Hutchinson arms some Arkansas National Guard (UPDATED)
Arkansas governor, Asa Hutchinson has instructed his National Guard Adjutant to arm full-time National Guard folks in the state in the wake of the murder of four Marines in Tennessee earlier this week, according to Arkansas News.
“I want to join in those who are calling for greater security at our recruiting stations and military installations,” Hutchinson said in a written statement. “We’ve had numerous instances of attacks. Clearly, they are a target, and for us to have unarmed military personnel makes no sense, which is why I am directing Maj. Gen. Mark Berry to arm full-time personnel as he deems necessary at military installations.”
One of the Marines killed was Staff Sgt. David Wyatt, a native of Arkansas, the Marine Corps said Friday.
In addition, the governor has ordered that the state flag to be flown at half-staff on Monday for the four Marines. Thanks to Club Manager for the link.
Updated; Mary Fallon, the governor of Oklahoma has done the same, according to KSWO;
Fallin issued an executive order allowing Asher to arm certain full-time personnel in military installations throughout Oklahoma with weaponry as he deems necessary “to adequately provide for security of the facilities and their occupants.” Such installations shall include, but not be limited to, military recruiting offices.
In another executive order, the governor instructed that all American and Oklahoma flags on state property be flown at half-staff through 8:00 a.m. Monday in honor of the four Marines killed.
48 states to go.
Category: Breaking News
This is a slippery slope.
Many Soldiers can handle this responsibility through experience, judgment, disciple and training.
And there are many that are going to create problems through inexperience, stupidity and most importantly, youth.
I disagree. There are about 180,000 residents of Arkansas with CCW permits, how is this different? First of all, active duty National Guardsmen are a cut above the average troops, and probably a little more responsible. If you can’t trust a soldier with a weapon, what is he doing in the military?
I do not know.
18 yo kids do not have CCW’s across the board.
And far as a cut above, maybe or maybe not.
Point is , the training and discipline must be available and enforced.
And not to mention the Guard is a little harder to police than Active Duty due to geographic dispersion.
I am not saying this is a bad idea, per se, but one that needs to proceed with caution.
Hopefully this will not happen, but God forbid the formation of an Anti-Muslim “death squad” or some “well-meaning” SM’s taking matters into their own hands.
Thumb, go read my new post up top.
Good article.
See what I posted about the intangibles being taught as well.
They need to add permission for any Guard members with a CCW to be allowed to carry while on active duty (full time or not).
This.
My son got his CCW the minute he turned 21 and carried in his truck as soon as he turned 18. He is experienced and mature with firearms and it’s ridiculous that he has to leave his sidearm at our home on drill weekends. He can’t even have it in his truck in case it’s randomly searched, even though he has a lock box.
Most of his friends in the military are the same way.
Super Word Mr Jonn.
But I hate to say this Green Thumb has a Great Point. We had many people in my last unit that could not shoot a target at 50 meters. The new army is all about being sensitive to transsexuals – gays – Muslims – so on and so on, not enough time to train when you have 20 hours plus a week leaning to be politically correct
Youth is not a crime, and age is not an accomplishment.
We have something to help with inexperienced soldiers it is called an NCO. I second John’s comment if you can’t trust them with a weapon they have no business being soldiers.
Who would you rather have pulling “Guard Duty”? A trained National Guard Soldier or a bunch of well-meaning but over-zealous civilians?
My money is on the Soldiers.
Then put them on Guard duty and pay them.
They are getting paid. The plan is to utilize “full-time” members for this duty.
You know – the same “full-time” status as “real” soldiers.
This is not a Guard versus AD issue, is it?
Actually, they area about to MAKE it an AD vs. NG thing. If all the NG guys are carrying, and the AD are not allowed to, this could get complicated.
Full-Time Guard members are Active Duty – just not “Federal” active duty.
Thats not entirely true. Some are state employees, some are Title 10. Many have converted to Title 10, but not all. I know this as I was one, as was my father for 34 years. Every unit typically has an AGR ‘tour’ type, and many have those that are State guard employees that don’t get Fed benefits, but similar, and are paid like STATE employees, not military. Yeah, confusing, but it works. When they retire, they get state bennies, Fed bennies for their drill status, plus any other payments they make in. Dad triple-dips. He’s not hurting in retirement
Last time I checked there were few if any state employees left in the system other than the AG’s themselves. Among the uniformed force were federal technicians (considered civilian employees required to be in the Guard and wear military uniforms to work), AGR (AD troopers temporarily assigned to the Guard unit), and the traditional Guardsmen. Can’t tell the difference by just looking at them because they all wear the same uniform. (Seems like I left someone off that list, and it all may well have changed significantly since I retired.)
