Law Enforcement Specialties >> Military Law Enforcement >> Poll: CHL holders should be able to carry on military installations

Rate

Poll: CHL holders should be able to carry on military installations

2,586 Views
56 Replies Flag as inappropriate

Poll: Should certified CHL holders be allowed to carry on military installations?

Punksmileybest50_max50

6 posts

back to top

Posted almost 4 years ago

 

 


The November 5th attack here on Fort Hood was a terrible thing.  To have it done by someone wearing the same uniform is even more aweful...but it goes to show that anyone can be a bad guy.  That said...if CHL holders were allowed to carry on the installation, there is a far greater chance that the shooter would have been taken down much sooner, obviously reducing the death and injured numbers. 


 


Like the saying goes: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns - I intend to be one of the outlaws!"

8494_bozo_pd_max600_max50

608 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I agree that Ft Hood was a tragedy.  I will have to disagree with the idea of letting anybody with a CHL carry on a military installation.  There are too many issues allowing personnel to carry on a secured military installation.  First of which would be internal security.  I would think that more focus on the ECP's and confiscation of contraband would be more effective.  I don't know the layout of Ft Hood, so it may have been beneficial in this instance, but overall I think the problems would outweigh the good.  I say this considering the same scenerio at the installation I work.  I believe there are pro's and con's to it, but the con's far outweigh the pro's. Just my humble opinion.


PL Mentoring Team Member

Avatar_max160_max160_max50

2600 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Didn't Hasan have a CHL from Virginia?


 


http://gawker.com/5401371/nidal-malik-hasans-application-for-a-conc...


Hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.

"It's not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy -December 4, 2000

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

No Civilian should be allowed to carry on military bases be it army navy air force or marine bases. the only authorized people who should carry are Civilian law enforecement with a need to be on the base and Military law enforecement and soldiers who are going to or from the ranges and who are training for CQB and convoy operations. what happened at fort hood was a tragady and should be learned from. guess we are going to have to do shake downs everytime we leave a range or take the firing pins from weapons when not training to prevent this from happening again.

Steve_mcqueen_max50

884 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I totaly agree with the previous three posters on this subject. A more rational approach would be to assign more Military Police to "ANY FUNCTION ATTENDED BY CIVILIANS AND ANY FUNCTION OVER 100 (ARBITRARY NUMBER).


Glory earned on the field of battle , can never be taken away , you take it with you to the grave. Quote by General George Armstrong Custer

Punksmileybest50_max50

6 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I understand the replies, being a "peace keeper" mentality of less guns = more control.  However, nobody has provided a valid way to mitigate this from happening again.


More MP's? Yeah right, we already augment the force with civilian Fed police and this still happened.


Shakedowns/remove pins from weapons-don't think so. That terrorist brought them through the gate on any day he wantetd to.  We searche probably less than 5% of the vehicles entering post and if you keep your weapon in your pocket, they won't find it even if you were put through a TCCP inspection.


13 people were killed!  Over 30 wounded...and everyone here stands behind the concept of restrictions instead of the trust that is given by applying, having your application scrutinized to the "nth" degree...and properly trained.  Most Soldiers under 20 years old have more time carrying loaded weapons on a daily basis (OIF/OEF). Why should that same amount of trust and rrespect be redeuced when they are home?


I agree to disagree with all of you, but I also ask you to provide a better solution. I firmly believe this will happen again...someday, somewhere.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Civilian Law Enforcement are not trained to deal with soldiers as soldiers we are trained in Hand to Hand Combat, Weapons. I think the only time civilian law enforcement should even have contact with soldiers is when we are off post and even then they should call CID or MP's. what happened at FT Hood could have been prevented. but what happened can never be changed all we can do is learn from it. and prevent it again with weapons that belong to the army should not be ready to fire unless you are at a range or in a combat envoirment. I lost friends at fort hood. and the only time you should have ammo on a military base is when you are law enforcement either civilian or military police and at the range. most bases you drive up to say NO WEAPONS OR AMMO ALLOWED ON POST. among other things. I as was at Ft. Dix when they tried to attack soldiers on post. and no the major did not bring the weapon on post they where military issued weapons. as  stated before shakedowns and removing either firing pins or bolt carrier groups should be removed from the weapon and only give to the soldier at the range or CQB training or when you get ready to board the plane for Iraq or afgan.

