Posted on 11/26/2016 8:57:49 AM PST by uncommonsense
The Pentagon recently released detailed guidance that allows U.S. military personnel to carry privately owned, concealed firearms on base, a move that the Army's service chief argued against publicly.
"Arming and the Use of Force," a Nov. 18 Defense Department directive approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, lays out the policy and standards that allow DoD personnel to carry firearms and employ deadly force while performing official duties.
But the lengthy document also provides detailed guidance to the services for permitting soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard personnel to carry privately owned firearms on DoD property, according to the document.
Commanders, O-5 and above, "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," the document states.
Applicants must be 21 years of age or older, the age many states require an individual to be to own a firearm, according to the document. Proof of compliance may include a concealed handgun license that is valid under federal, state, local or host-nation law where the DoD property is located.
"Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual's name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.," according to the document.
(Excerpt) Read more at military.com ...
"Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual's name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.," according to the document.
I wonder what "or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate" means...
How it SHOULD be:
All of the above PLUS if you are wearing your uniform, I don’t care if it’s Calif, NY, or Hawaii, then you can carry.
If they can be identified, then they’re a target.
I think if Calif doesn’t go along with it they should lose all their highway funding.
And I am IN California.
“or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate”
It means until another Democrat gets elected President!
"Uh... I have to be honest with you, I have a rifle in the trunk."
"This is a MILITARY BASE! There are NO GUNS allowed here!"
Only partially good news, I’d like to carry my gun when I go into Memphis, but if I go to the Base I can’t carry.
Memphis is the crime Capitol of TN. 200+ murders so far this year up more than 17% over last year. 2 weak Police PC Chiefs. Not enough jail space. Juvy has even less. We have 2 juvy prisons, 2 women’s rest males. 30% serve rate, blacks serve 6 months less.
Your only recourse is to fight parole hearings if you live.
Why is this actually happening under a Democrat POTUS?
Folks with Military ID’s active, retired or 100% disabled Vets can bring a firearm or firearms on Post to go shoot on a range. The weapons have to be registered on Post.
Here is a more realistic analysis:
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2016/11/dod-contingency-for-president-trump.html
I was asking the same. Is this just the Pentagon looking forward to Trump, and acting on their own to fulfill his stated intent? Surely Barack Castro did not authorize thus
It is a way to attempt to trick President Trump from initiating actual reform.
See comment #8.
It is saying to President Trump “We already did that, you do not need to do anything different.”
Why “privately owned”? Shouldn’t all service personnel be issued a sidearm just like police?
I don't know how you do it... keep fighting the good fight though.
Excellent proposal. I would back it.
BTW, about time they allow our troops to be armed. This is long overdue.
Thanks for the great info.
I wonder if they have a second contingency plan in the event that Trump does not fall for their initial contingency plan.
This article/blog points out that the rank required to approve each request is a Commander. A commander doesn't have time for low-level matters of approving and reapproving vetted requests to carry a firearm. This creates an entire sub-process for receiving requests, doing the vetting, assuring individual compliance, auditing the process for conformance to regulations, and so on.
Yeah, I can see this was for show and it really does nothing from a practical matter to allow firearm carry on base.
More winning?
I would think so. If personnel aren't stable enough to carry - then why are in the "Armed Service"?
I think some of the leaders are afraid of retaliation for disciplinary actions, therefore, everyone must be unarmed. That's exactly what the left wants to do more broadly, and will do if given a single inch of wiggle room.
Sounds like we retired folk will STILL not be allowed to carry concealed on base.
And before someone say “concealed means concealed”, a person on a military base is subject to being searched at any time, and so is any vehicle.
“The ridiculous thing is that Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley argued against this minor change “
The other “ridiculous thing” will be right after January 20th when “general” Mark Milley is removed as Army Chief of Staff!
“may grant permission ...”
This is the old “may issue” status, that has become obsolete in most states, in favor of “shall issue”. Let’s hope the next step is to change this language.
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.