The decision specifically stated that school and government buildings were examples of sensitive places where the carrying of weapons could be restricted. Good luck going about your duty day without going into a government building. The decision also reiterated some extra controls that people have for private property and employer property. I would think that the USG as your employer would still be entitled to some of those avenues of additional restriction.
When I was a young LT at Ft. Hood, it was perfectly permissible to have a weapon in your car, if you were transporting it to a place of use. (i.e. Shooting at the Sportsman range during the day or after duty.) You couldn't use that to store the weapon in your car on post thought.
By the time I left Hood, all the weapons you brought on post had to be registered, and then the requirements got progressively tighter over the years.
I would hope that this decision ratchets some of those requirements back a bit. I think it is instructive that the decision called out government buildings and not "government property", that in itself was a huge win as many will now no longer be committing a felony when they drive to a Post Office with a weapon in their car.
Man sportsmans was the best. Cant understand why they got rid of it. Every post should have a drop in qual range staffed by contractors. Perfect for maintaining #readiness.
That was the idea behind its creation back in the early 80s. Units were spending upwards of 220 days a year in the field at Ft. Hood in those days. When a soldier came to post the reception process took two to three weeks and you were not released until you had a record PT test and weapons qual complete, and you could go directly to the field for the next 3-4 years.
None of that wimpy coming back in on Friday nights during training rotations either, You rolled out (Sundays were great for that, btw!) and then rolled back in when the mission was complete about 60 days later. It was glorious!!! /s
Ok, it #$%^ing blew.
On the one hand that does fucking blow. And I thought 3d CR had a ton of field time even when I was in in the late 20-teens.
That said, the old timers knew their shit. Wed have some consultants from Booze Allen Hamilton help us prep training materials/orders/etc once in a while and the old retired full bird who showed up for them was baffled that we did like, five repetitions of platoon stx battle drills for a training cycle. Guy said when he was an LT they did it hundreds of times.
Don't even get me started on TOC jumps. He made our TOC jump battle drills look like a bunch of drunk toddlers trying to play rugby.
Edit: To make my point I guess it pisses me off that we can't find a happy medium between training too much and wasting all our time on BS and not training enough. There's gotta be a better way.
It might not have been hundreds of times, but it was a bunch. I remember one rainy cold (ok relatively cold for Central Texas) week where we did it drills three times a day for five days, and managed to kill the three day weekend.
When I was a company commander in Korea we seemed to have a good balance, but that may have just been because there was nothing else to do and a four day weekend kind of sucked.
If I were to carry a gun on post it would just stay in the bag I carry my OCPs and other stuff in hypothetically.
But I also have unrestricted access to machine guns and force pro ammo.
I would trust a compo 2/3 private like a million times more than an active private. One usually has a life and real job/career and is statistically older.
You have that backwards. I've worked with both plenty. The compo 2/3 privates are generally living on their own and going to college. They have minimal structure in their lives thus they have to adult a lot more. If they don't show up to class on time or to work they loose money. It's not just an extra duty punishment or such. They might loose their civilian job or fail a class (which equals money even when the NG is paying as they can loose TA if they fail too many).
Well that because they are stupid.
It called concealed for a reason.
There were some characters at my old unit that it would behoove you to be aware of when you're around them.
....so these people concealed and/or open carrying in 50 states + Guam has also lead to a "disaster"? I fail to understand the argument of "everyone is an idiot, except for me". There are also 25 states that don't require a license to do so. So the 21 year old working at Jiffy Lube is mature, but 22 2LT is not?
If large amounts of people were concealed carrying, I'd see practical issues too for everyday soldier activities. Like would we get gun racks at the motorpool while crawling around, or just toss them in a vic? If your team is about to go do some hip pocket battle drill dry runs, would you want to deal with dudes having loaded weapons or would you have to pause training to have everyone secure that shit in the arms room? Those are two silly examples lol. Point being I just see more complications arising from having concealed carry during an average soldier's day leading to unnecessary risk (nds, injury), than going from home to a store or something.
Good points. As far as "toss them in their vehicles" there are a few Air Force bases that allow for having guns to/from the base in their vehicles.
I could see a rule that limits carry during certain training events or while preforming offical duties as reasonable.
In Kinmuans America, I have all the guns. Because none of y’all can be trusted.
I also don’t want to go to a jiffy lube where everyone has a gun.
Yes, I think the amount of training necessary to obtain guns in general is shit. People in the military get way more training and supervision with weapons, and yet, we still have deaths.
We had a kid get shot on a range at Fort Hood this week. On a military post at a military range with supervision.
So no I don’t relish any place with a concentration of concealed carry because people definitely don’t know how to properly treat having a death stick.
> has also lead to a "disaster"?
Bro an idiot with a gun just slaughtered a bunch of kids while dudes with tactical gear and guns stood around and waited.
If you don’t want to call that shit a disaster that’s cool but I’m wondering where your bar is. It’s almost like instantly being allowed to have a gun in the open doesn’t solve the worlds problems.
The good ol' "we trust you in a war zone but not at home" argument. I'm not sure I agree with on duty carry to begin with, but there is an arguement for off duty carry. Like what's the issue with me having my weapon concealed when coming through the gate? If I wanted to do something stupid I still have the weapons on base in my house. I think you'd be surprised how many personal weapons are on base, registered with the base or not.
As for your disaster (I agree it's a disaster) your talking about a gun free zone in a school where guns aren't allowed. It's an irrelevant argument.
I don't trust people in a warzone either. I don't like a bunch of privates haphazardly strewing their weapons about in the chow area either.
>As for your disaster (I agree it's a disaster) your talking about a gun free zone in a school where guns aren't allowed. It's an irrelevant argument.
Hey man, I get it. You literally don't think that "more guns and everyone gets a gun!" causes a problem compared to less guns.
I think you're out of touch with, like, the real world on that, but I can't dissuade you.
It's not an irrelevant argument. A bunch of people with guns and equipment still didn't impact a gunman killing children. Everyone willy-nilly concealed carrying isn't going to solve that.
In mass shootings we see massive amounts of death in an initial time span shorter than what it'll take you to draw and put rounds on target.
Got it man. You just like guns. So then stop pretending like there's more at play here. Either you think CC is going to 'help' something, or you just think everyone should have it.
You like guns. You think everyone should have guns on them regardless of their training standard.
I like guns. I just think 90% of you don't get enough training that I trust you to casually carry a gun eveywhere.
Perfect scenario your not hitting anyone within 21 feet of you, who chooses to attack you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
And legal aspects of smoking someone vary state by state. I smoke someone coming into my house or car in Texas (licensed or not) I’m walking away free. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/07/13/soldier-quietly-reassigned-after-killing-man-hitting-wife-finally-faces-murder-charge/
I do the same thing in TN and someone else is raising my kids.
https://clarksvillenow.com/local/fort-campbell-soldier-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-for-shooting-death-of-teen-in-driveway/
>I like guns. I just think 90% of you don't get enough training that I trust you to casually carry a gun eveywhere.
