Fight for armed recruiters stymied by complex laws and scaredy cats
The Washington Times reports that even though there are members of Congress who want to arm recruiters in the wake of the Chattanooga shooting, the complexity of local and state laws make it more difficult;
Mr. Hunter and Sen. Steve Daines, Montana Republican, intend to clarify the law to ensure secretaries can grant permission to arm reservists and recruiters with a case-by-case special authorization.
“As much as we would like to say you have to arm all these guys, it’s too problematic through the huge patchwork of state and local laws, and that creates a huge patchwork of complications,” Mr. Kasper said. “You’d run into problems, and it would be in their interest to have their authorization from Congress.”
In Mississippi, National Guard recruiters are open for business after several days to think about their next move;
According to [National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Rodney Harris], the addition of the guns isn’t the only security measure that will be changing at the 10 offices statewide. He says there may be some adjustments to the storefront glass, visibility, and general access.
Veterans, like Chris Overfield, are happy to see the offices open back up so quickly.
“I think we need to show people we’re not scared to go about our daily lives,” said Overfield.
Alabama Governor Robert Bentley has done the same thing in his state;
Bentley’s decision will apply only to the Alabama Guard, leaving recruiters in Decatur for the regular Army, Marines and Navy unarmed for now.
Yasamie August, a Bentley spokeswoman, said the governor met with state National Guard leaders Monday and approved “arming guardsmen involved in state active duty as well as the four National Guard recruiting locations.”
She said other details of the changes for Alabama Guard security were classified and would not be provided.
The same has happened in North Carolina. It beats having those goobers from Oathkeepers protecting them. But there are governors like New Hampshire‘s Maggie Hassan who would prefer that, I guess;
Hassan said she will follow the Guard’s recommendation against arming recruiters in favor of enhancing security procedures already in place.
Imagine that, the governor’s military advisors don’t trust the troops in the “Live Free or Die” State. I guess we know what their choice is, huh?
Category: Politics
There should only be one Law regarding ownership of guns, and that is the 2nd Amendment. However, now we get to see how “States Rights” can negatively impact the rights guaranteed to us by the US Constitution… We can regulate an implicit Constitutional Right at the State level, but at the same time the US Supreme Court has stated that States are not allowed to write laws in regards to restricting marriage because they impose on implied rights.
I have no issue with the latter in regards to gay marriage, but I wish that the country would pull its head out of its collective 4th point regarding guns.
There is no epidemic of “gun violence”. Crimes committed using guns are and have been on the decline overall. While at the very same time gun ownership has skyrocketed, and opinions on guns have gone to over 70% in favor of gun ownership.
Apply the same logic to Guns as has been applied to Gay Marriage. You can still have some restrictions on age and criminal background of course. (if the FBI can manage to fix that damned system they have in place now)
The Second Amendment affirms our God Given right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self defense from any and all comers.
No local, state or federal law should ever be allowed to trump that right. Period.
I’ve been involved in the gun rights fight for several years now and I am still amazed at how stupid people are when it comes to this argument that should not be happening in the first place.
Tyrants always love a disarmed populace as they have no means of resistance. If numerous countries currently experiencing the yoke of socialist/communist rule were armed the tyrants wouldn’t have been able to rise to power in the first place.
Hitler took arms away from the Jews before he started the annihilation campaign against them. He knew that if they were armed they would resist him and would no doubt be successful in their fight.
The Jews screwed up by following his order to disarm. That is a mistake that will NOT happen in this country, thank God almighty!
If they come for our guns, there will be an armed insurrection, that much is guaranteed.
If you saw some of the pics of the Bundy Ranch standoff you would understand how militant people are becoming against federal bullying tactics. There were well over a thousand people there against a band of about 50 BLM and Specops types with automatic weapons. That may have been a force multiplier for them but the overwhelming force of that many armed people put any kind of actions by those operators in jeopardy, and they knew it.
Irregardless of your feelings on the whole standoff, score one for the good guys.
Should come as no surprise to anyone that individual states have laws which differ from other states. So because there is no one size fits all solution, those looking for an excuse to do nothing have found their excuse.
Would almost wager that the most problematic issue would be the right of property owners (where military offices are housed in privately owned properties) to determine whether firearms are allowed on his or her property. Many of those against the idea for most of us would probably like having the extra free security an armed military would provide.
Which makes me ask – If you’re an American citizen with “rights” (whatever they may be), how can those rights differ from State to State? Or, putting it another way, how can simply moving from one geographic location to another in the same county have any effect on your rights? It has never made sense to me that if I transport a legally-owned firearm from one state into another that I can loose my right to possess the firearm (a form of property) without the due judicial process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
What you are describing, as others have as well, are the wide-ranging differences among states with respect to gun laws. These differences developed over decades. The ‘discovery’ or, more accurately, the pronouncement of the Supreme Court that the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right is squeaky new. The court was fearful of striking all laws that restrict gun ownership or possession and was not about to itemize the circumstances under which this right can properly be denied. Eventually, it will have to do so in some form or fashion. Either that or it will reverse itself. The latter would not take much at all and, if oBaMa had another four years to transform the country, I have no doubt he would see to it that the court, under new membership, would do just that. So, we will have to wait.
