Guns are tightly restricted on US military bases -- would Trump change that?

[Akamai]

Is Trump going to try to force US military bases to also allow concealed carry or open carry? Guns on US military bases tend to be tightly controlled, with no open carry or concealed carry allowed except for security personnel or in other specific circumstances.

Maybe Trump and the other Republicans should ask our military leaders why this policy is in place -- or does that make too much sense (and may lead to answers they don't want to hear)?

Military insights can be very useful on the issue of guns. For example, General McChrystal said military assault type rifles have no place other than on the battlefield -- certainly no place in civilian life.

[Duckhunter935]

1. he is right

military assault rifles are full auto and very tightly restricted.

[Akamai]

10. McCrhystal was talking about the bullets themselves -- not the automatic firing capabilities.

These larger military rounds have no place in civilian life, he is saying, especially around schools.

And McChrystal sure knows a thing or two about guns in war zones and cities.

[Duckhunter935]

14. a 5.56 round is not big

Not much.bigger than a small 22 caliber. 7.62 or 308 is a much bigger round and the have been in civilian hands virtually forever.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

16. What are these larger military rounds?

The standard 9mm pistol round? Or the 5.56mm rifle round? Neither is large, compared to many on the market.

And McChrystal also knows a thing or two about politics, and what will please. I just wonder if the good general owns any personal firearms and ammunition.

[GGJohn]

18. You really have no knowledge of military weapons do you?

The 5.56, or civilian version, .223 round are of medium power, the bullet itself is about the same size as a .22 round.

I love it when people come here thinking they know about firearms and it takes just a few posts to know they're clueless.

[NickB79]

23. The 5.56mm round the M4 and M16 fire is so SMALL, troops complained in Afghanistan about it

Military weapons have seen a steady trend towards smaller caliber rounds over the decades, to increase ammo capacity and reduce recoil for more accurate firing.

The Springfield rifles the US fielded in WWI fired a .30-06 caliber round, as did the M1 Garand in WWII. This bullet puts out 3 TIMES as much energy as the 5.56mm one we use now, and is probably the most popular hunting round ever made. The next rifle fielded, the M14, fired a .308 round, using a slightly lighter bullet at the same velocity to reduce recoil and weight. Also insanely popular with hunters.

Then we went really small to the 5.56 mm round (.224 caliber) in Vietnam with the M16. It is so weak in comparison, most states still don't allow it for deer hunting.

Today, there's a debate about going back up, to a 6.8mm (.270 caliber) round instead, because of the complaints about the lack of killing power the M4's bullets have.

[GGJohn]

2. Very few military assault rifles are in civilian hands,

and those that are, are very tightly regulated.

[Hoyt]

3. I see gunners are here correcting nomenclature - - auto vs semiautomatic - as if a semi-auto can't

kill a lot of people quickly and efficiently, not to mention how easy it is to convert a semi-auto.

Gunz are tightly regulated on military bases because the brass know how dangerous they are, as well as those who carry them.

[dumbcat]

4. You find it wrong to correct nomenclature?

That very telling.

One would think using correct nomenclature would encourage intelligent debate. Well, unless one had another agenda?

[GGJohn]

7. He also claims it's easy to convert a semi to a full auto,

he knows this is a lie, being told many times he's wrong, but he continues to lie about it.

[Angel Martin]

41. the San Bernardino shooters attempted to convert their AR's to full auto

and were not able to.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-85236731/

They were, however, able to bypass the magazine limits and the "tools only" magazine change.

the full auto prohibition does have a real effect on gun safety.

the main effect of mag limits and the "bullet button" is to defeat Democrats.

[Thor_MN]

11. I find deflecting with minor corrections to nomenclature a common tactic.

Anything to distract from regulating firearms.

[dumbcat]

13. Of course. It's much better to continue the lies and half truths

if it advances your point.

[Duckhunter935]

15. that is not a minor correction

It is the basic function of a weapon and is a very important distinction.

[Hoyt]

29. Exactly. As numerous mass shootings demonstrate, semi-autos are plenty lethal

and capable of killing a lot people.

[GGJohn]

5. Of course, as usual Hoyt, you're wrong.

But we've come to expect that.

[TeddyR]

8. Hoyt

If it is so "easy" to convert to full auto I'd think there are tons of fully auto weapons being used in crimes. Can you point me to those stories?

[Hoyt]

30. Semi-auto are deadly enough. I bet you've checked out what is involved. Here's a trick.

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/how-make-your-gun-shoot-fully-automatic-one-easy-step

[TeddyR]

34. That didn't answer my question

I'll give you credit for toeing the controller line, but I asked you to point me to stories about fully auto weapons used in crimes. You can't, and that is why other folks distinguished between the two. Controllers would be better off if they knew the difference between auto and semi, and while you understand that difference many don't. Those that don't understand the difference damage the credibility of the controller movement.

[Hoyt]

37. Yahoos don't need fully automatic weapons to kill a lot of folks, intimidate folks, play

militia or Klansman, etc.

