Concealed carry for all current service members (CAC holders)?

Absolutely. We carry weapons on deployment, why not in Garrison. You know, kids sometimes have more common sense that adults; they aren't clouded by political correctness. While watching the news of the mass shooting at Ft Hood, my son said, "Wow, that guy must've been a great shot!" I asked him why, and his response was that "He has to be to kill that many soldiers without getting shot." "Oh, son! All of those Soldiers were UNARMED, and the shooter knew it." "Where were their guns?" "They aren't allow to have any." "Well, that's stupid. Somebody could've shot that guy." EXACTLY

Also, we are trusted to go around foreign citizens arms-up, but not at home?

I don't believe a conceal to carry permit should be automatically given to every military personnel. I believe the Kris Kyle story proves a valid point. If military personnel wish to have a conceal and carry permit, they need to be given an extensive physiological evaluation after every tour of duty overseas. Also they should be given a certain amount of time after each tour that they have to wait to see if they are truly stable.

I think you have to ask yourself the hard questions in this area and do your best to forgo emotional responses. I have a concealed carry permit (which I very rarely use), and I believe in the right to own weapons as much as the next guy, but the more I think about it, the more reasons I find to not support "concealed carry for all current service members" or on-post carry, etc.

First off, is the threat really as great as we are making it out to be? So what if there are a few rumors that terrorists are coming to get us? Sure there have been a few people killed as mentioned below, but such occurrences are rare. How many people would be killed or injured by accidental discharges or unsafe handling practices if this became a reality. Would the risks outweigh the potential rewards? Would you feel safe with some of the people in your unit carrying guns around at work? Do you really want additional mandatory training on top of that?

Second, what happens if there is an actual shooting and everyone decides to be a hero? How do the cops or MPs respond? How do they determine who is a threat and who isn't? How many innocent reactionaries would be killed due to misidentification or ill-placed shots from other reactionaries. Which is better - one psycho shooting a pistol in public, or 25 wanna-be heroes shooting pistols in public? How many bystanders would be hit by stray rounds and how many heroes would shoot other heroes instead of the actual threat? In an already chaotic situation, this would add levels of complexity that no one would want to do deal with (especially if it happened in an area where everyone is wearing the same uniform).

Finally (at least for this post) how many innocent carriers would be shot by cops for "aggressive" movements? How many heroes would shoot random people for "aggressive" movements or misidentified weapons? How many fistfights would end in a shooting?

I think it's a bad idea. If we lived in a world that was really as terrifying as people are making this one out to be, then reverting to the Wild West might be justifiable, but I just don't see any real benefit to everyone toting weapons around all of the time. It seems like it would cause more problems than it would solve.

In a word: YES! There should be no reason as to why an active service member shouldn't be able to conceal carry. As long as the SM is not in violation of the Lauginburg amendment.

I wrote my thesis on this for my graduate degree. BLUF: There is no absolute answer and too many variables for this to happen. Not least among them is the fact that an Installation Commander can assume risk and develop a program to license individuals thru training, qualifications, background check (yes, even if a person holds a security clearance) and psychological exams (the last being more important due to the effects of 15 years of war and multiple deployments). I don't see prohibitions being lifted unless DoD Regs change and DODI's are issued to the services allowing these Commanders to disavow themselves of the liability involved. The overall responsibility would have to rest on the individual service member, just like it does in the civilian world. I am in favor of a program that would lead to authorizations to carry concealed weapons by certified persons including family members. It's just not likely to happen in this life.

Created a petition on change.org

https://www.change.org/p/u-s-house-of-representatives-u-s-senate-create-a-national-conceal-and-carry-law-for-active-and-20-year-retired-military-members?recruiter=76138283&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-no_src-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

Hope that link works.

I was just sent this notification about the discussion, for which I would like to pose a question that I couldn't find. What do you do once the AD service member retires, separates, or worse yet, is medically retired with a TBI and PTSD.

The rules and issues with regards to the above are important.

I agree, that most military have more experience than some of the local officers who in large are understaffed and have just as many ROE's as in our AD in AOR. However, some of them are our past buddies.

The state of WA when requesting a CPL must have your unit CO's signature.

Yes.

I believe they should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. We have more training and hours of fire than most of America. It provides a extra measure of security in case of a emergency on our homeland.

With there being so many states that you can be PCS to and having to reply for a carry permit, it would be a good thing for the Federal Government issue permit something like that of a commercial drivers license guidelines for carry permit.