The infantry term for taking on those odds is “suicide.”

Which is why you wouldn’t do it just with infantry (see above M1A1′s and A-10′s). Besides, a significant number of those wouldn’t fight.

Shane: In fact, arming the potential victims makes the first responder’s job incredibly difficult. When everyone is wearing the same uniform, and everyone has a weapon drawn — who do you shoot?

I’d suggest they start by shooting anyone who is shooting at unarmed people. He’ll probably be the one everyone else is looking at. Those armed people who are in a defensive position protecting unarmed people can be checked out and left alone. It isn’t rocket science.
Amazing that this argument isn’t made about plainclothes cops.

John Moore: These days, with M1A1’s and A-10’s, against which 2nd amendment weaponry would have no chance.

There are what, about half a million warfighters in the U.S. military? Against 80,000,000 gunowners? That’s 160:1. The infantry term for taking on those odds is “suicide.”

At least, the people that supposedly fight in wars are supposed to be trusted within the boundaries that they inhabit.

Put all kinds of unconstitutional laws and restrictions on us civilians but, burden the folks wearing uniforms? nah!

Bruce Hayden: furthers the purposes of the Second Amendment (one of which was to permit the civilian population to be armed as a check on the uses that might be made of a standing army).
That is an over-reach. Whether the soldiers are personally armed or armed on command is irrelevant to the protection of the citizenry. That protection would be needed in the case where the armed forces were called upon to enforce tyranny, during which they would surely be armed. These days, with M1A1’s and A-10’s, against which 2nd amendment weaponry would have no chance.

In fact, arming the potential victims makes the first responder’s job incredibly difficult. When everyone is wearing the same uniform, and everyone has a weapon drawn — who do you shoot?

In all but rare cases, the first responder’s job is to gather evidence and write reports. Hence I can’t have a lot of sympathy for that viewpoint.

In fact, arming the potential victims makes the first responder’s job incredibly difficult. When everyone is wearing the same uniform, and everyone has a weapon drawn – who do you shoot? The brown guys? Sounds like a terrific policy, given that the authorities did not realize there was only one shooter until after the whole thing was over. Initial reports were that there were 3 shooters, possibly more. How many well-meaning but innocent soldiers would have died at the hands of confused police? How many more would have been killed in the crossfire?

So if an “soldiers may be armed on duty” policy wouldn’t have even prevented the tragedy, what makes it worth the unintended consequences? It seems like there’s a negligent discharge/accidental discharge every few days in Iraq – I’d hate to extend that kind of risk to our CONUS bases.

Seriously. Events like these should have prevented long before the shooter entered a building with a gun and intent to kill. It’s not like there weren’t warning signs.

Because Soldiers, on a recurring basis so frequent it is scary, do stuff to show they cannot be trusted.

And this differs from civilians, who are usually allowed to have firearms, exactly how?

I too saw soldiers do stupid things when I was in the Navy. Duh. People do stupid things, and the military removes the self-selection that may keep observers from noticing in normal life. It doesn’t excuse removing their firearm privileges.

Because Soldiers, on a recurring basis so frequent it is scary, do stuff to show they cannot be trusted.

My first day as a platoon leader a Soldier from my platoon was stopped just prior to trying to beat a Soldier in another Company who had had an affair with his wife. If he had a gun, he would have shot him (and likely the NCO who stopped him).

In a year as a platoon leader, I dealt with directly at least a dozen incidents (and heard of more) of violence between Soldiers. Up to and including being subject to threats by Soldiers who were being punished and/or chaptered out for not being able to cut it.

Now, the Army has a great, well educated force. And most Soldiers perform their duties with diligence, honor and integrity and deserve the gratitude of their nation at war or not.

Mixed in with those great well-educated Soldiers are guys who do drugs, Soldiers who are involved in gangs, guys who have to show every how tough they are constantly, daredevils, inattentive guys, drunks, Soldiers who can’t handle disciplinary punishment, guys who will do anything to get out, etc.

There are lots of great Soldiers, and more good than bad. But whoever posted “Modern American enlisted members are selected for intelligence and character, rigorously trained, and see themselves as professionals, which they are.” above needs to realize that it doesn’t apply to everyone in the Army.

The complaint about Army training heard often is that it is based on “the lowest common denominator”. Well, after many, many decades of experience, the rules tend to be based on that as well.

Part of the problem is that there is no such prohibition and most of the cited articles are confused on several points.

