Posted on Nov 4, 2014
Concealed carry for all current service members (CAC holders)?
286K
1.94K
846
350
344
6
Should uniformed military be allowed to conceal carry any were in the U.S. with a CAC as a license due to increased threats to military personnel?
Concealed Carry
Firearms and Guns
Gun Control
2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 337
217
216
1
I would like to see a minimum of commissioned officers, warrants, and NCOs carrying a Sidearms on duty on post. I would make the mental leap that all soldiers are armed while on duty on post...just like when we are in theater/ deployments. Yes, I know there will be some that go haywire (just like overseas....but at least everyone else will be able to defend themselves).
I would like to see All military personnel who are properly trained and qualified authorized to carry off duty concealed on and off post with only their Military ID.
The off duty carry...in almost every state, Soldiers can get a CCW/CCL for off post carry anyways. Some states even reduce the minimum age (as low as 18) for Military Personnel. If we approve the on post carry (assuming some type of training first), then we would know who is doing it. Yes, there will be people to abuse it/ do something stupid/ go haywire...but again at least we will be able to defend ourselves. Also the ones who would abuse it/ do something stupid/ go haywire are doing it now anyways, just illegally and without our knowledge.
Commence the beatings...
I would like to see All military personnel who are properly trained and qualified authorized to carry off duty concealed on and off post with only their Military ID.
The off duty carry...in almost every state, Soldiers can get a CCW/CCL for off post carry anyways. Some states even reduce the minimum age (as low as 18) for Military Personnel. If we approve the on post carry (assuming some type of training first), then we would know who is doing it. Yes, there will be people to abuse it/ do something stupid/ go haywire...but again at least we will be able to defend ourselves. Also the ones who would abuse it/ do something stupid/ go haywire are doing it now anyways, just illegally and without our knowledge.
Commence the beatings...
(217)
(1)
PO1 (Join to see)
Actually, the quick draw thing, minus the mirror, *is* something you should do. You should always practice drawing from a holster(and if you have a bore sight laser, practicing accuracy after drawing is nice as well). I've lost track of the number of people at my various commands who were unfamiliar with their holsters when the time came for annual re-qualification. Nothing like a timed course and you can't get your pistol out of the holster because you don't know where the unlock button is by feel. Note: These are people who carry the damn things daily and they don't know how to draw because of how the military treats weapons training. Oooh it's a gun, I can't touch it once I holster it until I need to use it or turn it in! If it comes down to drawing fast in RL, they're screwed.
(2)
(0)
SPC Casey Ashfield
Stripping rank away, I would have no issue with having approved service members carry firearms at all times on duty. I have met some dumb privates and I have met some dumb officers and NCOs. If you are going to allow carry on duty, treat it like a weapons qualification with a higher standard.
(1)
(0)
LCpl Russell Wallace
Good god. With what I’ve seen at the ranges I would prefer officers not have weapons at all let along getting a concealed permit
(0)
(0)
65
65
0
**EDIT**
I created a new discussion to post the outcome of advice from this answer, a skeleton letter to congress for anyone to use, check it out here:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
"Arm the Armed Forces!"
I think this is worth doing. I offer these 10 points to be edited and improved on by commentary. Then we use these points (lets try to keep it below 10) to recommend simple policy improvement to our newly elected congress, I propose we debate for at least a week then start writing. Lets leverage our knowledge and strength as a community to improve force protection for our military and the public at large.
Simple policy:
1. Yearly pistol qualifications required (live fire Joint combat pistol course to be established)
2. "A" for "armed" added to CAC right below name
*3. Option available at command discretion for all service-members and mandatory for line Officers, SNCOs and those serving in a Law Enforcement capacity.
4. Open-Carry mandatory and an inspect-able item when on duty (normal workday not just OOD etc.)
*5. Concealed carry optional when off duty with an "A" ROE is defense of self and others from deadly force ONLY.
*6. Weapons will be under direct control of service-members at all times or unloaded and double-locked when on Government Property.
7. Negligent Discharges and other related weapons crimes or conduct infractions punishable with mandatory NJP, forfeiture of pay and required re-qualification option for elevation to Courts-Martial, repeat offenses subject to BCDs.
*8. Active Duty and Reservist Service Members will now be covered under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Federal Law, or a parallel law will be created explicitly for them. The US attorney's office is charged to defend this protection against any legal challenges.
*9. Mental Heath/Behavioral objections from any medical officer or any member in chain of command will immediately suspend authority/requirement pending review by a board comprised of command, medical and mental health officers, suspension of requirement is independent of prohibition on owning personal weapons-this will be handled under pre-existing regulations, suspension pending review does not automatically bear on proficiency evaluations or promotions
*10. When on Government Property, Service-members granted authority will furnish their own weapons in the standard service caliber, weapons will be semi-automatic, in good working order, and will be fed by standard sized magazines (neither extended beyond the magazine well nor reduced in capacity).
Edits added on suggestions indicated by "*" (combined 3 and 4 to save numbers, 5 added ROE, 6,9, 10 added 8 language cleaned up):
I created a new discussion to post the outcome of advice from this answer, a skeleton letter to congress for anyone to use, check it out here:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
"Arm the Armed Forces!"
I think this is worth doing. I offer these 10 points to be edited and improved on by commentary. Then we use these points (lets try to keep it below 10) to recommend simple policy improvement to our newly elected congress, I propose we debate for at least a week then start writing. Lets leverage our knowledge and strength as a community to improve force protection for our military and the public at large.
