• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

DoD Releases Policy for Packing Guns on Military Bases

Zeo

Joined
Jul 3, 2013
Messages
662
Likes
69
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Military.com | Nov 21, 2016 | by Matthew Cox

The Pentagon recently released detailed guidance that allows U.S. military personnel to carry privately owned, concealed firearms on base, a move that the Army's service chief argued against publicly.

"Arming and the Use of Force," a Nov. 18 Defense Department directive approved by Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, lays out the policy and standards that allow DoD personnel to carry firearms and employ deadly force while performing official duties.

But the lengthy document also provides detailed guidance to the services for permitting soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and Coast Guard personnel to carry privately owned firearms on DoD property, according to the document.
Commanders, O-5 and above, "may grant permission to DoD personnel requesting to carry a privately owned firearm (concealed or open carry) on DoD property for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status," the document states.

Applicants must be 21 years of age or older, the age many states require an individual to be to own a firearm, according to the document. Proof of compliance may include a concealed handgun license that is valid under federal, state, local or host-nation law where the DoD property is located.

"Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual's name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.," according to the document.
Until now, DoD personnel have not been authorized to carry personal firearms on military installations, a policy that has come under scrutiny in the wake of "active-shooter" attacks at U.S. military bases resulting in the deaths of service members.

Lawmakers have questioned military leaders about the policy, arguing that allowing service members to be armed might have prevented attacks such as the July 16, 2015, shootings at two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, in which four Marines and a sailor were shot and killed. The gunman, Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, was killed by police in a gunfight.

But Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley has argued against reversing the DoD policy that prohibits service members from carrying concealed weapons on post.

Testifying at an April 14 congressional hearing, Milley cited the Nov. 5, 2009, mass shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, in which 13 people were killed and 42 others were injured. The day of the shooting, Nidal Hasan, then an Army major and psychiatrist, entered the Fort Hood deployment center carrying two pistols, jumped on a desk and shouted "Allahu Akbar!" -- Arabic for "God is great" -- then opened fire.

Milley defended the short time it took for law enforcement to secure the scene and said he is not convinced that allowing soldiers to carry privately owned weapons would have stopped Hasan.


http://www.military.com/daily-news/...plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html
 
Army Chief of Staff General Mark Miley needs to have his head examined, and start thinking more about his troops and less about politics.
 
The article missed the whole point of the DoDI. Commanders have always had the authority to approve POW carry on post.
The change is allowing recruiters and others to carry "in performance of duties"
No Commander is going to authorize this. Both the Army CoS and.the USMC Commandent have said they don't support the policy. No O-5 is going against the CoS.


Aloha
 
Army Chief of Staff General Mark Miley needs to have his head examined, and start thinking more about his troops and less about politics.

Nidal carried firearms against policy and killed unarmed men. We need to keep this policy in place since it worked so well. Thank god none of the victims had a way do protect themselves and others. Oh but they can be trusted with firearms everywhere else in the world.
 
Army Chief of Staff General Mark Miley needs to have his head examined, and start thinking more about his troops and less about politics.
Wonder where he's from? [laugh]

When I was in the Army I did know a couple officers who didn't carry. We used to have pistol matches every Sunday.
 
Last edited:
So you have to be 21 or older. How stupid is that? Is that because you need to be 21 or older to join the military? No. So at 21 or older you receive extra training to make you more reliable or a better shot? Nope. So under 21 gets excluded from going to war? No. So terrorists won't kill anyone under21? No. So under 21 should not carry a gun because they are less reliable?
 
"Milley defended the short time it took for law enforcement to secure the scene and said he is not convinced that allowing soldiers to carry privately owned weapons would have stopped Hasan."

It's so effing easy to say after the fact.....but the truth is now we'll never know. Because those 13 people are dead.
 
I wonder if this covers retired military also?. My wife and I go to the commisary on base frequently..

NO. It's doesn't even cover Active Duty. The Dept of the Army has issued a memo that says "Nothing changes, we're still evaluating the DoD guidance."

The only effect this has right now is Recruiters can now be considered to carry "in performance of duties."

Everyone else is up to local Commanders and there isn't one ANYWHERE that's going to go against the thoughts of the CoS and CNO.

Aloha
 
So you have to be 21 or older. How stupid is that? Is that because you need to be 21 or older to join the military? No. So at 21 or older you receive extra training to make you more reliable or a better shot? Nope. So under 21 gets excluded from going to war? No. So terrorists won't kill anyone under21? No. So under 21 should not carry a gun because they are less reliable?

A bigger problem is that "permission is only valid for 90 days" garbage.

The entire thing is designed to be obstructionist (and unused).

-Mike
 
Those armorers and cooks are gonna shoot somebody.

You rang?

steven%2Bseagal%2Bcook
 
Back
Top Bottom