DoD Contingency for a President Trump: Directive 5210.56

Gun Watch ^ | 23 November, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The U.S. military makes contingency plans for a great many possibilities.  It appears that the DoD has a contingency plan in place for a Trump presidency.  Donald Trump has said he will eliminate gun free zones in the military and at recruitment centers on day one of his presidency.

On November 18th, the Department of Defense released DoD Directive 5201.56.  Deputy Secretary of Defense, Robert O. Work, issued the directive on Arming and the Use of Force, that superficially does away with "Gun Free Zones". It allows commanders at the O-5 level and above to grant people the authority to carry private defensive weapons. 

O-5 is a Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) for the Army, Air Force, and Marines; Commander (CDR) for the Navy and Coast Guard. Not all O-5 officers have the authority; only commanders of units, installations or other organizations do. A military commander is a specific position. Not all officers are commanders. An officer who takes a command position has many special responsibilities and privileges. They stay with the position when another officer takes his place.

The directive is highly restrictive, but it allows for authorizeed DoD personnel to carry personal, privately owned defensive weapons. From dtic.mil:

4.1. GENERAL.
This section provides guidance for determining the eligibility of DoD personnel to carry privately owned firearms on DoD property for personal protection when it is not related to the performance of official duties. This section also provides requirements for individual training, transport, safeguarding, and storage of privately owned firearms that the arming authority must consider when determining whether to permit an individual to carry a privately owned firearm on DoD property.

Here are some highlights of the directive.  There are many restrictions.  There are so many, the directive is almost, but not quite useless.

Each permit holder must be individually approved by the commander involved.  That takes a lot of the commander's valuable time. There are plenty of reasons for commanders to turn down requests en masse, and no incentives given to commanders to approve requests.

The first restriction does much to gut any effective numbers of personnel carrying defensive weapons. It is unlikely that there will be many DoD personnel that will not routinely enter federal buildings. It requires that the Commander determine, after consultation with legal counsel, that an exception under 930(d) of Title 18, U.S.C. applies. From the directive:

a. May grant permission to DoD personnel requesting to carry a privately owned firearm (concealed or open carry) on DoD property for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status. Permissions granted under this section do not apply to carrying a firearm within federal buildings unless the arming authority specifically determines, after consultation with servicing legal counsel and in accordance with applicable DoD policy, that an appropriate exception under Section 930(d) of Title 18, U.S.C. applies.

 Here is 930(d) of Title 18, U.S.C.:

(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—

(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law; 

(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or

(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.

Commanders are caught in a sort of legal bind here.  They are being required to have legal counsel tell them that one of the three exceptions applies. But the directive itself could easily be interpreted to suffice for exceptions (2) and (3), especially if the person applying has a concealed carry permit.

Carrying a weapon for defense of self and others, and especially with a permit, is a lawful purpose in all U.S. territory.  Carrying a weapon after being authorized to do so by a U.S. military commander, is also a lawful purpose.

The directive could have stated that the directive itself meets exceptions (2) and (3), thus taking the burden from individual commanders.

Some other restrictions:

• Personnel authorized must be 21 years of age or older
• Personnel not subject to *any* past or pending personnel action
• When permitted to carry concealed, the firearm must be completely concealed, and not interfere with normal duties
• May not carry while under the influence of alcohol or other intoxicants 

The directive can be significantly improved.

The finding of lawful exceptions to  930(d) of Title 18, U.S.C. should be included in the directive, relieving individual commanders of that burden.

Commanders should be given incentives to authorize defensive carry.  Such an incentive might be:

If an applicant who has a valid concealed carry permit is refused by the authorizing authority, a written explanation of the reason for refusal shall be given to the applicant.  Applicants that are refused may appeal the refusal to the Inspector General of the organization.

This directive was put into effect 10 days after the election of Donald Trump. That indicates the Department of Defense takes President elect Trump's (and future Commander in Chief) promises seriously.  If you want a policy done on your terms, one of the most effective ways to obtain it is to present it as already accomplished.

President Trump will be well informed of such tactics.  I expect he will make appropriate improvements.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The directive is a a bureaucratic maneuver to prevent real reform.

