PDA

View Full Version : A Federal CCW, Who wants it?


Fiercely Loyal
11-09-2009, 17:08
In the wake of the recent Ft. Hood attack the question of CCW holders in uniform and on post has become a frequent topic of conversation not only on this forum but YouTube and other places that have like minded individuals.

My question is who wants it? Who would like to see a Federal CCW be available? I have already contacted the NRA ILA (National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action) to find out if there is a current bill being pushed and if not, where to start.

What I would like is feedback on what you could see as plausible things that should be part of the legislation.

TR already gave some help in another thread.
I think there should be a national carry, with very few limitations, and a Federal carry permit, much as retired LE has national priviliges, that would be good on installations as well.

These permits would require significant training on the legal issues of lethal force as well as a performance based demonstration of the applicant's capabilties to make judgements and engage threats in real time.


What I can offer is updates that I get thru the NRA ILA and links to any info I do come up with.

Thanks for the help,
FL

Ambush Master
11-09-2009, 17:41
There have been several attempts to make the CHL/CCW Licenses viable in ALL States just like Drivers Licenses. If that would go through, then the Military would need to ammend their Regs to recognize that Law or like you said a Blanket Fedeal Law allowing the carrying on Fedeal Property.

rubberneck
11-09-2009, 17:43
In the wake of the recent Ft. Hood attack the question of CCW holders in uniform and on post has become a frequent topic of conversation not only on this forum but YouTube and other places that have like minded individuals.

My question is who wants it? Who would like to see a Federal CCW be available? I have already contacted the NRA ILA (National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action) to find out if there is a current bill being pushed and if not, where to start.

What I would like is feedback on what you could see as plausible things that should be part of the legislation.

TR already gave some help in another thread.


What I can offer is updates that I get thru the NRA ILA and links to any info I do come up with.

Thanks for the help,
FL


I don't want a national CCW. I want all states to issue a license that all others must honor just like drivers licenses and marriage licenses. I don't want the Federal government involved in another aspect of my life.

HowardCohodas
11-09-2009, 17:47
I have little enthusiasm for a Federal CCW because it would, by it's nature, cater to the least common denominator. Many of us in states with generous rules would lose ground. On the other hand, a Federal law requiring states to honor other state's licenses as we do with driver's licenses might be a rewarding avenue.

abc_123
11-09-2009, 18:10
I don't want a national CCW. I want all states to issue a license that all others must honor just like drivers licenses and marriage licenses. I don't want the Federal government involved in another aspect of my life.

How would this address the issue of carrying on Federal installations?

rubberneck
11-09-2009, 18:16
How would this address the issue of carrying on Federal installations?

I suppose the Federal Government can write the rules for CCW on a Federal installations.

JJ_BPK
11-09-2009, 18:33
How would this address the issue of carrying on Federal installations?


I think the word is Comity (or reciprocity)..

In law, comity specifically refers to legal reciprocity—the principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other nations (or other jurisdictions within the same nation), particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative, and judicial acts.

In the law of the United States, comity may refer to the Privileges and Immunities Clause (sometimes called the Comity Clause) in Article Four of the United States Constitution. This clause provides that "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

I think the laws are already on the books. The interpreters (SCOTUS) needs to be awaken..

We do not need more Federal intervention...

Fiercely Loyal
11-09-2009, 18:50
I do suppose clarification is already in order. I at this time am not advocating for a National CCW.

What I would rather see is the ability to carry within your state if you meet your states CCW criteria, and a separate CCW criteria on Federal Installations. Much how you can drive a motorcycle off post but to drive it on post you must attend the safety class. I can see this catering to a unique group of people but keep in mind there are a lot of DOD civilians that could use this also.

I would also venture to say that if you were able to obtain thru training and background checks, a CCW for all federal installations, that this would probably require more than all state CCW programs in place. That in turn could be recognized as required training for said states program making it easier to obtain, or instate automatic reciprocity for any Federal CCW holder.

Furthermore I believe that it SHOULD NOT be BRANCH nor RANK specific. If you have met the back ground checks and the required DOD safety / scenario training and firearms proficiency, you should be able to obtain this CCW. This would be the same EXACT training for everyone.

If we hire non military civilians just turning 21 to man our gates and trust them with a loaded firearm why not the Joe who has checked all the blocks and demonstrates the correct intent?

abc_123
11-09-2009, 19:53
I do suppose clarification is already in order. I at this time am not advocating for a National CCW.

What I would rather see is the ability to carry within your state if you meet your states CCW criteria, and a separate CCW criteria on Federal Installations. Much how you can drive a motorcycle off post but to drive it on post you must attend the safety class. I can see this catering to a unique group of people but keep in mind there are a lot of DOD civilians that could use this also.

That's what I thought you were referring to. Thanks for the clarification.


That would work for me. As would mandated reciprocity...althought i'm not sure I understand the difference between that and a national CCW permit...?