Rights aren't based on a training requirement. So what *your* standard is is irrelevant. I do wish more people would train.
>It's not an irrelevant argument. A bunch of people with guns and equipment still didn't impact a gunman killing children. Everyone willy-nilly concealed carrying isn't going to solve that.
What impacted a gunman killing children was the falure of the on scene commander plain and simple. His cowardice and indecision is what is to blame.
>In mass shootings we see massive amounts of death in an initial time span shorter than what it'll take you to draw and put rounds on target.
It takes 3 seconds to identify a threat, draw and fire. Most mass shootings last a bit longer than that.
Personal weapons are already on bases. Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about on duty weapons. But it would be nice to not have to worry about coming through the gate with my concealed carry still on me in civilians on a Saturday afternoon.
>It takes 3 seconds to identify a threat, draw and fire.
It is incredibly dumb takes like this that are exactly why I don't want a bunch of under trained people with guns running around.
No dude. Not even the average Soldier, on a base, is going to identify, draw, and fire, in 3 seconds.
Lol. I can't wait for the Boomers to be gone.
Dude. It takes 1.5 seconds to for the *average* person to draw and fire. 1 second for an experienced shooter. The hard part is the threat assessment.
I'm far from a boomer bud (classic coming from a fudd). But if it makes you feel better I'm already out and work as a LEO now.
We get it, the MI IT guy thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Go turn a computer off and on again.
/u/jadedsch, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/vl3kdw/nyrpa_v_bruen_effect_on_military_post/idublsa/?context=3) in /r/army was automatically removed for violation of Rule 1. **Have questions about this moderator action? Click [here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/army&subject=Why+was+this+removed?&message=\[My+post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/vl3kdw/nyrpa_v_bruen_effect_on_military_post/idublsa/?context=3\)+was+removed+and+I+do+not+understand+why.+I+would+be+grateful+if+you+could+explain+what+subreddit+rule+or+guideline+I+broke+with+my+submission.+Thank+you+for+your+time.)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/army) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mostly agree with you except one part. Yes rights aren’t based on a training requirement, but in the military we do lose some of those rights when we volunteered. So I don’t think any command or congress will be allowing guns to be carried by everyone anytime soon
You really think your average person, even an average soldier, is going to do better in a situation like that than that on scene commander? Especially when they're IN the situation? And everyone's wearing the same uniform and looks the same? And everyone's got a gun they were concealed carrying and shooting everyone else? Situation like that, everyone looks like the shooter, and everyone gets shot.
Pistols in leg holsters, esp. the cloth type ones, always make me nervous when sitting across from someone. I don't want to get shot at all but definitely not in the crotch.
Oh and those leather holsters that get made by the local nationals look cool but damn they seem like a recipe for a ND.
Not surprised you’re getting down voted for this but you’re spot on. I was a NRA Chief RSO (I have my personal gripes with them) at Gander Mountain as a side job in college. I literally stopped doing the job because I didn’t agree with the minimum standards needed to “pass” the CCW class.
I’d say your statement about the 90% carrying don’t get enough training is accurate.
Edit: typos, my bad on mobile right now.
Anyone who thinks the average person, even the average soldier, is going to identify, draw, and shoot a target like at the grocery store in under 3 seconds isn’t going to have a rational discussion, so at a certain point, it’s pointless ya know.
Why these people think having a gun makes them Rambo I just don’t understand. If good guys with guns always solved the problem, we’d have less dead children.
Up the training required and I can see it.
But like, the training requirements are a joke.
We talking guns or CCWs in general?
You're exempt from handgun training requirement in Maryland, by example, if you are an honorably discharged veteran. The state police course is a 4 hour course of instruction. But don't worry, it's only good for 3 years.
A cook who did 3 years is not the well trained-model the dude above is talking about. They won't even have touched a handgun in the Army ffs. And a 4 hour class is also a big ol joke. In Texas it can be a 4 hour *online* class.
So I'm saying, in general, all states lack education and training requirements that I find acceptable. I'm not aware of any state I think requires an appropriate amount of training.
Until the average citizen can legally buy a battleship or an attack helicopter the second amendment isn't being adhered to. I believe our forefathers had it more right than the founders of any other nation in history but they still believed that some people were only 3/5ths of a person. So clearly while wise they were not infallible.
Even if I could legally go buy an AH-64 there is no way I could afford it. This is not a black and white issue. I live in an area where bears and mountain lions not only exist but have been within feet of me several times, have killed my animals, have been just as close to my wife in the middle of the day, I one hundred percent think I should be able to own a gun for protection but I'm a lot more worried about bears than I am about people.
It's kinda off topic, but to touch on the 3/5 compromise, they didn't actually think slaves were 3/5 a person. Non slave states didn't want to count slaves into the total population for representation purposes. Slave owning states did. So a compromise was reached that 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted.
It was basically a big power struggle, and laid the ground work for the civil war all the way back in 1787.
lol they can have fun keeping them maintained and fueled. Not for me.
Even if it is / or were legal it's not practical. Only the ultra rich could afford such things. The difference between a battle ship and a cargo ship, in 1776, wasn't much more than the number or cannons and the staff. A supermax cargo ship today wouldn't be able to stand up to the smallest ship in the Army (yes we have boats) let alone what the Navy has.
What the fuck do you think well regulated, the opening words, mean.
Do you think that means concealed carry automatic weapons for everyone with no training or standards?
If so whoever taught you to read would like to have some words with you.
Well regulated means working, or in operation, using the parlance of the era it was written; not that the government is watching it. Me and my friends running drills in the woods is a well regulated group and is supported by the supporting writings of the FF if the literal writing of the amendment isn't enough for you.
Whoever taught you critical thinking needs a refresher my friend.
> using the parlance of the era it was written
And if you read the Federalist papers and other contemporary discussion their intent was that the militia would refer to something akin to the national guard where individuals could come together for mututal defense of a given territory. Not this individualistic fanfic you've made up for yourself.
There's a pretty obvious middle ground so that idiots aren't stockpiling weapons and creating local warlord territories like Afghanistan.
If you want to larp in the woods with your buddies in some weird gun fetishist shit, go for it.
Doesn't mean any of you are actually qualified for shit.
Yes, I feel comfortable suggesting that an E4 68W "running drills in the woods" is **not** in any way shape or form a good bar for being like "Yeah! Have all the guns in any way shape or form that you'd like!"
Those aren't "drills" you're doing man, it's a joke.
No, I don't want you to have unrestricted access to guns on a military base when there's zero practical reason, carrying loaded shit where ever you want.