Evil_max50

7070 posts

back to top
+1

Rated +1 | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PFCDL says ...



Civilian Law Enforcement are not trained to deal with soldiers as soldiers we are trained in Hand to Hand Combat, Weapons. I think the only time civilian law enforcement should even have contact with soldiers is when we are off post and even then they should call CID or MP's. what happened at FT Hood could have been prevented. but what happened can never be changed all we can do is learn from it. and prevent it again with weapons that belong to the army should not be ready to fire unless you are at a range or in a combat envoirment. I lost friends at fort hood. and the only time you should have ammo on a military base is when you are law enforcement either civilian or military police and at the range. most bases you drive up to say NO WEAPONS OR AMMO ALLOWED ON POST. among other things. I as was at Ft. Dix when they tried to attack soldiers on post. and no the major did not bring the weapon on post they where military issued weapons. as  stated before shakedowns and removing either firing pins or bolt carrier groups should be removed from the weapon and only give to the soldier at the range or CQB training or when you get ready to board the plane for Iraq or afgan.



Are you suggesting I am not trained in firearms and hand to hand combat (aka Defensive tactics).  Well that just sucks I guess I wasted more than 250 hrs thus far in being trained as an advanced firearms instructor.  Our DT instructor has wasted his time in however many hrs to be a Master DT instructor and we both are wasting our time in the training we provide for our dept.  Then all the other instructors for all the other agencies are apparently wasting their time to.   What a shame.


You have the rest of your life to solve the problem, how long your life lasts depends on how well you do it. -Clint Smith

Respect it

Steve_mcqueen_max50

884 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Scurge says ...



PFCDL says ...



Civilian Law Enforcement are not trained to deal with soldiers as soldiers we are trained in Hand to Hand Combat, Weapons. I think the only time civilian law enforcement should even have contact with soldiers is when we are off post and even then they should call CID or MP's. what happened at FT Hood could have been prevented. but what happened can never be changed all we can do is learn from it. and prevent it again with weapons that belong to the army should not be ready to fire unless you are at a range or in a combat envoirment. I lost friends at fort hood. and the only time you should have ammo on a military base is when you are law enforcement either civilian or military police and at the range. most bases you drive up to say NO WEAPONS OR AMMO ALLOWED ON POST. among other things. I as was at Ft. Dix when they tried to attack soldiers on post. and no the major did not bring the weapon on post they where military issued weapons. as  stated before shakedowns and removing either firing pins or bolt carrier groups should be removed from the weapon and only give to the soldier at the range or CQB training or when you get ready to board the plane for Iraq or afgan.



Are you suggesting I am not trained in firearms and hand to hand combat (aka Defensive tactics).  Well that just sucks I guess I wasted more than 250 hrs thus far in being an advanced firearms instructor.  Our DT instructor has wasted his time in however many hrs to be a Master DT instructor and we both are wasting our time in the training we provide for our dept.  Then all the other instructors for all the other agencies are apparently wasting their time to.   What a shame.



What happened at Ft. Hood could have been prevented by "SOMEONE IN AN AUTHORITARIAN POSITION THAT SHOULD HAVE PUT THAT TRAITOR IN THE BRIG LONG BEFORE HE KILLED OTHERS OUT OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS".  Civilians should not be carrying guns on a Military Reservation unless summoned in the Law Enforcement Capacity.