Simple policy:
1. Yearly pistol qualifications required (live fire Joint combat pistol course to be established)
2. "A" for "armed" added to CAC right below name
*3. Option available at command discretion for all service-members and mandatory for line Officers, SNCOs and those serving in a Law Enforcement capacity.
4. Open-Carry mandatory and an inspect-able item when on duty (normal workday not just OOD etc.)
*5. Concealed carry optional when off duty with an "A" ROE is defense of self and others from deadly force ONLY.
*6. Weapons will be under direct control of service-members at all times or unloaded and double-locked when on Government Property.
7. Negligent Discharges and other related weapons crimes or conduct infractions punishable with mandatory NJP, forfeiture of pay and required re-qualification option for elevation to Courts-Martial, repeat offenses subject to BCDs.
*8. Active Duty and Reservist Service Members will now be covered under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Federal Law, or a parallel law will be created explicitly for them. The US attorney's office is charged to defend this protection against any legal challenges.
*9. Mental Heath/Behavioral objections from any medical officer or any member in chain of command will immediately suspend authority/requirement pending review by a board comprised of command, medical and mental health officers, suspension of requirement is independent of prohibition on owning personal weapons-this will be handled under pre-existing regulations, suspension pending review does not automatically bear on proficiency evaluations or promotions
*10. When on Government Property, Service-members granted authority will furnish their own weapons in the standard service caliber, weapons will be semi-automatic, in good working order, and will be fed by standard sized magazines (neither extended beyond the magazine well nor reduced in capacity).
Edits added on suggestions indicated by "*" (combined 3 and 4 to save numbers, 5 added ROE, 6,9, 10 added 8 language cleaned up):
Arm the Armed Forces! | RallyPoint
The outcome of the discussion "Concealed carry for CAC holders?" by [~222148:SGT Bernard Boyer III]. Below follows my skeleton letter to congress, based on the edits RP members have suggested to the 10 points. Anyone and everyone is welcome to edit and personalize the letter for their own use in writing to their congressional representatives. We sent a mass email on 3 January, the swearing in of the new congress, now it's a free for all. You...
(65)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Yeah, this is a great topic SSG(P) (Join to see), so great that we should consider turning this into a "write your congressman and senators" awareness campaign. I'm sick and tired of official DOD policy for active shooter being 'Run Hide Fight (with improvised weapons)" with the above 8 points as broad brush guidelines I think we have a decent start. Let's get some sniping going to make the broad policy simple, robust and defensible for articulation to policymakers, interested in thoughts especially from the the people who have layed out some detail in previous posts (particularly the ones with impediments): LTC Paul Heinlein (any relation to RAH, sir?) MAJ (Join to see), PO3 Shaun Taylor, SSgt (Join to see), MSgt (Join to see), SFC (Join to see), LCDR (Join to see), SGT (Join to see), PO3 (Join to see), SCPO (Join to see), CPT (Join to see), SSgt Gregory Guina
And anyone else interested: please help us out in making this: robust, simple, articulable.
And anyone else interested: please help us out in making this: robust, simple, articulable.
(3)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Sir thank you I will do that but the more people writing the more chances to protect all of us
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSG(P) (Join to see) definitely, the more people involved the better, before we start writing our reps I say we give this conversation a few days or weeks here on rallypoint to became as strong as we can make it. Maybe the founders are interested in weighing in: LTC Yinon Weiss, CPT Aaron Kletzing Gentlemen, any chance of adding this in on one of your RallyPoint surveys like the one done recently of voting veterans- see if it ranks up there with other major policy change issues in service-member and veteran's minds? Or some other method of promoting this topic along with other veterans advocacy issues?
(2)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Sir that is a freaking outstanding idea.....Please stay along with this so we can get this rolling
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. You're post is outstanding and I agree with almost all of it. I don't know that it should be mandatory for SNCOs and Officers as not all SNCOs and Officers would be willing or capable of getting their "CAC CCDW" But I definitely agree with the rest of it! I will definitely do what I can from the great state of Kentucky to push this forward!
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Also, how do you think this should extend towards Reservist/National Guard? I believe it should extend to those individuals as well but I want to hear your opinion Capt Richard I P. and SSG(P) (Join to see)
(5)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SGT (Join to see) Good points, On the Officers and SNCO mandatory point we could either go the route of "strongly recommended, not required" -as with the #9 edit for behavioral or mental health or we could go the route of 'this is a requirement for the profession of arms, meet it, or find a new job" I bias towards the latter. I agree about reservists and NG with the same requirements.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Sgt jordan vied I do think it should extend to them as well as long as they meet the training requirements
(2)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
The mental heath aspect is a very tricky aspect of CCDW licenses that I think we need to bring physicians to the conversations in that regard.
But I do like the "Strongly recommend, not required" wording in regards to SNCOs and Officers.
But I do like the "Strongly recommend, not required" wording in regards to SNCOs and Officers.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SGT (Join to see) Loud and clear on the need for engagement of medical professionals. LTC Paul Labrador Sir, want to help us out with some weigh-in on mental health and armament, any Psychiatry/Psychology discipline friends on RallyPoint to bring in on the conversation, or other medical pros in general?
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Heinlein
Point 8.....Active Duty Service Members covered under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Federal Law... or create a new one....
I have no issues with your other 9 points...
I have no issues with your other 9 points...