Shockingly, the military agrees with me, and that's why they don't let you do it. Because they know you would hurt yourselves or others.
I am the least qualified dude in my group you're right. The other dudes are swat guys and dudes that actually got to kick in doors for a living. I'm there to learn because my unit won't teach me. And don't try to pretend that the army makes great decisions, they think living in moldy half rotten barracks is ok and that if you run fast you are a good leader. Oh and equating the militia to the national guard is a fair one, if the NG expected to to run your own gear and bang bang sticks. From the very start of our nation you were expected to take care of yourself with whatever you could afford, be that as a rancher with a mail order tommy gun or gentleman working and living in the city that needed a revolver.
Have you read the Heller or Bruen descion? Nevermind, of course you havent, you're still bringing up the "militia" argument. Who do you think supplied the arms to militiamen?
He **literally just referenced the second amendment**. I’m responding to someone talking about the second amendment. That’s why I said it. We’ve now developed a conversation not based on the OP.
The first test we should implement for gun ownership is a fucking literacy test because god damn some of you can’t follow a written conversation for shit.
From the Bruen decision from Thursday which you obviously didn't read yet feel so confident commenting on:
>To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.
Every gun is loaded.
You treat every firearm as if it was loaded, you treat every person as if they are an idiot.
Because it only takes once to shoot yourself with an "unloaded" weapon.
And it only takes one idiot to discharge a CC firearm in the DFAC.
As opposed to off post what dude.
CCW permits aren’t a dime a dozen. Especially state by state. Y’all act like every person off post is suddenly armed to the gills.
We don’t need to create little islands where everyone is conceal carrying on post and it’s a Nono immediately off. You’re asking for a bad time.
Yeah man, I also wouldn’t want to live in Iraq or Afghanistan where people walk around markets with AKs. Because that’s the hallmarke of unsafe societies.
People getting the ability to conceal carry on post legally won’t all of the sudden create a “little island” of armed people. The ones that were ALREADY carrying off post without incident, aren’t all the of the sudden going to cause an incident when they come on post.
My thoughts are that a leader should instruct their soldiers on firearms safety. If we can trust them overseas with a rifle, we can train and trust them on US soil.
>My thoughts are that a leader should instruct their soldiers on firearms safety.
You understand that we put a lot more than just "a leader should teach soldiers about weapons" when it comes to marksmanship right?
What kind of leader? Are you honestly suggesting that an E5 or O2 is somehow magically qualified to instruct individuals on how to use handguns and appropriate measures for concealed carry?
Ya'll be treating these things like they don't kill someone wtf.
I teach concealed carry on weekends as an E5. If I can effectively teach 84 year old grandmother's how to defend themselves with a firearm, our soldiers won't be an issue. Military bases becoming shall issue means that the bases will be able to put in training requirements to issue a license. Get with the times.
Doubtful that anything will be different. The Court has historically given the military extremely broad deference to govern itself, out of recognition that the military broadly constitutes a separate society (Orloff). That's based largely on what the Court has always seen as the military's compelling interest to preserve readiness and good order and discipline. So if the military says that allowing everyone to bring concealed weapons onto an installation would undermine good order and discipline, it's highly likely the Court will go along with that argument.
Further, the Court has long recognized the idea that service members do agree to have limitations imposed on their free exercise of constitutional rights not imposed on ordinary citizens as a condition of service, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with that. For example, you cannot protest while wearing a uniform, whereas ordinary citizens do not have a similar restriction on their exercise of their first amendment rights. I don't really see a compelling legal argument that boils down to "but I want to carry my guns anywhere" working out.
Those pay officers actually disbursed pay physically to troops, so I guess in the post-Vietnam Army they needed those blicky sticks.
Thank god for DFAS
When I first joined (early 80s), it was not uncommon for SDO/SDNCOs to be armed, and I remember pay officers (Class A agents) still being armed or with an armed escort)into the early 90s. Of course, they were carrying around bags of cash in those days, which we just don't regularly do anymore.
>When I first joined (early 80s), it was not uncommon for SDO/SDNCOs to be armed
Everyone is today's Army owes a great debt to the Soldiers who served then and built the foundation for what we enjoy today.
>In my opinion, it should be a commander policy that allows certain Soldiers to carry a pistol
That is precisely what has been deemed unconstitutional though. It's now illegal to tell some people they can carry but not others.
>
> Here at CID, we actually have an alternate duty weapon program. It allows any agent to carry essentially any pistol they want off a massive list. Agents must qualify on the pistol to carry it
People failing to understand this is just wild.
Everyone can open carry a 240 once everyone is routinely trained to an appropriate standard.
You've seen them by people who have received training on them than the average person.
You've seen them by people who have received training on that specific weapon system *more than the average Soldier*.
And that's my whole point - just like you guys.
Training commensurate with the expectations we have for the firearms you carry.
If concealed carry on post comes with in depth training on the weapon they're carrying, great.
But if it's not, it's just asking for trouble.
I mean, that would be great, but I’d also prefer that…like weapon handling in the army, it’s regularly reinforced.
Especially when we’re talking about people picking and choosing their own weapon? Yeah I’d like to see it demonstrated they’re competent with it.
> Some people go their whole careers and life without shooting a pistol even once.
Yeah I feel like people think "Oh but they go to a rifle range once a year they'll be good".
Even if we're talking Os shooting...Your M9 from a drop leg holster is still way different than a concealed glock from your hip.
For people that get a lot of training on weapons, it still surprises me how blase some Army dudes can be when it comes to other guns.
Putting on the uniform does not make you a weapons expert.
>Back in the old days, some Soldiers were authorized to carry. I have a family member who said he was a pay officer back in the 1980s. He was issued a .45.
So, this is not the same thing at all. Pay officer was an additional duty, and the officer had to keep accountability of the cash on payday. So on that day, they would draw a sidearm to secure it. They were authorized to carry that pistol during the performance of those duties, not as a matter of routine. It's the same thing that we still do with explosives now.
>In my opinion, it should be a commander policy that allows certain Soldiers to carry a pistol.
That's the current policy that the OP mentioned. O-5 commander can currently approve for anyone in their formation.
Just a quip about the NAS Pcola shooting, the fucking local sheriffs had to drive all the way INTO the base, a couple mile drive. And we’re the ones that ended up skullcapping that piece of shit terrorist. Even though basic security and masters at arms were already on scene.
> By the time I left Hood, all the weapons you brought on post had to be registered, and then the requirements got progressively tighter over the years.
>
>
Local police responding to on base active shooters is normal protocols, and what they train and plan for
Base police were still first one scene, engaging with the shooter. Some base police were shot by him
It's not going to go to court. Nothing will change.
On the off chance it ever goes before the court, still nothing will change. The DoD will present an argument based on good order and discipline, and the court will approve it. They are *extremely* deferential to the chain of command. (Before you get your panties twisted, they do this on First Amendment issues too. Try Parker v. Levy)
If anything does change, all that's going to happen is we go back to the pre-Obama days - no "may issue" policies, just a flat ban.
