This should be interesting and is long overdue…

https://x.com/secwar/status/2039803944965185634?s=61

This should upset the Wine Mommies, so just for that it's good news.

Good! About time.

Yep, I posted about it in the Trump thread earlier. Long overdue.

I retired from the Army in 1995. I was always able to possess my personal firearms on base. When single and living in the barracks I was required to keep them in the Arms room.(Though I did hide an Inland M1 carbine under my bunk for 3 months that I bought from Gun&Bow in Parkland Wa outside of Ft Lewis in 1974 for $89) But when married and living in family quarters I could keep them there but they had to be registered with the Provost Marshal(Military Police) when did this change?

I have had a bunch of 19 year olds work for me and they do dumb thing sometimes, I can easily understand how the rules got started. There will be headaches with this change, but Hegseth is making this change for the right reason. I don't like our military bases being soft targets. We have had instances of a serviceman deciding he was jihadis and shooting up a base before. If there was ever a case of 5 jihadis targeting a base they could do some damage.

quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:
I have had a bunch of 19 year olds work for me and they do dumb thing sometimes, I can easily understand how the rules got started. There will be headaches with this change, but Hegseth is making this change for the right reason. I don't like our military bases being soft targets. We have had instances of a serviceman deciding he was jihadis and shooting up a base before. If there was ever a case of 5 jihadis targeting a base they could do some damage.

People of all ages do dumb things, not just 19 year olds. If they can vote, if they can die, they should be allowed to protect themselves. Military installations are not crime free.

This is a tough one.

I was a JAG officer in Germany in the early '90s. I am totally on board with both the "armed people create safer environments" argument so that a mad doctor can't kill a bunch of soldiers doing pre-deployment processing, and the constitutional rights issue.

I am also acutely aware of just how stupid things get on Friday and Saturday night at the Lower Cavern Club, back at the barracks, and to some extent in base housing.

Military life is not like civilian life. The environment, pressures, group dynamic and culture are very different from civilian life.

This will be "interesting" and I will be watching for the enabling regulations to see how this is implemented.

How does it impact deployed sailors? What buildings / activities are ok, and which are not? How are the barracks handled? If the arms rooms are utilized, what are the hours, release criteria, etc.? Are there different rules for leadership, both enlisted and officer, vs lower enlisted? In uniform? Only out of uniform? If in uniform, is it an issued weapon or a personally owned weapon?

I definitely support the concept; the implementation will be where the devil lives.

For example, in Germany in the early '90s, we had racial friction at the lower enlisted level between the hip hop crowd, and the cowboy crowd. There are also the typical jealousy issues between the old boyfriend and the new one. Weekend fights were to be expected. My unit had three stabbings, two of which were murder; all three over women.

I sincerely hope that this works. I know that I would have liked to be able to carry on post, and on duty. I don't believe that it will be a "bloodbath" or any of the other bullshit thrown around by those opposed to the rule change. I do think, however, that it will create additional challenges for the institution, its leaders, and its soldiers. Every piece of negative news will be amplified; but no one will ever know when the presence of firearms prevented something bad from happening, just because the potential perp knew that the victim pool could be armed. I can also see this as an excellent idea for CONUS installations where most people live off base, and have a car, and travel to and from work. For those folks, it truly makes perfect sense.

So on balance, good for Hegseth for implementing this rule. I sincerely hope it is successful.

When I went to EOBC at Fort Leonard Wood in 1990, most of the troops in my class had POWs and we kept them in our rooms in the new lodging facility. I don't recall any briefings or notifications about having POWs on the post. Everybody acted like sane adults, and we had no issues. Of course, nobody was "packing" while in uniform. At that time FLW was an "open" post, with no gates. Times have changed.

When I was stationed at FT Campbell, KY I was allowed to keep POW's in my office quarters on base. We weren't permitted to carry on base but officers/NCO's could keep weapons in their quarters. Enlisted soldiers could own guns to but had to keep them secured in the arms room if I remember correctly.

I've always believed if a soldier could live with his weapon in a combat zone he could be trusted to have a weapon stateside.

Have the NEWBs gotten smarter and have more common sense since I got out 30 years ago? If not this is not a great idea for FNG's

If I can trust them with nuclear weapons, I'm pretty sure I can trust them with 9mm's

Hopefully this will extend to retired military and other vets with base access. I think DoD/DoW should also extend it to include Federal Civilian employees as well.

Trump tried this in his first term but left it up to the base CO's so it went nowhere. I am cautiously optimistic that with the SoW requiring a written explanation in detail for all denials it will be more effectively implemented.