I just can't keep thinking about how stupid it is that I can't carry in so very many places...(state, local, federal) when I'd do nothing but make EVERYONE safer if allowed to do so by law.

GratefulCitizen
11-09-2009, 21:55
Probably best overall to keep the feds out of the States' business.
Let the feds deal with the federal business.

The States have been progressing nicely without federal interference.
http://www.kc3.com/CCW_progress.htm
http://www.handgunlaw.us/

Triman19
11-09-2009, 23:58
I agree with Rubberneck..we have had enough of Uncle Sam telling us what we can and cannot do. IMHO I feel that arming our soldiers on posts is a Terrible idea..terrible. I have been a LEO for 5 years and I can honestly say that I have had the privilage of attending many great schools and courses. Some were tactical while others were more not. Once a weapon is placed in your sole responsibility much more liability has been placed on that individual. With that responsibility also comes a required understanding that far more mature thinking is not only required- it is demanded of our LEO.
I simply feel that todays soldiers are not trained properly to handle the responsibility and in some unfortaunate cases- the culpability which may come from one poor judgment call. A firearms violation, depending on the severity, could possibly destroy a soldiers family and career. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable stepping foot on an installation where a high, very high percentage of soldiers may possibly have any level of PTSD. Obviously we all know how that affects some soldiers. Would you want to bump into a soldiers vehicle accidently only to find him/her angry and armed??
I am a great example of what PTSD and LE can do when combined. Short story.. came back from deployment a bit fried. I hit the street ready to work only to find myself in an honest level 2 Use of Force situation.......of which I nearly took to a LEVEL 4. I was not ready for this type of work at all. The best thing I did was take a lot of time off. I see a counselor weekly and I have made progress. It is a long road, but like the SF pipeline I am mentally, emotionally and physically prepared to take on the challenges I am facing.
What if a soldier who was armed didn't have the mental tenacity and intellectual foresight that I was blessed with that day?
Our soldiers, as a mass body, are not trained well enough to handle carrying a side arm in the same capacity as LEO. True, we are trained to handle the M4, the M9 and other systems (of course this varies upon the specific MOS and assisgnment) But in many cases, I have seen soldiers who are insufficiently trained and flat out too immature to handle the responsibility which comes with a weapon.
Just my opinion. Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

-Triman19

Fiercely Loyal
11-10-2009, 05:58
I am sorry Triman19 but i very very much disagree with your point.

You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?

The point of mandatory training is to ensure you are getting mature decision makers that have the ability to protect themselves and others. It is a process. It should weed out those who should not be carrying. Simple fact is had a CCW holder been there and armed a lot less folks would have been hurt in ALL of the mass shooting scenarios.

Not to digress from the original topic of a Federal CCW I can understand how folks would not want any FED / STATE fiascos. Instead you would like to see simply a Federal CCW for installations correct?

abc_123
11-10-2009, 07:13
I agree with Rubberneck..we have had enough of Uncle Sam telling us what we can and cannot do. IMHO I feel that arming our soldiers on posts is a Terrible idea..terrible. I have been a LEO for 5 years and I can honestly say that I have had the privilage of attending many great schools and courses. Some were tactical while others were more not. Once a weapon is placed in your sole responsibility much more liability has been placed on that individual. With that responsibility also comes a required understanding that far more mature thinking is not only required- it is demanded of our LEO.
I simply feel that todays soldiers are not trained properly to handle the responsibility and in some unfortaunate cases- the culpability which may come from one poor judgment call. A firearms violation, depending on the severity, could possibly destroy a soldiers family and career. I personally wouldn't feel comfortable stepping foot on an installation where a high, very high percentage of soldiers may possibly have any level of PTSD. Obviously we all know how that affects some soldiers. Would you want to bump into a soldiers vehicle accidently only to find him/her angry and armed??
I am a great example of what PTSD and LE can do when combined. Short story.. came back from deployment a bit fried. I hit the street ready to work only to find myself in an honest level 2 Use of Force situation.......of which I nearly took to a LEVEL 4. I was not ready for this type of work at all. The best thing I did was take a lot of time off. I see a counselor weekly and I have made progress. It is a long road, but like the SF pipeline I am mentally, emotionally and physically prepared to take on the challenges I am facing.
What if a soldier who was armed didn't have the mental tenacity and intellectual foresight that I was blessed with that day?
Our soldiers, as a mass body, are not trained well enough to handle carrying a side arm in the same capacity as LEO. True, we are trained to handle the M4, the M9 and other systems (of course this varies upon the specific MOS and assisgnment) But in many cases, I have seen soldiers who are insufficiently trained and flat out too immature to handle the responsibility which comes with a weapon.
Just my opinion. Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

-Triman19

What is you position on CCW in general? Civilians as a mass body are not trained at all to handle carrying a side arm in the same capacity as LEO either.