(4)
(0)
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
With the standard US Military Cal... The wording should be the same Cal as service weapon. The USCG carries the Sig 229R DAK in a .40Cal S&W. Also for the mandatory for Officers and SNCO, you should include; Manditory for Officers, SNCO, and any personnel in a law enforcement capacity (I.E. MP, MA, ME, or Boarding Officers) The Boarding Officer part is because in the CG, Petty Officers are eligible to be Boarding Officers and 9 times out of 10 there aren't any commissioned officers on the boardings and even still some times the Petty Officer is the one in charge (BTW. The last part freaks the hell out of the Navy)
(5)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
On #4 are you implying all members will be mandatory open carry? I could see it for the combat arms MOS's but not for a admin clerk as an example.
My idea would be military police would carry on and off duty 24/7 on post or off. All other career fields would be optional kinda like requesting jump school. Then the individual would go through a specified pistol course for qualification. And then would have to do #1 as long as they chose to carry. Now since everyone would not be carrying and the bad guy won't know who is, concealed should be recommended and open optional with the duty A.
My idea would be military police would carry on and off duty 24/7 on post or off. All other career fields would be optional kinda like requesting jump school. Then the individual would go through a specified pistol course for qualification. And then would have to do #1 as long as they chose to carry. Now since everyone would not be carrying and the bad guy won't know who is, concealed should be recommended and open optional with the duty A.
(4)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
I say take a yearly mmpi-2......it's a test to determine any mental illnesses. ......Sgt jordan vied
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Not sure of the other branches shooting qualifications, but we have to qual on service weapons every 6 months. That might need to go in there.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO1 (Join to see) i think Ill keep #1 at one year, less of a logistical long shot for most services.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Also, it needs to be made clear that personel that carry off duty, do so in a self defense/ defense of others matter ONLY. This is regardless of MOS or Rating. I say this is because the first time you get a hard corps E-3 MP off duty drawing down on someone for shoplifting a candy bar, will be the last day that we all carry.
(3)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MSgt (Join to see) I like your points on #4. Tactically, concealed weapons have the advantage of surprise over open carry. Open carry, however is faster and provides a visible warning and badge of authority, which is why uniformed police open carry. With known quantities like all officers and SNCOs carrying, concealing becomes less meaningful and tactically necessary. We are a profession of arms, and we should carry our arms openly when on duty. It should be our option to continue to carry them discretely when off duty.
(3)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I would change #5 again. Posse Comitatus prohibits DOD from making arrests against civilians. The only branch that can do that is the CG hence why we are in DHS and not DOD (the little know Secret of that loop hole) and even then we can only make arrests for violations of Federal US laws. The way you have it, the Lawyers would be on that like stink on shit.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
I would make this less of a LEOSA type deal and more like a Federal CCW permit. That would be more likely to pass. Also less likely to scare the shit out of the top brass.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
"Deadly force shall only be used when the member has reasonable suspicion that death or serious physical injury is imminent, in such cases implementation of deadly force does not pose undue risk to the public." There ya go, went threw my notes and put this together. Of corse the lawers need to get there hands on it but it's a start.
(1)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
Capt Richard I P. I love this sir. It's very succinct and covers your bases.
With respect to #4, If it gets expanded to Federal Civilians being included, I can tell you the PC police will freak the hell out over open carry unless in a Law Enforcement Capacity. I know where I work in USDA land, OMG...lol I think a provision would have to be in there to allow conceal carry when on duty.
What about folks who travel for work. How would this pass muster with TSA? Would they be automatically allowed through the TSA Pre-Check?
With respect to #4, If it gets expanded to Federal Civilians being included, I can tell you the PC police will freak the hell out over open carry unless in a Law Enforcement Capacity. I know where I work in USDA land, OMG...lol I think a provision would have to be in there to allow conceal carry when on duty.
What about folks who travel for work. How would this pass muster with TSA? Would they be automatically allowed through the TSA Pre-Check?
(1)
(0)
MSG John Wirts
I remember whenever we went off post as a unit carrying our issue weapons, and setting up camp and sleeping with our weapons. This was post WW II Germany in the 60's. All this NAZI gun control is getting our troops killed at home and abroad!
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PV2 (Join to see) Thanks for the input, I think like we talked about under your comment the best tactic is to press military first, and figure out federal civilian employees once we've got some good momentum going. you're probably right though, with federal civilian employees it'll likely have to be concealed not open.
Traveling on airlines will probably have to remain disarmed, I think that one may be a bridge too far. I'm not positive but I think even FBI agents have to be disarmed on flights, only Federal Air Marshals and qualified pilots get to carry weapons aboard. But Id love fact-checking on that from anyone.
Traveling on airlines will probably have to remain disarmed, I think that one may be a bridge too far. I'm not positive but I think even FBI agents have to be disarmed on flights, only Federal Air Marshals and qualified pilots get to carry weapons aboard. But Id love fact-checking on that from anyone.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MSG John Wirts I hear you about the changes in military policy and the risks it places our SMs in. Although your comments on Nazi gun control are politically charged and we should likely leave those sorts of comments out of our letters to congress to protect our message, you're closer to the truth than a lot of people would think. The Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) did some work on this topic: "this book contains the German language original of the Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, a page-by-page translation, and then a page-by-page comparison with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968. The similarities are more than striking. The book also contains an actual copy of the correspondence between the U.S. bill’s sponsor, Sen. Thomas Dodd, and the Library of Congress which translated the Nazi law for him."
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/gateway.htm
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/gateway.htm
"Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny
America's Most Aggressive Defender of Firearms Ownership
(0)
(0)
PV2 (Join to see)
I think given his background SFC (Join to see) may be best qualified to speak on this subject.