[NickB79]

24. Semi-auto vs full auto is not a small quibble

It's the difference between this:

And this:

If it were not a big issue, there wouldn't be enhanced sentencing guidelines associated with the use of automatic weapons in a crime: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-658.ZO.html

[Hoyt]

31. Our mass shooters have been effective with semi-auto and yahoos love them.

[GGJohn]

32. LOL. eom.

[X_Digger]

6. The policy is in place because guns and ammo ended up at gun shows in the early 90's.

Sometimes you'd open up the ammo crates, and they'd still have the DOI receipts in them.

(This was one recommendation that came out of the Clinton military base report-- the one that also recommended closures.)

[Akamai]

9. McChrystal was focusing on the bullet itself -- see below

From: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50400806/t/gen-mcchrystal-assault-rifles-are-battlefields-not-schools/#.VpEsJvkrKUk

By Jane C. Timm
Morning Joe
updated 1/8/2013 3:21:11 PM ET

McChrystal, who once led the war in Afghanistan, said that there was "no need" for those kinds of weapons to be available in the general population.

Former Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who led the war in Afghanistan, endorsed strong gun control laws Tuesday on Morning Joe.

“I spent a career carrying typically either an M16 or an M4 Carbine. An M4 Carbine fires a .223 caliber round which is 5.56 mm at about 3000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed for that,” McChrystal explained. “That’s what our soldiers ought to carry. I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.”

The AR-15, the civilian version of an M-16 or M-4, has been the weapon of choice in many recent mass shootings —both Adam Lanza and James Holmes used them in Newtown and Aurora, respectively. Since Lanza massacred 20 young children in Newtown, Connecticut, gun control has returned to DC’s front-burner and the president has called for strict gun control measures.

“We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population,” McChrystal said. “Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. If the argument is meant as an idea towards warding off rampage shooters

Ft Hood, recruiting offices and the Naval Yard shootings would seem to challenge the underlying assumptions.

In fact, after the recent terrorist attacks on the recruiting offices many have petitioned that service members not be disarmed. One officer faced court martial for going to his car to retrieve his personal weapon. Several state governors have allowed select full time National Guard troops to carry on duty.

[Akamai]

17. My suggestion -- Leave it up to the commanders on base or to the relevant laws.

Snopes has a good history on the matter of the soldier getting his gun and firing back, I think:

http://www.snopes.com/navy-commander-charged/

*************************
Navy Commander to Be Charged for Returning Fire Against Chattanooga Gunman?
Reports that a Navy commander will be brought up on charges for returning fire against the Chattanooga gunman are unconfirmed.
David Mikkelson
David Mikkelson
Aug 2, 2015
SHARE

0
NEWS: Reports that a Navy commander will be brought up on charges for returning fire against the Chattanooga gunman are unconfirmed.


On 1 August 2015, the oft-unreliable web site of conservative commentator Allen B. West published a blog post with the clickbaiting headline "What's happening to this heroic Navy officer from the Chattanooga shooting will make your blood BOIL." That post claimed that
Navy Lt. Cmdr Timothy White, who is believed to have used a personal weapon to return fire against the shooter who killed four Marines and one sailor during a 16 July 2015 attack at Chattanooga-area military facilities, was going to be brought up on charges of illegally discharging a firearm on federal property by the Navy:

That post was largely cribbed from a thinly-sourced Western Journal article that in turn referenced a Navy Times article that discussed the Navy's investigation into the shooting but made no mention of White's being brought up on charges:

A Navy officer and a Marine fired their sidearms hoping to kill or subdue the gunman who murdered five service members last week in Chattanooga, Tennessee, according to multiple military officials familiar with internal reporting on the tragedy.

It remains unclear whether either hit Muhammad Abdulazeez, who was shot and killed on July 16 after he gunned down four Marines and a sailor at the Navy Operational Support Center in Chattanooga. It's also unclear why they were armed, as it is against Defense Department policy for anyone other than military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property.

A report distributed among senior Navy leaders during the shooting's aftermath said Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the support center's commanding officer, used his personal firearm to engage Abdulazeez, Navy Times confirmed with four separate sources. A Navy official also confirmed a Washington Post report indicating one of the slain Marines may have been carrying a 9mm Glock and possibly returned fire on the gunman.
West maintained he had "confirmed" via text message that the Navy was bringing charges against White and urged readers to "flood the phones" of the Navy Secretary and the Secretary of Defense to protest that action:

Ladies and gents, resulting from the text message I received yesterday, I can confirm that the United States Navy is bringing charges against Lt. Cmdr Timothy White for illegally discharging a firearm on federal property.