When I went down to the courthouse to apply for my CCW, neither I nor any of the other people standing in line with me were ever tested for PTSD. The only tests were making sure I had passed the requisite firearms safety course or presented a DD214, was not a felon, and that my credit card had enough room on it for the application fee.

sitfly200
11-10-2009, 07:39
I believe that states should get on board with reciprocity across the board. To clear up the difference between state reciprocity and federal or national level CCW is Fed control. If the states agree to unilateral reciprocity then it will stay within the span of state regulation. If we go to a National CCW then the Feds will have direct control of regulation and the definition of self defense and a clean shoot will be extremely narrow. States that have "loose" or citizen favorable regulations will lose that ability when the federal gov't tightens the noose. If they don't comply then the feds can do what they always do and threaten to remove federal funding as they did with the legal drinking age.

As for military men ansd women carrying on post it can be a double edged sword. While there are those with the common sense to do the right things there is a large majority who don't. The post stab and jabs would become more lethal and a big black eye for the military would ensue. Because the press loves nothing more than to jump on military and bash us when convienent. The overall big picture and 2nd and 3rd order effects could be potentially very bad. I am all for soldiers having special rights for the sacrifices made, being an active duty guy myself, but I think some thought would have to be put into this carrying on post. Just my thoughts

LongWire
11-10-2009, 07:43
But in many cases, I have seen soldiers who are insufficiently trained and flat out too immature to handle the responsibility which comes with a weapon.
Just my opinion. Hope everyone is having a great weekend.

-Triman19

Agree completely. Some of the worst offenders I have seen were MP's. De-cocking their M9 hammers with thumb and trigger???? Hello!!!!!!

SF_BHT
11-10-2009, 07:47
Triman19

Well after I retired from SF and have spent almost 10 yrs as a FED...... I can tell you that I was a lot more comfortable with my military brethren packing than a lot of the local/state/Fed LEO's that I work with. After the academy a lot of LEO's do not get a fraction of range time or tactical practice that is needed to keep a fine edge.

I would not have a single problem with a military member that meets state CCW and what ever Post (FED) CCW requirements to carry only on post.

Maturity is always an issue and I work with some 40yr old LEO's that scare me with the attitude and dangerous antics with firearms. Looks like a great opportunity for a weekend job for some Good 18B at McKellers to teach Post CCW classes. A little extra money and more range and training time. WIN WIN WIN....

Utah Bob
11-10-2009, 07:52
Triman 19, I spent 30 years behind the badge and have always supported the rights of citizens to carry firearms. To say that military members should not carry due to the possible PTSD based on your own personal experienced isn't a rational argument.
I was in Florida when the CCW laws were passed. The anti-gun crowd screamed that there would be blood flowing in the streets as ccw holders slapped leather and shot it out over traffic accidents and minor disagreements.

It never happened.

Use of Force Training similar to what civilians receive in many states prior to being issued a concealed carry license can easily be given to troops.
I have heard the argument that only LEOs should carry weapons countless times over the years. And I have been in countries where only LEOs carry. God help us if we ever go down that road.

Robert Heinlein said "An armed society is a polite society".

LongWire
11-10-2009, 07:57
You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?


I think you'll find that this is not the case. They are generally entrusted to carry outside the perimeters of their compounds, and maybe if they get to a range. They are not allowed to carry hot at all times, and depending on their ROE and COC, maybe not even have one in the chamber when off compound, until the situation escalates.

We can belabor the point on which came first the AD or the Clearing Barrel, but I can't say that I trust all service members. I would be in favor of some mandatory courses, but it takes one bad egg to screw it all up. Wait......I am sure there will be mandatory classes coming down from this, watch your buddy, tell a friend tell 2 ETC.......its coming.

Can you imagine the goat rope that situation would have been if there had been more than 3 other people in the room carrying? Lives may have been saved, but I think things may have gotten more out of control. My $.02........Mileage may vary

The Reaper
11-10-2009, 08:50
I am seeing a big disconnect in the logic here.

Why are you assuming that the only soldiers who do or would bring weapons on post and carry concealed are those who would be CCW holders?

Did Hasan have a CCW for Ft Hood? Did the lack of one stop him?

Can a soldier with PTSD not just tuck his weapon in his belt and bring it on post already? Would the numbers of these people really go up if we had a an installation CCW? We are talking about bases with hundreds of access points, not an airport. I can already illegally bring a concealed weapon on post and carry it into one of the clubs. Why would a selected number of trained CCW personnel increase the number of illegally armed soldiers?

Your logic is the same that the anti-CCW community uses, Triman.

And I would stack the training and qualifications of many members of this board against yours. Should you lose your right to carry concealed because of that?

TR

Triman19
11-10-2009, 09:13
[QUOTE=

You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?

