Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Will we end up arming all the spouses who have rank by marriage as well?

Do they have proper conceal carry permits?

I do not think arming troops off the bat is a great idea.
Training the living crap out of them and hammering in them a strict set of ROE then I agree
Also there needs to be a clear defining line between where the Armed S/M responsibilities ends and where the LEO responsibilities begin

I'm going to use D-USA location on where he got his CCL(?) permit
Recruiting station across from the Sheriff office in a mall.

ROE are going to vary too much by environment to matter... and given the amount (and levels) of alcohol and drug consumption in the Armed Forces, having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

 Psienesis wrote:
having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

Has anyone proposed this yet?

Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?

 Psienesis wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe it is indeed a rule not to wear your uniform while not on duty.

Of course I think the rule is either poorly enforced or the definition of "on duty" is quite flexible and extends to lunch breaks at In-n-out.

Sort of correct. Depends on where you are stationed and the orders of the Post Commander.

As to arming soldiers stationed CONUS 24/7? That's fething terribly stupid. We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.

Again - the Israelis do it with conscripts and don't have that problem. This seems very similar to the "blood running in the streets!" tale perpetuated by anti-gun supremacists every time gun-rights legislation is passed, and it never turns out to be true.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

Has anyone proposed this yet?

Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?

Rule 1 of being an NCO
"You will always have that one idiot that will do it"
Rule 2 of being an NCO
"Nothing is Idiot Proof"

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

Has anyone proposed this yet?

Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?

Totally legal under PA's carry laws, fwiw.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

Has anyone proposed this yet?

Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?

Totally legal under PA's carry laws, fwiw.

As an aside if I recall Indiana is the same. But I'm curious ad to what the UCMJ says on the matter

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

Has anyone proposed this yet?

Also are there any UCMJ rules against the handling of firearms while under the influence?

Folks like me wanting troops to be allowed to carry concealed IF they have the permit would tell you there are laws against carrying while under the influence (or drinking while carrying). I would fully expect an active duty trooper to abide by the law as do civilians, or get punished according to the law (if off post) or by the UCMJ (article 134 at a minimum) if on post.

Here in NC:

(c2) It shall be unlawful for a person, with or without a permit, to carry a concealed handgun while consuming alcohol or at any time while the person has remaining in the person's body any alcohol or in the person's blood a controlled substance previously consumed, but a person does not violate this condition if a controlled substance in the person's blood was lawfully obtained and taken in therapeutically appropriate amounts or if the person is on the person's own property.

So here's a question - CptJake, how do you feel about active duty personnel carrying if they don't have a carry permit, in states where open carry without a permit is legal?

For example, it is perfectly legal to open carry in PA outside of Philadelphia and perhaps Pittsburgh. I've never seen anybody do it, and it would probably result in a call to the cops, but it is legal. Since civilians can do it, should AD military in open carry states be able to OC in uniform on post / base?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
I believe it is indeed a rule not to wear your uniform while not on duty.

Of course I think the rule is either poorly enforced or the definition of "on duty" is quite flexible and extends to lunch breaks at In-n-out.

Sort of correct. Depends on where you are stationed and the orders of the Post Commander.

As to arming soldiers stationed CONUS 24/7? That's fething terribly stupid. We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.

Again - the Israelis do it with conscripts and don't have that problem. This seems very similar to the "blood running in the streets!" tale perpetuated by anti-gun supremacists every time gun-rights legislation is passed, and it never turns out to be true.

I'm not an "anti-gun supremacist", whatever-the-feth that is supposed to be.

I am, however, an Army veteran, and can tell you that a lot of these yahoos need help putting their boots on the right damn feet in the morning.

Folks like me wanting troops to be allowed to carry concealed IF they have the permit would tell you there are laws against carrying while under the influence (or drinking while carrying). I would fully expect an active duty trooper to abide by the law as do civilians, or get punished according to the law (if off post) or by the UCMJ (article 134 at a minimum) if on post.

The issue weapon for an active duty soldier is an assault rifle, not a sidearm. The majority of enlisted soldiers are never issued sidearms in the first place, it's not part of their kit or function. Given that it will be done in the most cost-effective method (assuming, for sake of argument, that it does happen), what you will have is not a bunch of soldiers going around with hidden 9mm pistols but, rather, loaded M-16s over their shoulders. This is a weapon lethal out to several hundred yards. In the event that something happens, you will be turning wherever this is going on into a free-fire zone... and, making things perhaps more complicated, in the moment, it may be impossible to tell if Person A who is firing is the bad guy, a bystander, or one of the good guys, especially if there's a mix of attire present (people in civvies, people in uniform, people in Class As, people in Class Bs, people in BDUs, etc.).

