Hegseth allows the military to carry arms on base
Gun-free zones have the unfortunate consequence of making the people in them vulnerable to someone with a gun. This has been especially ironic on military bases, where there have been mass murders such as the ones at Fort Hood.
Here’s an article from 2014:
For decades, soldiers and their families have been able to purchase guns for personal use in retail stores on some bases. Even today, some “base exchanges” sell guns. Soldiers and their families can fire personal firearms at target ranges, participate in competitions and in gun clubs – all located on the nation’s military bases. But a federal directive won’t allow them to carry concealed weapons on bases, even though it’s legal in the rest of Texas.
Now, with two separate rampage shootings within five years of one another at Killeen’s Fort Hood Army base that left a total of 17 people dead, there is renewed discussion over whether soldiers and their family members should be able to carry concealed handguns on military posts in states like Texas. …
Until the 1990s, military personnel often kept personal firearms in their base homes without question. But starting in the 1990s, first under then-President George H.W. Bush, the Department of Defense issued an order prohibiting privately owned weapons on bases unless a commander makes an exception.
There were actually two fatal mass shootings at Fort Hood, the first in 2009 and the second in 2014. The 2014 one happened on April 2, which happens to be the same date as today. Perhaps that wasn’t lost on Hegseth when he issued this declaration:
The War Department’s uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards. These warfighters, entrusted with the safety of our nation, are no less entitled to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms than any other American. Our warfighters defend the right of others to carry — they should be able to carry themselves. Recent events like what happened at Fort Stewart, Holloman Air Force Base, or Pensacola Naval Air Station have made clear that some threats are closer to home than we would like.
If you look at the responses to the tweet of Hegseth’s that I linked, many are negative. For example:
The sheer amount of negligent discharges that will inevitably follow is gonna be wild. There is no legitimate reasons non-mp’s to carry service rifle/pistol when not within a combat zone or conducting training. Accountability, safety, and oversight will be a nightmare.
Of course there can be problems. But there are already obvious problems with the present situation. The comment ignores the fact that it’s only been since the presidency of Bush I that the carrying of such weapons on base was banned. Why? Were there a lot of problems?
From that 2014 article:
“If they live in the base housing … guns have to be registered,” said Geoffrey Corn, professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston, who served more than 20 years as an Army officer.
Corn said he opposes proposals to allow concealed weapons on bases.
“The idea of carrying a concealed weapon is really inconsistent with the military culture,” he said.
He said military supervisors have enough to worry about without the concern that a soldier made unhappy by a particular order could be packing a hidden firearm.
But in 2014 at Fort Hood that’s exactly the situation, and it didn’t stop the shooter at all:
On April 2, 2014, a spree shooting occurred at several locations on the Fort Hood military base near Killeen, Texas. Four people, including the gunman, were killed while 14 additional people were injured; 12 by gunshot wounds. The shooter, 34-year-old Army Specialist Ivan Lopez-Lopez, died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Immediately prior to the shooting, Lopez went to the 49th Transportation Battalion administrative office where he tried to obtain a ten-day leave form so he could attend to “family matters”. However, he was informed that he would have to come back later to retrieve it, sparking a verbal altercation between him and several other soldiers. The request was ultimately denied because Lopez had already secured housing in an apartment in Killeen.
Lopez then went outside to smoke a cigarette. At approximately 4:00 p.m., he returned and opened fire with a .45-caliber Smith & Wesson M&P pistol inside the same building, injuring three soldiers—?PFC Wilfred Sanchez, Sgt. Jonathan Westbrook, and SFC Warren Hardnett—?all of whom had been involved in the altercation with Lopez. [6][12] Lopez also killed Sgt. First Class Daniel Ferguson, who was attempting to barricade a lockless conference room door to prevent Lopez from gaining entry and harming anyone inside.
This went on for many minutes, as Lopez went to different areas of the base shooting people, all of whom I will assume were unarmed. What finally stopped him? This:
Approximately eight minutes after the shooting first started, Lopez drove to the parking lot of another building, Building 39002, where he was confronted by an unidentified military police officer, with whom he had a verbal exchange. When he brandished his weapon, the officer fired a shot at him that missed. Lopez responded by committing suicide, shooting himself in the right side of the head.
He finally encountered someone armed.
Unless I’m reading your post and the various quotes incorrectly, the negative response to Hegseth you highlighted is a non-sequitur. It appears that he is allowing soldiers to have in their possession *personal* firearms and carry them if appropriately licensed, not allowing them carry their service weapons anywhere they please.
“The idea of carrying a concealed weapon is really inconsistent with the military culture,” he said.
He said military supervisors have enough to worry about without the concern that a soldier made unhappy by a particular order could be packing a hidden firearm.