The point of mandatory training is to ensure you are getting mature decision makers that have the ability to protect themselves and others. It is a process. It should weed out those who should not be carrying. Simple fact is had a CCW holder been there and armed a lot less folks would have been hurt in ALL of the mass shooting scenarios.
QUOTE]


The difference between carrying a weapon down range and here in the US is drastically different. So much so that unless a person is or was LEO/Fed you may not understand. In theater we have many, many dangerous, stupid and down right negligent "accidents". The mentality behind being armed on FT. Hood for example honestly is different than being armed in a combat environment. When you're in Iraq or wherever you may be, your current mental state is quite higher and more alert than even that of daily duities as a LEO. (I am not speaking on behalf of those officers who maintain an outstanding level of situational awarenes.)
Yes, I would agree that there are many LEO that I have either seen or met that scream liability. Some of those people should have never been charged with the responsibility of being armed. I have also met many a soldier and military man alike who also did not take their duties seriously. I have been 'flagged' more times by military than by anyone else. In the Army, at least the areas I have directly been a part of, too often "checking the box" occured. I witnessed the 'soldier tried so soldier should qualify' attitude. Carrying a weapon in any country, on any mission, in every capcity should be revered with the highest regard for mental and emotional prepardness and training, not to mention safety.
Just tossing the military a permit of some type to carry a pistol screams liability...and not the kind for Uncle Sam. I don't give a rip about read tape and legislation. I care that the members wifes and children on this board and everywhere are safe...on our OWN installations. What I am saying is that simply because we deploy, and quite often, that does NOT make us qualified to carry a weapon in the same manner as our LEO. However, I too do not want to live in a society where the only people armed is the police. I do not advocate strict gun control. I am just asking team leaders of all walks of life and different MOS backgroungs to remember some of your really squared away soldiers. Post deployment with the stresses of familiy issues, financial issues or even a single guy who just needs to decompress. Should they carry a weapon on post? All of the sudden every Joe is an MP. But how many are trained as such? How many understand domestic disputes between honest DV? Is there some type of conflict of interest between our new Privates carrying and his leadership with lets say 20 years in the military?
Has anyone thought about public opinion concerning this topic? I for one am really sick and tired of how our military members get caught up in the government-media struggle for control and whatever else they fight about. But unfortaunatley public opinion matters to some degree. Would it look a little too socialist for half a million military members to now be armed? Although we would not utilize this new ability to rob banks, and harrass anti-war protestors, (which could really be a good R&R weekend) we could look like that once the wonderful media spins it in the most beneficial way possible.
I did read everyones comments after mine before I posted again ( I don't make it a habit to fire from the hip) but gentlemen arming every soldier may not have done a single thing at Ft. Hood. What that coward did was truly awful. There isn't a word for it actually. Clearly something needs to be done. If more *good training* (thats the key) were implemented I wouldn't scream and throw a fit. But I truly feel however, that arming every soldier who choses to carry is not the answer. What is the answer? I feel I don't have enough experience to give an educated response, even with 5 years LEO and 9 years military. But I will say that if this happens an all-encompassing program needs to be put together in order to train men and women properly. If this were to be approved and the very first time a soldier screws it up and hurts someone, it will be over before it started and it will most likely be a huge black eye. Just something to think about.

SF-TX
11-10-2009, 09:14
Our soldiers, as a mass body, are not trained well enough to handle carrying a side arm in the same capacity as LEO.

-Triman19

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

Pete
11-10-2009, 09:15
.......Can you imagine the goat rope that situation would have been if there had been more than 3 other people in the room carrying? .......

But your question leads to the next one. Would the terrorist Maj open fired at that location if he knew there would be at least some armed CCW soldiers in the area?

SF_BHT
11-10-2009, 09:23
Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0

You just had to make my point with the Poster Child of DEA.......

Know what .... Well I will not say ....... but Because of the same Political Correctness that guy is still on the job......

Sten
11-10-2009, 09:25
Triman19 how do you feel about average Joe citizen having a CCW and carrying every time he is out and about (excepting when he has to go to work in the National park)?

SF-TX
11-10-2009, 09:26
You just had to make my point with the Poster Child of DEA.......


;)

The Reaper
11-10-2009, 09:28
[QUOTE=

You can trust these soldiers to be armed overseas 24/7 for a year or more at a time (pre, during, and post traumatic events) and then strip that trust once they have come home to make the right decision?