Given that the scenario has just gone from "another day at the PX" to "active shooter(s)" with potentially-scores of people involved, you've got such a cross-fire going on that while, yes, it is likely the actual perpetrator of the crime is going to be killed, there is an extremely-elevated risk of friendly fire incidents, since those involved and shooting are not going to be certain that the people they're shooting at are also not trying to shoot back at them. Add to that a number of people running to and fro for cover, or attempting inexpert E&E maneuvers, or attempting to line up a shot at a perceived target (potentially erroneous), with 99% of the people involved not at all knowing what the hell is going on, this is simply a recipe for disaster.

 Psienesis wrote:


I'm not an "anti-gun supremacist", whatever-the-feth that is supposed to be.

I am, however, an Army veteran, and can tell you that a lot of these yahoos need help putting their boots on the right damn feet in the morning.

Excellent, and I'm an IDF veteran. And in the IDF, thousands of 18-21 year old male and female conscripts manage to carry automatic weapons and ammunition on base, through public transportation systems, to the beach, and into their homes, all without incident.

If they can do it, why can't our professional, volunteer military pull it off?

Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".

 Psienesis wrote:
Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".

Which still shouldn't preclude running a tight ship. Thats kinda the point of training isn't it?

Its a "trust" thing

Also if we have armed troops going around their daily lives on and off duty packing heat its pretty much saying we're in a combat zone. People will get the idea that the US Military is viewing them as a "threat"

Israel and US of A is two different animal.

 Psienesis wrote:
Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".

Fair enough.

My only response to that is that conscript, everywhere, means "parents didn't have enough money to pay off a doctor to medically disqualify you."


I'm not saying that professional, volunteer military organizations are entirely devoid of scumbags. My point is that other nations' militaries, that are working with far less average quality in terms of bodies-left-after-selection, manage to arm soldiers on and off duty without the apocalypse that you say is an inevitability of arming people who are armed for a living.

Indeed. But I mean, in most areas the civilians have a right to be armed. Why can't the service men and women also have that right if they so desire?

And military installations of all kinds should have some weaponry available, that's just a logical idea.

 Jihadin wrote:
Its a "trust" thing

Also if we have armed troops going around their daily lives on and off duty packing heat its pretty much saying we're in a combat zone. People will get the idea that the US Military is viewing them as a "threat"

Israel and US of A is two different animal.

This is a fair point. In Israel, your parents were soldiers, your friends and siblings are soldiers, and your children will be soldiers (or sailors, or border police, or domestic police if they are Russian). I used to routinely hitchhike in uniform with kitbag and M4 in tow. If I stood out on a street in the US with an M4 on my shoulder, I'm pretty sure the only ride I'd get would be in the back of some donutpounder's squad car.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
Because, here, "professional" means "gets paid" and "voluntary" usually means "had no other options after high school".

Which still shouldn't preclude running a tight ship. Thats kinda the point of training isn't it?

US Army Basic Training is 8 weeks long. Most of it is not specifically range-time or tactical awareness. A lot of it is D&C, Army academia (rank structure & recognition, terms of address, etc). You get maybe three days on HTH Combat (including bayonet usage), a day on deploying a Claymore mine, about a week with your '16, basic map-reading and orienteering, basic first aid/combat life-saving, and some basic survival skills (foraging, water-gathering, shelter-building, etc), a day or two on using hand grenades, and a day on commo. The rest is physical training, marches, NBC training, with an obstacle course/survival camp/night fire exercise at the end to sum it all up. Then you graduate and go to AIT to learn what you will actually be doing for the Army, and might not touch a weapon again the rest of your military career.

Your duty station will determine how tight a ship your unit is. Lots of units that are not Combat Arms MOS units are... a lot like living in a frat in college. Most units in the Army, even CA ones, are basically 9-5 jobs, outside of combat AOs. You get up at 6 AM, you go to PT, you go shower and hit the DFAC for breakfast, you report for duty at 9 AM. In most cases, you're off at 4:30 PM and have the rest of the night pretty much to yourself, unless you pulled KP or CQ or some other role on the duty roster that day.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
So here's a question - CptJake, how do you feel about active duty personnel carrying if they don't have a carry permit, in states where open carry without a permit is legal?

For example, it is perfectly legal to open carry in PA outside of Philadelphia and perhaps Pittsburgh. I've never seen anybody do it, and it would probably result in a call to the cops, but it is legal. Since civilians can do it, should AD military in open carry states be able to OC in uniform on post / base?

