Senator Ted Cruz wants to change the law to allow troops concealed carry on bases, but surprisingly, top military brass oppose the plan. After several shootings and terrorist attacks on U.S. military bases like Fort Hood, it makes sense to reexamine the issue and change the policy.
According to the Washington Times:
Mr. Cruz formally sent a letter to Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the committee, on Tuesday afternoon asking for a hearing on the subject, saying that current restrictions impede Second Amendment rights and weaken the safety and security of troops.
“The men and women in our military have been at war for over a decade; they understand the responsibilities that go along with carrying a firearm,” Mr. Cruz wrote in the letter. “Yet their Second Amendment rights are removed at the front gate.”
Mr. McCain said he has referred the issue to the personnel subcommittee “to let them take action if they want to.”
“I think we ought to have the hearing, but we need the input of the military. They’re the ones who are directly affected by this, and I’m not making up my mind until I hear from the United States military,” Mr. McCain told reporters Tuesday.
The military’s official position is to keep the ban on personal firearms:
Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said that the cost of training and certification requirements would be prohibitive.
“There are a lot of barriers to this idea, and the department’s position — and we’ve spelled this out before — is that we do not support it,” Col. Warren said last April.
…Commanders against concealed carry fear accidental discharges and fights between soldiers may escalate into serious violence.
These excuses are pitiful. Soldiers who own guns have already passed any training and certification requirements the state has, never mind the fact that they are already extensively trained in the safety and use of firearms by the military itself.
If the military can trust its troops with weapons in training and in combat situations, surely it can trust them with simply walking around base – in fact, they used to:
Before 1993 each base commander determined what the carry rules would be at his base. But federal regulations put into effect that year block personnel who are not on security duty from carrying firearms. In the years following, even more regulations have been put in place. Following the shooting at Fort Hood, that installation now requires soldiers to register their weapons with commanders.
What do you think – do you agree with Sen. Cruz that members of the military should be able to carry weapons on base? Tell us in the comments below!
Yes, we want the right to carry on base/post. George this is a discussion about carrying personal weapons, not issued weapons. Your post is entirely irrelevant to the conversation because no one is talking about bringing a rifle to work. To suggest that “Better personnel management” is the solution just further demonstrates how out of touch you are here.
Recent calls in the media for permitting the arming of all military personnel on US installations prompts me to put my two cents in. My position on whether soldiers should be permitted to carry guns on military installations:
In my humble opinion this will not go over big with most soldiers. For one thing, most are not issued side arms, but rifles as personal weapons. Carrying and securing a rifle on post is very inconvenient. Soldiers work in many areas of the military posts, the motor pool, administrative areas, etc. Every time you put your weapon down you have to worry about losing it. Loss of a personal weapon is a court martial offense, so having is stolen, and even having it found after forgetting it, would be reported to his command. The results wouldn’t be pretty on soldier efficiency reports. Rifles kept near work stations would require securing them in a nearby vault or rack, locked and under close observation. Ammunition would have to be secured separately, also in a locked vault. Except for military security people, like the MPs, and people at the firing ranges, weapons are not permitted to be kept in a loaded configuration. This is a safety precaution driven by experience. Commanding officers have historically been very reluctant to permit personnel, other than security personnel from carrying weapons, never mind loaded weapons in any situation other than a a theater of war. Iraq and Afghanistan, a soldier carries his weapon everywhere, even the mess hall and the PX, everywhere. In garrison, one case of an irresponsible use by a soldier, either deliberately or accidentally firing his weapon in garrison would cause so much trouble to the commanding officer’s career that he might have to kiss it good by. In short, personal carry of military ordnance in a garrison situation is unlikely, no matter how much of a stink is made in the halls of Congress.
In regard to the Fort Hood jihad murders: If the jihadi major at Fort Hood had been dealt with properly by his command, he would never have been kept in the Army. Better personnel management would have goon far in preventing that mass murder.
Our Military has always been better train in firearms but yet there are those who are afraid to trust them. Yes, they should be armed on and off military installations!!!