Also. I am curious as to what local LE thinks about this.
At every, and I mean every, AD station I have been stationed or attached, there has generally been a contentious relationship between local LE and AD (stationed) personnel.
I wonder how this would or could affect the NG with respect to firearms? And by the way, this is a logical question.
Anecdotal, for sure, but every Guard unit with which I have been associated was overrepresented with local/state LEO’s. That tends to neutralize that contentious relationship. Plus, with the transitory nature of AD personnel, there aren’t as many for opportunities for good relationships to develop among the two communities at AD facilities.
Good point.
Forever ago, I worked with a Guard unit in Beaumont Texas where the S3 was the Commander of the Beaumont PD SWAT Team and many PD and Sheriff Department personnel were unit members.
To say the least, we had no issues with local LE personnel.
My experience too. When I have done DSCA missions it seems like half the people have to pull off Army uniforms and put on their police uniforms.
We have a lot of NG roaming around our city. There is a large NG center on Dobbins ARB. I’m a local cop and would welcome them to carry wherever they wanted to. We have a good relationship with Dobbins personnel, whether it be the NAS, USAF, LOCKHEED, OR Army NG guys. They are good guys and deserve to be able to defend themselves.
GT, with all due respect, there were 18-year-old ‘boys’ being trained with weapons and sent off to Vietnam from 1965 onward, until it was done. If they could be trained properly, why can’t these 18-year-olds?
If nothing else, they need to be more alert than average, just for their own safety. I don’t see ‘death squads’ as the issue nearly as much as proper and thorough training and target practice.
A free-fire zone is one thing, our backyard is another.
But to concede to a degree, it does appear that our backyard is becoming a free fire zone.
And if this is the case, and acknowledged, then get ready for all of the things that accompany it.
Our backyards include the bad neighborhoods in any large city where gangs have more control than police, and guns are free for the taking and supplied by Sinaloa and other drug cartels. Children are now frequently targeted by gangs.
This IS our backyard.
That is a good point but that is not what I meant.
Look folks, I am not against this idea if the personnel are qualified. And in doing a little research, the words “certain personnel” keep appearing. I will take that as “qualified” individuals. In all actuality, it is not a bad idea but one that needs some foresight and overwatch. My point is: proceed with caution.
Also, states are going to need to rewrite some laws to cover another “armed” force. Especially if they engage these aforementioned gang members off post in the course of their duties.
I know what you meant. My point was that gangbaners are recruited just like military, indoctrinated, given weapons, and can easily be told to go target military on the street, in uniform. I would rather see military members able to defend themselves and others, if necessary, than left wide open.
so, let’s just leave everyone unarmed like they are now, it seems to work.
They bad guys don’t seem to have any problems with negligent discharges. In 28 years of service and mu
I’m with John, if we can’t trust a Soldier with a weapon, regardless of age, they don’t need to be a Soldier.
If I have the right to carry a weapon as a civilian, a Soldier damn well should too. Especially since the military ( and their families) has already been targeted and threatened.
This is an intentionally disingenuous statement. Nowhere in any of the states mentioned does it indicate they’re planning to arm 18 year old kids.
The beauty of the National Guard. The governors can tell SecDef and POTUS to screw as long as the guardsmen aren’t on Title 10 orders.
There is plenty of room for discussion of how many, exactly who should be armed, additional duty hours, etc, but the fact that we have military installations with assets (both personnel and equipment) without physical protection is beyond silly and needs no discussion to be corrected.
Those who don’t believe that personnel should have the means to protect themselves should at least understand the need to protect the assorted equipment at every military installation around the country. Even the buildings themselves are usually high value and should be protected.
This really isn’t a difficult concept. We paid for all the stuff and it $@*& well ought to be secured by all means available.
Kudos to the governors who possess that basic understanding.
Looks like someone actually read AR 190-14….
This happened at year ago at NAVSTA Great Lakes. The driver was driving drunk and had been chased by police, until he blew past the guards at the front gate. He rammed two Navy vehicles set up to stop him, and shoved them out of the way.
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20140801/news/140809913/
Now, if a drunk on a bender can do this, so can anyone else with bad intentions.
I’m not saying it’s going to happen again, but the random events (Ft. Hood, Norfolk, Great Lakes, Navy Yard, Chattanooga) are increasing. It’s best to not be complacent, and to make sure that people who are targets can defend themselves if needed.
As far as I’m concerned, the military is in the same position as a woman walking through a bad neighborhood at night with a purse full of cash. She’d better have a gun in her pocket.