The point of mandatory training is to ensure you are getting mature decision makers that have the ability to protect themselves and others. It is a process. It should weed out those who should not be carrying. Simple fact is had a CCW holder been there and armed a lot less folks would have been hurt in ALL of the mass shooting scenarios.
QUOTE]


The difference between carrying a weapon down range and here in the US is drastically different. So much so that unless a person is or was LEO/Fed you may not understand. In theater we have many, many dangerous, stupid and down right negligent "accidents". The mentality behind being armed on FT. Hood for example honestly is different than being armed in a combat environment. When you're in Iraq or wherever you may be, your current mental state is quite higher and more alert than even that of daily duities as a LEO. (I am not speaking on behalf of those officers who maintain an outstanding level of situational awarenes.)
Yes, I would agree that there are many LEO that I have either seen or met that scream liability. Some of those people should have never been charged with the responsibility of being armed. I have also met many a soldier and military man alike who also did not take their duties seriously. I have been 'flagged' more times by military than by anyone else. In the Army, at least the areas I have directly been a part of, too often "checking the box" occured. I witnessed the 'soldier tried so soldier should qualify' attitude. Carrying a weapon in any country, on any mission, in every capcity should be revered with the highest regard for mental and emotional prepardness and training, not to mention safety.
Just tossing the military a permit of some type to carry a pistol screams liability...and not the kind for Uncle Sam. I don't give a rip about read tape and legislation. I care that the members wifes and children on this board and everywhere are safe...on our OWN installations. What I am saying is that simply because we deploy, and quite often, that does NOT make us qualified to carry a weapon in the same manner as our LEO. However, I too do not want to live in a society where the only people armed is the police. I do not advocate strict gun control. I am just asking team leaders of all walks of life and different MOS backgroungs to remember some of your really squared away soldiers. Post deployment with the stresses of familiy issues, financial issues or even a single guy who just needs to decompress. Should they carry a weapon on post? All of the sudden every Joe is an MP. But how many are trained as such? How many understand domestic disputes between honest DV? Is there some type of conflict of interest between our new Privates carrying and his leadership with lets say 20 years in the military?
Has anyone thought about public opinion concerning this topic? I for one am really sick and tired of how our military members get caught up in the government-media struggle for control and whatever else they fight about. But unfortaunatley public opinion matters to some degree. Would it look a little too socialist for half a million military members to now be armed? Although we would not utilize this new ability to rob banks, and harrass anti-war protestors, (which could really be a good R&R weekend) we could look like that once the wonderful media spins it in the most beneficial way possible.
I did read everyones comments after mine before I posted again ( I don't make it a habit to fire from the hip) but gentlemen arming every soldier may not have done a single thing at Ft. Hood. What that coward did was truly awful. There isn't a word for it actually. Clearly something needs to be done. If more *good training* (thats the key) were implemented I wouldn't scream and throw a fit. But I truly feel however, that arming every soldier who choses to carry is not the answer. What is the answer? I feel I don't have enough experience to give an educated response, even with 5 years LEO and 9 years military. But I will say that if this happens an all-encompassing program needs to be put together in order to train men and women properly. If this were to be approved and the very first time a soldier screws it up and hurts someone, it will be over before it started and it will most likely be a huge black eye. Just something to think about.

Yeah, if you let civilians start carrying concealed, there will be blood in the streets and Dodge City during rush hour. Blah, blah, blah.

Are you parrotting the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence talking points deliberately, of is that just the way you really think?

TR

SF_BHT
11-10-2009, 09:28
But your question leads to the next one. Would the terrorist Maj open fired at that location if he knew there would be at least some armed CCW soldiers in the area?

Probably not and if he did he would probably not be breathing now and the media would only be able to speculate.....OH that is what they are doing right now.......

Wish that he had been DOA so we would not have to waste so much time and effort in a trial. He had the smoking gun in his hand and there should be nothing more to deal with. Wish TX had jurisdiction and he would be dealt with a lot faster than UCMJ or Fed Court..... They seam to try to save the TX Taxpayer a lot of money by streamlining the process....

LongWire
11-10-2009, 09:33
But your question leads to the next one. Would the terrorist Maj open fired at that location if he knew there would be at least some armed CCW soldiers in the area?

I'll concede that it may be taken into consideration, but I will still contend that he intended to Martyr himself as an act of contrition.

Triman19
11-10-2009, 09:49
[QUOTE=Triman19;295578]

Yeah, if you let civilians start carrying concealed, there will be blood in the streets and Dodge City during rush hour. Blah, blah, blah.

Are you parrotting the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence talking points deliberately, of is that just the way you really think?

TR

TR,
This is all you got out of my lengthy response? And no, I am not anti-gun.

Richard
11-10-2009, 09:51
In that case if a couple of people would have had a CCW do you think he would have shot so many people before being stopped? No, he probably would have been stopped sooner and several lives saved.

I just don't get your logic.

I think that's an incongruent argument in that Hasan might've then used a different tactic - but knowing there are armed people around hasn't stopped such nuts in the past once they decide to act and they will nearly always seek a weak point to initiate their attack.

Richard's $.02 :munchin

abc_123
11-10-2009, 12:14
... And no, I am not anti-gun.

Kinda come across that way. Sounds like your premise is that liberalizing CCW in any fashion (i.e. allowing carry on federal installations) will result in greater violence. You also seem to argure that allowing soldiers to carry concealed would in and of itself increase violence..(PTSD is one reason)...when soldiers can and do get CCWs issued to them by their respective states all the time.