Hassan has not been doing herself any favors as of late. ME stepped up and she stepped down.
I believe there might be some smoke blowin here, because, Unless the rules have changed (which I highly doubt) there are provisions for military personnel to carry weapons concealed while on duty regardless (as I am sure most of you all know). I say this due to me being issued a US Military (Army) concealed carry permit when I was in. I still have the damn thing in a box in my attic. I was issued it, and carried my weapon during my duty assignment even though I was just a lowly 11B, Spc4.
I think you may be misremembering what that card is. I never heard of such a thing for a typical soldier- even when I had credentialed CI agents they were not issued a concealed carry license.
From the NBC side of the house, waaay back when, Tech Escort guys could carry concealed WITH orders (no permit). There was even an example of how the orders should be worded in one of our manuals.
In 1993 I was issued a M-9, several mags, and a set of orders to ride shotgun while transporting cash. We had to pick it up from the bank and drive it to a reserve center.
Granted it was only once and the orders stressed that all weapons had to be concealed and no rifles were authorized.
Back before direct deposit, when you “reported for pay” and they actually gave you money, the pay officer and his NCO were always armed.
The good old days….
“Hassan said she will follow the Guard’s recommendation against arming recruiters in favor of enhancing security procedures already in place.”
Ya, how’s that working out?
F’n pathetic
Since these attacks are not really predictable unless one of the 3-letter agencies is monitoring someone, how will leaving recruiters defenseless make it better?
What is it that has these antigunnzzz fatheads so worried about people having them? Are they afraid someone is going to just walk up and shoot them? Perhaps there is something to that, which should be looked into.
Oh, crap – another sentence ended with a preposition. Damme, I’ll never call myself Jack again!
Always remember whom it is you have been writing for.
A good prepositional phrase should not be so hard to come by.
As rb325th so aptly put it, “There is no epidemic of gun violence”. What there is happens to be an epidemic of terrorists and mentally unstable morons who are taking advantage of an epidemic of politically correct vote-hungry politicians who’s lack of backbone are allowing this type of activity to grow.
There is an answer IF we want to make it happen. Every service has an armed group of civilians as GS1811’s (NCIS, ACID, AFOSI, CGIS) which are allowed by federal law and other regulations to carry firearms whenever, wherever they please as federal agents. Recruiters, upon selection, would attend a federal firearms course at FLETC in Glynco, GA and qual twice a year just like any agent. They would be “hired” as GS1811’s or receive a secondary MOS. They still couldn’t enforce laws of base due to posse commitatus, but they could carry firearms as federal agents.
One of the stupidest reasons given by the Pentagon for not arming recruiters is that armed recruiters may frighten away potential recruits. First, if this is true, why is that a bad thing? Do you want such people in the armed forces? But more importantly, how do they square this with the fact the police recruiters go to job fairs in full uniform, duty belts, sidearms, OC, etc., and they don’t scare off recruits (or at least not those recruits who actually belong on a police force).
Such BS.
They can simply get conceal carry licensed like regular civilians and be done with it. This it’s too complicated excuse is just that an excuse to continue to enforce absurd policies to appease the feelings on snowflakes.
Sounds like a bunch of farts unwilling to trust the US military being armed. That is absolutely pathetic.
Agreed. The brass are just stalling.
A simple first step would be to lift current DOD-wide restrictions on POWs and go back to allowing the installation/facility commanders to determine POW policies. Of course, most would cover their asses by maintaining the current restriction, but it’d be a start.
POW in this case referring to personally owned weapons.
“A simple first step would be to lift current DOD-wide restrictions on POWs and go back to allowing the installation/facility commanders to determine POW policies.”
That is already the case. Has beem for years.
There’s also that pesky upper-brass and -NCO get-promoted-at-all-costs/follow-the-political-winds syndrome standing in the way….
Poeple, apistol in evry desk with spare magazines. Maybe 3 or 4 MAS WITH 20 OR 30 Magazines.Question; why do you weapons here. Answer after work we all are going to the shooting range to keep our skills up. The weapons are safer in here than the trunk of our cars, Sir Joe
Sought have read M4s . All magazines fully loaded.
So, the military wants to make sure that it is legal for Recruiters to defend themselves with firearms while criminals do not care about those laws? Yeah. That’s like making sure you buy a toothless dog to protect your sheep from wolves because the neighbors don’t want their children to get bit by your dog.
This might sound stupid, but, if there are Military personnel who work as recruiters, why can’t they declare that office as part of a MILITARY BASE. As in other countries we have Embassies and it’s considered AMERICAN LAND RIGHT? So, doing the same thing with the office our guys/gals work in let’s them carry.
Even bullet proof windows, etc, any asshole who wants to kill will find a way. Even putting armed MILITARY/CIVILIAN guards in each office is better then nothing. Each State law is different, but hiring Armed Security sounds like a plan.? SAD