The below link, which was the next level down to the OP link, takes you here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/
“In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection.” The problem with this is that the regulation refers to Law Enforcement and Security Personnel and generally discusses use of firearms in performance of official duties. I think you can dispel most of the concern by analogizing this to civilian police. Most departments require officers to carry department issued firearms. This is the thrust of the types of issues the regulation discusses. http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r190_14.pdf As far as commander’s issuing weapons for personal protection, the gist of this is a prohibition on a commander having authority to issue, say an M-16 or M9 to a Soldier who shows up and feels threatened or afraid (hypothetical: Soldier’s girlfriend’s ex-husband follows Soldier. Next day, Soldier goes to Commander. “Sir, I am afraid for my safety. Can I have an M-16?” Answer: “No”). This is not a situation where a commander is prohibited from issuing weapons to defend life or the integrity of the unit from an immediate threat (I think the distinction is between a personal security issue and the inherent military right of self defense). I don’t know how many are confused about this, but I can see that being lost on some.

Okay, so, once you are past most of the confusion about what an Army Regulation says and doesn’t say, I think the issues are still interesting. I also think that finding out whether any bans would be lawful may hinge on constitutional issues, the analysis should continue to the regulatory issues as well as State’s rights issues (and pre-emption). I don’t have enough space to cover a full analysis. But, I will offer a few points.

First, we have to settle on a question. I think the thrust is, “would it be lawful for the military to ban possession of POW’s on or off post. Analyze for family members, civilian employees, or contractors.

On post- I think the analysis needs to address who has authority to regulate and set policies on posts. The answer, generally, is the Installation Commander. Most authority to set policies are delegated to these CDR’s via regulation, however, some powers are granted by inherent command authority. I think the argument for a ban of weapons on post is probably the strongest. I still think it fails (due to 2A reasons, not sure what level of scrutiny would be applied, but I don’t see how a complete ban would meet even rational basis scrutiny when Soldiers have access to much higher powered weapons regularly…I could be wrong on this, though…I also base this on my vague memory of a JAG School exercise that I took about 6 years ago that dealt with similar issues…but mainly having to do with legality of storage, registration, and transportation requirement regulations. I know this is not good authority, “my vague recollections,” but I do remember there being quite a lot of concern with the Commander’s regulations not conflicting with State laws…though, I think you may also have to look to whether the Military base is an exclusive Federal Jurisdiction or shared State-Federal, and perhaps if it is owned or leased government property).

Because it is generally an Installation issue, I do not think that other Commanders may regulate weapons on post. But what about off post? I think a direct Commander may issue otherwise lawful orders with a military purpose (probably easy enough), but I then think you may have Constitutional and scope of authority issues to contend with. And the Commanders certainly have no authority off post over family members, civilians. I think the real world situation is that the Installation/Garrison Commanders are the ones regulating weapons (violations being referred back to chain of command for violation of lawful order/regulation) with the direct Commanders having witholding of authority to address most of the issues to the BDE Cdr level or higher (sometimes up to General Court Martial Convening Authority level or even Corps)for “use, or threatened use of, violence.”

I can give an example of a fairly common regulation for regulating weapons on military posts: http://www.knox.army.mil/garrison/dhr/asd/regs/r210-1.pdf As others pointed out, most bases deal with weapons in the context of registration, storage, and transportation requirements.

Bottom line, I think the original question was based on an article that has misleading and faulty premises. Then I think there was a too quick analysis without looking at some of the more important issues (though, some could say I did not help things much…if that is the claim, I will admit guilt, but offer in defense that this is not a topic that could or should be covered in a blog post; if you want to read ALOT on this subject, go to this Army JAG School publication: https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/JAGCNETInternet/Homepages/AC/TJAGSAWeb.nsf/8f7edfd448e0ec6c8525694b0064ba51/5eb43a418fb98815852569ac004c31db/$FILE/JA%20221%20Law%20of%20Military%20Installations%20Deskbook%20_Sep%2096_.pdf).

A few other comments:

A poster said something about “double jeopardy” applying to the military. This is not a good way of stating or looking at the issue. It is the same for military and civilians. The rule is that the same sovereign can’t try you twice for the same crime. In the military, the sovereign is the US government, so either court-martial OR Federal trial (depending on the basis for Fed. Jurisdiction) are available AND State trial (again, looking at the basis for charges on a military base; it could be that there is concurrent jurisdiction, I believe most TX bases are retained sovereignty grants from the State to Fed govt.) could try MAJ Hasan. But, in this case, it looks like the military is preferring a death eligible case.

“And why is it that the military is so darn distrusting of their own soldiers?”

JT, In my experience, it is not as much that the military is distrusting as much as Commanders are risk averse. If they can prevent a problem (violence, suicide, homicide, etc.), they would be inclined to do so rather than having something bad happen and knowing that someone is going to ask, “Was there something that could have been done to prevent this?”

And why is it that the military is so darn distrusting of their own soldiers?

