aptopix-chattanooga-shooting_1

“Commanders have always had that authority to arm recruiters. Some of the wording wasn’t very clear, so they’ve gone through and cleaned it up so it is very clear now that the commanders have that authority to use at their discretion.” – Army Maj. Jamie Davis in Acknowledging domestic terror threat, Pentagon says troops, recruiters can carry concealed guns [via militarytimes.com]

bfg-long-logo-blue-jpg-220x39

Recommended For You

46 Responses to Blue Force Gear Quote of the Day: A Post-Election Policy “Clean Up”

  1. Read the article, if you have a high tolerance for military stupidity. Here’s the first paragraph:
    “U.S. military personnel can now request to carry concealed handguns for protection at government facilities, according to new Defense Department directive issued last week in response to a series of deadly shootings over the last seven years.”

    Seven years. That’s all it took. They MAY be granted permission, if they ask for it, to carry THEIR OWN guns, CONCEALED.

    But wait, there’s more!
    ” They have to be at least 21 years old and meet all federal, state and local laws and host-nation requirements the directive says.”

    Assigned to a recruiting center in New York City? You gotta get your concealed carry permit first. Good luck with that.

    Finally, there’s this little gem:
    “These authorizations will be for a maximum of 90-calendar-day increments and may be renewed for as long as the threat or circumstance necessitating arming exists, according to the directive.”

    That’s right. Re-apply for permission to carry your own gun, for which you have a state/local permit. Every. Ninety. Days.

    God bless our military personnel. Their own government apparently has no respect for them.

    • “Seven years. That’s all it took.”

      It is worse than simply “seven years”: the impetus to change/clarify military policy required a series of deadly shootings over the last seven years.

    • “They have to be at least 21 years old and meet all federal, state and local laws and host-nation requirements the directive says.”

      Actually, this may not be as bad as it seems. I am fairly confident that most states exempt law enforcement and military personnel from most/all open and concealed carry laws when they are carrying in performance of their official duties. Clearly, a recruiter who carries a handgun openly or concealed in their government recruiting center in performance of their official duties (recruiting and being armed in case of domestic attacks which have been happening) would fall under that exemption.

      Also, many states’ open and concealed carry laws do not apply to private property if the person carrying openly or concealed on private property is doing that with the blessing of the private property owner. Clearly, a military recruiter carrying a handgun on U.S. government property (or private property that the U.S. government is leasing) under direction of the U.S. government qualifies for that exemption as well.

      The really big hassle, in my opinion, is the requirement that military personnel have to keep obtaining re-authorization every 90 days. That is annoying and it would be exceedingly easy for someone to forget to request re-authorization.

      • Uh oh. I just read this from the MilitaryTimes source article, “the new policy allows [military personnel] to apply to carry their privately owned firearms ‘for personal protection not associated with the performance of official duties,'”.

        That could be a problem with my argument that many/most states might exempt military personnel from open/concealed carry requirements when they carry in performance of official duties.

        This would be a legal gray area. On the one hand, a prosecutor could argue that the only military personnel who have an “official duty” to be armed are military police and military guards. On the other hand, a defense attorney could argue that military personnel who carry to defend against terrorist attacks directed at them because they are military personnel, who carry with formal authorization from their chain of command, and who are carrying while doing their assigned military job, ARE carrying for their official duty.

    • You are 100% correct. This is “May Issue” to the level of control that seems only capable in the military. This is not a win, if anything it is a step backwards because the Pentagon now has a policy that they can say “allows military members to carry on base” that they hope will survive scrutiny from the Trump administration.

    • This is the best part:
      may be renewed for as long as the threat or circumstance necessitating arming exists

      So they basically need to show evidence of a specific threat to even apply. So you have to wait until somebody’s shooting up the recruiting station you work at to start filling out the form? Of course that threat will end before any approval, so there’s no circumstance that will allow a permit to go through.

      Using this logic, I shouldn’t bother getting car insurance until I get in an accident.

      Specific need requirements for firearms permits and carry permits exist for one reason: to provide the appearance of issuing permits, without having to actually issue anything.

    • Long overdue and still not good enough. 90 day increments?!
      We expect you to fight for our lives, liberty and freedom, but we’ll limit your rights to a 90 day window if we even give it to you at all.