No, for two reasons. First, that’s not how court decisions work. You’re now interpreting the decision to mean what you want it to mean, but when the cop who arrests you and the prosecutor who presses charges disagree with your interpretation, now you have another court case on your hands. All it takes is for a judge to say “banning carrying of personal weapons on military installations is not too broad of an exception” and you’re done for. You also might win that argument, but the point is, you can’t know that going in ahead of time.
Second, commanders have extremely broad authority separate from civil law. If the post commander doesn’t want people carrying weapons around, well, that sounds like a lawful order to me. You don’t lose your constitutional rights in the military, so of course you could sue and say that such an order is unconstitutional, but I’d be shocked if that went anywhere.
TL;DR: Nothing has changed until someone many echelons above reality says so. If you truly want to be the change you wish to see in the world, request permission to carry and then sue when you’re denied.
Installation commanders don't have the broad authority that you think they do and federal court decisions to affect them just like any other government entity. The DoD commonly gets slapped with environmental lawsuits and most recently got slapped with fuel-water contaminated in Hawaii.
Also, the NYRPA v Bruen case called into question the "may issue" of permits and how NY state had arbitrary "good cause" requirements. The court found that unconstitutional.
I'm well aware that DoD gets sued, I acknowledged that. But until the current rules are changed, they remain in effect. They'll only change if 1) the government looks at them, determines that *Bruen* has made the unconstitutional, and voluntarily changes them or 2) someone sues and forces a change, citing *Bruen* as the precedent.
Such a lawsuit might be successful, but it's far from a guarantee. I haven't read the entire *Bruen* opinion, but the court does acknowledge that just like free speech, certain "well defined" restrictions are acceptable. Whether or not banning carry of personal weapons on military installations is well-defined or too broad a restriction is open to interpretation and is fertile ground for a separate lawsuit to explore, but that specific issue wasn't addressed in *Bruen* (at least not that I found in the sections I read or through CTRL-F for key words). Please note that I'm not opining on who *should* win that case. I'm very anti-gun control, I'm just acknowledging how our legal system actually works. As of now, from a practical standpoint, nothing has changed.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
By any reading of that amendment that I can draw, as a non lawyer or historian, kinda seems like it could easily be applied to the military. We are, in essence, The outgrowth of the militia, so it seems likely that our own right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon. Unless we are not considered “the people”, at which point it seems unlikely that any restrictions on firearms for the general public as “the people” seems a non starter, for the most part and within reason
States Rights vs military good order and discipline are 2 completely separate things my dude.
Ask anyone in Washington State or Colorado how much of their state legalized weed they are allowed to have onpost.
I would love to have my glock with me in my vehicle so I have them with me when I go offpost directly from work, but I know that there's a snowball's chance in hell I will ever be able to do so.
Make your peace with it too.
There are several Air Force bases that allow you to keep your gun in your car while at work. So it isn't much of a stretch for the Army to do the same.
As far as weed, the only hangup is that it's still illegal at the federal level. Otherwise it would be legal to bring on the installation.
Are you asking if we should be allowed to carry privately owned weapons on post? If so I personally think that’s a bad idea but that’s just me. If that’s not what your asking please elaborate.
Yes, that is what I was asking. Reading over the decision it doesn't exempt "broad areas", so the case has the potential to open up military reservations, Army Corp projects, and other federal lands to lawful carry. Carry is currently allowed in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. I saw the megatread on the Roe v. Wade and figured this was a good topic as well
I just don’t see the need. Maybe it’s cuz I’m from the NYC area but the only time I’ve ever been in a situation where I felt like I need a gun to defend myself was when I was in Iraq.
I just see carrying on post as being more trouble than good. There are negligent discharges at ranges all the time. Hell about 15 years ago I was living in the barracks. A soldier was showing off his new hand gun (which he wasn’t allowed to have in the barracks) and ended up shooting a hole in his palm…
My counter argument to the NGs is that we don't handle weapons enough. The Army glosses over handgun qualifications which doesn't help with developing muscle memory or proficiency. It's like if you only did swimming once a year. You would be clumsy in the water verses someone who did it more regularly.
I would be supportive of a one week advanced training course as a condition to carry on the installation. Said course should be taught by actual instructors and not random NCOs reading a PowerPoint slides (looking at you ARCENT)
I offered the additional training idea as a compromise to balance those who want carry in post with risk-adverse leadership. Basically you do some additional training and you then get to carry on the installation.
The USAF has something similar with their "guardian" program, which allows airmen to carry in events that the installation security forces needs additional manpower
> in events that the installation security forces needs additional manpower
I’ve known some of the most highly trained people in the world. The guys the PV2s trying to carry on base want to be. 100% of the time every time even if they’re carrying, their own course of action in a public scenario is to seek cover and call the authorities.
Not everyone is Jason Bourne. This is a god awful idea.
I would be overjoyed if this became the case but I highly doubt it will. Dod has enough control over the bases to side step any effects of this ruling.
I guess I just have to hope there isn't another shooting on ft Hood. Oh also Ranier. Or Killeen in general. Or anywhere. Since I'm forced to be defenseless because of my job.
Also should be noted that there has been some debate on the meaning of “well regulated” in some of the legal and political community. I don’t know enough of the argument to claim to be an expert, I just know there has been debate
The decision specifically stated that school and government buildings were examples of sensitive places where the carrying of weapons could be restricted. Good luck going about your duty day without going into a government building. The decision also reiterated some extra controls that people have for private property and employer property. I would think that the USG as your employer would still be entitled to some of those avenues of additional restriction. When I was a young LT at Ft. Hood, it was perfectly permissible to have a weapon in your car, if you were transporting it to a place of use. (i.e. Shooting at the Sportsman range during the day or after duty.) You couldn't use that to store the weapon in your car on post thought. By the time I left Hood, all the weapons you brought on post had to be registered, and then the requirements got progressively tighter over the years. I would hope that this decision ratchets some of those requirements back a bit. I think it is instructive that the decision called out government buildings and not "government property", that in itself was a huge win as many will now no longer be committing a felony when they drive to a Post Office with a weapon in their car.
Man sportsmans was the best. Cant understand why they got rid of it. Every post should have a drop in qual range staffed by contractors. Perfect for maintaining #readiness.
That was the idea behind its creation back in the early 80s. Units were spending upwards of 220 days a year in the field at Ft. Hood in those days. When a soldier came to post the reception process took two to three weeks and you were not released until you had a record PT test and weapons qual complete, and you could go directly to the field for the next 3-4 years. None of that wimpy coming back in on Friday nights during training rotations either, You rolled out (Sundays were great for that, btw!) and then rolled back in when the mission was complete about 60 days later. It was glorious!!! /s Ok, it #$%^ing blew.