As to the insult that Civilian Law Enforcement is not capable of handling Military Idiots off the base , they have always done an admirable job of keeping up with the "SELF INDULGENT LEGENDS IN THERE OWN MINDS".  I do not wish to belittle the Military Police in any way as you have indicated the incompetence of Civilian Law Enforcement , however MP's are very limited in there capabilities as Law Enforcement as you yourself indicated the CID are called to crime scenes. As a Military Veteran and a Retired Police Veteran , the Police can surly hold there own "WITH COMBAT SITUATIONS ON THE STREET BECAUSE THEY DO IT EVERY DAY ALL OVER AMERICA". Mp's only deal with Combat Situations over seas. If you are talking about the "Combat Attitude resulting from Basic and A.I,T. " , if you carry that mind set onto the streets in the U.S. , you are destined for "TOE TAG CITY"!!!!!!!!!!!


Glory earned on the field of battle , can never be taken away , you take it with you to the grave. Quote by General George Armstrong Custer

Evil_max50

7070 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I got distracted by a post and forgot to add. 


No people w/ a CPL CHL CWP, or whatever its called in each perspective jurisdiction, should not be packing guns on a military installation.  Soliders can't so why should civilians.  On duy LE yes.  Off duty I am undecided on that.


You have the rest of your life to solve the problem, how long your life lasts depends on how well you do it. -Clint Smith

Respect it

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I wish to appolgize for that. the reason I say that is because of what happened to a marine killed by a off duty police officer. the marine was not armed and i belive that the use of deadly force only be used in a ultimate last resort.  I never said that civilian law enforcement are not capable of dealing with the idots of the military (ones that do not have respect for the law) I belive that the civilian law enforcement if they deal with military idots to hand them over to the mp's or cid to face more severe punishments and inreguards to what happened at fort hood has nothing to do with people in authoritve positions as we are micro managed What I belive happened was somewhere along the line in training the major came across live rounds other than at the range. that is why I said that all military weapons should have no bolt carrier group until they arrive at the range and turned back in once they leave the range. I feel that civilian law enforcement should only have contact with soldiers off post and then handed over to CID or MP's as civilian law enforcement are not trained in military law aka UCMJ as our laws are more strict and have harsher punishments than civilian laws.

Good-guysjpg-a87be92e015c863e_max50

548 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

As a former Army MP and current Civilian LEO I can say that we LEO's can take on any military soldier any day. I do not think that you should be able to carry on base due to certain security reasons. Not everyone is mature enough for that responsiblilty. I will say though I do not think that civilian police should be asigned to military bases. The MP Corp was created to enforce military laws for military personnel. I do not think DOD or civilian police should handle Soldiers under the UCMJ. It is not there place to tell a soldier what to do. I think that they should re-activate the Garrison Units and focus more on the security of Military bases and Law Enforcement than preparing to fight down range. If they would do that than maybe the Ft. Hood thing could have been prevented or at least handled a lot sooner. But what do I know


R.I.P "Macho Man" Randy Savage

Steve_mcqueen_max50

884 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PFCDL says ...



I wish to appolgize for that. the reason I say that is because of what happened to a marine killed by a off duty police officer. the marine was not armed and i belive that the use of deadly force only be used in a ultimate last resort.  I never said that civilian law enforcement are not capable of dealing with the idots of the military (ones that do not have respect for the law) I belive that the civilian law enforcement if they deal with military idots to hand them over to the mp's or cid to face more severe punishments and inreguards to what happened at fort hood has nothing to do with people in authoritve positions as we are micro managed What I belive happened was somewhere along the line in training the major came across live rounds other than at the range. that is why I said that all military weapons should have no bolt carrier group until they arrive at the range and turned back in once they leave the range. I feel that civilian law enforcement should only have contact with soldiers off post and then handed over to CID or MP's as civilian law enforcement are not trained in military law aka UCMJ as our laws are more strict and have harsher punishments than civilian laws.



