Posted on Oct 19, 2015
New military gun policy may not mean more guns on base
35.6K
92
53
9
9
0
From: Military Times
Lawmakers want to loosen rules for service members to carry weapons at stateside bases for personal protection, but their efforts appear unlikely to put more guns into troops’ hands.
In the wake of the July mass shooting that killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tennessee, negotiators working on the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill included language to give military installation commanders more leeway over who can carry “an appropriate firearm,” including some personal weapons.
The provision requires the secretary of defense to establish a new policy by the end of the year, although a promised presidential veto of the broader defense policy bill on unrelated budget matters could delay that.
Lawmakers said the issue is a matter of force protection and safety.
“(We) remain concerned about the response times to active shooter attacks on U.S. military installations and facilities,” lawmakers wrote in report language connected to the legislation. “Commanders should take steps to arm additional personnel … if they believe that arming those personnel will contribute to that goal.”
But that “if” remains a controversial argument both in and outside the military.
The National Rifle Association and several Republican presidential candidates have pushed for looser gun rules for troops in recent months, arguing that “gun-free zones” increase the danger for law-abiding citizens by preventing them from defending themselves.
Gun control advocates have argued the opposite — and so has the Defense Department.
Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Thomas Crosson said the department does not support arming all personnel, a position strengthened after multiple safety reviews following the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., in 2013.
“Some of the top reasons are safety concerns, the prohibitive costs of use-of-force and weapons training and qualification costs,” Crosson said. “However, DoD guidance does provide flexibility to component and installation commanders to arm additional personnel based on necessity.”
Nothing in the defense authorization bill language would force a change in that stance, although it could strengthen individual base commanders’ position to arm more troops if they can argue a broader safety need.
Lawmakers emphasized that the policy changes would not supersede any state or local firearms laws. Gun-control activists see the new provision as representing only minor changes at best.
“I don’t think the Defense Department is going to bow to pressure from the NRA,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “We trust they’re going to to the right things, their commanders will make the right decisions to keep bases safe.”
At least two service members involved in the Chattanooga shooting were carrying personal weapons during the attack, in possible violation of current military rules, and unsuccessfully returned fire in an attempt to stop the homicidal gunman.
Whether even the ambiguous new gun provisions survive to become law remains uncertain.
If President Obama follows through with his threat to veto the defense policy bill, the Republican-controlled House and Senate are likely to attempt an override. But the House approved the bill by a margin that was already 20 votes short of enough support for an override, and Senate Democratic leaders have promised to support a presidential veto in their chamber.
Lawmakers then would be forced to renegotiate a new authorization bill, and Capitol Hill staffers could not say whether the gun provision would be guaranteed to remain in any future drafts.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/10/18/ndaa-gun-policy/73980228/
Lawmakers want to loosen rules for service members to carry weapons at stateside bases for personal protection, but their efforts appear unlikely to put more guns into troops’ hands.
In the wake of the July mass shooting that killed five service members in Chattanooga, Tennessee, negotiators working on the fiscal 2016 defense authorization bill included language to give military installation commanders more leeway over who can carry “an appropriate firearm,” including some personal weapons.
The provision requires the secretary of defense to establish a new policy by the end of the year, although a promised presidential veto of the broader defense policy bill on unrelated budget matters could delay that.
Lawmakers said the issue is a matter of force protection and safety.
“(We) remain concerned about the response times to active shooter attacks on U.S. military installations and facilities,” lawmakers wrote in report language connected to the legislation. “Commanders should take steps to arm additional personnel … if they believe that arming those personnel will contribute to that goal.”
But that “if” remains a controversial argument both in and outside the military.
The National Rifle Association and several Republican presidential candidates have pushed for looser gun rules for troops in recent months, arguing that “gun-free zones” increase the danger for law-abiding citizens by preventing them from defending themselves.
Gun control advocates have argued the opposite — and so has the Defense Department.
Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Thomas Crosson said the department does not support arming all personnel, a position strengthened after multiple safety reviews following the 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, and the mass shooting at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., in 2013.
“Some of the top reasons are safety concerns, the prohibitive costs of use-of-force and weapons training and qualification costs,” Crosson said. “However, DoD guidance does provide flexibility to component and installation commanders to arm additional personnel based on necessity.”
Nothing in the defense authorization bill language would force a change in that stance, although it could strengthen individual base commanders’ position to arm more troops if they can argue a broader safety need.
Lawmakers emphasized that the policy changes would not supersede any state or local firearms laws. Gun-control activists see the new provision as representing only minor changes at best.
“I don’t think the Defense Department is going to bow to pressure from the NRA,” said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “We trust they’re going to to the right things, their commanders will make the right decisions to keep bases safe.”
At least two service members involved in the Chattanooga shooting were carrying personal weapons during the attack, in possible violation of current military rules, and unsuccessfully returned fire in an attempt to stop the homicidal gunman.
Whether even the ambiguous new gun provisions survive to become law remains uncertain.
If President Obama follows through with his threat to veto the defense policy bill, the Republican-controlled House and Senate are likely to attempt an override. But the House approved the bill by a margin that was already 20 votes short of enough support for an override, and Senate Democratic leaders have promised to support a presidential veto in their chamber.