I would say 'no' and for the simple reason that 'in uniform' implies exactly that, in uniform. I have yet to see where the daily duty uniform allows a guy to have a holster strapped on, unless he/she is an MP or in a similar role where the holster is part of the uniform. Hell, gals are restricted to the type/color of purse they can carry and all are restricted to the types of personal backpack/laptop case they can carry.

But I've lived in open carry places (like Arizona) and seen military and civilians in civilian clothes carry openly off post. Heck, saw a guy last weekend here in NC open carrying. I'm not a fan of open carry for a variety of reasons, but if it is legal, go for it.

But in uniform? It seems to break the uniform part of that. Which is one of the many reasons I'm more for conceal carry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Psienesis wrote:

Folks like me wanting troops to be allowed to carry concealed IF they have the permit would tell you there are laws against carrying while under the influence (or drinking while carrying). I would fully expect an active duty trooper to abide by the law as do civilians, or get punished according to the law (if off post) or by the UCMJ (article 134 at a minimum) if on post.

The issue weapon for an active duty soldier is an assault rifle, not a sidearm. The majority of enlisted soldiers are never issued sidearms in the first place, it's not part of their kit or function. Given that it will be done in the most cost-effective method (assuming, for sake of argument, that it does happen), what you will have is not a bunch of soldiers going around with hidden 9mm pistols but, rather, loaded M-16s over their shoulders. This is a weapon lethal out to several hundred yards. In the event that something happens, you will be turning wherever this is going on into a free-fire zone... and, making things perhaps more complicated, in the moment, it may be impossible to tell if Person A who is firing is the bad guy, a bystander, or one of the good guys, especially if there's a mix of attire present (people in civvies, people in uniform, people in Class As, people in Class Bs, people in BDUs, etc.).

Given that the scenario has just gone from "another day at the PX" to "active shooter(s)" with potentially-scores of people involved, you've got such a cross-fire going on that while, yes, it is likely the actual perpetrator of the crime is going to be killed, there is an extremely-elevated risk of friendly fire incidents, since those involved and shooting are not going to be certain that the people they're shooting at are also not trying to shoot back at them. Add to that a number of people running to and fro for cover, or attempting inexpert E&E maneuvers, or attempting to line up a shot at a perceived target (potentially erroneous), with 99% of the people involved not at all knowing what the hell is going on, this is simply a recipe for disaster.

How was the Active Shooter at Ft Hood stopped? HINT: It wasn't by nice thoughts. The fact is almost EVERY active shooter has been stopped when guns come towards them. Some eat their own gun at that point, others get capped or quit. Any place you go off post in a state that allows concealed carry, by your definition, must be a potential confusing cross fire because you don't know who is and who is not armed. Yet cases where a slew of innocents are capped by others engaging an active shooter tend to be limited to those capped by cops who feth up, not by concealed carry permit holders. The current 'Curl up in a ball and hide' tactic the Army teaches for active shooter scenarios didn't work well for Hasan's victims.

I couldn't give two gaks about what the issue weapon is. You won't find me advocating issuing DoD weapons all around and in fact I've argued AGAINST trying to upgrade recruiting stations to hold arms rooms and such. What I have been pretty clearly advocating is that service members, their families, civilians working on DoD facilities and so on be ALLOWED to get a concealed carry permit and then carry concealed if they so choose, or not carry if they don't want to. My wife can (and does) carry concealed off post (when not in uniform) as do I. Anyone willing to go through the process (here in NC it requires a class with a written and shooting test for example) should be allowed to carry if they want. There are not very many shooting crimes committed by concealed carry permit holders. And there are a lot of military folks with concealed carry permits (some with one from a few states).

How was the Active Shooter at Ft Hood stopped? HINT: It wasn't by nice thoughts. The fact is almost EVERY active shooter has been stopped when guns come towards them. Some eat their own gun at that point, others get capped or quit. Any place you go off post in a state that allows concealed carry, by your definition, must be a potential confusing cross fire because you don't know who is and who is not armed. Yet cases where a slew of innocents are capped by others engaging an active shooter tend to be limited to those capped by cops who feth up, not by concealed carry permit holders. The current 'Curl up in a ball and hide' tactic the Army teaches for active shooter scenarios didn't work well for Hasan's victims.

The shooter in the 2009 incident was shot by a police officer, the shooter in the 2014 incident died by self-inflicted gunshot.

 Psienesis wrote:
We'd lose twenty people a day to accidents and altercations at the PX.