If the above is true there is more reasons to have ALL military bases arming their soldiers, when performing their official duties now that even, when in a hot war against another government.

I am not aware of any U.S. soldier shot on a military based on U.S. soil by someone who was an enemy in a war since the end of the Indian wars in the late 1800s.

You are now!

JaimeInTexas: Woah, woah, woah. Are we not supposed to be in a war? Why are military personnel on duty in a base not armed?

Afghanistan and Iraq are in war zones. Fort Hood is not. I am not aware of any U.S. soldier shot on a military based on U.S. soil by someone who was an enemy in a war since the end of the Indian wars in the late 1800s. The sole exception is Pearl Harbor, which, of course, would not have been mitigated in any way by having soldiers carrying small arms around with them.

A few more regs that are pretty standard across Army posts.

All privately owned weapons brought onto base for any reason, by anyone, had to be registered with the MPs.

Soldiers living in barracks have to store their personally owned weapons in the unit arms room. They can only withdraw them by seeking prior permission from the unit (Company level) commander. (There is an additional admin reason for this, as the armorer has to be there to sign it in and out)

The last post I was actually required, by the letter of the reg, that all personally owned weapons by Soldiers at that based must be registered, regardless of is they were to be ever stored or transported onto base. (So Soldiers who left their shotguns with mom & dad were supposed to register it). Kind of impossible to enforce.

There are good reasons for these regs, though. Servicemembers are great people. But they are occasionally involved in very malovent acts to those around them (as evidenced by this week) and quite often are involved in really, really stupid stuff.

It is a command and discipline issue, bottom line. The post commander is responsible for everything that happens on post and should be afforded the leeway to establish the necessary controls to maintain order on his/her post. A military base is not the rest of the US. Soldiers, airmen, sailors and Marines check some rights at the door for the greater good.

So what is it called when you keep trying something despite getting the same results?

What is it called when you give more weight to a hypothetical than to experience?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Someone may be, but I don’t think it’s me. Look, I didn’t say that your proposition (CCW for E8 and up) is a bad idea. I just said your line of argument looked weak.

You also don’t seem to have any appreciation for the facts of military life, to wit, the Army is not going to allow anyone to carry a non-GI weapon while in uniform (Patton was a special case), which means they are not going to allow it while on duty. The chance that there would have been faster response if CCW the regs allowed CCW is very low, and certainly speculative.

Think bigger. All soldiers must be in full battle rattle, locked and loaded while on base.

Funny you should mention that. My dad used to complain about how General Patton adopted exactly that rule for everybody under his command after he arrived in North Africa in early 1943. The full battle dress rule applied to everyone, including HQ clerks, cooks, and motor pool guys. My dad wasn’t front-line infantry and especially hated carrying his ancient and heavy 1903 Springfield everywhere and wearing his steel pot helmet in the Tunisian heat (except duiring the occasional Luftwaffe bombing runs, I suspect). But then again, even my dad would grudgingly admit that this was done as part of the post-Kasserine Pass effort to shape the G.I.s into a fighting force up to the task of taking on the Germans…

SeaDrive: Officers + guns doesn’t seem an especially benign combination this week.

So what is it called when you keep trying something despite getting the same results?

How did prohibiting Hasan from carrying work out? Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Are you suggesting that Hasan was prohibited in any way by the regulation that disarmed all of those that might have intervened prior to the arrival of the cops?

Officers + guns doesn’t seem an especially benign combination this week.

Daniel J. Wojcik: Personally owned weapons are not a part of the uniform, so wouldn’t have been present anyway.

The Drill SGT:
I’ll call that bet and raise you.Having commanded a Tank unit at Hood in the early 80’s as well as being a SGT and of course a PVT before that in Vietnam :)

Unless it’s like a cell phone and can be carried under the ACU top on the belt. Also, to get more ridiculous, it can’t have any brandnames on it unless it’s military issued. Like, having to rip off camel-bak tags.

SeaDrive: This argument would have more force if the Ft. Hood shooter was not an officer.

SeaDrive,
are you suggesting that Hasan was prohibited in any way by the regulation that disarmed all of those that might have intervened prior to the arrival of the cops?

Hasan is a prime example of why gun bans don’t work. Clue phone ringing off the hook at your house I guess.

Beth: 4) Personal weapons are banned on base. People who live on base can have their weapons stored with the base MPs. Depending on the base, it can be quite a hassle to check weapons in and out. (I lived on one base where you needed to make an appointment well in advance to check out your personal weapon.) Checking a weapon out is only for use off base. You may not possess the weapon on base.