Lawmakers then would be forced to renegotiate a new authorization bill, and Capitol Hill staffers could not say whether the gun provision would be guaranteed to remain in any future drafts.
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/10/18/ndaa-gun-policy/73980228/
Posted in these groups: 
Policy
Policy
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
13
13
0
This is not a meaningful policy change. This still gives commanders the ability to say no for no reason that they simply do not agree with it. A more meaningful change would be to allow anyone who can lawfully carry off base to do so in the same manner on base unless there is a legitimate reason to prevent someone from doing so (i.e. suicide threats, threats against others etc).
(13)
(0)
SGT David T.
CPT (Join to see) - Actually a fire extinguisher can be used to kill. The scenario you describe in which Soldiers would hunt down an active shooter clearly shows ignorance of the laws because at that point it is no longer a matter of defense and switches to offense which is illegal. For example, here in Alabama if someone breaks into my home shooting them is considered self defense. However, if I chase them outside of the home I have become the aggressor and it is no longer justified or legal. I am pretty sure it works similar in most places. Your Soldiers can't defend the nation if they can't defend themselves.
(1)
(0)
SGT David T.
The National Firearms Act defines "machinegun" as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. 5845(b).
Machine guns are not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about carrying normal pistols.
Machine guns are not relevant to this discussion. We are talking about carrying normal pistols.
(0)
(0)
SrA (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see) - You're asking someone who this regulation does not allow to carry a weapon when the last time he had to draw a weapon and fire on an active shooter? Really? Let's ask the 13 dead and 30 wounded in Ft Hood how useful self defense weapons would have been, shall we? Even a handful of people with side arms would have at a minimum injured the shooter and slowed his advance.
I agree fully with your statements on those who carry out these sick murders, but that's literally 100% opposite of what we're even discussing so please stay on the topic at hand:
We are military. We are warriors. We are supposed to have a Warrior Ethos. I hone my skills as an efficient fighter and could perform with confidence defending my fellow service members, or myself from an attacker. Can you say the same? That is what I am pointing out. Can you say you sharpen your skills in combat to be ready if your steel is put to the test? But even between either of us, no one can efficiently defend themselves if not properly equipped, which is where defense weapons would provide the ability to actually stop an attacker with certainty. That is where it becomes a spear head of our capabilities - We require a weapon to defend ourselves with, and right now we have nothing but makeshift objects if even that.
I agree fully with your statements on those who carry out these sick murders, but that's literally 100% opposite of what we're even discussing so please stay on the topic at hand:
We are military. We are warriors. We are supposed to have a Warrior Ethos. I hone my skills as an efficient fighter and could perform with confidence defending my fellow service members, or myself from an attacker. Can you say the same? That is what I am pointing out. Can you say you sharpen your skills in combat to be ready if your steel is put to the test? But even between either of us, no one can efficiently defend themselves if not properly equipped, which is where defense weapons would provide the ability to actually stop an attacker with certainty. That is where it becomes a spear head of our capabilities - We require a weapon to defend ourselves with, and right now we have nothing but makeshift objects if even that.
(1)
(0)
SGT David T.
SrA (Join to see) - I was thinking of getting one of those pistol sized crossbows. It's not a firearm or a knife over 3 inches. I wonder how long it would take before they added that to the no guns and knives sign at the gate lol
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
Personally I don't see an issue with concealed carry on base. If one is responsible, shouldn't be an issue.
(9)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - That's a start for defining policy. for the sake of argument/devil's advocate, does this mean that junior NCOs lives are less valuable?
I know this is a hard issue and don't pretend to have the answer.
I know this is a hard issue and don't pretend to have the answer.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) - Sir I think the true answer is one that's just distasteful to what the military has accustomed it's people to espouse. I think the same rules for carry that apply off post should apply on post. We are military so I do believe a higher standard can and should be required i.e. register with provost, training requirements annually, PMO/carrier co-training. I think we need to recognize that geography is a poor factor for determining whether we will accept risk in terms of allowing Soldiers to be armed.
(2)
(0)
8
8
0
If you can legally carry outside the post, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to carry inside the post. A simple commander's memo kept inside your vehicle and continue provost martial registration. Local commander's should be able to restrict usage for cause. I hope this will get approved before the terrorists figure out there are 200 or so unarmed reservists with access to an arms room with no ability to self defend. How long until a disgruntled radical right wing nutjob attacks a reserve center while they are turning in weapons. Highly visible, highly vulnerable, high payoff.
(8)
(0)
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SrA James Cannon - Because left wing nutjobs can't figure out how to plan and prepare a deliberate attack. Check out the videos of antifa getting hit by cars while trying to block traffic for evidence. Right wing crazies are simply more effective than leftist nutters. Face it Bernie Sanders Supporters can't even take out unarmed GOP congressmen playing baseball. they simply lack the intellectual capacity.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Bruce Rodewald
MAJ", there are plenty of groups out there that would like nothing better to claim an attack on any military personnel as a great achievement. I think you need to reevaluate your threat assessment and consider that a right-winger may not be the primary adversary.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google