How do you feel about states allowing CCW permits ( I don't call them "civilian" CCW permits because lots of soldiers have CCW permits issued by the state).?

Don't get hung up on "carrying in the same manner as a LEO"... how about "carrying in the same manner as every person permitted to under the laws of the various states"? (in Vermont for example, that pretty much means any adult that is not a felon is GTG... no permits, no fees no license and there is no bloodbath in that state....even among VT veterans and curren NG).

PedOncoDoc
11-10-2009, 12:24
Kinda come across that way. Sounds like your premise is that liberalizing CCW in any fashion (i.e. allowing carry on federal installations) will result in greater violence. You also seem to argure that allowing soldiers to carry concealed would in and of itself increase violence..(PTSD is one reason)...when soldiers can and do get CCWs issued to them by their respective states all the time.

I still don't understand why the MSM and "liberals" (ironic that this is their title but they want more regulations/limitations) lump together law-abiding citizens (regardless of military experience) willing to get the proper training/file the proper paperwork with violent criminals.

Criminals will carry concealed or otherwise regardless of the law and preventing lawful citizens the opportunity to level the playing field by arming themselves is only doing the criminals a favor - why is that such a difficult idea to understand?

Utah Bob
11-10-2009, 12:34
Triman, I could be wrong but you kind of sound like some police administrators I've known who also said they were not anti gun.
Fact was, they didn't trust the great unwashed citizenry at all and were in favor lots of restrictions on ccw. They thought that no one without extensive tactical, LE type training was competent to carry a firearm .It's a mindset that some develop based on their experiences in law enforcement. But it's not correct in my opinion.

The Reaper
11-10-2009, 13:09
Triman, I could be wrong but you kind of sound like some police administrators I've known who also said they were not anti gun.
Fact was, they didn't trust the great unwashed citizenry at all and were in favor lots of restrictions on ccw. They thought that no one without extensive tactical, LE type training was competent to carry a firearm .It's a mindset that some develop based on their experiences in law enforcement. But it's not correct in my opinion.


Exactly.

Many cops believe in liberal, nationwide carry laws for themselves, and for the citizens, not so much, because they know best and are "qualified". Most of the LEOs I have trained with were woefully undertrained for the authority they had vested in them.

It took several minutes for the first armed response to arrive at Ft. Hood. Thirteen people died waiting for law enforcement to respond. Too bad there wasn't an armed citizen there to immediately act.

What would be different if Hasan had a CCW to carry on the installation? If he was bent on murder, I do not think the firearms law violation concerned him.

TR

Triman19
11-10-2009, 13:16
Well gentlemen, I feel as if what I said was taken way out of context. We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is based on actual field experience. I am not a LE administrator nor do I plan to be one. I also feel at this point the best, respectful logical step is agree that we all come from various walks of life and that we should agree to disagree. Whether that demograghic is financial, social, education or otherwise. These are all complex and very personnal facets which have shaped and formed us all into who we are today. At this point my response, however respectful, is 'thats my story and I'm sticking to it.' Its just how I feel. I chose to not justify why I feel how I do as I it may cause more issues. I have found the best way to really speak about such personnaly passionate topics is over a few cold beers, not a public forum. A mans charcater, experience, personnal convictions and feelings shouldn't and cannot be accurately be judged on a public forum.

I do wish you all a great afternoon and a wonderful week.

Pete
11-10-2009, 13:51
...... We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is based on actual field experience.......

Ah, OK

You may like to know that a few of the other posters on this thread base their opinions on actual field experience also.

SF_BHT
11-10-2009, 14:04
Well gentlemen, I feel as if what I said was taken way out of context. We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is based on actual field experience. I am not a LE administrator nor do I plan to be one. I also feel at this point the best, respectful logical step is agree that we all come from various walks of life and that we should agree to disagree. Whether that demograghic is financial, social, education or otherwise. These are all complex and very personnal facets which have shaped and formed us all into who we are today. At this point my response, however respectful, is 'thats my story and I'm sticking to it.' Its just how I feel. I chose to not justify why I feel how I do as I it may cause more issues. I have found the best way to really speak about such personnaly passionate topics is over a few cold beers, not a public forum. A mans charcater, experience, personnal convictions and feelings shouldn't and cannot be accurately be judged on a public forum.

I do wish you all a great afternoon and a wonderful week.

Might have a little more real life experiences to pull from......
Retired SF and now Fed LEO total = 30 yrs :munchin
We all have opinions.........

The Reaper
11-10-2009, 14:13
...We are all entitled to our opinions. Mine is based on actual field experience....


You say we are entitled to our opinions, then attempt to negate our opinions with your "actual field experience".

I guess ours lacks actuality, field time, and experience. Obviously, we should all yield to your vast expertise.

I would avoid playing trumps with the members here, unless you know something about all of us, our experiences, and our backgrounds.

TR

Richard
11-10-2009, 15:13
A mans charcater, experience, personnal convictions and feelings shouldn't and cannot be accurately be judged on a public forum.