The history of handguns in the US has experienced a curious turnabout. In the wild west, which is actually kinda consistent with “miltiary culture,” open carry of handguns was fine, but concealed carry could be construed as a signature of an assassin.
Nowadays, in society, nobody wants to see a guy or gal carrying a pistol on his or her hip, out in the open. Although I did see exactly that in Colorado once. The guy was herding his herd of cattle while on horseback.
But yeah, there are 10’s of thousands of people carrying concealed firearms right now in the population. The idea that this is somehow unworkable is ridiculous.
The start of the prohibition on concealed carry on bases starting under Bush the Elder was probably linked to the beginnings of the spread of ‘Shall Issue’ concealed carry permit laws, which, if memory serves, started becoming a thing in the early 1990s.
Up until then, no directive was needed, because concealed carry licenses were much more difficult to obtain, especially for non-residents of whatever state the bases were in, which probably applied to most military personnel.
As of today, 29 states now have permitless ‘Constitutional carry’, so justifying banning troops from carrying on post is a lot more difficult.
“The sheer amount of negligent discharges that will inevitably follow is gonna be wild. There is no legitimate reasons non-mp’s to carry service rifle/pistol when not within a combat zone or conducting training. Accountability, safety, and oversight will be a nightmare.”
As a couple have already mentioned, this isn’t about service weapons, which belong to the US government and are kept in armories when not in use; this is about personal firearms being carried for self-defense.
I’m pretty sure carrying a concealed handgun would be considered “out of uniform” by any of the services, so we’re talking about off duty, not while at work receiving orders from commanding officers.
And all those predictions about “negligent discharges” (and the old standby: people being shot over parking spaces and petty disagreements) are always made whenever any state or entity removes or relaxes an existing restriction on the 2nd Amendment…and they’re always full of it.
People (usually on the left) seem to consider military members to be irresponsible hotheads who would respond to any type of confrontation by opening fire.
Couldn’t be farther from the truth. Yes, military members tend to be “type A” personalities and can be aggressive and assertive, but that doesn’t translate into “criminally violent”. Military members are screened to weed out criminals and those with poor self control. Not perfectly, but better than the general public. Military members have a lot to lose if they do something stupid, and military brigs and prisons are not nearly as pleasant or comfortable as their civilian counterparts.
Plus, military members are much more likely than the general population to have extensive experience and training in the use of firearms.
Why were guns banned in the first place? For the same reason that a lot of stupid restrictive rules exist on base: because military senior officers since pretty much WWII have, until very recently, been promoted into their positions for reasons of politics rather than warfighting ability or leadership.
Leaders trust their people. Politicians don’t.
Prof. Corn was in the service for 21 years. Best I can tell, he was a JAG the whole time.
We have open carry here in Indiana. No restrictions. You can wear a firearm on your hip or carry concealed. No problem getting a “shall issue” license either. It’s a beautiful thing.
The Pro-Choice religious orthodox are the problem. If you can’t trust your people to carry guns, scalpels, batons, etc, who can you trust? American civil liberties unBurdened… uh, unburdened.
Oddly enough, the Democrat state of Vermont has always had Constitutional Carry, AKA Vermont Carry.
Sailorcurt made exactly the point I was going to try to make.
The ridiculous objections being made to military personnel being allowed to carry a personal weapon on base are exactly the same that have been made every time a “shall issue” concealed carry law was being debated.
– “They’re not well trained and ND’s will happen everywhere” (as though the “only ones” are any better trained; some of the worst safety practices I’ve seen at a gun range have been from police officers).
– “Every traffic accident will turn into a Wild West shootout” (nope).
It turns out that people who train for and receive carry permits violate laws far less often than do law enforcement officers. Gee, it seems like it’s a selection process for good guys. I’m guessing that not a lot of gang-bangers have trained and applied for, much less received, carry permits.
Mass shootings are almost invariably stopped by the arrival of someone else who is armed. The main difference in body count is whether that other firearm is being carried by a law enforcement officer who has to travel to the scene, or if it’s already there in the holster of a carry permit holder. “Remember, when seconds count, the police (or MP’s) are only minutes away.”
I seem to recall that threatening suicide was against the law once upon a time.
As was committing suicide!
Now suicide is a commonplace, and we are all supposed to grieve for the self-immolators and feel sorry for their angst.
It seems to me that during the coverage of the Ft. Hood massacre, it was said that DOD policy was that soldier’s duty weapons were locked up in arsenals on all bases, so only responding civilian police had guns?, not any of the other soldiers on base.
It would seem to me that the only sensible policy would be that soldiers on a military base would have ready access to arms in case they might, say, have to defend themselves and/or their base against attackers–either external or, as we’ve seen, internal.