Pleas understand that the Major was a "HEAD CASE" and preaching Jihad to other Service Members. The Upper Echelon Brass was aware of his "Rantings and out of Political Correctness , failed to even watch or investigate him many months before the shooting. As for his gun and ammunition , he had a permit to purchase the gun and ammunition just like any other person , it was derived by scrounging at the Firing Range or Stolen from an Armory, "IT WAS PURCHASED LEGALLY".


I agree with Ten8 about the Garrison Units just like when I was in from 1966 to 1970 . The problem is the "Money" and Trained MP's rather then D.O.D. or O.J.T. MP's. It takes training to understand the U.C.M.J. and without understanding the Law it's rather difficult to enforce the Law.


 


Glory earned on the field of battle , can never be taken away , you take it with you to the grave. Quote by General George Armstrong Custer

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Not only did the brass know about the major so did the FBI and the CIA someone screwed somewhere and didn't put it through the correct channels. with defensive tactics won't defend you against a soldier trained in brazilian ju jitsu and grappling. I have talked to my local police chief in training local law enforcement in grappling and brazilian ju jitsu or krav maga to supplement what you learn in the academy. cause what you learn in the academy is for street fighting not MMA aka mixed martial arts. I saw a case like the one at FT hood in iraq at victory base complex. where a soldier went crazy and killed a bunch of soldiers. we don't want to take down (leathal Force) a soldier like the major we want him alive to intergioate him to find out why he did it and why he was in contact with who ever he was in contact with. as to at least try to stop things like fort hood from happening again not allow any firearms on the post or base without just cause as with ft dix you can not have firearms on the military installation without permission from the post commander and the provost marshal. execpt for training or if you are a MP on duty DA Police on duty and CID on duty. all firearms at the end of a shift or training have to be turned in with the bolt carrier group removed from the weapon and no ammo in the weapon or on your person. I lost friends in fort hood and I don't want to loose anymore for stupid things like this. unlike civilian law he will get the most severe punishment from the UCMJ upto and possibly the death penatly. Civilian Police have to understand atleast those that have not served in the military that military law take precedence over civilian law. no matter where the soldier airman marine or salior maybe. once they are punished by the military then the state or local law will get the military member if they are convicted by both courts military gets the military member first then civilian will get the military member.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Ten8 says ...



As a former Army MP and current Civilian LEO I can say that we LEO's can take on any military soldier any day. I do not think that you should be able to carry on base due to certain security reasons. Not everyone is mature enough for that responsiblilty. I will say though I do not think that civilian police should be asigned to military bases. The MP Corp was created to enforce military laws for military personnel. I do not think DOD or civilian police should handle Soldiers under the UCMJ. It is not there place to tell a soldier what to do. I think that they should re-activate the Garrison Units and focus more on the security of Military bases and Law Enforcement than preparing to fight down range. If they would do that than maybe the Ft. Hood thing could have been prevented or at least handled a lot sooner. But what do I know



and that is what the army is doing they are reactiving Garrison units and moving DA Police to more security and gate duty and traffic. the only problem right now is 90% of all MP's deployed down range are doing what infantry work and Corrections work other than what we are trained for but we are soldiers first and foremost we do what the brass tell us to do. No Questions asked. and just to clarify I am not disrecpting anyone just having a debate.

Evil_max50

7070 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PFCDL says ...