I agree that it is difficult to do - but disagree that it shouldn't or cannot be done in a public forum - you just have to have thought your position(s) through to the point you are able to state them clearly enough to not be misunderstood. ;)

And I hope - with enough practice - to be able to do that one day, too. :)

Richard's $.02 :munchin

cowboykpy
11-10-2009, 15:14
I do suppose clarification is already in order. I at this time am not advocating for a National CCW.

What I would rather see is the ability to carry within your state if you meet your states CCW criteria, and a separate CCW criteria on Federal Installations. Much how you can drive a motorcycle off post but to drive it on post you must attend the safety class. I can see this catering to a unique group of people but keep in mind there are a lot of DOD civilians that could use this also.

I would also venture to say that if you were able to obtain thru training and background checks, a CCW for all federal installations, that this would probably require more than all state CCW programs in place. That in turn could be recognized as required training for said states program making it easier to obtain, or instate automatic reciprocity for any Federal CCW holder.

Furthermore I believe that it SHOULD NOT be BRANCH nor RANK specific. If you have met the back ground checks and the required DOD safety / scenario training and firearms proficiency, you should be able to obtain this CCW. This would be the same EXACT training for everyone.

If we hire non military civilians just turning 21 to man our gates and trust them with a loaded firearm why not the Joe who has checked all the blocks and demonstrates the correct intent?

By creating some additional training and certification as FL stated above I agree, but I disagree with a National CHL/CCW regulated by the Feds. This is a states rights issue and is already being handled by the states, it just needs updating for current events.

LongWire
11-10-2009, 16:14
In that case if a couple of people would have had a CCW do you think he would have shot so many people before being stopped? No, he probably would have been stopped sooner and several lives saved.

I just don't get your logic. Weapons were not allowed where he was at yet shot a lot of people. I guess you just don't get it and probably never will change your mind. While you are allowed your opinion you shouldn't stop me from being able to protect myself.

Stop You? If you don't get my logic then maybe you shouldn't try to define my position either. I'm not trying to take your guns away or keep you from protecting yourself. Hell in California the state is doing that already.

And I know you aren't going to make me his defender either..........

My Point was, that he had already put himself into a position of a man who couldn't lose regardless of how it turned out. Does anyone think that he any had any plans after the attack?

Here's a question for you. Do you really think that Hasan had the only guns in the vicinity before the LE showed up? Think about it, it was Texas.

MAB32
11-10-2009, 16:16
I have been carrying a weapon concealed for the last 4 years. I qualified under H.B. 218, Title 18 sec ? It was the last thing that Clinton did before he left office. The idea was to put more cops on the streats, especially retired ones. The law supposedly says that I can carry in all 50 states, Possessions, and Territories. Now a few years back my Son's school went on a trip to Washington DC. I carried there also. I even itroduced myself to a Capital Police Officer and showed him the badge and my wallet card for qualifying, and asked if he had ever seen these before. His response was I have before. He also stated that he was thankful for me being around. Don't quite know what he meant by the last comment?

The military should have the ability also, under one condition. That condition would be that they go through a mini State Academy in their hometown State. This would be only after they passed a battery of psych tests that we had to go through to get hired. Thus they will have enough of a background in LEO work that they would know, like us, when to pull it out and when to shut up.

I would also believe that while we are at war on two fronts, both supporters of terrorism, that everyone (well maybe not everyone) should be able to carry at least the M9. What do you guys think?

GratefulCitizen
11-10-2009, 16:29
I can't believe that some parts of the philosophical debates involving gun control are still around.

Why don't they just outlaw murder? :rolleyes:

Gun control laws do not work.
Criminals don't obey laws.

The debate is political.
Whatever is politically tolerated will be foisted upon the people.

Gun control, in all of its forms, is nothing more than elected and appointed public servants rebelling against the people.

It's always easier to blame inanimate objects and marginalize political opponents than it is to take responsibility for solving actual problems.

HowardCohodas
11-10-2009, 16:43
How about granting certified NRA instructors as legal to carry concealed in all 50 states, possessions, etc. :D

GratefulCitizen
11-10-2009, 16:53
Maybe we should give 16 year-olds, with minimal training, control of guided kinetic energy weapons (with a yield of 80,000+ ft-lbs of energy) and unleash them in residential areas.

Wait a minute...
We already do that.

nmap
11-10-2009, 17:38
I would think that some sort of certification with some quality training is the answer. In this instance, the training would not be aimed at the lowest common denominator, but rather would be both extensive and rigorous. I think that something like that could be designed easily enough.

At the risk of digression, it would probably cover laws about the use of force, special issues regarding military and other federal installations, weapon use and retention, and all the other weapons issues known best to folks other than I. Psychological tests have been suggested; that's probably a good idea. In essence, provide a federal facility endorsement to the existing state CCW - with the endorsement requiring significantly better proficiency than the existing CCW programs.