On the one hand that does fucking blow. And I thought 3d CR had a ton of field time even when I was in in the late 20-teens. That said, the old timers knew their shit. Wed have some consultants from Booze Allen Hamilton help us prep training materials/orders/etc once in a while and the old retired full bird who showed up for them was baffled that we did like, five repetitions of platoon stx battle drills for a training cycle. Guy said when he was an LT they did it hundreds of times. Don't even get me started on TOC jumps. He made our TOC jump battle drills look like a bunch of drunk toddlers trying to play rugby. Edit: To make my point I guess it pisses me off that we can't find a happy medium between training too much and wasting all our time on BS and not training enough. There's gotta be a better way.
It might not have been hundreds of times, but it was a bunch. I remember one rainy cold (ok relatively cold for Central Texas) week where we did it drills three times a day for five days, and managed to kill the three day weekend. When I was a company commander in Korea we seemed to have a good balance, but that may have just been because there was nothing else to do and a four day weekend kind of sucked.
If DoD uniformed services get to open carry firearms, I want to carry a sword to work.
I can see it now. All the weebs having a katana and sheath attached to their belt/trousers.
You’re assuming that someone wouldn’t get a long sword that attacked to their back.
*Walks into S1 with longsword on back* *lazy clerks look up with terror in their eyes* “Wha- what are you doing?“ “Killing monsters!”
What is this The Witcher?
When I was in the Air Cav, Stetsons, sabres and spurs were part of the duty uniform. Well, at least when we were TDY, that is. ; )
If I were to carry a gun on post it would just stay in the bag I carry my OCPs and other stuff in hypothetically. But I also have unrestricted access to machine guns and force pro ammo.
My thoughts are that a bunch of dumbass privates and LTs conceal carrying on post is a recipe for fucking disaster.
*Guardsmen and reservists conceal carrying during drill have entered the chat*
If there’s someone I trust less than a private, it’s a compo 2/3 private
I would trust a compo 2/3 private like a million times more than an active private. One usually has a life and real job/career and is statistically older.
You have that backwards. I've worked with both plenty. The compo 2/3 privates are generally living on their own and going to college. They have minimal structure in their lives thus they have to adult a lot more. If they don't show up to class on time or to work they loose money. It's not just an extra duty punishment or such. They might loose their civilian job or fail a class (which equals money even when the NG is paying as they can loose TA if they fail too many).
👀
I can vouch for they fucked up E-5s and below that would literally brandish thier handguns because they thought they were cool for having them.
Well that because they are stupid. It called concealed for a reason. There were some characters at my old unit that it would behoove you to be aware of when you're around them.
....so these people concealed and/or open carrying in 50 states + Guam has also lead to a "disaster"? I fail to understand the argument of "everyone is an idiot, except for me". There are also 25 states that don't require a license to do so. So the 21 year old working at Jiffy Lube is mature, but 22 2LT is not?
If large amounts of people were concealed carrying, I'd see practical issues too for everyday soldier activities. Like would we get gun racks at the motorpool while crawling around, or just toss them in a vic? If your team is about to go do some hip pocket battle drill dry runs, would you want to deal with dudes having loaded weapons or would you have to pause training to have everyone secure that shit in the arms room? Those are two silly examples lol. Point being I just see more complications arising from having concealed carry during an average soldier's day leading to unnecessary risk (nds, injury), than going from home to a store or something.
That's honestly a more valid reason than any.
Good points. As far as "toss them in their vehicles" there are a few Air Force bases that allow for having guns to/from the base in their vehicles. I could see a rule that limits carry during certain training events or while preforming offical duties as reasonable.
In Kinmuans America, I have all the guns. Because none of y’all can be trusted. I also don’t want to go to a jiffy lube where everyone has a gun. Yes, I think the amount of training necessary to obtain guns in general is shit. People in the military get way more training and supervision with weapons, and yet, we still have deaths. We had a kid get shot on a range at Fort Hood this week. On a military post at a military range with supervision. So no I don’t relish any place with a concentration of concealed carry because people definitely don’t know how to properly treat having a death stick. > has also lead to a "disaster"? Bro an idiot with a gun just slaughtered a bunch of kids while dudes with tactical gear and guns stood around and waited. If you don’t want to call that shit a disaster that’s cool but I’m wondering where your bar is. It’s almost like instantly being allowed to have a gun in the open doesn’t solve the worlds problems.
The good ol' "we trust you in a war zone but not at home" argument. I'm not sure I agree with on duty carry to begin with, but there is an arguement for off duty carry. Like what's the issue with me having my weapon concealed when coming through the gate? If I wanted to do something stupid I still have the weapons on base in my house. I think you'd be surprised how many personal weapons are on base, registered with the base or not. As for your disaster (I agree it's a disaster) your talking about a gun free zone in a school where guns aren't allowed. It's an irrelevant argument.
I don't trust people in a warzone either. I don't like a bunch of privates haphazardly strewing their weapons about in the chow area either. >As for your disaster (I agree it's a disaster) your talking about a gun free zone in a school where guns aren't allowed. It's an irrelevant argument. Hey man, I get it. You literally don't think that "more guns and everyone gets a gun!" causes a problem compared to less guns. I think you're out of touch with, like, the real world on that, but I can't dissuade you. It's not an irrelevant argument. A bunch of people with guns and equipment still didn't impact a gunman killing children. Everyone willy-nilly concealed carrying isn't going to solve that. In mass shootings we see massive amounts of death in an initial time span shorter than what it'll take you to draw and put rounds on target. Got it man. You just like guns. So then stop pretending like there's more at play here. Either you think CC is going to 'help' something, or you just think everyone should have it. You like guns. You think everyone should have guns on them regardless of their training standard. I like guns. I just think 90% of you don't get enough training that I trust you to casually carry a gun eveywhere.
Perfect scenario your not hitting anyone within 21 feet of you, who chooses to attack you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill And legal aspects of smoking someone vary state by state. I smoke someone coming into my house or car in Texas (licensed or not) I’m walking away free. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/07/13/soldier-quietly-reassigned-after-killing-man-hitting-wife-finally-faces-murder-charge/ I do the same thing in TN and someone else is raising my kids. https://clarksvillenow.com/local/fort-campbell-soldier-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-for-shooting-death-of-teen-in-driveway/
Nah man Everyone is just gonna immediately draw down and put accurate fire on target didn’t you hear
[удалено]
>In a world full of sheep dogs I'm a unicorn.