Not only did the brass know about the major so did the FBI and the CIA someone screwed somewhere and didn't put it through the correct channels. with defensive tactics won't defend you against a soldier trained in brazilian ju jitsu and grappling. I have talked to my local police chief in training local law enforcement in grappling and brazilian ju jitsu or krav maga to supplement what you learn in the academy. cause what you learn in the academy is for street fighting not MMA aka mixed martial arts. I saw a case like the one at FT hood in iraq at victory base complex. where a soldier went crazy and killed a bunch of soldiers. we don't want to take down (leathal Force) a soldier like the major we want him alive to intergioate him to find out why he did it and why he was in contact with who ever he was in contact with. as to at least try to stop things like fort hood from happening again not allow any firearms on the post or base without just cause as with ft dix you can not have firearms on the military installation without permission from the post commander and the provost marshal. execpt for training or if you are a MP on duty DA Police on duty and CID on duty. all firearms at the end of a shift or training have to be turned in with the bolt carrier group removed from the weapon and no ammo in the weapon or on your person. I lost friends in fort hood and I don't want to loose anymore for stupid things like this. unlike civilian law he will get the most severe punishment from the UCMJ upto and possibly the death penatly. Civilian Police have to understand atleast those that have not served in the military that military law take precedence over civilian law. no matter where the soldier airman marine or salior maybe. once they are punished by the military then the state or local law will get the military member if they are convicted by both courts military gets the military member first then civilian will get the military member.



M9 aka Beretta 92FS does not have a bolt let alone a bolt carrier to be removed.  Get off the bolt carrier.  We can  read and you have mentioned the in nearly every post.  OK we get it remove the bolt carrier in the weapons that have one.  I get it already. 


NO its not up to LE, military or civilian, to decide which court a service member is to be tried in for crimes committed off base.  Get off it already.  NO the UCMJ does not take precedence.  Its up the courts to decide who handles it.  I arrest asolider for lets say Assault 3rd.  Guess which jail they go to?  That's right county jail.  I call the base let them know I hooked one of their soliders as a courtesy. 


Just like basic training  the basic academy is just that basic.  Most agencies I am aware of have continual training in DT and firearms.  It gets updated regularly, at least here it does.  I'm only trained in street fighting?  I guess my state and my agency didn't get that memo.  I got news for you here it is derived from several marital arts.  I guess that would be the same as mixed wouldn't it?  Dude are you trying to create a pissing match here?


I don't talk crap about Militarty LE.  Although I work with one that is Military LE and another that was and went onto another MOS.  I work near a base and have a general idea what they are being trained.  I however have no first hand knowledge about it.  So I reserve any comments.  Something you want to consider before you continue posting how civilian LE cannot handle military personnel, since you apparently have no first knowledge of what training I have and continue to have.


Nobody is saying we're better than military LE yet you sit there and tell us military LE is better trained and can handle what we cannot.  You have no idea what we are or are not capable of handling.  You only have a general idea what your local PD does in the acad. 


You have the rest of your life to solve the problem, how long your life lasts depends on how well you do it. -Clint Smith

Respect it

Laugh_now_cry_later_max50

161 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

If you want to debate whether or not the Major should have even been in the Army that is one thing. The investigation into the Major and his "loyalties" was not handled correctly, but he the fact is he was still serving and had access to the base. Had ANY of those soldiers had the ability to conceal carry or open carry how many of those killed might still be alive?


I have to agree with Scurge, here. When we as local law enforcement have to deal with a service member it is under our laws. The officer can make a courtesy call to the individual’s commander but we do not just turn that person over to the military. That person has his or her initial appearance before the judge then the D.A. and/or the judge make a decision at that point. As local LEO's we train frequently and constantly in defensive tactics, starting in the academy and continuing throughout our career. YES, our civilian training does include MMA style tactics. I know more than a few instructors who are in fact active MMA competitors. What do you think they teach the officers they are training? To imply that we as civilian LEO's do not have the ability to handle our jobs even when in contact with military personnel is quite frankly insulting. In this area we train with military units frequently. We have good working relationships with each other. My guess is that in any area with military installations this is the case.


I have an issue with telling any actively serving LEA they cannot carry their weapon on or off duty. If an officer is off duty and has access to a base then the officer should let the officers on the gate know they are entering and that they are carrying, or report to the pas and ID office at the gate area. It takes one idiot (i.e. the Major at Ft. Hood) to show that maybe that off duty officer might possibly be able to take control and end a situation that may otherwise end up with a greater loss of life. Our Military bases are damn sure targets for any foreign or domestic terrorist. It is a naive to think that Law Enforcement, military or civilian, will catch every person entering the base to commit a crime. Unless all military bases are going to be locked down to everyone but essential personnel 24/7 then at some point someone is going to get in and more of our service men and women and their families are going to be hurt.


