Donald Trump – Second AmendmentPosted on 12/13/2019 12:08:12 PM PST by marktwain
Donald Trump – Second Amendment
One of the promises President Trump made in 2015 interview with AmmoLand News, is he would review the policy of keeping service members disarmed on our military bases and recruiting centers.
“As Commander-in-Chief, I would mandate that soldiers remain armed and on alert at our military bases. President Clinton never should have passed a ban on soldiers being able to protect themselves on bases. America’s Armed Forces will be armed. They will be able to defend themselves against terrorists. Our brave soldiers should not be at risk because of policy created by civilian leadership. Political correctness has no place in this debate.”
And again in 2019 from military.com:
President Donald Trump said Friday that he would review policies that keep troops from carrying personal weapons onto military bases.
“If we can't have our military holding guns, it's pretty bad,” Trump said in a wide-ranging speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Maryland, “and I'm going to look at that whole policy on military bases.”
The recent case in Florida shows how useful it would have been for our military officers to be armed with handguns in case of an attack.
The murderous Jihadi was armed with a handgun.
Watson’s father Benjamin told USA Today that his son was the officer on deck at the time of the shooting and sustained at least five gunshot wounds before being able to make it out to relay important information about the shooter before succumbing to his injuries.
“Heavily wounded, he made his way out to flag down first responders and gave an accurate description of the shooter,” he told the outlet. “He died serving
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Here are some ideas on how it can be done.
Military can’t be trusted with guns and weapo................ Oh.
I read that it is up to the base commander. Seems like we have a bunch of anti-gun base commanders who don’t trust their subordinates.
I believe it was Bill Clinton that disarmed them out of fear they might shoot him since he Publicly Loathed the Military
there is ‘some truth’ to that- the military isn’t what it used to be- it is infested with liberal anti-americans, possibly with muslims faking patriotism, gays with anger issues, trans people who are mentally ill etc- and the left have made sure they can’t be discharged-
probably the best scenario is to arm guards who can only be picked under the strictest guideline- many of them- fully trusted folks- rather than allowing everyone to walk around armed- seeings how unstable many of them are nowadays- The left have ruined everything they touch- even the military- (Note, there is a majority of very decent folks in the military- but it only takes a few unstable, anti-American, unpatriotic and mentally violent ones to wreak havoc unfortunately-
It’s a sticky situation-
Retired in 94. Prior to that carried my own or issued sidearm and was carried concealed or not with the knowledge of my superiors on base ....... Clintonistas started this no firearms on base PC cow crap. Were it my decision every active duty, retired and veteran would be issued a simple Glock 19 with their Dog Tags for life....... my opinion.
How about we make America a Saudi free zone? or a Moslem free zone? How about we stop bringing these people in? That’s what the American people want. Sure, gun free zones are dumb. That’s nothing compared with bringing in Saudis for flight training in a “post 9/11 world”. How about we take our own side.
[[There was so much minority hatred and violence I’m sure many people would have been killed.]]
Exactly- i forgot to mention that aspect too- racial hatred- some folks don’t go into the military now for patriotic reasons, but rather because they can’t get jobs on the outside, and they want free education- and they have no real loyalty to fellow soldiers or the military or country unfortunately- they are just there for a paycheck-
It would be more efficient to declare them muslim-free zones.
A few basic background facts:
Only authorized or permitted folks can enter a base/post in general. Active/Reserve/guard on duty, retirees, veterans using facilities etc. The average non-affiliated citizen cannot just drive on to a base with impunity.
DOD Regulations, along with subordinate service regs, prohibit the carry of arms by pretty anyone not on LE duty, military or civilian. Including LEOSA qualified folks.
Current DOD policy is that all private arms ( bows and arrows and even yes, air guns) need to be registered with the base/post Provost/MA.
Personnel who reside on post/base may kept weapons in their quarters but not in transient barrack/BOQ/VOQ etc.
Mil Personnel who reside off post may register ( if they wish to bring weapons on post).
Retirees and other privileged veterans cannot bring weapons on post unless they are registered, and then only to hunt or shoot at authorized event/ranges.
Concealed or open carry by anyone other than authorized DOD/civ LE officers/agents is prohibited.
So, basically only LEOs either on duty on a base or civ LEOS with a reason to be on post/base may be armed.
Here is what I think is a reasonable response to this abstract prohibition:
Concealed carry licensed authorized personnel ought to be able to declare their status when entering and go about their authorized business/patronage on post.
Commanders ought to be encouraged to permit ( DOD 214 I believe) their officers and NCOs who OBTAIN CCW permits from a state 9any will do) and authorize them to carry privately owned arms that those personnel qualify with annually as per LEOSA rules.
The reason I suggest CCW licenses etc is because while military personnel are often decent marksman, they may be lacking in understanding of the rules of engagement regarding lawful self defense. Vetting personnel via a states CCW process is a reliable way ( it works for the states) to assure that only interested, dedicated servicemen will go the distance to be proficient not only at arms, but at the lawful application of self defense.
Maybe a lot less violence if all military personnel on base were armed? Remember, an armed society makes a polite society!
And it’s worse today than it was 50 years ago.
I doubt it.
Everyone opines about “how much worse it is now” without realizing human nature is static.
I have two sons in the Corps and one foster son in the Army. My second oldest is going for his Scout Sniper Indoc in three weeks.
There are many many examples of men that served 50 years ago that were shitbags, like Murtha, and many other examples from “public service”.
The deck is stacked against the commanders issueing any permits. That happened under Obama. It was somewhat stacked before, but under President Obama, it became official.
I have an article on Ammoland showing how it happened. I call it Defiance Through Compliance. I hope to post it on freerepublic tommorrow, as per my agreement with Ammoland.
Trump already changed the military directive in 2017. The policy started under Clinton, but the initial thrust was under Bush Sr.
Yes, the current regulations discourage carrying firearms. Trump can do something about this today.
As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump vowed to use his executive authority to immediately scrap a longstanding rule that bars military personnel from carrying their own firearms on bases and at recruiting centers.
Late last week, the Department of Defense took its own steps to loosen restrictions on private gun carry in new rules issued by the Pentagon.
A November 18 directive, approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, says base commanders “may grant permission” to department personnel who ask to carry a privately owned firearm “for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status.” The rule extends to openly carried or concealed weapons but does not go as far as the blanket authorization that Trump seemed to proffer.
The directive, first reported by Military.com, overhauls a rule imposed under President George H.W. Bush in 1992 that barred civilians and military personnel who are not on security duty or part of a law enforcement investigation from carrying guns on military sites.
Under the new policy, a base or facility’s top brass can give permission to troop members wishing to carry a firearm, provided they meet certain criteria. To be cleared for private carry, personnel must be at least 21 years old; have a record clear of disciplinary issues or criminal records; and comply with all federal, state, and local gun laws. The directive states that personnel authorized to carry a firearm must “acknowledge they may be personally liable” for injuries, death, or property damage caused in connection with a gun.
Could you direct me to the directive? The last one I saw, and I considered it the lastest one, was DoD Directive 5210.56.
This article was from November 2016
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.