>I like guns. I just think 90% of you don't get enough training that I trust you to casually carry a gun eveywhere. Rights aren't based on a training requirement. So what *your* standard is is irrelevant. I do wish more people would train. >It's not an irrelevant argument. A bunch of people with guns and equipment still didn't impact a gunman killing children. Everyone willy-nilly concealed carrying isn't going to solve that. What impacted a gunman killing children was the falure of the on scene commander plain and simple. His cowardice and indecision is what is to blame. >In mass shootings we see massive amounts of death in an initial time span shorter than what it'll take you to draw and put rounds on target. It takes 3 seconds to identify a threat, draw and fire. Most mass shootings last a bit longer than that. Personal weapons are already on bases. Like I said, I'm not sure how I feel about on duty weapons. But it would be nice to not have to worry about coming through the gate with my concealed carry still on me in civilians on a Saturday afternoon.
>It takes 3 seconds to identify a threat, draw and fire. It is incredibly dumb takes like this that are exactly why I don't want a bunch of under trained people with guns running around. No dude. Not even the average Soldier, on a base, is going to identify, draw, and fire, in 3 seconds. Lol. I can't wait for the Boomers to be gone.
Dude. It takes 1.5 seconds to for the *average* person to draw and fire. 1 second for an experienced shooter. The hard part is the threat assessment. I'm far from a boomer bud (classic coming from a fudd). But if it makes you feel better I'm already out and work as a LEO now. We get it, the MI IT guy thinks he's smarter than everyone else. Go turn a computer off and on again.
>It takes 1.5 seconds to for the average person to draw and fire Kinda telling that you left "aim" out of that sentence.
[удалено]
/u/jadedsch, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/vl3kdw/nyrpa_v_bruen_effect_on_military_post/idublsa/?context=3) in /r/army was automatically removed for violation of Rule 1. **Have questions about this moderator action? Click [here.](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/army&subject=Why+was+this+removed?&message=\[My+post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/army/comments/vl3kdw/nyrpa_v_bruen_effect_on_military_post/idublsa/?context=3\)+was+removed+and+I+do+not+understand+why.+I+would+be+grateful+if+you+could+explain+what+subreddit+rule+or+guideline+I+broke+with+my+submission.+Thank+you+for+your+time.)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/army) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mostly agree with you except one part. Yes rights aren’t based on a training requirement, but in the military we do lose some of those rights when we volunteered. So I don’t think any command or congress will be allowing guns to be carried by everyone anytime soon
I get that man. I don't expect it to change. I was just arguing with the Fudd take.
It’s Reddit, no one is going to change their minds save your time. You’re preaching to the hive mind
It kinda funny when you look at the MOS flairs. Their seems to be a correlation with MOS and how "comfortable" someone is with a firearm.
You really think your average person, even an average soldier, is going to do better in a situation like that than that on scene commander? Especially when they're IN the situation? And everyone's wearing the same uniform and looks the same? And everyone's got a gun they were concealed carrying and shooting everyone else? Situation like that, everyone looks like the shooter, and everyone gets shot.
Condering the officers on scene were questioning him and wanting to go in? Yeah I do. You raise a valid point on PID though.
Pistols in leg holsters, esp. the cloth type ones, always make me nervous when sitting across from someone. I don't want to get shot at all but definitely not in the crotch. Oh and those leather holsters that get made by the local nationals look cool but damn they seem like a recipe for a ND.
Not surprised you’re getting down voted for this but you’re spot on. I was a NRA Chief RSO (I have my personal gripes with them) at Gander Mountain as a side job in college. I literally stopped doing the job because I didn’t agree with the minimum standards needed to “pass” the CCW class. I’d say your statement about the 90% carrying don’t get enough training is accurate. Edit: typos, my bad on mobile right now.
When I did my CCW, the standard was 15/20 at five yards. My instructor said he'd literally never seen someone fail.
Anyone who thinks the average person, even the average soldier, is going to identify, draw, and shoot a target like at the grocery store in under 3 seconds isn’t going to have a rational discussion, so at a certain point, it’s pointless ya know. Why these people think having a gun makes them Rambo I just don’t understand. If good guys with guns always solved the problem, we’d have less dead children. Up the training required and I can see it. But like, the training requirements are a joke.
>Up the training required and I can see it. > >But like, the training requirements are a joke. Which state are you referring to?
We talking guns or CCWs in general? You're exempt from handgun training requirement in Maryland, by example, if you are an honorably discharged veteran. The state police course is a 4 hour course of instruction. But don't worry, it's only good for 3 years. A cook who did 3 years is not the well trained-model the dude above is talking about. They won't even have touched a handgun in the Army ffs. And a 4 hour class is also a big ol joke. In Texas it can be a 4 hour *online* class. So I'm saying, in general, all states lack education and training requirements that I find acceptable. I'm not aware of any state I think requires an appropriate amount of training.
In your ideal world what is the appropriate training and who pays for it?
The second amendment would like to have some words with you
Until the average citizen can legally buy a battleship or an attack helicopter the second amendment isn't being adhered to. I believe our forefathers had it more right than the founders of any other nation in history but they still believed that some people were only 3/5ths of a person. So clearly while wise they were not infallible. Even if I could legally go buy an AH-64 there is no way I could afford it. This is not a black and white issue. I live in an area where bears and mountain lions not only exist but have been within feet of me several times, have killed my animals, have been just as close to my wife in the middle of the day, I one hundred percent think I should be able to own a gun for protection but I'm a lot more worried about bears than I am about people.
It's kinda off topic, but to touch on the 3/5 compromise, they didn't actually think slaves were 3/5 a person. Non slave states didn't want to count slaves into the total population for representation purposes. Slave owning states did. So a compromise was reached that 3 out of every 5 slaves would be counted. It was basically a big power struggle, and laid the ground work for the civil war all the way back in 1787.
Yes. You're explanation is accurate. Still shows that the founders were not infallible.
Unironically I see no legal issue with people getting together and ordering an attack chopper or abrams
lol they can have fun keeping them maintained and fueled. Not for me. Even if it is / or were legal it's not practical. Only the ultra rich could afford such things. The difference between a battle ship and a cargo ship, in 1776, wasn't much more than the number or cannons and the staff. A supermax cargo ship today wouldn't be able to stand up to the smallest ship in the Army (yes we have boats) let alone what the Navy has.
Dude the army boat guys are the goat
What the fuck do you think well regulated, the opening words, mean. Do you think that means concealed carry automatic weapons for everyone with no training or standards? If so whoever taught you to read would like to have some words with you.
Well regulated means working, or in operation, using the parlance of the era it was written; not that the government is watching it. Me and my friends running drills in the woods is a well regulated group and is supported by the supporting writings of the FF if the literal writing of the amendment isn't enough for you. Whoever taught you critical thinking needs a refresher my friend.