 This may be the most I have ever said on PL, so I will shut up now. lol Yall have a good day and be safe.


 


Loyalty above all else, except Integrity.
You are free to say anything you want, but you are not free to select the consequences from what is said.

0 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I stand corrected on a bunch of things and would like to appologize to anyone I may have affended. I just talked to a senior NCO who I have known for awhile. in reguards to civilian law enforcement they can not carry on post unless they are on offical business with a military member. they have to go to the provost marshal and turn their weapon in. as mp's we can deny any civilian law enforcement officer entry to the base while they are armed. as to the m-9 it is a 92F not nd the 92FS and the 92F is being replaced with a 40 or 45 by ruger or beratta don't know which one yet as they are still field testing and waiting for bids to come in for the replacement. I belive that all LEO's both military federal and civilian would benifit from learning Krav Maga. I also found out that cilivan law enforcement have first dibs on a military member who broke the law but I was told that depending on the DA's office they may hand over the military member for UCMJ action. with MP's we can go off post if we are in persuit of a suspect and go from military law enforcement to Federal Law enforcement. if I offended anyone please accept my appology. I want to know why the FBI, CIA and the CID let his emails slip through the cracks months before the event at fort hood. and why he had a M-4 rifle with ammo when he wasn't supposed to have either together unless at the range or down range where he was going to go.

Avatar_max160_max160_max50

2600 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PFCDL says ...



I stand corrected on a bunch of things and would like to appologize to anyone I may have affended. I just talked to a senior NCO who I have known for awhile. in reguards to civilian law enforcement they can not carry on post unless they are on offical business with a military member. they have to go to the provost marshal and turn their weapon in. as mp's we can deny any civilian law enforcement officer entry to the base while they are armed. as to the m-9 it is a 92F not nd the 92FS and the 92F is being replaced with a 40 or 45 by ruger or beratta don't know which one yet as they are still field testing and waiting for bids to come in for the replacement. I belive that all LEO's both military federal and civilian would benifit from learning Krav Maga. I also found out that cilivan law enforcement have first dibs on a military member who broke the law but I was told that depending on the DA's office they may hand over the military member for UCMJ action. with MP's we can go off post if we are in persuit of a suspect and go from military law enforcement to Federal Law enforcement. if I offended anyone please accept my appology. I want to know why the FBI, CIA and the CID let his emails slip through the cracks months before the event at fort hood. and why he had a M-4 rifle with ammo when he wasn't supposed to have either together unless at the range or down range where he was going to go.



Mea culpa accepted, I have arrested hundreds of military off post from Ft. Hood and never contacted the MP or CID.  One case I was involved with as a Dick there was a MP sniper who killed a man from his truck with a deer rifle over 200 yards away, after a bar fight,  when the victim was on a isolated road.  The DA did turn it over the the Military and he was sentance to Levinworth for 35 years.


 


Hello my name is Inigo Montoya, you killed my father, prepare to die.

"It's not a constitutional violation for a police officer to be a jerk." Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy -December 4, 2000

-319 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

No Civilians should be allowed to carry on any Military and LE Installation and/or Facility.... That's my take on this.
The tragedy at FT Hood could have been avoided -or, at least limited in casualties- by having armed military personnel on patrol in the area. MP's or some other detail.... NOT CIVILIANS... SORRY.

-44 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Silver_warrior_max50

1424 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Well, this thread has taken a few different directions. . . .including an averted pissing match.