(1)
(0)
TSgt (Join to see)
Good ideas. Along with the firearm qualification, there should be a requirement for a mandatory mental health evaluation and certification each year. Not a Web Health Assessment, but an actual evaluation by a trained psychologist. Not so much to prevent a shooting, a person will find a way to do that if they really want to. But to take a more proactive posture in identifying and treating any mental health issues that could cause a problem; fix the root cause before it becomes a problem. I would think this would put many people at ease about service members carrying.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
TSgt (Join to see) Thanks for the suggestions. I'm curious if any RP LE folks can talk to the frequency of psych profiles in that line of work for comparison?
(0)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
we also need to be cognizant of the personnel who have what is currently considered a mental illness/injury that are still cleared and capable of completing an evaluation. i.e. we should steer clear of blanket "if you have PTSD, you are ineligible" but rather treat each case independently. Trust, but verify. The burden of proof will be on the qualifications and medical clearance of the individual in question, however we don't want to shut out service members without giving them a chance to show they can and do abide by the same rules and regulations as their fellow service members.
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Heinlein
TSgt (Join to see),
I would say that the command is responsible to ensuring the mental health (to include a mental eval if necessary). If we sent service members into mental health enmass every year, it would become a check the block and worthless. Leadership knows normally who is truly having issues and can screen to limit how many need mental eval and are more likely to get a true eval. In the end, the command/ leadership is the one that signs off either way.
and to answer the question in advance, no I do not think Command/ Leadership are experts at mental health, but they do know when something has changed in a service member that would otherwise be overlooked by mental health personnel.
I would say that the command is responsible to ensuring the mental health (to include a mental eval if necessary). If we sent service members into mental health enmass every year, it would become a check the block and worthless. Leadership knows normally who is truly having issues and can screen to limit how many need mental eval and are more likely to get a true eval. In the end, the command/ leadership is the one that signs off either way.
and to answer the question in advance, no I do not think Command/ Leadership are experts at mental health, but they do know when something has changed in a service member that would otherwise be overlooked by mental health personnel.
(2)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
I would Say SNCO's and FGO's maybe O-3 but I would disagree with junior enlisted and JO's.
I think for accountability reasons they should be issued once you make the rank decided on. A GOV concealed carry card should also be issued with training.
Each unit should have a min requered armed members to keep some CC from banning weapons.
The only part of your 10 points I disagree with is number 10. I think the weapons should be issued and it should be a lifetime issue for SNCO/FGO ranks.
I think for accountability reasons they should be issued once you make the rank decided on. A GOV concealed carry card should also be issued with training.
Each unit should have a min requered armed members to keep some CC from banning weapons.
The only part of your 10 points I disagree with is number 10. I think the weapons should be issued and it should be a lifetime issue for SNCO/FGO ranks.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
If it is mandated that certain service members carry, who pays for it? The ammo? The range time?
Other than those logistic items, I think it is a sound plan thus far sir.
Other than those logistic items, I think it is a sound plan thus far sir.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MSgt (Join to see) SFC (Join to see) Gentlemen, good comments. I appreciate you throwing me that bone with "Maybe O3s" MSgt. I'd say mandatory for all officers and SNCOs given our documents' talk of the "special trust and confidence" we are empowered with. The proposed Joint training course should help take care of lingering doubts that arise from service specific differences (the training pipeline for a Marine 2ndLt is vastly different from some of the other services).
I think the idea of a lifetime issue (of weapons and even all the gear we need) is really interesting, I think that's a great idea for multiple reasons (warrior culture, efficiency, empowerment sand trust) I'm not sure if its as politically attainable as authority to carry our privately purchased arms, and the SNCOs and officers required to carry should be able to afford the purchase of one sidearm if they were so charged.
I think the ammo for the mandatory Joint training course would likely need to be at government cost. But the reason for point 10 requiring a common caliber is to have the option for services to provide ammo and/or for individuals to qualify on their own.
Thanks for the input!
I think the idea of a lifetime issue (of weapons and even all the gear we need) is really interesting, I think that's a great idea for multiple reasons (warrior culture, efficiency, empowerment sand trust) I'm not sure if its as politically attainable as authority to carry our privately purchased arms, and the SNCOs and officers required to carry should be able to afford the purchase of one sidearm if they were so charged.
I think the ammo for the mandatory Joint training course would likely need to be at government cost. But the reason for point 10 requiring a common caliber is to have the option for services to provide ammo and/or for individuals to qualify on their own.
Thanks for the input!
(1)
(0)
LTC Paul Heinlein
Capt Richard I P., MSgt (Join to see), SFC (Join to see),
Great comments and Input.
MSgt Arstill, I appreciate the junior member concern. I make the leap that junior Soldiers should be included because I know the Command holds the reigns and can limit and/or revoke based on that particular service members capabilities. As far as your SNCO and FGOs, I do not concur with leaving out SGTs, SSGs, 2LTs, 1LTs, CPTs, WO1, and CW2s (all considered junior NCO and/or Company grade officers). First you are not taking in account experience versus rank (officers could be prior service). Also, all these ranks are the true troop leadership positions..team leader, squad leader, Platoon Leader, Company Commander, etc... If we cannot trust the leaders to carry weapons, how can we trust these leaders to lead our sons and daughters into battle? Also, you create a situation where a PSG (SFC) is trusted who is rated by a PL but the PL is not. That is not acceptable and does not set the conditions for that leader to be trusted by their subordinates. The command has the ultimate authority to approve or disprove. I would leave it to them to make the call on whether a SGT, SSG, LT, CPT, W01, CW2 can be trusted. My guess would be that if they were not, then they would also be removed from a leadership position.