Nah... not the PX. It'd only be the commissary, and only on "black friday"




And my own two cents: I think that if SMs have requisite carry permits for the locality where they are stationed, they should be allowed to do so. But here's where I think things need to be reigned in a bit. IMO, if a SM does this, it should only be available to them at their POV (if they work on base) or must be secured in the arms room during duty hours. Then, they may retrieve said firearms at the end of the duty day, or when they return to their POV at the end of the day to head home. I would imagine that the Reserve Center that was hit in Chattanooga wasn't really a "base" per se, and thus didn't have the gate systems that basically all active military installations have. This means, IMO, that SMs who work "normal" duties on those kinds of bases, dont really need to be carrying them at all times in the PX, Commissary, commander's office, platoon offices, etc. They only "need" them from the point of exiting the gates, to their place of residence.

People on special duties like Recruiters are different obviously, and the idea of them openly carrying all the time is one that, I can see some people being "turned off" of military life seeing that. But, I don't think that should negate those guys' ability to defend themselves. Perhaps their compromise would be to have their carry weapon, should they choose to use one, in their desk or somewhere not readily in sight of potential recruits/ recruits family.

 Psienesis wrote:
The shooter in the 2009 incident was shot by a police officer, the shooter in the 2014 incident died by self-inflicted gunshot.

Which incidents were these?

Ft Hood and I think the other was El Paso

I suppose that it will take a few more casualties before people take the idea seriously. Sadly.

Um... you gotta think this General has his hands tied...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-tells-recruiting-centers-to-step-up-security-1437414196

Adm. Bill Gortney, head of the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees security for military facilities in America, issued a directive Sunday night that calls on centers nationwide to implement modest new security measures while the Defense Department considers more substantive steps to address threats to the facilities, officials said.

The steps don’t authorize recruiters to carry weapons in their centers, something that would require higher-level action. Instead, they direct hundreds of recruiting centers, reserve centers and ROTC facilities to increase surveillance and take basic steps such as closing blinds at the offices, officials said.

Them blinds bullet-proof??

on post the only ones carrying weapons should be MPs, those at the range and maybe people pulling duty at CQ/BN/BDE/DIV. Actually guys pulling duty definitely should have the option to be armed. They are the ones charged with keeping watch over those off duty. Just have an arms locker installed and special code issued to those on duty to open it. Just like Armorers have rounds to defend the arms room if necessary duty personal should be able to defend the barracks.

Off post it should only be a side arm and those only on official business. Naturally they would be trained to use the weapon.

Then just ban the wearing of the uniform off post.

 Psienesis wrote:
ROE are going to vary too much by environment to matter... and given the amount (and levels) of alcohol and drug consumption in the Armed Forces, having everyone walking around with a '16 and ten magazines is trouble just waiting to happen.

So clearly you have no idea what your talking about...

I'm not even going to touch on the incredibly insulting comment about substance abuse, but even here in Afghanistan we aren't walking around loaded for bear. I have a full combat load because my mission does take me off FOB. Those who remain on FOB though only carry one magazine with their weapon. Hell I only carry a single magazine while on FOB. With my M-9, not M-4.

Now to the real topic.

Arming Recruiters, while an incredibly impractical measure, since they won't have access to an armory, they would only be armed with an M-9, and would have the minimal amount of ammunition necessary for an active shooter incident.

If any steps are going to be taken, I would imagine that it would be the DoD allowing Recruiters to have a personal firearm at their office. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't lately.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Um... you gotta think this General has his hands tied...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-military-tells-recruiting-centers-to-step-up-security-1437414196

Adm. Bill Gortney, head of the U.S. Northern Command, which oversees security for military facilities in America, issued a directive Sunday night that calls on centers nationwide to implement modest new security measures while the Defense Department considers more substantive steps to address threats to the facilities, officials said.

The steps don’t authorize recruiters to carry weapons in their centers, something that would require higher-level action. Instead, they direct hundreds of recruiting centers, reserve centers and ROTC facilities to increase surveillance and take basic steps such as closing blinds at the offices, officials said.

Them blinds bullet-proof??

The blinds provide concealment, not cover. If you can't see what you're shooting at, you are much less likely to hit it.

 djones520 wrote:

If any steps are going to be taken, I would imagine that it would be the DoD allowing Recruiters to have a personal firearm at their office. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if many didn't lately.

I know a couple senior enlisted troops who carry regularly on post and just hope they won't get caught.

I can't break rules like that.

 BrotherGecko wrote:


Then just ban the wearing of the uniform off post.

And the fact that that idea is given more consideration in the halls of power than allowing military members to carry their personally owned and permitted hand guns to work is seriously fethed up.