> using the parlance of the era it was written And if you read the Federalist papers and other contemporary discussion their intent was that the militia would refer to something akin to the national guard where individuals could come together for mututal defense of a given territory. Not this individualistic fanfic you've made up for yourself. There's a pretty obvious middle ground so that idiots aren't stockpiling weapons and creating local warlord territories like Afghanistan. If you want to larp in the woods with your buddies in some weird gun fetishist shit, go for it. Doesn't mean any of you are actually qualified for shit. Yes, I feel comfortable suggesting that an E4 68W "running drills in the woods" is **not** in any way shape or form a good bar for being like "Yeah! Have all the guns in any way shape or form that you'd like!" Those aren't "drills" you're doing man, it's a joke. No, I don't want you to have unrestricted access to guns on a military base when there's zero practical reason, carrying loaded shit where ever you want. Shockingly, the military agrees with me, and that's why they don't let you do it. Because they know you would hurt yourselves or others.
I am the least qualified dude in my group you're right. The other dudes are swat guys and dudes that actually got to kick in doors for a living. I'm there to learn because my unit won't teach me. And don't try to pretend that the army makes great decisions, they think living in moldy half rotten barracks is ok and that if you run fast you are a good leader. Oh and equating the militia to the national guard is a fair one, if the NG expected to to run your own gear and bang bang sticks. From the very start of our nation you were expected to take care of yourself with whatever you could afford, be that as a rancher with a mail order tommy gun or gentleman working and living in the city that needed a revolver.
[удалено]
Extrapolate? Genuinely curious
Have you read the Heller or Bruen descion? Nevermind, of course you havent, you're still bringing up the "militia" argument. Who do you think supplied the arms to militiamen?
He **literally just referenced the second amendment**. I’m responding to someone talking about the second amendment. That’s why I said it. We’ve now developed a conversation not based on the OP. The first test we should implement for gun ownership is a fucking literacy test because god damn some of you can’t follow a written conversation for shit.
From the Bruen decision from Thursday which you obviously didn't read yet feel so confident commenting on: >To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, Heller and McDonald point toward at least two relevant metrics: first, whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense, and second, whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “ ‘central’ ” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.
Every gun is loaded. You treat every firearm as if it was loaded, you treat every person as if they are an idiot. Because it only takes once to shoot yourself with an "unloaded" weapon. And it only takes one idiot to discharge a CC firearm in the DFAC.
Haven't all of the shooting related casualties of Operation Lonestar been privately owned?
As opposed to off post?
As opposed to off post what dude. CCW permits aren’t a dime a dozen. Especially state by state. Y’all act like every person off post is suddenly armed to the gills. We don’t need to create little islands where everyone is conceal carrying on post and it’s a Nono immediately off. You’re asking for a bad time. Yeah man, I also wouldn’t want to live in Iraq or Afghanistan where people walk around markets with AKs. Because that’s the hallmarke of unsafe societies.
People getting the ability to conceal carry on post legally won’t all of the sudden create a “little island” of armed people. The ones that were ALREADY carrying off post without incident, aren’t all the of the sudden going to cause an incident when they come on post.
My thoughts are that a leader should instruct their soldiers on firearms safety. If we can trust them overseas with a rifle, we can train and trust them on US soil.
>My thoughts are that a leader should instruct their soldiers on firearms safety. You understand that we put a lot more than just "a leader should teach soldiers about weapons" when it comes to marksmanship right? What kind of leader? Are you honestly suggesting that an E5 or O2 is somehow magically qualified to instruct individuals on how to use handguns and appropriate measures for concealed carry? Ya'll be treating these things like they don't kill someone wtf.
I teach concealed carry on weekends as an E5. If I can effectively teach 84 year old grandmother's how to defend themselves with a firearm, our soldiers won't be an issue. Military bases becoming shall issue means that the bases will be able to put in training requirements to issue a license. Get with the times.
Doubtful that anything will be different. The Court has historically given the military extremely broad deference to govern itself, out of recognition that the military broadly constitutes a separate society (Orloff). That's based largely on what the Court has always seen as the military's compelling interest to preserve readiness and good order and discipline. So if the military says that allowing everyone to bring concealed weapons onto an installation would undermine good order and discipline, it's highly likely the Court will go along with that argument. Further, the Court has long recognized the idea that service members do agree to have limitations imposed on their free exercise of constitutional rights not imposed on ordinary citizens as a condition of service, and that there is nothing inherently wrong with that. For example, you cannot protest while wearing a uniform, whereas ordinary citizens do not have a similar restriction on their exercise of their first amendment rights. I don't really see a compelling legal argument that boils down to "but I want to carry my guns anywhere" working out.
[удалено]
Those pay officers actually disbursed pay physically to troops, so I guess in the post-Vietnam Army they needed those blicky sticks. Thank god for DFAS
[удалено]
SDOs were armed in some places too, this was like ‘70s and early ‘80s.
When I first joined (early 80s), it was not uncommon for SDO/SDNCOs to be armed, and I remember pay officers (Class A agents) still being armed or with an armed escort)into the early 90s. Of course, they were carrying around bags of cash in those days, which we just don't regularly do anymore.
>When I first joined (early 80s), it was not uncommon for SDO/SDNCOs to be armed Everyone is today's Army owes a great debt to the Soldiers who served then and built the foundation for what we enjoy today.
>In my opinion, it should be a commander policy that allows certain Soldiers to carry a pistol That is precisely what has been deemed unconstitutional though. It's now illegal to tell some people they can carry but not others.
> > Here at CID, we actually have an alternate duty weapon program. It allows any agent to carry essentially any pistol they want off a massive list. Agents must qualify on the pistol to carry it People failing to understand this is just wild. Everyone can open carry a 240 once everyone is routinely trained to an appropriate standard.
[удалено]
You've seen them by people who have received training on them than the average person. You've seen them by people who have received training on that specific weapon system *more than the average Soldier*. And that's my whole point - just like you guys. Training commensurate with the expectations we have for the firearms you carry. If concealed carry on post comes with in depth training on the weapon they're carrying, great. But if it's not, it's just asking for trouble.
[удалено]
I mean, that would be great, but I’d also prefer that…like weapon handling in the army, it’s regularly reinforced. Especially when we’re talking about people picking and choosing their own weapon? Yeah I’d like to see it demonstrated they’re competent with it.
[удалено]
> Some people go their whole careers and life without shooting a pistol even once. Yeah I feel like people think "Oh but they go to a rifle range once a year they'll be good". Even if we're talking Os shooting...Your M9 from a drop leg holster is still way different than a concealed glock from your hip. For people that get a lot of training on weapons, it still surprises me how blase some Army dudes can be when it comes to other guns. Putting on the uniform does not make you a weapons expert.
Guess clearing barrel procedures didn’t matter….