SFC Kendrick (reference the on duty carry), if you were assigned one, then you carry your assigned weapon. If you are assigned a weapon, you standard qualification (that you are required to do anyways) covers you. I would add a yearly use of force briefing/ training requirement. Reference off duty, if you wanted to carry, you supply the weapon and the ammo (with restrictions on type, etc.). If you already qualify with the Military on a hand gun, that covers for quals, if not you need to pay to qualify in civilian area (MPs are currently qualified under LEOSA and the big Army is working out the details on Civilian Quals, so when that is figured out, I would just jump on that system).
Great comments and Input.
MSgt Arstill, I appreciate the junior member concern. I make the leap that junior Soldiers should be included because I know the Command holds the reigns and can limit and/or revoke based on that particular service members capabilities. As far as your SNCO and FGOs, I do not concur with leaving out SGTs, SSGs, 2LTs, 1LTs, CPTs, WO1, and CW2s (all considered junior NCO and/or Company grade officers). First you are not taking in account experience versus rank (officers could be prior service). Also, all these ranks are the true troop leadership positions..team leader, squad leader, Platoon Leader, Company Commander, etc... If we cannot trust the leaders to carry weapons, how can we trust these leaders to lead our sons and daughters into battle? Also, you create a situation where a PSG (SFC) is trusted who is rated by a PL but the PL is not. That is not acceptable and does not set the conditions for that leader to be trusted by their subordinates. The command has the ultimate authority to approve or disprove. I would leave it to them to make the call on whether a SGT, SSG, LT, CPT, W01, CW2 can be trusted. My guess would be that if they were not, then they would also be removed from a leadership position.
SFC Kendrick (reference the on duty carry), if you were assigned one, then you carry your assigned weapon. If you are assigned a weapon, you standard qualification (that you are required to do anyways) covers you. I would add a yearly use of force briefing/ training requirement. Reference off duty, if you wanted to carry, you supply the weapon and the ammo (with restrictions on type, etc.). If you already qualify with the Military on a hand gun, that covers for quals, if not you need to pay to qualify in civilian area (MPs are currently qualified under LEOSA and the big Army is working out the details on Civilian Quals, so when that is figured out, I would just jump on that system).
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Let's not forget one of the cardinal rules for carrying concealed: the training to draw from the weapons' concealed place, i.e. from under a jacket, ankle rig or small of the back carry for off-duty carry. Also, the NRA WILL provide training to firearms instructors and certify them to be Firearms Instructors (I'm one, courtesy of my current job as a Range Safety Officer and SAMI for the Navy in Mississippi). The NRA has standardized curricula that they make available to personnel going through their training, and the services all have unique and viable combat courses of fire, with the exception of Fleet Navy. As an RSO, I've looked at various pubs from the services IRT weapons training and qualification. MCO 3574.2K, Encl. (2) is a decent starting point. Like anything "Joint-Service", cut, paste, manipulate, modify, and re-arrange to fit the requirements deemed necessary for training.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think that these are strong points to be made. I may not fully understand point 3 and it being mandatory as there are several Officers and SNCOs that do not own personal weapons. I agree with point 4 completely. If allowed to carry on post it should be an open carry. I would also like to address point 8 in that unless a service member is in an MOS that falls under law enforcement i.e. Military Police or CID they cannot fall under LEOSA. I would propose a possible ammendment to the act to cover service members that are not law enforcement or just creating a new safety act altogether so as to prevent any confusion that could arise.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC (Join to see) Great suggestions. On 3 If we don't trust a SNCO or Officer to carry on base we shouldn't trust them with their office. If they dont own a personal weapon they should (are we not a brotherhood of warriors? This isn't the IRS we joined) Alternatively some have suggested pushing for a lifetime issue for SNCOs and Officer (MSgt (Join to see)) Point 4 open carry helps reinstill a martial culture and keep everyone aware. On point 8 the intent is exactly to explicitly expand LEOSA leveraging existing legislation) or push for a mirror for us (Ill see if I can simplify that).thanks for the input
(1)
(0)
Maj Wayne Dahlke
Only edit I have is for Number 3. It should read:
"*3. Option available at command discretion for all service-members and mandatory for LINE Officers, SNCOs and those serving in a Law Enforcement capacity."
This gets us away from the possibility of JAG and Medical (who in many cases cannot carry weapons on duty, due to their Geneva Convention roles) being forced to carry. They will still have the option, but will not be required to. However they must still attend the training and be QUALIFIED.
Cheers
Wayne
"*3. Option available at command discretion for all service-members and mandatory for LINE Officers, SNCOs and those serving in a Law Enforcement capacity."
This gets us away from the possibility of JAG and Medical (who in many cases cannot carry weapons on duty, due to their Geneva Convention roles) being forced to carry. They will still have the option, but will not be required to. However they must still attend the training and be QUALIFIED.
Cheers
Wayne
(1)
(0)
Lt Col (Join to see)
FYI Air Force JAGs are Line officers. Geneva Convention does not prohibit JAGs or Med personnel from being armed. Medical personnel can be armed for self defense. Chaplains by policy are not armed.
