Congress seeks to arm troops
Chief Tango sends us a link to an Army Times article which reports that Congressman Steve Stockman, a Republican from Texas has introduced a bill that would allow troops to carry their personally owned weapons (POWs in Army parlance) while on their particular bases.
“Why are civilians at a restaurant allowed to defend themselves but soldiers trained in firearms aren’t?” Stockman said. “Why can’t we extend common-sense gun laws like open carry to our soldiers?”
The Safe Military Bases Act, HR 3199, is Stockman’s response to the Sept. 16 shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and is similar to legislation introduced after the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas.
Stockman said mass shootings could be stopped if people on base carried their own guns.
There’s a reason that military experience counts towards many states’ certification programs for weapons ownership and concealed carry permits – mostly that members of the military are well trained in the handling and safety measures regarding firearms. And they live and work in the biggest gun-free zones in the country – potential targets for every nut with evil intent to become famous. How does that make any sense?
Category: Military issues
Not holding my breath that this will be passed but I hope it is
Sadly, even if this gets passed by the House, it stands no chance in the Senate, to say nothing of Obumbles vetoing it.
Reid will shelve it in the Senate and then blame the Republicans when a shooting happens on a base.
(In President Ronald Regean-esque voice over) “There you go again. Using that term “common sense”. In a logical sense. We know that that term is only used and applied when the Progressive Liberal Democrats use it to try and take away our Second Amendment rights.”
With h/t and apologies to the Gipper.
Other then that, I like the concept. But has been said above, fat chance on getting it passed through this kongress and administration.
On the surface, it sounds like a good idea, but then I start thinking about just how well trained in firearms that E-3 air traffic controller or 1LT finance officer really is. Honestly, as an officer who has done nothing but CONUS staff jobs since 2010, I haven’t had to qualify with any kind of weapon in 3 years. Before that it was M9 every two years, and that was only because I was at ARCENT and the CG there thought that he was still fighting troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Don’t get excited, Paul. Just because the Army hasn’t required me to qualify doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy spending time putting various sized holes in things on my own.
Don’t hold your breath waiting on this one to pass. This would be the lackeys at the Pentagon worst nightmare. It would be a facet of control they have over the troops that they are not willing to give up. The army’s lap dogs Dempsey, Odierno and Chandler would have a hissy fit. This legislation just doesn’t fit into O’bumbles agenda.
As recent as the late ’70’s, the Pay officer carried a sidearm. But as .gov showed with the Armed Flight Officer program, if they can control the process, they can kill the program.
I heard on the news (if you can call it that) this morning a nice little debate where the idiot (well, one of the specific idiots) said that by doing this all you would be doing is arming potentially dangerous veterans and cause the next shooting. The only non-idiot made the comment that if a person wanted to shoot someone, a law would not stop them. To which the host said that laws were put in place to stop criminals. The retort was priceless… the non-idiot said “if laws were put in place to stop criminals, then why is Chicago the number one city for gun violence in the U.S.”
I support this bill. We should not deny the men and women of the armed forces, who are targeted by how many people, the ability to defend themselves.
If Israeli soldiers can be trusted to carry their fully loaded automatic weapons wherever they go, then why can’t American soldiers be trusted to do the same thing?
No one ever wants to publicly say this, but the main reason ordinary American citizens NEED select fire assault rifles with bayonets, sound supressors, and high capacity magazines, et cetera, is because we may have to fight against our own government.
That’s the whole reason the Second Amendment was written, as a guarantee of a fundamental unalienable right.
Personal and/or home defense, hunting, collecting, and/or target shooting are merely practical fringe benefits of our means for armed revolt.
Well, Israel is such a small nation surrounded by enemies…suppose there is good reason to be in near constant war footing. Except for training & local/national emergencies, why do we need troops carrying around automatic weapons?
@9 Israelis have a history of needing to go to war or defend their families on a moments notice. US troops have never had that sword over their heads except in extremely rare cases. I see this and imagine a bunch of punk privates getting into trouble and shooting each other in the barracks. We don’t spend nearly enough time training on our assigned weapons. For this to work we would either have to a) have strict issuing policies on who, when, and where the weapons were carried, b) keep them unloaded almost all the time, or c) everyone goes to the range monthly.
@ 11 DEVTUN:
If you know of some American soldiers who can’t be trusted with proper firearms safety, then why were they permitted to enlist?
Actually, not only should the soldiers be permitted to carry their weapons with them wherever they go, but all private citizens should also be exercising that same responsibility.
