Why can't military members carry personal weapons on bases?


MiB602

New member
In my 10 years in the Navy I've never figured out why our nation does not trust the members of its own military. I can only conclude that is the case since they impose ever more strict rules governing our conduct and our lifestyle. So why is it that those us charged with the defense of our nation, those of us in whom they place their so called trust to use weapons to defend others if we are attacked, that we can't carry personal weapons onto military bases? If Fort Hood proved anything it is that those who wish us harm can and will take advantage of the fact they know we are not allowed to carry the means of our own defense onto a base. I fail to see the rationale that allows us to wield weapons the rest of the population is not even allowed to own in defense of our country but on a base when it comes to our own defense or the defense of our fellow serviceman we are not to be trusted.
 

flccw

New member
The military has always operated on the thought that bases were safe places to go without being armed. Sadly this has turned out to be a fallacy. While bases are fairly safe being in uniform outside them is decidedly not. Recruiting offices are places that concealed carry should be allowed. Since the service sidearm is not able to be carried concealed then qualification with the pistol of your choice should be an option to concealed carry in cases where concealed is deemed necessary.
 

MiB602

New member
Military bases by the very nature of them are targets from everything to foreign agents to home grown terrorists. If anything the general understanding should be that military bases are less safe for that express reason. If an enemy does attack will we be prepared or will we be dealt a devastating blow before we can respond? If you've been to any military base they have a few armed guards at the gate. These could be easily overwhelmed by a well prepared force particularly if it's a sneak attack. What then for those of us on those bases? We would have no means to defend ourselves. And you make a valid point that being off base in uniform makes us walking targets. I fully concur with your assertion that people who work in recruiting offices should be allowed to be armed since they don't even have the protection of being on a base.
 

WV_HILLBILLY

New member
I know the Air Force has a law saying it is up to the local commanders (i.e. garrison base commanders) to allow military members to carry

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using USA Carry mobile app
 

Blueshell

Banned
In my 10 years in the Navy I've never figured out why our nation does not trust the members of its own military. I can only conclude that is the case since they impose ever more strict rules governing our conduct and our lifestyle. So why is it that those us charged with the defense of our nation, those of us in whom they place their so called trust to use weapons to defend others if we are attacked, that we can't carry personal weapons onto military bases? If Fort Hood proved anything it is that those who wish us harm can and will take advantage of the fact they know we are not allowed to carry the means of our own defense onto a base. I fail to see the rationale that allows us to wield weapons the rest of the population is not even allowed to own in defense of our country but on a base when it comes to our own defense or the defense of our fellow serviceman we are not to be trusted.
There is no real reason.
 

kwc

New member
I know the Air Force has a law saying it is up to the local commanders (i.e. garrison base commanders) to allow military members to carry

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using USA Carry mobile app

Well, not exactly.

Authorization may be granted by exception only, and even then must be done under the umbrella of a formal program available only to law enforcement officers and designated and trained security forces augmentees (via the "Unit Marshal Program") while carrying an issued service weapon.

The rest of us remain defenseless.

Layperson's summary here:

Air Force implements additional security measures > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
 

Blueshell

Banned
Well, not exactly.

Authorization may be granted by exception only, and even then must be done under the umbrella of a formal program available only to law enforcement officers and designated and trained security forces augmentees (via the "Unit Marshal Program") while carrying an issued service weapon.

The rest of us remain defenseless.

Layperson's summary here:

Air Force implements additional security measures > U.S. Air Force > Article Display
Maybe Airmen are defenseless without a gun, but the Army taught us how to fight, and I'm sure there's more than a few Marines that could perform even better.

The 21ft rule works both ways. Take a combatives class. Get a knife.
 

kwc

New member
Maybe Airmen are defenseless without a gun, but the Army taught us how to fight, and I'm sure there's more than a few Marines that could perform even better.

The 21ft rule works both ways. Take a combatives class. Get a knife.

It's unfortunate, then, that the Fort Hood victims didn't have the same level of training as you.
 

kwc

New member
As if it takes a lot of training...

Fort Hood laid down and let that happen. Guns don't fix cowardes.

I wasn't there, so I'll just have to take your word for it.

Without a doubt, good training and a willingness to fight can go a long way toward mitigating such risks. However, there is still significant disparity of force, and a personal firearm can help in many situations.

Sgt. Ray seemed to think it would have helped:

Link Removed
 

MiB602

New member
And I wonder why more people haven't raised this issue with those who might be in a position to change it?
 

MiB602

New member
I wasn't there, so I'll just have to take your word for it.

Without a doubt, good training and a willingness to fight can go a long way toward mitigating such risks. However, there is still significant disparity of force, and a personal firearm can help in many situations.