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
I disagree with mandatory open carry. It should be assumed that anyone at any time may be armed. If you are providing your own weapon (and ammo) then you should be free to choose what weapon and caliber. I also disagree with identifying armed soldiers by marking the CAC. Calling attention to armed soldiers only makes them a bigger target.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MSG (Join to see) Thanks for your comments. Open carry would be mandatory only when on post, as a comment above with MSgt (Join to see) tactical advantage of concealment is reduced when policy is known that officers and SNCOs are are all armed anyway, tactical advantage of speed is gained by open carry and benefit of a martial and visibly so culture is gained. Placing an identifier on the CAC minimally increases target profile, given that a threat examining a CAC is already close enough to have killed the SM anyway.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
You may want to consider making this its own topic instead of a comment. I think you are on to something good here and many of the points you have made I have either said to others or written as comments on other topics.
The only problem I see at first read is my own personal preference of #6.
"*6. Weapons will be under direct control of service-members at all times or unloaded and double-locked when on Government Property. " I agree with the intent of it but can foresee some Commanders that are opposed to concealed carry making local policy that all SM's that carry must unload and store double locked while on post therefore defeating the purpose of carrying altogether; or at minimum delaying action to stop violence.
The only problem I see at first read is my own personal preference of #6.
"*6. Weapons will be under direct control of service-members at all times or unloaded and double-locked when on Government Property. " I agree with the intent of it but can foresee some Commanders that are opposed to concealed carry making local policy that all SM's that carry must unload and store double locked while on post therefore defeating the purpose of carrying altogether; or at minimum delaying action to stop violence.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC (Join to see) Good point on the consideration of its own topic, but since it has so much following here already Id be worried about it getting lost if I moved it, anyone else have a thought on this? As to your points on #6, I see that as a valid concern, I'm just not sure how we could control for it systemically, in the end commanders own their units, and we have to keep them empowered to make decisions about them., especially since #3 contains strong command discretion language (and arguably needs to given the potential for discipline problems.) Any ideas for alternative language for #6?
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I started to work something up but it bacame too "wordy" and started to lose the original intent. here is what it was just for FYI, I am NOT seggesting this as the change.
*6. Weapons will be under direct control of service-members at all times or unloaded and double-locked when on Government Property. An authorized weapon carrier shall at no time be ordered, coerced, or otherwise influenced to regularly store the weapon or to not carry the weapon until such time that individual requests from the first commander in the Chain of Command receives authorization from the 2nd level commander under suspicion of the carriers wrong doing.
*6. Weapons will be under direct control of service-members at all times or unloaded and double-locked when on Government Property. An authorized weapon carrier shall at no time be ordered, coerced, or otherwise influenced to regularly store the weapon or to not carry the weapon until such time that individual requests from the first commander in the Chain of Command receives authorization from the 2nd level commander under suspicion of the carriers wrong doing.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
I don't understand the mentallity here. I'm allowed to carry concealed off base, no questions asked. I can carry an M4/m9 while deployed, but once I come on a military installation, I'm not trustworthy anymore. I just don't get it.
SSG (Join to see)
I'd rather be able to use my military CAC in combination with my state (PA) CCW permit to carry nationally, with my PA CCW I can already carry concealed in 33 states, I disagree with the standard caliber, my standard weapon is the M9, not a fan of it or the 9mm round, I prefer to carry a 1911 in .45acp. As far as the ROE, I have a less restrictive ROE carrying concealed here at home than I did over there. Just my 2 cents.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Agree w/ SSG Knight about the service weapon restriction. I would absolutely LOVE the freedom to carry while on post, and can even understand the service weapon in a service holster while in duty uniform. That being said, once I transition over to civvies, my weapon of choice is Glock in either 9mm or .45 flavor (usually the .45 these days).
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Disagree with standard caliber and magazine size. My personal sidearm is .40cal and I have a 10 round mag, and 12 round mags. I prefer my 12 round mags because the mag extension gives me a better grip due to my large hands.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
All military (active & reservist) should carry. I have CCW, and would carry 24/7 if authorized.
(1)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
I can understand the desire of the military to have only service weapons carried on post, but I firmly believe that every soldier should be issued a pistol as part of their kit and be required to train with it and carry it while on duty. Additional heavier weapons such as rifles and machine guns are mission specific, but everyone should have a pistol, all the time, everywhere they go, no matter what.
I don't see this happening, but if they would allow the carriage of personally owned weapons, it would be a step in the right direction.
It has always been restrictive but there was a time when it was not like it is now. The MWR actually ran a gun club and shooting range on Ft Stewart back in the early 90s, when I was stationed there, and you could bring your weapon on post to go to the range and shoot.
I just don't understand why the government treats people like criminals when we are not even charged with a crime.
I don't see this happening, but if they would allow the carriage of personally owned weapons, it would be a step in the right direction.
It has always been restrictive but there was a time when it was not like it is now. The MWR actually ran a gun club and shooting range on Ft Stewart back in the early 90s, when I was stationed there, and you could bring your weapon on post to go to the range and shoot.
I just don't understand why the government treats people like criminals when we are not even charged with a crime.
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SFC Jamie Shows Did you read the 10 points (especially the latest ones on the other thread)? Give it a read and comment on that one as to whether it addresses your concerns.
http://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
http://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces
(0)
(0)
SPC Donald Moore
SFC Jamie Shows , I genuinely understand your concern. I have worked in civilian law enforcement and every call, every day, any person present could be armed. It is just a given for us but you have lived in a sheltered environment.
Review the 2nd Amendment, part of the constitution that you are sworn to uphold, and think about why a non criminal should be denied a right to defend themselves.
Do you think that the armed personnel on base are sufficient to defend (100% of the time) every other person on the base? People are supposed to be armed so they can defend themselves, their loved ones and their country. It is not the sole purview of law-enforcement personnel whether they be civilian or military.