Our contemporary society would be safer and more courteous if EVERYBODY was armed, all of the time, and in all places.
One result would be less need for police and/or prisons, and therefore, citizens would be subject to less taxation.
If a soldier meets the certification of the local authorities to conceal or open (yes I know most state have no liscense for open) carry, then why not on base?
Have to say I’m a bit torn on this one.
Philosophically, I agree. Then I think about some of the stupid stuff that goes on in some unit’s barracks, and, well . . . .
It makes sense if you want to make them vulnerable to attack.
#11 Devtun
Sooo. . . . you want TRAINED troops, who you want to be ARMED to protect you, to be UNARMED when on base?
(go- – nogo – go – nogo – – conflict – conflict. . . )
Yes, I know it’s not as simple and as blanket as that, but let’s start with an assumption of having the troops armed while on base, and refine it from there.
we arent talking about everyone running around with their service issue M-4s, this is about carrying their private weapons. just like a concealed carry allows you to keep your pistol tucked into your belt or in a holster under your jacket, soldiers would be allowed the same thing. the same reason i am a huge fan of concealed carry on campus, i support this. the next time someone decides to go full retard and target our soldiers, they can be put down faster.
did anyone else notice that JRM said something that wasnt full retard?
This will not end well. I recall Fort Campbell in the early 90s. With the large numbers of gangsters (real and wannabe), this should be interesting.
I have a valid Arkansas concealed carry and am a sworn County Special Deputy Sheriff, yet I have to dearm the truck everytime we go onto Little Rock Air Force Patch or even the VA Hospital grounds. Unloading the weapon and putting it in the trunk or exterior tool box inside of a locked pistol box is not good enough. I see some of the armed Security Forces and VA rent a cops and shutter to think what easy targets they present to a crazy. While the air base would be less tempting, given the screwing the VA provides to veterans on a regular basis, you would think they would want all of the protection they can get. Last thought, like the bad guys reall care about warning signs. The DC Navy Yard had a ton of them.
There are only two chances of this bill becoming law, Fat and Slim. Arming the populous, even soldiers is anathema to the current communist progressive administration. It is their worst fear and they will fight it at every turn.
In the National Guard, there were several times I had to travel from my Armory to the State Service Center to pick up a rack of M4s or M9s or other hardware. I will happily say that I had my personal M-1911A1 on my hip the entire time, there and back. Why? If I were unarmed, then any idiot with half a clue would be able to score a military HMMWV and weapons and/or ammunition.
Between the Ft. Hood massacre and Navy Yard massacre, you would think that someone would get a clue. In the civilian world, if an idiot wants to make trouble with a gun, then a civvie with a gun usually draws and stops them, just look at the Oregon Mall Shooter. However, on a base, the sheepdogs must be sheep for the wolves until either MPs or local authorities (you know, the people without military training who are allowed to carry pistols and shoot non-suspects by accident without a congressional inquiry) show up.
This won’t happen. Even if this law passes Commanders will do everything in their power to make it so the lower enlisted or non officer ranks can’t carry. Higher ranking authorities won’t like it when the realize the Corporal actually has some power.
Anyone who thinks carrying a loaded weapon gives them power over another person has a criminal mindset and has no business carrying one to begin with, number 24.
@24- Then how do they continue to exercise their authority while in a combat theater, I mean everybody there is armed, with weapons much more powerful tan anything you would be able to carry here in the states.
Recent claims are that Clinton banned personal weapons on post in 93. I remember inventorying personal weapons in arms room before that., and I don,t remember anyone on duty carrying personal weapons . Was I just clueless?
Throughout the history of the US, has the Army ever permitted soldiers to carry personal weapons? Excepting the immediate post-Revolution period of 1783-1800.
@27: Not quite. See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/baseguns.asp
Ain’t gonna happen and shouldn’t. Honestly, a few MOS get better training but the average REMF like me got little to no training I didn’t provide myself. I showed up at a duty station with four handguns to check into the arms room and like to broke the whole system.
True story, MI officer: “Why do we even need range fire? Every future war will be pushbutton” -and she retired a general (Claudia Kennedy, a waste of protoplasm).
@28,
FLW late 80’s.
We kept PW’s in the BOQ’s.
Had my own armory, primitive (flintlock) to the black rifle.
Used to head out to an off line wooded area on weekends and cut loose.
Good times.
And the HHC CDR told me one day that he would make me put them all in the Armory if he could.
I declined.
He was a wuss.
Would we be able to afford clearing barrels outside every building with all the budget cuts?