Michigan did the same over 6 months ago is response to several incidents and potential incidents
Most of the folks that work at Guard Armories are AGR – senior NCOs and Officers.
Not 19 year old active duty Privates
Another big difference is that Guard Armories are state property. Unlike Reserve centers.
So the Governor can do what he wants without regard to federal military regulations
Or NG Privates.
Don’t know that most are AGR – would guess that most of the full-time staff would be technician.
From what I’ve seen most Admin/Command types are AGR, most facility support types are Techs.
Add Louisiana
http://www.ksla.com/story/29576944/jindals-executive-order-allows-louisiana-national-guardsmen-to-be-armed-at-military-facilities?clienttype=generic
This still leaves most of the Active Duty recruiting offices as “outposts” in a potentially hostile territory. Without a specific threat to a particular recruiting office, I don’t envision additional security being provided to these outposts. LE can’t afford full time protection and the local “do-good” civilian force will be gone as soon as it get’s old or inconvenient.
So – nothing fixed.
Well, if all the different branches are at the same recruiting facility, like the one in TN, then at least the ANG guy will be armed.
Here ya go. This is just what we need:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29573755/man-armed-guard-recruiting-office
Here’s my observation: walk in to most Social Security offices and you will see contract rent-a-cops that are armed security. Why dies the SS office need armed guards and our military personnel don’t? I don’t remember anyone running into a SS office yelling aloha snackbar and shooting the place up, lately. Do you? Yet, there have been many instances of that happening to recruiting stations and military installations. I swear that the saying “common sense is an uncommon commodity” is becoming glaring true.
Exactly.
A very simple solution to the logical dilemma might be to require all federal offices and personnel to have the same level of security. (Actually, I think that a multi-million dollar aircraft should have more than an IRS weinie, but that is a discussion for another day.)
Yes, but an expensive airplane is not going to have visitors to its office who will burst into tears, get angry and throw things if their requests for disability/whatever are turned down.
The VA centers also.
In about 1967, in response to intel that anti-war groups (Domestic Terrorists) were plotting to steal arms from Army arms rooms, all of the E-5’s in my unit were range trained on the 1911. We stood CQ wearing that .45 pistol. We had orders to shoot anyone going into or out of our units Arms Room.
By the way, our training was one 7 round magazine fired into a 10 yard target. With that high level of training I’m sure that the terrorists were pretty safe from most of us. As a longtime pistolaro they had something to fear from me.
So NCO’s can be armed to protect property but not to protect the lives of our troops.
Long time ago man, that was when the Army was in the killing people business. We are beyond that now.Killing people looks bad on tv, and violates a lot of EO and SHARP policies. And don’t even think about killing people at night using your superior technology, big no go, especially if the people you want to kill ask you not to.
Millions of citizens carry daily without issue. I don’t see why vetted military shouldn’t. If you don’t trust the military to be armed and use the same constitutional rights that’s a serious problem you got going on.
In general I like the idea. Let’s flesh it in.
What is the uniform requirement?
Who provides the holster?
Weapons concealed or open carry?
Personal weapons or issued weapons?
Calibers?
Exact ammunition … ball, JHP, exploding-zombie-killing-death-annihilator-magic-self-guiding-fly up your nose-whatever bullets? Handloads?
Short guns? Long guns? Both?
Do they carry for the government only on government facilities or are they “on duty” at all times?
Posse comitatus – can a qualified NG person “off post” defend a citizen attacked by another citizen?
I have questions about young people and their judgement. What kind of training, exactly, would these people get? I want to trust them but there is a difference between an 18-year-old supervised by an NCO and an E-2 by himself.
I am nuts about training. I want to see at least 200 rounds per month – more is better – including marksmanship, rapid fire draw from holster, close quarters (contact distance), weapon retention, strong hand/weak hand, returning fire from the front, sides, and rear, return fire from cover, fire and movement, tactics, engaging targets with a vest, multiple targets, hostages – all of that.
The law gets a little complicated. Are they federal officers? The laws in Chicago are different than Montana. Do FBI guys in Chicago and Montana live under different laws?
If they travel, does their “assignment” or “permit” or whatever go with them?
Can they carry on a plane?
What did I forget?
All of this stuff can get worked out but what do you all think?
I posted this on another thread, and it applies to security forces and Federal troops (AD and Reserve Component), but I’m sure that the States have similar directives for their National Guard units.
So the rules are out there – we just need to implement…
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf
You want to see more training for soldiers to carry than what police have? Really? I don’t know of too many beat cops that shoot 200 rounds per month in the various scenarios that you advocate for. So; are you saying that you want all law enforcement personnel to train to that same standard?