Review the 2nd Amendment, part of the constitution that you are sworn to uphold, and think about why a non criminal should be denied a right to defend themselves.
Do you think that the armed personnel on base are sufficient to defend (100% of the time) every other person on the base? People are supposed to be armed so they can defend themselves, their loved ones and their country. It is not the sole purview of law-enforcement personnel whether they be civilian or military.
(8)
(0)
MSG Bo Lathrop
Don't think it should be mandatory for all line officers or SNCO's, but everything else, I completely agree with.
(1)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Hey sir sorry I'm in the police academy but I really think that we are getting somewhere with this.....has any one herd anything?
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sadly I think our message has largely fallen on deaf ears this time. I do think the debate and arguments it raised retain value and the more representatives hear about it the more likely at some point in the future our representatives will finally do re right thing and Arm the Armed Forces.
(1)
(0)
SPC Casey Ashfield
4. Why Open Carry? I do believe this should be left to commander discretion. I carry a firearm every day, and I conceal it. I am not comfortable open carrying a firearm. In addition, open carry raises questions of weapon retention. So if open carry would be the norm, there would be some requirement for retention such as level II or III retention holsters that police officers use.
10. "in service caliber." Okay I have a rub here. If the service member is going to be furnishing their own firearm (and not M9/M11/M17 from the armory) they should be able to carry a caliber of their choosing. Providing they also provide the ammo for carry. I would not expect a soldier carrying a Glock 30 to expect the Army to provide .45ACP ammo for duty carry.
10. "in service caliber." Okay I have a rub here. If the service member is going to be furnishing their own firearm (and not M9/M11/M17 from the armory) they should be able to carry a caliber of their choosing. Providing they also provide the ammo for carry. I would not expect a soldier carrying a Glock 30 to expect the Army to provide .45ACP ammo for duty carry.
(0)
(0)
There should be a federal carry permit for military personnel. Actually probably should be for everyone. They can have federal guidelines like they do for a commercial drivers license. I think the public has a misconception that the police are the best trained to handle the situation, but time will be of the essence. I believe many non law enforcement CCW holders have more time and training with their weapons then officers. Also many have attended tactical courses to improve their skills. So your best chance of survival my be that CCW holder at the moment of the threat.
(60)
(1)
SSgt (Join to see)
Sgt Adam Jennings - The problem with using the state permits is that they mean nothing as soon as you get on base. It also does not count in an area marked by the state as a "gun free zone".
(0)
(0)
Sgt Adam Jennings
SSG Brian Dedorest, I guess I should have been more clear about what I meant. State permits recognized nationwide as well as by the federal government. I apologize for the confusion. I recognize the fact that CCW's mean nothing on a base and that is precisely the problem.
(2)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
I have personnel in my unit that can't hardly hold a sidearm correctly much less hit a target. SC CWP holders must take a written and shooting test. 8 hour course. I think this is sufficient. The Army could then offer a tactical handgun course to build on the CWP. Just possessing a CAC doesn't cut it, but those trained do need to be able to carry on post or at their duty stations.
(2)
(0)
SSG Roger Ayscue
MSgt (Join to see) Master Sergeant, a National ANYTHING when it comes to guns, aside from the FBI Instant check is a terrible idea. The reason for this is simple. As of now, gun laws are set by the states. If the Federal Government gets it's paws on gun laws then we will all have the laws like California. Let the states run the gun laws.
(0)
(0)
50
49
1
I was thinking about this recently, after 2 military personnel in Ohio were shot point blank (in separate instances) after that ISIS announcement to target military. In Maryland, we have to show a "reasonable threat" in order to carry. Is that NOT a reasonable threat??
(50)
(1)
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Georgia already treats an active military ID as a Concealed Carry Permit. In my opinion, if you can legally own a gun you should be allowed to carry it. The government needs to stop putting limits on our 2nd amendment rights.
(2)
(0)
LTC Gavin Heater
Massachusetts has a rule that the Police Chief of each of the 350 cities and towns makes the determination on licensing for target, hunting and concealed carry. Very restrictive.
(1)
(0)
MSG Danny Stanley
I think the fact that ISIS has published a credible threat should absolutely be reason enough to be granted a permit in places like Maryland where you have to prove there is a threat. I know Emily Miller of Fox 5 used a CIA or FBI memo stating that there was a credible threat against journalists to get her DC permit. I'm actually surprised you don't think there is a risk on post CSM Chandler. I'm sure those Soldiers at Fort Hood would appreciate having the ability to shoot back when MAJ Hassan went on his shooting spree. In an unconventional war such GWOT we have no defined front lines. The wounded from Fort Hood even received Purple Hearts, which serve as evidence that the combat zone has come home to America. Soldiers in combat zones have a need to protect themselves. Fortunately for me, I live in West Virginia and have a carry permit. I have reciprocity with 30+ states, so I can travel through most of the south with no issues. On the downside, I work in Maryland and my Reserve unit is in Maryland, so I have to sacrifice my right to self protection when I go to and from Reserves. I still keep a gun in the car when in Maryland, I just have it inaccessible from my seat. (No, CSM, I don't go to APG with my firearm. I begrudgingly follow that rule.)
(1)
(0)
46
39
7
Uniformed personnel should not carry concealed.
They should be issued weapons and carry them openly.
They should be issued weapons and carry them openly.
(46)
(7)
SFC (Join to see)
I'll agree with you in being armed and open carrying while on post. Off post, CC should be the norm. The element of surprise is a powerful thing. All service members have been thoroughly vetted, and should CC. Why is it that we should be softer targets, when wearing the uniform daily?