  2. Ahh.. Good Ol’e Military Lies”

    This isn’t really new, it still leaves it solely at the discretion of an o-5/o-6 , who have already invested their lives in a career, so while they wont be held criminally liable for any NDs the “might” happen, they will me “marked” and never promote again, who would risk that? It effectively creates a “may issue” where the commanders will never issue.

    And… this little nugget.. you have to “renew” every quarter??

    “These authorizations will be for a maximum of 90-calendar-day increments and may be renewed for as long as the threat or circumstance necessitating arming exists,”

    The whole “Military Lies” article is propaganda, designed to make it look like they are “doing” something. While actually doing nothing.

  3. Did they make it clear what the career repercussions would be for commanders who actually use their discretion to allow concealed carry by ordinary troops? There’s policy, and then there’s politics, and advancement through the most senior ranks is about politics.

  4. As a former uniformed member well it is better than nothing… I suppose. Would be nice if they extended it to ROTC offices and such as well since those places are sitting ducks too.

    As a soon to be DoD civilian can we extend this (and future changes) to the non-uniformed work force as well?

    • As I am also, I wonder if those US GOVERNMENT NO WEAPONS ALLOWED signs will come down. I am a contractor who works on Navy bases all the time. Most bases aren’t in the best of neighborhoods, yet unarmed I am I am.

    • I am absolutely stunned, no make that dumbfounded, that non-military Department of Defense and government employees working in anything even remotely related to Intelligence or National Defense are not actually required to be armed at all times. Why? It seems to me that they would be prime targets for coercion from enemies of the U.S. to gain access to U.S. defense strategy and secrets.

      Suppose you are a civilian employee who manages the design or acquisition of tanks. Wouldn’t a foreign enemy love to know exact details about our tanks? How many we have? How much they cost? How fast we can make more of them? Or if they have a simple vulnerability? What better/faster/simpler way to acquire that information than to snatch that civilian employee’s spouse at gunpoint in front of that civilian employee and then direct the employee to hand over relevant information?

      • You and me both wonder uncommon as I have an ex-Army son who is precisely one of those DoD dudes. Speaks Arabic,travels to the mideast and yeah I would think he would be a target. He carried a Glock 21 in the Greenzone in Baghdad,an M-16 in Egypt and as far as I know is completely unarmed now. And he’s OK with that. Pretty much a fudd. Maybe voted Hildebeast. Thinks Maryland has good gun laws. I’m a lot more concerned for my grandkids but I can’t do anything more except pray for them. I don’t think it’s as simple as us gun guys think.

        • try to make them tolerant of firearms, they will not all develop an affinity. some sort of range time (pellet guns help a lot) can prevent the weird knee- jerk fear and hatred that somehow develops in some.
          my niece could not exit the photo op fast enough when i snapped a shot of my sister with the mattel burp gun i gifted her from evilbay (she’d had same as a kid, long gone).
          the father is a pants wetter. after viewing a fatal shooting of a homeless man by a leo in m’wauk he blurted “they need to take away their full auto pistols.” m’wauk leo’s carry glokz.

  5. There was no problem training us, arming us for battle and it about time our young service members can cover their own ass state side! BTW, if you didn’t serve, your opinion means jack shit!

    • I served 1980-1992. That was the years of the unarmed Navy. Firearm training was 1 hour at the range with a .22 1911. I barely remember it. And yet that is good enough as (DD214) proof for VA permit. Now that’s irony.

    • “BTW, if you didn’t serve, your opinion means jack shit!”

      Have I donned a uniform and gone to exotic places? No.