Here's what needs to happen. Flood the phone of SecNav Ray Mabus and SecDef Carter and ask them whose side they're on. Demand the charges being brought against Lt.Cmdr White be immediately dropped. If those charges are not dropped, I will personally lead the charge to have Carter and Mabus removed from their positions.
However, as of 2 August 2015, U.S. Navy representatives responding to Facebook inquiries about the matter have been stating that the incident is still under review and no charges have yet been brought against any Navy personnel:

Stories of Navy personnel being charged with an offense are not true. There is still a long way to go in reviewing the facts of this tragic incident, but at this time we can confirm no service member has been charged with an offense.
The Washington Post noted on 4 August 2015 that Pentagon officials said "criminal charges are unlikely in White's case" and that other disciplinary options were possible:

It's worth noting that the Navy has a variety of options on the table. For one, it could feasibly recognize White for valor, while still taking some administrative action against him less serious than criminal charges.

Those options could include professional counseling or a non-punitive letter of caution. A letter along those lines would not be considered punishment, but rather a formal way of noting a deficiency or professional mistake.
The Department of Defense currently prohibits military personnel from carrying personal weapons while on duty, but that policy could be changing:

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter said the Pentagon could allow more military personnel to carry arms when stateside as part of an effort to bolster security at military sites following the recent shooting in Tennessee that killed five service members.

In a two-page memo dated July 29, Mr. Carter directed military commanders and civilian leaders to draw up new security plans and procedures for facilities which could be at risk. He said the July 16 shooting in Chattanooga illustrated the vulnerability of military sites and other facilities used by troops while in the country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. Commanders can add to restrictions but seldom lift restrictions.

So you're effectively saying, "lift the current restriction."

[Akamai]

21. I would let them make the changes they feel they need to make and can lawfully make.

Commanders know a lot more than we do about the actions going on at the time, can bring in other resources including rapid response groups, etc.

It would be interesting to hear the reasoning of the Joint Chiefs, the heads of the various services, etc.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. While what you say is true I don't see it as germane to discussion about regulations

governing service members on bases and offices inside the US.

[Akamai]

26. A real problem is generalizing from single instances -- military leaders are much more likely to be

guided by statistics, by the big picture

They see what works over the long haul.

e.g., seat-belts in cars save lives. Although there may be occasional remarkable instances in which they hurt people's chances for survival, overwhelmingly they are helpful and that is why people support requiring them -- and child seats, etc. -- in cars.

I sure would like to look at the larger numbers than be persuaded by clicks on a keyboard, etc., no offense intended.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. While military leaders can and do offer advice on the writing of military regulations

those regulations are ultimately the product of Congress and orders from the President. If memory serves the ban on weapons on military posts was instituted by President Clinton.

Civilian control of the military is part of the bedrock of the republic so if that is what a president ordered then the military is obligated to comply absent subsequent orders or congressional action.

If the question is: Should the ban against service member's be lifted absent local commander's restrictions? I will answer, "yes." Yes, I trust the men and women in uniform to responsibly carry personal weapons.

[Akamai]

36. Memory doesn't serve you accurately in this instance. The regs were written during the preceding

Bush administration.

About trusting "the men and women in uniform to responsibly carry personal weapons", I would leave that up to the commanders and the regulations. My uncle was a naval captain for more than 20 years and I am sure he did not give his fine personnel access to personal weapons on board ship at all time, and for obvious reasons.

By the way, this is from Media Matters:

Department Of Defense Policy, Which Allows Guns On Bases, Actually Dates To The Administration Of George H.W. Bush

Policy Was Not "Enacted" Under Clinton, Instead It Was "Effective Immediately" In 1992. From the February 25, 1992 directive:

This Directive is effective immediately. Forward one copy of implementing documents to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) and the Inspector General, Department of Defense within 120 days. [Department of Defense, 2/25/92]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Another bad Bush policy.

[Duckhunter935]

20. commanders can not loosen

DOD or service regulations, they may however add to them.

[madville]

22. Policies vary from base to base

Ultimately it is currently at the Base CO's discretion to set a policy and how restrictive it will be.

[Duckhunter935]

28. however

DOD and the services set the base standards the commander must at the minimum must have. Even he or she can not have lower standards than those.

[Hoyt]

33. Glad to see you understand that allowing more gunz loose on base is a LOWER standard.

[TeddyR]

35. Let's be clear

If we are talking about personal safety, there is very little need, if any, for concealed or open carry on a military base. There are few safer places than a US military installation. I was stationed at two military bases over a 10 year period and recall very little violence/crime on base. Some domestic disputes, some DUI issues, but no shootings or robberies. Perhaps that is because, in addition to armed law enforcement throughout the base, many service members carried firearms for their job. I suspect that very few criminals have any interest in committing a robbery in an area where there are numerous armed individuals and the entrance and (more importantly) the exit are controlled. I recall one violent incident with a firearm on base in that entire 10 year period, and that involved a suicide.

[Hoyt]

38. And hardly any guns. You seem to think society here is a war zone. Leave em at home.

[TeddyR]

40. Did you actually read my post?

Military bases are flooded with weapons - LE, who are everywhere, security forces, firearms instructors, etc. I suspect that more than half the people walking around a military base any given day are armed. That's why there's no on-base crime. Except in rare instances, like in Texas when the jackass shot a bunch of people in a hospital ward.