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
There have been a number of cases where an open carrier was robed of their gun because they are a clear threat if you are trying to rob someone. If you carry in a city I think it is best to CC. There are a lot of people that are scared at the sight of a firearm. I have never had a problem concealing any of mine.
(1)
(0)
SGT Chester Beedle
SFC (Join to see) - If by domestic issues you mean convictions of domestic violence they aren't even allowed in the military because there is no exemption for military or law enforcement possession of firearms.
Others, the few felons who have been allowed in... well there's a reason I said we need to eliminate the waivers. Or, LE could just run the name and ID number and be told pretty quickly if the person is legal or not.
Others, the few felons who have been allowed in... well there's a reason I said we need to eliminate the waivers. Or, LE could just run the name and ID number and be told pretty quickly if the person is legal or not.
(0)
(0)
SGT Chester Beedle
SSgt (Join to see) - Can you cite sources? People say this, but none have been able to show where or when it actually happened.
(0)
(0)
33
33
0
I believe they should be allowed. Or at least be able to present their cac card and receive a FREE permit to carry.
(33)
(0)
PO2 Donald Wright
CC permits are a State issue and need to stay so. Â If the military members has a CC in their home State check to see if it is honored in the duty stations State. If there is an issue the Military member can change his/her home State to the duty station's State. I would not make a CAC a reason to issue in any state. CC should be a right to any legal law abiding citizen.Â
(2)
(0)
LTC Paul Heinlein
PO2 Donald Wright, all states that I know of consider active duty military personnel the same as residents of that state when it comes to issuing CCWs/CCLs.
(4)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
PO3 Shaun Taylor Good ideas, what do you think of the 9 point post I made below? lets make the ideas strong building blocks for rational argument with our opposition on this topic.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Then you run into the issue of states that rarely issue CCWs. States like California, New Jersey, New York.
(2)
(0)
23
23
0
Well we do have that part of the oath that states to protect from all enemies foreign and domestic, and well if we're not allowed to carry in a way to protect ourselves and others are we living up to that aspect of the oath of enlistment and the oath of office for Officers. So yes we should provide the training to concealed carry.
(23)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
SSG(P) (Join to see) I rather just keep the justification simple so there isn't any ambiguity. I can't think of a better bunch to trust to carry a weapon than service members who train regularly with small arms.
(3)
(0)
13
13
0
13
13
0
At one time, I would have insisted that carrying concealed on a military installation was a bad idea. Times have changed. Between Ft. Hood and the Washington Shipyard shooting, and these potential lone wolf threats targeting us because we're military, we need to reevaluate who can carry, when and where, as military personnel.
Is the CAC card the tool to do that? It provides identification to military members, access to computer networks and other controlled areas, but no information about your latest weapons qualification, or any other data that might be used to ascertain your suitability to carry off the reservation, like background checks. The problem with using it as a CCW license is a chain of responsibility issue. What agency verified that you’re ok to carry? Right now, it’s a local (state or county) issue. Can the USA, USN, USMC, or USAF take that on?
Is the CAC card the tool to do that? It provides identification to military members, access to computer networks and other controlled areas, but no information about your latest weapons qualification, or any other data that might be used to ascertain your suitability to carry off the reservation, like background checks. The problem with using it as a CCW license is a chain of responsibility issue. What agency verified that you’re ok to carry? Right now, it’s a local (state or county) issue. Can the USA, USN, USMC, or USAF take that on?
(13)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SSgt (Join to see) I think the CAC could be expanded pretty easily with minimal cost to provide access to most recent weapons qualification, the badges with As would just expire yearly, some small increase on the man-hours of producing new cards, but savings in life might be worth it. Check out my post for all 9 points and consider any improvements you can offer, then think about writing congress with the ideas. Maybe we can actually get something going. "Arm the Armed Forces."
(3)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
I think that point #8 is the answer. " *8. Active Duty and Reservist Service Members will now be covered under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) Federal Law, or a parallel law will be created explicitly for them. The US attorney's office is charged to defend this protection against any legal challenges."
Either expand LEOSA to cover active duty and retired military members or write a separate law similar to LEOSA for active duty and retired military.
Either expand LEOSA to cover active duty and retired military members or write a separate law similar to LEOSA for active duty and retired military.
(3)
(0)
SGT Chester Beedle
Since even many of the states that require training will accept any military service, even air force fuelers or Navy none rates, it's a moot point for most.
(0)
(0)
12
12
0
No because there are a lot of people who get a CAC that are not AD and do not have the training.
(12)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
There would have to be requirements to make this work. The service member would need to take a CCW safety course for the state they are in. Then bring that certificate to the ID office to be added to DEERS. Then having that and perhaps a signed check sheet from the military doctor that the person is not suffering from PTS (not D because it is not a disease, it is a trauma), then from legal to ensure that the meet the federal qualifications to carry (no domestic violence). With all that, then they could get a small CCQ imprinted on their CAC that would allow them to carry. The CAC would be their CCW permit. Being Military though, this would need to trump the state laws like New Jersey that do not allow CC.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
In SC, you have to take a four hour classroom course with two exams and a shooting test of 50 rounds to show general proficiency with a handgun. Not all states do that, so there would need to be some type of qualification standard developed. I certainly think it is something they should look at and seriously consider. I'm more protected in my house than I am, along with my soldiers, on post.
(0)
(0)
SGT Chester Beedle
WA requires nothing. VA requires a simple safety course or proof of any military service. Some sheriff's in OR accept any military service as well.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google