Some comments remind me of "the streets will run red with blood" hyperbole from back when FL first started the "shall issue" CWPs.
There will be some issues. Some people will lose their life as a result of this. While unfortunate, that is not a reason to continue to violate the 2nd amendment for the rest of the military. That is what the left tries to do every time some evil gun decides to go out and commit violence. (Because it’s the gun's fault)

Years back there was an E7 here in town who came home from work, surprised a burglar, and got shot. I don't remember the details but it sparked an outcry locally over this issue.

I envision that this will end up allowing weapons to be stored in vehicles, not carrying in the workplace, which I am good with. That was the same rights I had at my last job and it allowed me to protect myself if I left work for lunch.

quote:

Originally posted by mrvmax:

quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:
I have had a bunch of 19 year olds work for me and they do dumb thing sometimes, I can easily understand how the rules got started. There will be headaches with this change, but Hegseth is making this change for the right reason. I don't like our military bases being soft targets. We have had instances of a serviceman deciding he was jihadis and shooting up a base before. If there was ever a case of 5 jihadis targeting a base they could do some damage.

People of all ages do dumb things, not just 19 year olds. If they can vote, if they can die, they should be allowed to protect themselves. Military installations are not crime free.

I understand your statement, but not sure what it has to do with the quote. The whole point of supporting Hegseth making the change is recognizing a basic right was stripped, and he is returning that basic American right. Following the rule change someone is going to have an ND or shoot someone (not in self defense) on a base. That will happen and the libtards will criticize Hegseth and Trump afterwards. That doesn't mean we should outlaw guns the next week. It could be any adult, but my life experience tells me 19 year olds often do dumber shit at a faster rate than 25 year olds. And yes, I have had to terminate employment for 50 and 60 year olds for doing dumb shit also, but not at the same rate.

I used to get pissed at the managers that worked for me wanting to make more rules all the time when someone did something stupid. My answer was always discipline or fire the dumbass for breaking the rules we already have. The weaker managers always thought the answer was to write more rules (see Congress) restricting freedoms for everyone, rather than discipline or fire the one dumbass. This is one of the reasons I admire Trump and Hegseth. We really don't need more laws, we need an executive leader and a military leader that don't put up with bullshit and can drop the hammer on someone when needed.

My statement on jihadis was in reference to Nidal Hassan that shot up Fort Hood in 2013. He's on death row at Leavenworth now, but he killed 13 people before he was stopped. I hope the next time something like that happens the terrorist gets put in the ground immediately.

quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:
My statement on jihadis was in reference to Nidal Hassan that shot up Fort Hood in 2013. He's on death row at Leavenworth now, but he killed 13 people before he was stopped. I hope the next time something like that happens the terrorist gets put in the ground immediately.

Are they going to allow carry? If not then I don't think this change will help.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
>snippage<
I definitely support the concept; the implementation will be where the devil lives.
For example, in Germany in the early '90s, we had racial friction at the lower enlisted level between the hip hop crowd, and the cowboy crowd. There are also the typical jealousy issues between the old boyfriend and the new one. Weekend fights were to be expected. My unit had three stabbings, two of which were murder; all three over women.
So on balance, good for Hegseth for implementing this rule. I sincerely hope it is successful.

You are right that the implementation will be where the devil lives.
The military has always been a microcosm of society and its inhabitants.
Just like in civilian life, there are really good honest, hardworking folks and there are the shitheads.
Friction between groups of X vs Y has *always* been present and has going on before the “new world” was even discovered.

Not really all that much different than Police and Fire Departments that I have witnessed in my lifetime.
(This is from a viewpoint of someone who didn’t serve in the military…me)

Command Officers are loath to leave anything up to the individual.
If it’s not written in current policy, it must be studied, numerous committee meetings held and time wasted. As a result, the CO’s love to keep current policies in place and not risk rocking the boat.

^^^^^ I completely agree. Command will regard this as a hassle and distraction that they would rather not deal with, rather than an improvement in the lives of their soldiers that expands freedoms and respects the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:
Following the rule change someone is going to have an ND or shoot someone (not in self defense) on a base. That will happen and the libtards will criticize Hegseth and Trump afterwards. That doesn't mean we should outlaw guns the next week.

There were similar conversations around arming pilots after 9/11. Sure enough, there were a few NDs and there were several misplaced weapons.

The NDs were avoidable, and somewhat surprising given the typical pilot's focus on safety. But humans sometimes do stupid things.

Many of the problems were created, though, by the bureaucrats making rules and restrictions. The lock box was a biggie, resulting in much unnecessary handling of the loaded weapon. It also separated the weapon from the pilot's body, resulting in some misplacements.

The devil was definitely in the details, and Murphy never sleeps. Let's hope the military gets it right.