      Here is what I have done:
      (1) diverted thousands of hours from work/family to promote the history, meaning, and value of the Second Amendment to domestic adversaries (e.g. gun-grabbers) on widely disseminated public forums reaching millions of people
      (2) attended multiple public rallies with large signs and answered questions for the Press to promote the Second Amendment … at significant risk to my small business (risk of alienating current/future customers because of my staunch Second Amendment advocacy and inability to serve customers when diverting my limited time to Second Amendment advocacy)
      (3) petitioned my government to uphold the simple and true meaning of the Second Amendment
      (4) acquired handguns, rifles, and ammunition sufficient to defend my community from any enemy foreign or domestic
      (5) acquired proficiency with said handguns and rifles
      (6) carry a full-size concealed handgun (with at least 30 rounds of ammunition) virtually everywhere in public as my tangible commitment to stop domestic crime and terrorism
      (7) carry a concealed carbine with over 80 rounds of ammunition when I peruse public shopping venues packed with Christmas shoppers (increased “firepower” for a possible increased threat of terrorism)
      (8) discretely “patrolled” my “safe” and quiet neighborhood and warned multiple neighbors when an armed home invader was on the loose
      (9) carry my full size concealed handgun at ALL times at home and in my neighborhood so that I can immediately respond when my neighbor’s extremely dangerous and aggressive German shepherds get loose (which has happened more than once and included me stepping in one time to shoot the dogs at great social, legal, and financial peril to myself)
      (10) participated in a massive search for a missing person involving over 100 volunteers and covering over 200 square miles.
      (11) initiated and leading security and emergency management at my church so that our congregation is prepared to respond effectively to violent attackers.

      But go ahead and tell me that I have not “served” my community/nation and my opinion has no value … especially my opinion that I stated above where I advocate for U.S. military personnel and even non-U.S. military personnel to be able to exercise their unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

      Pro-tip: there are many different ways that we serve our families, our communities, and our nation. Not all of them involve the army, navy, air force, marines, coast guard, homeland security, FBI, or local/state police. We should be encouraging all good people who are “part of the solution”.

      • I can get with that, but you need to recall that there is someone else who could claim that exact same experience, except for advocating the opposite position. I’m thinking basic followed by a couple tours in the sandbox or equivalent would do wonders for such person’s perspective.

    • “if you didn’t serve, your opinion means jack shit!”

      Jim, thank you for your service. Please keep in mind that our nation’s treatment of both actively serving military personnel and veterans is a matter of policy, created by politicians who are elected by the people, most of whom didn’t serve.

      So you may want to re-think the attitude.

      • When I was a kid, in the ’50s and ’60s, a government official, particularly an elected one, who was not a veteran was unthinkable. In fact, for a male adult, if you wanted a job doing anything, you better have honorable discharge papers or a damn good reason why not, or you can forget the job, even as dishwasher. The idea that now we promptly disrespect anyone who has served, including talking down to their “attitude”, is painful, and I suspect the suggestion comes from someone who had better things to do than serve his country.

        And while our government’s treatment of veterans may be a matter of policy, the nation’s is not.

        • My father, my wife and several uncles are/were veterans. I never felt the need to question their attitudes. They were among the few and the proud who served to protect the rights of the rest of us, and they never suggested that my opinions were any less valuable than theirs.

    • Nice attitude Jim.

      Perhaps if you read the comments, you’ll notice that 99.99% are in favor of allowing our service members to carry while on duty. It’s absurd that they can’t. Especially in light of the typical gun grabber attitude that only military and police are “qualified” to have guns.

      I, for one, appreciate your service.

    • actually, many (not all) of my friends went the military route due to being simpler minded than i. some thrived, some went awol.
      but my opinion means exactly as much as it did before they signed up. does a man who’s played the game necessarily make a better coach? if you think so, you’re simple.

    • I served, jim. At a time when servicemen got very little respect or welcome. Couple of things to remember. We serve the .gov and people of America. Not the other way round.

      And there are more than one way to serve. Not everybody has what it takes for the military, for a variety of reasons. This doesn’t diminish their contributions to our nation over their lifetimes.

    • Ah yes because we need a military aristocracy. Hey jim maybe you wanna hop into my time machine back to 19th century Prussia?

    • Great, lousy attitude as a veteran. Your elitism is exactly what is wrong in this country.

      Your status as a veteran does not grant you anymore “say” than anyone else.

      And yes, I continue to serve, multiple tours, wore stripes and rockers before wearing brass. Just in case you feel my opinion “doesn’t count.”

  6. Translation….not gonna happen. No O5/6 is going to risk their career for a pistol packing E5/6/7.

    Into the breach where your defense is duck and cover .

  7. Absolutely. There is no way these “authorizations” are actually going to take place. When I was a recruiter, I carried a revolver in my “G” car. I was far enough away from anyone who would care, to get away with it.