Sgt. Ray seemed to think it would have helped:

Link Removed

I think that there is a difference between cowardice and the very powerful sense of a survival instinct. When faced with overwhelming force it doesn't matter how brave you are some times to attack in such cases is foolhardy. I agree that in a case of such significant disparity of force a personal firearm can help level the playing field so to speak. We must remember that a gun is a force multiplier. One man with a gun can inflict much damage. If those attacked at Fort Hood had been armed I would go so far as to say that not only would the casualties been significantly lower but the attacker might have gone and sought other more softer targets. Most people who commit such violence operate from a low risk, high rewards viewpoint. Except for the ones who are truly insane and there is no stopping those, unless of course you're armed.
 

sdprof

Active member
Back when I was in, people in general didn't carry - CC was still pretty restricted most everywhere. It just wasn't "a thing".

Today, the restrictions most likely persist because of control. In many ways the military mirrors the nanny state. Alcohol bad - it's been deglamorized and demonized. No more stag bars, no beer calls. Smoking - bad, so there's little place those who choose to do so can. Girly mags - bad. Banished. The food that troops want to eat - bad. Now the chow halls serve quinoa salads.

I am heartened to see some glacial movement in the right direction - AF and its very limited carry policy, better recognition of LEOSA carry on bases, and in the case of at least one air base, permission to keep handgun secured in car when entering the base ( if you have a CC permit, of course).
 

Reba

Sinner saved by grace
Back when I was in, people in general didn't carry - CC was still pretty restricted most everywhere. It just wasn't "a thing"....
Same here. I was in the Navy and Naval Reserve from 1970-1995, and no one was discussing carrying on bases. The only "issue" that came up was that one of my Reserve shipmates was a police officer so he carried a gun on his ankle when he was attending our monthly drills in his Navy uniform. It wasn't a problem, just a topic in passing.

Whatever shooting I did during that time was at the base range using their guns, not my own. The main reason was money--their guns, ammo and range were free.
 

SR9

New member
Recently the USAF has sanctioned a program in which personnel can carry guns on base. It has already been put into effect on Dover AFB. in Delaware.
 

kwc

New member
Recently the USAF has sanctioned a program in which personnel can carry guns on base. It has already been put into effect on Dover AFB. in Delaware.

See my post #7 above. It only applies to law enforcement (including LEOSA) and security forces augmentees, and only at the discretion of the installation commander.

The AF went full-court press on this and unless you read and understand the extreme limitations that remain, the headlines are very misleading.

Most of us will never benefit directly from any of the 3 programs; overall security posture will improve minimally.
 

MiB602

New member
I had a conversation with some of my shipmates today, a couple of whom were senior ranking individuals who had been in for a good length of time. They seemed to indicate that due to the extreme stress associated with being a member of the military the reason we should not be allowed to carry personal weapons on bases is because next thing you know we'll be carting them on board ship and shooting our Chief because we don't want to stand duty or go underway, etc. I was flabbergasted. These are guys with close to 20 years active duty and they are showing a profound lack of trust in the men and women they are in charge of. Listening to them you would think our military is comprised of highly unstable people incapable of responsible handing of weapons. Does the public at large share this view? Are we trusted that little? Heck if our leaders within the military expect to go postal on our fellow sailors, marines, airmen, soldiers, etc what hope do we have of the public trusting us? I couldn't help but wonder if this attitude prevailed outside the military and that's why our civilians leaders don't expect us to be able to comport ourselves with dignity and restraint.
 

Stengun

New member
Howdy,


You must not have read the article because this applies the LEO and security personnel only.

Joeshitte the Ragman can NOT strap on a hogleg and walk around base with it flappin' in the wind.

Besides, there's a Federal Law that states Jo one except federally authorized personnel can carry a firearm of on US Gov't property.

Heck, I'm a Federal Gov't employee that in the past has carried a badge and pistol for Uncle Sam, Combat Veteran, discharged my weapon on 26 different occasions in the line of duty, have a CCW permit, but since I'm no longer authorized by US to carry a firearm ( I no longer work in LE.) as I sit here in my Gov't issue chair, in my Gov't issued office, as I post this on my Gov't issued iPhone 6, I could be fired and arrested if I had a firearm on or about my person.

Sad but true.

Paul
 

Reba

Sinner saved by grace
Howdy,

You must not have read the article because this applies the LEO and security personnel only.
That's what I thought, too, that it was limited to them and the "Marshals". It also stated that it wasn't a new policy but only recently implemented. Also, they can only carry when in a duty status. The article's headline and lead were rather misleading.

Joeshitte the Ragman can NOT strap on a hogleg and walk around base with it flappin' in the wind.

Besides, there's a Federal Law that states Jo one except federally authorized personnel can carry a firearm of on US Gov't property.

Heck, I'm a Federal Gov't employee that in the past has carried a badge and pistol for Uncle Sam, Combat Veteran, discharged my weapon on 26 different occasions in the line of duty, have a CCW permit, but since I'm no longer authorized by US to carry a firearm ( I no longer work in LE.) as I sit here in my Gov't issue chair, in my Gov't issued office, as I post this on my Gov't issued iPhone 6, I could be fired and arrested if I had a firearm on or about my person.

Sad but true.

Paul
I hope that you're posting this on your lunch hour and not during your government work hours. ;)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,491
Messages
624,259
Members
74,334
Latest member
johnporter
Top