[BigEdLB]

It is a start. DJT will handle the details in January.

[Reno89519]

My thoughts exactly, DoD is trying to prevent Trump from taking action. Hopefully he will see through this and set things straight. Otherwise, if something happens in the future, he’ll get blamed for inadequate protection. Let service members and anyone legally authorized to carry concealed weapon to do so. Period. Limit this only when absolutely necessary, but not traveling to/from or around bases, in most facilities, etc. Maybe say, unless there is immediate armed presence, everyone has right to be secured with their own arms.

[enumerated]

It’s another example of Trump affecting change before he’s even taken office.

Don’t worry about this blocking real reform - any action Trump wanted to take on day one can still be taken. This is a face saving gesture - they want people to think it was their idea...

Actually, this is one of the most effective methods of persuasion - to let someone thing it was their idea....

[InABunkerUnderSF]

The directive is a a bureaucratic maneuver to prevent real reform.

Agreed. What if you are the E6 in charge of a recruiting center in, say, Eastern Tennessee and some of your guys don't own a personal weapon? Troops should be able to carry their issued weapon either on base or at a designated work location.

(Recognizing that this could be awkward for the 13 Bravo types and some others the carrying of personal weapons should still be permitted.)

[Manly Warrior]

Personnel in secial duty positions like recruiting are not issued weapons nor do their units possess any. SO that is a moot point. The recuiting battalion/squadron etc commander ( O5 or higher) can authorize privately owned weapons etc.

This is a smoke up your six message- no LtCol etc is going to widely authorize anyone in his command to carry- just not happening as the restriction of federal buildings etc apply- my two-NCO recruiting station in Ionia MI on the early 90s was a federal contract facility- schools, etc.

Military JAGs/SJAs are so tight-assed, self assured and litigation oriented that they will find even the most qualified and security cleared/PRP personnel to be unfit to walk among them armed.

I could tell you me and my partner carried even though MI had no CCW provision nor the Army, but then I would have been breaking a bunch of rules....

Unless and until the military is directed to allow all who are otherwise not prohibited-including retirees, lawful visitors of any/all sorts to installations etc, it will be useless. Certain exceptions to open or concealed carry would of course be appropriate, but the exception, not the rule.

[Salvavida]

This misses the mark by a long shot. This doesn’t so shiite for me on my way to and from a federal reservation as a civilian.

[GreyHoundSailor]

As a former Recruiting District CO that included all of Tennessee, I would have had no problem letting most of them carry. I did, every single day and everywhere I went, and that was ten years ago. The Reserve 04 at Chattanooga proved it was the right choice.

[PapaBear3625]

In the military, if the wording is “may issue”, then there will not be any significant number of commanders who will give OK.

There is no up-side for the commander allowing carry. The commander will be held totally responsible for anything bad which happens. Any incident involving any person who they have OK’ed to carry, will likely be career-ending for the officer who signed off on their permission to carry. Hence, there will be NO permission to carry.

It needs to be a “SHALL issue” environment, where successful completion of a standard NRA firearms training course, plus absence of specific disqualifications, SHALL authorize the soldier to carry on base.

And it will need to be made clear to commanders, that there will be definite downsides to impeding CCW, such as the commander being held responsible if there is an incident where troops are killed while defenseless.

[marktwain]

You understand how it works.

[trebb]

The directive is a a bureaucratic maneuver to prevent real reform.

Perhaps, but they know a new CINC is the CINC and may just be trying to get a handle on the concept and how to deal with it w/o folks going nuts.

[5th MEB]

“standard NRA firearms training course”?
Are you saying that a Military firearms training course would not be acceptable?

[PapaBear3625]

“standard NRA firearms training course”? Are you saying that a Military firearms training course would not be acceptable?

It might. Two issues though:

1) The military course probably does not have a section on legal rules for use of deadly force in a civilian/on-base setting, and more importantly

2) An NRA course can be gotten through off-base on the person's own time, using any NRA-certified instructor. That prevents a CO from stopping concealed carry through simply not scheduling any military pistol courses, or limiting enrollment.