  8. It’s like they see the troops as highly trained to do what they are told, not to decide when to do it. You get the same vibe when the political overlords talk about citizens with guns … or any other way to do for them – our – selves.

    They’re perfectly happy if any of us gets killed waiting for the bosses to show up n decide what may be done. They really don’t care if you are armed, as long as they control when you pull the trigger.

  9. I am curious to understand why this happened at this point.

    Now that Democrats have lost the election and they have nothing to lose (in the short term), are they doing this so that they can claim to “support the Second Amendment” … as well as position themselves to reduce how much political capital the Republicans can claim in four years?

    It is pretty much a given that Trump will order the military to facilitate open/concealed carry at military installations. If an armed military member stops or seriously reduces the casualty count of a future terrorist, the Republicans will claim credit if they instituted the policy. On the other hand, if the policy was already in place (however impractical), then Democrats could claim credit and be able to say, “See, we support the Second Amendment as well.”

  10. Don’t celebrate just yet.
    Carry of either govt weapons or personal weapons is still restricted:
    -It is only for 90 days or less
    -Only if it does not violate State or local laws
    -Requires prior approval from MPs
    -Requires base commander of at least O-5 to approve (reality is it will take an O-5 to submit to Base Commanding General)
    -Requires Commanders to submit a roster of who can carry. On recruiting this would require the Western or Eastern Recruiting Regiob Commanding General to submit the roster across many different states and cities. We have problems with base access rosters let alone a Region roster.

    This is a ban in practice

  11. Currently, no matter what the military says, Guardsmen, soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen cannot be armed in New York unless they’re engaging in training exercises that specifically require the use of live rounds, and during other highly limited circumstances. Recruiters do not qualify.

    Bastard Bloomberg refused National Guard assistance after Hurricane Sandy because Guardsmen were armed.

    A bill to remedy the situation by permitting Guardsmen to be armed in NY stalled in the legislature.

    As always, the careerists in the Pentagon are hiding out in a foxhole while the troops who are in harm’s way are left twisting in the wind.

    If Trump really wants to drain the swamp, he can start with the big military brass.

    • As a military officer myself, I support this sentiment. Most (but not all) of the officers who rise through the ranks are big-government, leftist bureaucrats who would rather trample their troops’ rights and put those troops in unnecessary danger than risk their own careers. I’ve already had multiple “discussions” with O-5s and O-6s about their desires to implement policies that violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. It’s like talking to a brick wall, with the corresponding ability to think critically about the Constitution.

  12. This Military Arms article is a really poor attempt by the folks at the DOD to stave off Trump forcing the Services to allow concealed carry. Trump is going to need to issue a direct order to the entire DOD that a CHL is valid on base/recruiting station. Period.

    On the other hand, wouldn’t it be great if Trump made his desire to arm the troops known to chain of command, but left it to the battalion commanders discretion. Then use a commander’s desire to protect his career instead of his troops as way to purge the military of those anti-2A officers.

    Plus, you get the additional benefit of saving the defense budget a few bucks by dumping useless brass hats.

    • HamChuck,

      “On the other hand, wouldn’t it be great if Trump made his desire to arm the troops known to chain of command, but left it to the battalion commanders discretion. Then use a commander’s desire to protect his career instead of his troops as way to purge the military of those anti-2A officers.”

      Oh, that is downright devious and I love it!

      Mr. Boch,

      Please forward this suggestion up the chain of command in your Second Amendment Coalition!

  13. Unless it is ordered on them, NO Battalion Commander wants to have to explain himself to local authorities.

    Would Recruiting District Commanders who don’t have much authority and cover many states or Region Commanding Generals who have too much to worry about be the authorizing level on Recruiting?

    Any Lautenburg violation or violation of Local Domestic Violence laws would come back to bite Region Commanding Generals that have to worry about 20+ states.

    Carry on Recruiting and on Bases will get fought at EVERY level

  14. That would inspire more confidence in me if I walked into a recruiting office and every servicemember there had an M9 on their hip in plain sight.

  15. I think this is a good thing. As an active duty Soldier I of Battalion and Brigade Commanders that would support this. Of course permission would be granted on a may issue bases, but it’s a start. In the future it will grow to shall issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *