Posted on 12/08/2019 8:50:24 AM PST by george76
Two mass shootings at U.S. military installations in one week, including one in which the perpetrator was a foreign national, have prompted questions over firearm use on American bases.
....
To have two shootings clustered one after another on military bases is unusual. In the past two decades, there have only been about seven other active shootings on bases; the deadliest was a November 2009 shooting spree in Fort Hood, Texas, which killed 13 and injured 32.
...
Government-issued firearms are locked in an arms room on base and only distributed when they are needed for training
,...
This regulation has been violated in the past: In September 2013, Aaron Alexis, a contractor who had authorized access at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., took an unassembled shotgun onto the base in a bag. Once inside, he reassembled the weapon and opened fire, killing 12 people.
Military personnel know they could face “significant” risks to their careers if they carry a firearm onto a base
...
The firearm ban applies even in open-carry state
...
The ban on firearms has been debated over the years, especially under President Donald Trump, who vowed in January 2016 that on his first day in office, he would “get rid of gun-free zones on schools, and on military bases.”
While the ban has remained, the Department of Defense took a step in November 2016 to loosen restrictions on privately owned guns, writing in a directive that base commanders could grant permission to personnel who asked to carry a privately owned firearm “for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status.”
Not all base commanders are willing to make that exception, and it is considered on a very strict case-by-case basis, according to experts.
(Excerpt) Read more at mnnofa.com ...
Part of the solution must be the soldiers paying closer attention to their fellow soldiers.
At ft Riley, I saw some idiot privates pointing empty M9s at each other and pulling the trigger in horse play. ( they had them checked out for cleaning) No NCOs around at that time. But then again they weren’t Infantry either.
U.S. Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said Saturday that it was too soon to rule the Muslim Jihad terrorism at Naval Air Station Pensacola was an act of terrorism.
Another work place violence ?
Muslim terrorists love seeing gun free zone signs.
They’re “questioning the ban on military bases”?! So first they need to research this?!
Senior NCO’s and Officers should be armed at all military bases.
The president could order this today.
The current directive you cited requires 0-6 or GS15 approval, on a case by case basis. As the article notes, it is very strict (i.e. difficult to obtain such permission)
For example - take a Corporal (E-4) in an infantry unit in the Marines. Suppose he is a team leader by billet. In order to get such authorization, he would have to talk to his squad leader (E-5/Sgt), who would then ask the Plt Sgt (E-6/SSgt), who would then talk to the Plt Cmdr (O-1 or O-2/2nd or 1st Lt).
The Lt would then ask the Company Cmdr (O-3/Cpt). The Co. Comdr would then ask the Battalion Commander (O-5/LtCol), who would then go to the Regimental Commander (O-6/Col) who, by the Directive is the first person in the Corporal's chain of command with the authority to grant authorization, and that's if the Base Commander concurs that an O-6 can make that authorization.
Along the way, the Company Gunny (E-7) and/or the Company 1stSgt (E-8), Battalion SgtMaj (E-9) and likely Regimental SgtMaj would want to speak with the Corporal.
In other words, a snowflake has a better chance surviving in hell than the average service member's chance of getting the approval to carry personal arms on base.
Further proof - When I was stationed at Lejeune the Onslow County Sheriff at the time required a "Command Letter" granting the authorization for a CCW permit. NC law does not require military members to furnish a "Command Letter." The Base did not require such, nor did the tenant commands. My command asked, "What the hell are you talking about?"
The Sheriff wouldn't issue the permit without one.
It finally came to a head and the Base Commander and MEF Commander caved - and it became required (on the military side). The surrounding counties followed suit and their Sheriff's began requiring the letters too.
When I was subsequently stationed at Quantico, the Base Directives made it more difficult to transport/possess weapons on base as well.
The Directive you cite does NOTHING to enable the protection of U.S. service members on base. All it says is that the commanders may.
The policy sets the command level required to approve high enough that the average joe will never get authorization.
The Pearl Harbor incident involved an armed security guard shooting people using the weapon he was assigned. If that isn’t a one-off, nothing is. There is simply no comparison between the two incidents, and the Pearl Harbor one is totally unique.
Trained to use firearms, then stripped of the right to self-defense.
It’s a Bonehead policy. Whoever started that crap should rot.
The Directive you cite does NOTHING to enable the protection of U.S. service members on base. All it says is that the commanders may.
I'm sure it got lost due to my public education's inability to convey my thoughts clearly, but that was my point. It is the Base Commanders that are prohibiting personal protection carry, not the DoD.
Just like in states that grant school boards the option of allowing their teachers to carry concealed in the classroom, 99+% of them choose not to grant such permission.
A ban on guns on a military base is about the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.
How in God’s name did something like that ever become policy??????
But, if guns are banned on bases, how could this jihadist have used a gun?!? /s
The only solution to the radical mooselimb problem, is the final solution.
Every one knows it, most don't want to face the facts.
Islam has been at war with everyone else on the planet since 622, in another 3 years, it will be 14 centuries.
They will never quit, they want to rule the world with their 7th century dedication to allah.
Read the koran, watch what they do, how they treat the 'infidel', how they treat their own women.
Read my tagline.
Or, prompted conspiracy theories on how conveniently mass shooting occur when Democrats need a distraction......
Everyone in uniform should be armed at all times, its as simple as that. If there is someone that cant be trusted with a firearm then that person certainly cant be trusted with control of 1,000,000 gallons of fuel, a tank, nuclear codes, or a host of other things. There apparently needs to be more significant consideration of those selected for service and/or better training if something as harmless as a sidearm is really a concern.
If a person can be trusted in uniform then its not the clothes that made that person trustworthy and there is no reason that they cant carry while off duty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.