least this is a small step in the right direction for those of us serving on active duty.

Here's the text from the NDAA:

Not later than December 31, 2015, the Secretary of Defense, taking into consideration the views of senior leadership of military installations in the United States, shall establish and implement a process by which the commanders of military installations in the United States, or other military commanders designated by the Secretary of Defense for military reserve centers, Armed Services recruiting centers, and such other defense facilities as the Secretary may prescribe, may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to duty at the installation, center or facility to carry an appropriate firearm on the installation, center, or facility if the commander determines that carrying such a firearm is necessary as a personal- or force-protection measure.
 

gunholsterdepot

New member
I have no idea anyway how active duty's aren't allowed to carry on base. This just boggles my mind. It's like "hey, we trained you for this and all, and we trust you to carry AR's and shoot bad guys even, but you can't carry on your own base, even though you have more training than probably 99.5% of the population."
 

NavyLCDR

New member
I predict absolutely nothing will change in the real world. Just a publicity stunt by politicians. If they wanted to do something real they would have included a provision the same as National Parks.

Not to mention the prohibition against carrying in Federal Facilities (18 USC 930) will still remain in effect so possessing a firearm (even unloaded) in any building on base will still be prohibited - and where have almost all the on base shootings taken place?
 

kwc

New member
I predict absolutely nothing will change in the real world. Just a publicity stunt by politicians. If they wanted to do something real they would have included a provision the same as National Parks.

Not to mention the prohibition against carrying in Federal Facilities (18 USC 930) will still remain in effect so possessing a firearm (even unloaded) in any building on base will still be prohibited - and where have almost all the on base shootings taken place?

18 USC 930(d)(2) provides an exception for a "member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law." So IF commanders decided to allow carrying by active duty military members per the NDAA provision, there would be no conflict.

As I mentioned in my opening post, this will likely end up being simply a security forces/military police augmentee program that requires formal training on "appropriate" (read: military issue) weapons.

So I agree, under the current administration and SECDEF, the impact in the real world will be minimal.
 

NavyLCDR

New member
18 USC 930(d)(2) provides an exception for a "member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law." So IF commanders decided to allow carrying by active duty military members per the NDAA provision, there would be no conflict.

I stand corrected!
 

Oldgrunt

Well-known member
I have no idea anyway how active duty's aren't allowed to carry on base. This just boggles my mind. It's like "hey, we trained you for this and all, and we trust you to carry AR's and shoot bad guys even, but you can't carry on your own base, even though you have more training than probably 99.5% of the population."

This is nothing new. I started my military career over 60 years ago and we were never allowed to carry private weapons on post other than rifles or shotguns for hunting. Even that privilege was strictly limited. This argument has been going on on here for quite some time and, I said when it first started, I doubted if we would ever see the day when concealed or open carry would ever be authorized for the individual soldier. I can understand wanting to carry on post because I have to leave my weapon at home every time I go to the Commissary or to the medical facilities. It is a 60 mile round trip for me when I do go and I hate not having any means of protection out on the road. But even Gen. Odierno, former Army Chief of Staff, has been said to oppose the idea so I wouldn't expect to see action taken any time soon.
 

gunholsterdepot

New member
This is nothing new. I started my military career over 60 years ago and we were never allowed to carry private weapons on post other than rifles or shotguns for hunting. Even that privilege was strictly limited. This argument has been going on on here for quite some time and, I said when it first started, I doubted if we would ever see the day when concealed or open carry would ever be authorized for the individual soldier. I can understand wanting to carry on post because I have to leave my weapon at home every time I go to the Commissary or to the medical facilities. It is a 60 mile round trip for me when I do go and I hate not having any means of protection out on the road. But even Gen. Odierno, former Army Chief of Staff, has been said to oppose the idea so I wouldn't expect to see action taken any time soon.

Yeah, I'm just wondering what the rationale is for not allowing it.
 

kwc

New member
One other note: the SECDEF's policy will most likely require full compliance with local concealed carry laws, which means possession of a carry license in states where one is required.

The states that don't allow their military guests to apply for a license, either due to "may issue" policies or blatant discrimination against nonresidents, will now be in the position of inhibiting personal and force protection measures on a federal military installation.

Yikes.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,596
Messages
625,396
Members
74,538
Latest member
joshwells_22
Top