It's interesting that while that points brought up originally FOR the carrying of weapons on a base have some validity from a certain perspective, in general though, if they (the military) do not allow trained soldiers to carry sidearms on the base (i.e. THEIR home) why should the average citizen get to carry?  The military base is THEIR home and they have the right to determine who does and does not carry in THEIR home.  And yes, this even responds to law enforcement officers.  As has already been pointed out, we as civilian law enforcement have no business in THEIR home unless called.  Then and only then do we get to practice our trade.

Steve_mcqueen_max50

884 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PFCDL says ...



Not only did the brass know about the major so did the FBI and the CIA someone screwed somewhere and didn't put it through the correct channels. with defensive tactics won't defend you against a soldier trained in brazilian ju jitsu and grappling. I have talked to my local police chief in training local law enforcement in grappling and brazilian ju jitsu or krav maga to supplement what you learn in the academy. cause what you learn in the academy is for street fighting not MMA aka mixed martial arts. I saw a case like the one at FT hood in iraq at victory base complex. where a soldier went crazy and killed a bunch of soldiers. we don't want to take down (leathal Force) a soldier like the major we want him alive to intergioate him to find out why he did it and why he was in contact with who ever he was in contact with. as to at least try to stop things like fort hood from happening again not allow any firearms on the post or base without just cause as with ft dix you can not have firearms on the military installation without permission from the post commander and the provost marshal. execpt for training or if you are a MP on duty DA Police on duty and CID on duty. all firearms at the end of a shift or training have to be turned in with the bolt carrier group removed from the weapon and no ammo in the weapon or on your person. I lost friends in fort hood and I don't want to loose anymore for stupid things like this. unlike civilian law he will get the most severe punishment from the UCMJ upto and possibly the death penatly. Civilian Police have to understand atleast those that have not served in the military that military law take precedence over civilian law. no matter where the soldier airman marine or salior maybe. once they are punished by the military then the state or local law will get the military member if they are convicted by both courts military gets the military member first then civilian will get the military member.



Off point for the thread but GOOGLE     JAMIE GORELIC     for you answer to the lack of communication between Government Agencies. She was the Asst. Atty. General during the Clinton Administration who created "THE GLASS WALL" and making it illegal for processing information from one agency to another ,  "AND THE GLASS WALL IS STILL IN PLACE TODAY" only lees conspicuous because the present Administration has no belief of "THE GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR".  


"AS A POINT OF INFORMATION , AS A SERVICE MEMBER WHO IS ACTIVE , DO NOT , I REPEAT DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN POLITICS UNLESS YOU WANT TO END UP LOOSING THAT (ROCKER UNDER YOUR ^). The Service and Politics do not mix at all . "GARRY OWEN"!


 


Glory earned on the field of battle , can never be taken away , you take it with you to the grave. Quote by General George Armstrong Custer

1979_max50

3250 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I am very pro-carry but no I do not think CHL or CCW should be allowed on a military installation. I see no reason why military in on-base housing should not be able to have a firearm in their home but to CCW should not be allowed. Just on-duty LEO's, MP's and soldiers when directed.I do wish that all gates have manned MP's etc and a gun locker where authorized weapons holders can store their weapons when entering the facility. As for who can take who, grow up.

1979_max50

3250 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

PFCDL, How long have you been in the Army dude? Like legworld says, keep you mouth shut when it comes to making public remarks about your Officers. Additionally who the heck told you UCMJ takes precedence over civilian law? Wrong. Only on a military base as that is Federal Property and under control of the Feds. If a serviceman breaks civilian law off base, his or her a$$ is ours. The military can nail him with an art 134 afterwards if they want. You are only a dang E-3 and could shortly become an E2 if you don't watch your mouth in public. I served 7 yrs and part of that time with the AFPD, (if you even know what that is) and my rank was one heck of a lot higher than yours. You need to go talk to your Sgt. and learn and listen young man. You are also showing your immaturity by going to a civilian PD and telling them they need to train their Officers in MMA or ju-jutsu or whatever you think you are so proficient at. I dare say most if not all older Officers would have you up against the car, wall, ground and in cuffs before you knew what happened, or when you woke up. VBG

Photo_user_blank_big

29 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I don't think anyone should carry on military installations as to gun storage there are gun lockers at the Provost marshalls office.

