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

I've carried a weapon on my hip everyday for 4.5 years now...never had a negligent discharge...Just because you have a gun, doesn't mean you're going to ND. And a large number of servicemembers already carry off post anyway and there isn't a huge rise in NDs there either.

I'm not saying that just because you have a gun means you will have a ND.... Read my words. Again

There will be a rise... in negligent discharges...

It just takes one to ruin the bunch.

CPT (Join to see) As leaders it is incumbent on us to enforce training, discipline and standards. Far more dangerous than NDs is intentional discharges intended to kill us (if you non-concur I challenge you to back it with statistical comparisons of military ND deaths in CONUS to active shooter caused deaths). Your argument's logical extension is exactly why risk-adverse base commanders in Afghanistan required SMs to carry in condition 4 (no mag inserted, chamber empty) for years as the green on blue attacks began killing more than direct fire engagements outside of FOBs the message gradually got through and condition 3 (mag inserted no round in chamber) was mandated. Look above at the recommended 10 points, see if they address your concerns adequately, if they don't, please suggest improvements so we can make a good argument to our congress. Mandating a disarmed "Armed Forces" is an exercise in absurdity.

I did read over it and I see a flaw in the items statements he had written down, and I will go with the one that is not going to work.

1. LEOSA is not for all service members, it is for Military Police and not for all military. It has taken this much time to get the LEOSA passed to cover Military Police, and the Army is still dragging it's feet.

I under stand that soldiers used to armed on post and Bill Clinton put an end to that during his presidency. Another problem I have with arming soldiers on post besides just arming off duty Military Police is that for so long to keep soldiers deployable they have looked the other way in domestic disputes. By doing non-punitive measures instead of court martialing a soldier when the incident happens on post, and by doing this those soldiers do not fall under the Lautenberg Amendment. Please don't get me wrong I am all for people being armed, but there are a lot of things that would have to be worked out. I am not fully supportive when it comes to "ALL" Military Police having LEOSA credentials, because not everyone is responsible enough to handle the responsibility.

SGT (Join to see) thanks for your points. 1. There are people who should not be armed, those people should not be soldiers (or any SM), they must be mentored into capability or separated from service (also, don't forget the two separate 'command discretion' points in the 10). A disarmed "Armed Forces" is absurd. 2. LEOSA is currently about LE, and can be (and has been) expanded, attaching to a moving train is easier than starting a new one, but really this is a quibble about semantics. The intent of the Arm the Armed forces should be clear. Any other suggestions to improve it?

Here is a few things I would add to the list you have CPT Richard Porter.

1. If you are or have been charged of domestic violence, then you are to be discharged and prosecuted so that you fall under the Lautenberg Amendment. So many soldiers have had fallen under the radar when charged for domestic violence because commanders have had to keep soldiers to fill the ranks over the years. Now that we have a time of drawdown in place we can afford to let these soldiers go, and in my opinion they need to go.

2. As also stated in the LEOSA process it would require someone to be in service a minimum of 6 years before able to get credentials. This could also be worded to deal with who should and who shouldn't carry a weapon on post. No offense to younger soldiers, but most are not responsible enough to carry a weapon.

3. The next one might make some people mad, but I think that not every MOS should be allowed to carry a firearm. I say this because there are some soldiers that only see a weapon once a year to qualify, and even when they try to qualify it take several hundred rounds to qualify.

4. Qualification should be done on a FBI Q Qual target. These targets will give you an accurate assessment of who can shoot and who can't. I would also say that no one in you're chain of command should be allowed to score you're qualification. It needs to be an outside independent source so to take out people passing their soldiers because they do not want to look bad. You should also have to qualify every quarter on both you're personal and assigned weapon.

SGT (Join to see) I appreciate the further suggestions, 1. I still think leaving the language as simple as it is under current point 9 makes sense. 2. The points include command discretion required to grant the authority for anyone below the rank of SNCO, and SNCOs and above can be barred from the authority at command discretion as well. 3. and 4. Should be left to the joint qualification course trainers, remember we're talking about writing to congressmen, the law should leave it to the services as to how to implement training. We tell people to suck eggs, not how to suck them.

SFC Carey, would you suggest that it be mandatory for service members to go through additional training to learn how to handle their weapon? Thanks!

Yes I would. Just because people are in the Army does not mean they know what they are doing. Specially when regarding concealing a weapon. When to use, when draw it, how to draw it, etc.

Everything you just named has discipline issues written all over it. If I don't trust one of the guys to behave like an adult regardless of personal issues(note, they know to bring them up to the chain of command so we can get it fixed), I don't trust them to be on my ship and if I can help it, in the Navy, period.

Maybe it's a difference between the Army and the Navy but we don't keep people with mental issues around, we get them help and we get them gone. Considering our watches are armed even while in homeport in the US, if they have a "bad day" as you say, guess what, they're already armed and are one of the few that is... We've had a few suicides that way, fortunately not many, I've heard of maybe 5 in 16 years.

Lastly, we're in the military, not the boy scouts. It's not the MPs or in my case the MAs job to fight wars for us, it's everyone's job. If they aren't trusted to be armed, get them the hell out.

PO1 (Join to see) Well said!
SFC Louis Jordan Did you review the above 10 points? Do they address your concerns? If not, can you think of a way to improve them so they do? Surely we can improve on the status quo where our "Armed Forces" are required to be disarmed by law, and official DOD policy for response to active shootings is "Run, Hide Fight (with Improvised Weapons)"

Great points Sir. Do we not train with weapons? I feel like we cannot be trusted at our own home with weapons yet we are tossed a weapon when we are called to deploy.

SGT (Join to see): have you checked out the 10 point suggestions on policy above on how this could actually be implemented? Does it capture your concerns? If not please comment on it so I can look at editing them further. As LTC Paul Heinlein and i have said elsewhere in this topic: if you have fellow Service members you wouldn't trust to be armed you likely need to either mentor them into that competence, or report them for separation. We are a brotherhood of warriors and arms are our profession.

Capt Richard I P. : No Sir, I missed that, but just read up on the 10 points. After reading them, conceal carry for CAC holders would be a great option. But definitely not an option solely because you have a CAC. I'll mull over those points a bit more and see if there is anything else I can think of, but they seem very sound and reasonable.
As far as mentoring/pointing out those I don't feel should be armed - I have. Unfortunately those above me felt it wasn't a pressing issue, even after one of those untrusted soldiers left a loaded weapon, with the safety off, in a weapons rack. Nothing came of it, even the counseling I wrote here got thrown away... Not the best leadership.

SGT (Join to see) Glad the 10 look good for now, please do comment on them with any recommendations. As to the instance you mention it sounds like there are indeed some leadership challenges ahead of you. The chain of command is important, but when it comes to tactical survivability and safety your duty to the organization supersedes that tot he chain of command, especially if you've already reported it and have documentation. That's when you start skipping the broken parts of the chain, and if that doesn't work, that's why we have Inspectors General. I truly wish you the best in resolving those situations, and RP does offer a good forum to seek advice on how to proceed.

I'm sorry that you have to deal with that SGT. I do however feel that if they cannot be trusted with a weapon at home, they should not be trusted with a weapon period and should perhaps not be in the military.

CMSGT I ask why is this the "THE ONION " so you feel that we as service members are not proficient or capable to protect ourselves.

Bernard - it's not a matter of proficiency or capability --- you and others you know may be trustworthy enough to carry a weapon, but that doesn't go across the board by any means from the folks I've met, worked with, worked for and who worked for me (mostly joint service) for three decades.