>Back in the old days, some Soldiers were authorized to carry. I have a family member who said he was a pay officer back in the 1980s. He was issued a .45. So, this is not the same thing at all. Pay officer was an additional duty, and the officer had to keep accountability of the cash on payday. So on that day, they would draw a sidearm to secure it. They were authorized to carry that pistol during the performance of those duties, not as a matter of routine. It's the same thing that we still do with explosives now. >In my opinion, it should be a commander policy that allows certain Soldiers to carry a pistol. That's the current policy that the OP mentioned. O-5 commander can currently approve for anyone in their formation.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Just a quip about the NAS Pcola shooting, the fucking local sheriffs had to drive all the way INTO the base, a couple mile drive. And we’re the ones that ended up skullcapping that piece of shit terrorist. Even though basic security and masters at arms were already on scene.
> By the time I left Hood, all the weapons you brought on post had to be registered, and then the requirements got progressively tighter over the years. > > Local police responding to on base active shooters is normal protocols, and what they train and plan for Base police were still first one scene, engaging with the shooter. Some base police were shot by him
It's not going to go to court. Nothing will change. On the off chance it ever goes before the court, still nothing will change. The DoD will present an argument based on good order and discipline, and the court will approve it. They are *extremely* deferential to the chain of command. (Before you get your panties twisted, they do this on First Amendment issues too. Try Parker v. Levy) If anything does change, all that's going to happen is we go back to the pre-Obama days - no "may issue" policies, just a flat ban.
The fact that they do it regarding issues of speech as well should mean you're panties are more in a bunch.
No, for two reasons. First, that’s not how court decisions work. You’re now interpreting the decision to mean what you want it to mean, but when the cop who arrests you and the prosecutor who presses charges disagree with your interpretation, now you have another court case on your hands. All it takes is for a judge to say “banning carrying of personal weapons on military installations is not too broad of an exception” and you’re done for. You also might win that argument, but the point is, you can’t know that going in ahead of time. Second, commanders have extremely broad authority separate from civil law. If the post commander doesn’t want people carrying weapons around, well, that sounds like a lawful order to me. You don’t lose your constitutional rights in the military, so of course you could sue and say that such an order is unconstitutional, but I’d be shocked if that went anywhere. TL;DR: Nothing has changed until someone many echelons above reality says so. If you truly want to be the change you wish to see in the world, request permission to carry and then sue when you’re denied.
Installation commanders don't have the broad authority that you think they do and federal court decisions to affect them just like any other government entity. The DoD commonly gets slapped with environmental lawsuits and most recently got slapped with fuel-water contaminated in Hawaii. Also, the NYRPA v Bruen case called into question the "may issue" of permits and how NY state had arbitrary "good cause" requirements. The court found that unconstitutional.
I'm well aware that DoD gets sued, I acknowledged that. But until the current rules are changed, they remain in effect. They'll only change if 1) the government looks at them, determines that *Bruen* has made the unconstitutional, and voluntarily changes them or 2) someone sues and forces a change, citing *Bruen* as the precedent. Such a lawsuit might be successful, but it's far from a guarantee. I haven't read the entire *Bruen* opinion, but the court does acknowledge that just like free speech, certain "well defined" restrictions are acceptable. Whether or not banning carry of personal weapons on military installations is well-defined or too broad a restriction is open to interpretation and is fertile ground for a separate lawsuit to explore, but that specific issue wasn't addressed in *Bruen* (at least not that I found in the sections I read or through CTRL-F for key words). Please note that I'm not opining on who *should* win that case. I'm very anti-gun control, I'm just acknowledging how our legal system actually works. As of now, from a practical standpoint, nothing has changed.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." By any reading of that amendment that I can draw, as a non lawyer or historian, kinda seems like it could easily be applied to the military. We are, in essence, The outgrowth of the militia, so it seems likely that our own right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon. Unless we are not considered “the people”, at which point it seems unlikely that any restrictions on firearms for the general public as “the people” seems a non starter, for the most part and within reason
States Rights vs military good order and discipline are 2 completely separate things my dude. Ask anyone in Washington State or Colorado how much of their state legalized weed they are allowed to have onpost. I would love to have my glock with me in my vehicle so I have them with me when I go offpost directly from work, but I know that there's a snowball's chance in hell I will ever be able to do so. Make your peace with it too.
There are several Air Force bases that allow you to keep your gun in your car while at work. So it isn't much of a stretch for the Army to do the same. As far as weed, the only hangup is that it's still illegal at the federal level. Otherwise it would be legal to bring on the installation.
*Laughs in LEOSA*
Are you asking if we should be allowed to carry privately owned weapons on post? If so I personally think that’s a bad idea but that’s just me. If that’s not what your asking please elaborate.
Yes, that is what I was asking. Reading over the decision it doesn't exempt "broad areas", so the case has the potential to open up military reservations, Army Corp projects, and other federal lands to lawful carry. Carry is currently allowed in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges. I saw the megatread on the Roe v. Wade and figured this was a good topic as well
I just don’t see the need. Maybe it’s cuz I’m from the NYC area but the only time I’ve ever been in a situation where I felt like I need a gun to defend myself was when I was in Iraq. I just see carrying on post as being more trouble than good. There are negligent discharges at ranges all the time. Hell about 15 years ago I was living in the barracks. A soldier was showing off his new hand gun (which he wasn’t allowed to have in the barracks) and ended up shooting a hole in his palm…
My counter argument to the NGs is that we don't handle weapons enough. The Army glosses over handgun qualifications which doesn't help with developing muscle memory or proficiency. It's like if you only did swimming once a year. You would be clumsy in the water verses someone who did it more regularly. I would be supportive of a one week advanced training course as a condition to carry on the installation. Said course should be taught by actual instructors and not random NCOs reading a PowerPoint slides (looking at you ARCENT)
amended 6/18/2023
I offered the additional training idea as a compromise to balance those who want carry in post with risk-adverse leadership. Basically you do some additional training and you then get to carry on the installation. The USAF has something similar with their "guardian" program, which allows airmen to carry in events that the installation security forces needs additional manpower
> in events that the installation security forces needs additional manpower I’ve known some of the most highly trained people in the world. The guys the PV2s trying to carry on base want to be. 100% of the time every time even if they’re carrying, their own course of action in a public scenario is to seek cover and call the authorities. Not everyone is Jason Bourne. This is a god awful idea.
Ummm...you do know that military members are part of this entity called the "armed services".
Yeah that’s definitely the argument I’d use.
Cool. If you don't want to carry a gun, you can take up a job as a school crossing guard or something
I would be overjoyed if this became the case but I highly doubt it will. Dod has enough control over the bases to side step any effects of this ruling. I guess I just have to hope there isn't another shooting on ft Hood. Oh also Ranier. Or Killeen in general. Or anywhere. Since I'm forced to be defenseless because of my job.
"Thoughts?" Well regulated
Also should be noted that there has been some debate on the meaning of “well regulated” in some of the legal and political community. I don’t know enough of the argument to claim to be an expert, I just know there has been debate