When I lived in base housing, keeping your personal weapons in your home (family housing, not barracks) was no problem, but you had to register privately owned firearms with Security Forces (USAF, so SF rather than MPs) if you lived on base. The bases I was stationed at also had rifle & pistol clubs (shooting range for private use) on base, so you could use your firearms on base if you wanted to. No concealed carry for self-defense, though.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is the regular army a militia? Probably not in any use of these terms throughout the last 200 years.

If our uniformed service members in this country are going to be the targets, then our officers, CWO’s and senior enlisted could easily be allowed to carry firearms with little or no risk.

This argument would have more force if the Ft. Hood shooter was not an officer.

Troopies are not issued side arms, generally. Carrying a rifle to out-processing briefings and such is kinda silly; definitely inconvenient.

Oh. Just to point out the obvious: a ban on POWs didn’t stopped someone from bringing one to the center, shouting out Marilu Henner, and opening fire. The safety issue regarding nut cases seems to be mootish.

furthers the purposes of the Second Amendment (one of which was to permit the civilian population to be armed as a check on the uses that might be made of a standing army).

That is an over-reach. Whether the soldiers are personally armed or armed on command is irrelevant to the protection of the citizenry. That protection would be needed in the case where the armed forces were called upon to enforce tyranny, during which they would surely be armed. These days, with M1A1′s and A-10′s, against which 2nd amendment weaponry would have no chance.

Secondly, the question is whether or not that policy is wise. And, there I will defer to Drill SGT, who has been there and done that, both as enlisted and as a commander of a combat arms unit.

I think you could make a pretty good historical argument that restricting professional soldiers of the federal army from uncontrolled access to arms while they are on U.S. soil furthers the purposes of the Second Amendment (one of which was to permit the civilian population to be armed as a check on the uses that might be made of a standing army). So, it’s not a question of soldiers’ Second Amendment rights having to give way before the peculiar disciplinary demands of a military; the soldiers — as soldiers at least — have no Second Amendment rights, because it was to protect the civilian population from them that the Second Amendment was enacted.

On a personal note, one of my… co-workers at Walter Reed was busted by the police for shooting his personal firearm into the air in downtown D.C.

The PX was robbed three times during my stay, in all cases the attackers were armed and the soldiers (shoppers) were not. In one case they got into the post via cab, with the cabbie (alive, thankfully) stuffed into the trunk after they robbed him first.

john: I doubt a single other person on this bulletin board can say they’ve seen people chasing after one another through the motor pool with sledgehammers…on multiple occasions, after a boss told people they would have to work after 5pm or called someone’s girlfriend an impolite nickname.

I’ll call that bet and raise you. Having commanded a Tank unit at Hood in the early 80′s as well as being a SGT and of course a PVT before that in Vietnam :)

However I agree with the basic premise. Keeping soldiers and live ammo separate except at specific points in time is the a good general Army policy. In my experience, ammo and weapons only intersected at three points.
- on the firing range
- on the person of an officer of NCO who was prepared to stop somebody from taking weapons from us at other times
- on MPs, on duty

Even in peace time, moving around heavy equipment, in and out is dangerous. I used to describe my tank as 52 tons of malevolent steel, trying to eat people. Tired soldiers, Carrying personal weapons at the same time they may or may not have service weapons just gets too compicated…

soldiers can do some dumb shit…

So having guns on base wasn’t a problem. I don’t think that guns in the barrack is a good idea. The armory is a good compromise. Officers/NCOs in barrack/BOQ should be able to check out their own weapons for carry on duty or concealed off duty.

1) Military personnel on domestic bases are usually unarmed in daily duty. The common exception to this rule is the military police, who are armed. Many bases supplement the MP presense with armed civilian police officers. This is even more common now because of the huge demand for MPs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) When engaging in field training, personnel will check out their personal weapons. Unless engaging in ‘live fire’ training, they often will not be issued ammunition. Immediately upon completion of the training exercise, the weapons are checked back in to the armory.

3) Commanders can, and usually do, ban personnel from possessing personal weapons while in uniform, whether on or off base.

4) Personal weapons are banned on base. People who live on base can have their weapons stored with the base MPs. Depending on the base, it can be quite a hassle to check weapons in and out. (I lived on one base where you needed to make an appointment well in advance to check out your personal weapon.) Checking a weapon out is only for use off base. You may not possess the weapon on base.

5) In addition to barracks, there are often houses and apartments on base for personnel to live with their families.

6) Some military personnel are required to live on base and do not have the option to procure off-base housing.

7) Civilian military family members, called dependents by the DOD, are subject to these same rules. It has been a long time since I lived on base. But in my rather dated experience, dependents could not check out their personal weapons. Their military family member, called a sponsor, had to check them out. If the sponsor was not available, you could not retrieve your weapon for off-base use.

8) Civilian contractors who work on the base are also subject to these rules.