Photo_user_blank_big

29 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

Robocop33 says ...



I am very pro-carry but no I do not think CHL or CCW should be allowed on a military installation. I see no reason why military in on-base housing should not be able to have a firearm in their home but to CCW should not be allowed. Just on-duty LEO's, MP's and soldiers when directed.I do wish that all gates have manned MP's etc and a gun locker where authorized weapons holders can store their weapons when entering the facility. As for who can take who, grow up.



for security reasons all private weapons have to be stored in the arms room of the provost marshalls office with any type of on base housing. it is a stupid rule but it is a rule. when I was active duty I had to check in my Glock 22 at the provost marshals office any time I came on post.

Photo_user_blank_big

29 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

bmorgan says ...



My answer is no CC holders should not be allowed to carry on base and here is why I feel that way.


It is to easy to get a conceal carry permit.  There is not enough education required to get one.  I believe that had there been 30 or 40 people there at Ft. Hood with guns we could double the body count and then some.   A well trained and knowledgable person with a gun is an asset.  A wreckless "cowboy"  sprayin' and prayin' in a paniced crowd gets people killed. 


And when the LEO's arrived to the report of a man with a gun they would have to try and figure out which of the 40 guys with a gun was the bad guy.  Thus he would be allowed even more time to kill at random while LE tried to sort out a huge mess.  It is also very likely LEO's would end up shooting at least one innocent person by mistake.



The Only time I belive that there should be spray and pray is when you are in combat behind a 249saw, 240B, M2 .50 cal.  and that is a gunners point of view and only cause when you are in a hmmvw or any other machine that moves is when you are moving as this is a hard time to try to get a good sight picture.

White_shirt_max50

4763 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

I agree with Bmorgan as it is far to easy to obtain a carry conceal permit. I was very vocal when my state began to issue permits with minimal training.

Punksmileybest50_max50

6 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted almost 4 years ago

 

As a CHL holder as well as retired Soldier of some 21+ years of service as well as combat experience in Mogadishu, Somalia and Iraq (fought in Falluja, Sadr City, and Najaf during my 2004 tour)...I have a particular aversion to "blanketing" rules when there are many variables that should be considered.


I should have been a bit more clear when I started this thread...I meant Soldiers/Retirees with CHL's.  Not every civilian out there. Although, like I said in my 2nd post in this feed - it is SO easy to get sidearms on the installation...that right now the only people NOT carring are those that follow the rules. I bet a dime to a dollar there are at least 10 (likely many more than this) unlicensed weapons on that post right now!!!


Someone mentioned the MP/LEO issue of identifying the good guys from the bad guys when they arrive on the scene - that's a very valid point - but since it took them over 5 miunutes to arrive, if even a couple people had been carrying, it is very likely the shooter would have already been down and LESS people would be dead/wounded. Soldiers are trained in close quarters combat both armed and disarmed.  If their training kicks in, which it always does...the MP's will be able to quickly ID who is communicating to take down the shooter and who the actual shooter is.


Someone said that the shooter on 5 November used his service issue weapons that day.  The 9mm might have been a service weapon...but the other one was definitely privately owned.  I believe both were privately owned so that arguement is moot!  I may be wrong...and I'm too lazy to look it up right now.


If I should die one day, being shot be some loser with a pistol-be it on post or downtown- it would be very sad if, had I been lawfully allowed to carry a concealed weapon (which I am certified and trained on)...I might have protected innocents as well as kept myself alive.


I would just ask most of you to look at it from a personal side ( I.E. YOU being allowed to carry) if you are an LEO or other trained professional that has been properly vetted to carry a concealed weapon.

Next Page >