Now about LEOs...I'm sorry, but I cannot repress I gentle smile. There are a great many very knowledgeable, capable, and highly trained gentlepersons (See? I can be PC.) in the field. I have had the good fortune to know some of them. And yet, that is not the whole story. There are other LEOs are are not well-trained, and who are not nearly as capable. In essence, there is a distribution - and some are on the low end. So I question the notion that LEOs are all superior in judgment and ability when compared to non-LEOs. Hence, better results might come from an approach that does not emphasize such credentials to the exclusion of others.

Sten
11-10-2009, 18:12
Psychology questions/exams are a slippery slope for the negation and regulation of one of our RIGHTS (I take the 2ed to cover CCWs for law abiding citizens, that whole pesky "shall not be infringed" part). I would prefer that psychologists have little to no chance to dictate who gets a permit and who does not.

Sigaba
11-10-2009, 18:15
Does anyone think that he any had any plans after the attack?With respect--and at the risk of hijacking the thread--I am of the opinion that MAJ Hasan's attack is still underway and that the army remains the target of that attack.

Public confidence in the commander in chief has been undermined. While the president himself owns a large part of the responsibility for this outcome based upon his recent behavior, the attacks would have been a test for any president, especially one new to the job. Add the current mood of American politics and the prospects for meeting the challenge successfully diminish. (AFCHIC's points about the pillorying of Bush the Younger after 9/11 are instructive.)
MSM outlets of all stripes are conducting a whispering campaign against the U.S. Army. Since the day of the attacks, the increasingly unsubtle subtext of articles and editorials is "Why didn't the army see it coming? / Shouldn't the army have seen it coming?" At first blush, these are fair questions. However, the rush to judgment by journalists and op-ed writers while the investigation is its early stages tips the MSM's hand. Once again, we see that they'd rather sell the story than get the story right. As vast segments of the American public paint "the military" with a broad brush, and in black and white, I am concerned that this event is going to be folded seamlessly into the popular monolithic narrative of the armed forces that has prevailed since Vietnam.**
The issues of PTSD and secondary PTSD are becoming chits in a back and forth over the political narrative of the attack. This wrangling may result in adequate medical care not getting to those who need it.
MAJ Hasan has thrown gasoline on the heated controversies over the fundamental trajectory of Islam, the long-term reliability of Muslims, and the nature of GWOT itself. The army now must position itself in these debates on the fly. Bluntly, MAJ Hasan has placed the army in what may be a 'no win' situation in terms of civil military relations. Critics to the right will say "the army has succumbed to political correctness" (what ever that is) while critics on the left will say "the army reflects intolerant values." (MOO, the elephant in the room is not the question "Does Islamic theology automatically lead to jihad?" but rather "What has America's national political leadership [read: Congress] done to answer that question?"*)
And, to repeat my primary concern: What seeds has Dr. Hasan planted in his patients?

Has he told anxious soldiers not to worry about significant issues that, in fact, merit greater care?
Has he placed doubt in the minds of patients who would have otherwise negotiated their experiences successfully? Will these doubts manifest themselves at crucial moments down range? (Will pangs of 'conscience' trump training?)
Will his treachery dissuade soldiers from seeking help in the future?
Time will tell if these aspects of MAJ Hasan's attack will cost additional lives. It remains to be seen if these aspects were planned. But I suspect that the army will be paying the political consequences for the attack for years regardless of MAJ Hasan's motivation and intent.

Just my $0.02.

/end hijack

____________________________________________
* To beat the dead horse, my point is that single greatest failure in GWOT is Congress cutting short the debate in 2002 so its members could make it home in time for the midterm elections. Bush the Younger made a case for war. Congress failed its institutional duty to check executive power. This is to say that even those members of congress who agreed with the president should have, on general principle, insisted that the legislative branch had the obligation to dot every "i" and to cross every "t." If that meant a showdown before the Supreme Court over the president's war powers, so be it.
** If you doubt me, Google "avatar movie." Then watch the trailer for that forthcoming film. James Cameron has grossed over half a billion dollars in domestic ticket sales alone demonizing the armed services--millions of movie goers can't but wait to add to that total (source (http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=jamescameron.htm)). Your stimulus in action.

GratefulCitizen
11-10-2009, 18:19
The States make effective "laboratories" of democracy.
How have the concealed-carry policies of Vermont and Alaska worked for them?

If they prove effective, why not try it in all areas under federal jurisdiction?

stickey
11-10-2009, 18:33
I would like to be able to leave my handgun secured in my vehicle while I am teaching at school. I teach at a fairly decent high school, but who knows what could happen. I know we could play the "what if" game all day, but what if i needed protection on my way to or from school (a 50 min commute one-way for me)? What if a student were to follow me off school grounds and threaten my life with his own choice of weapon?

I know in VA, i couldnt take to school. Being new to FL, I'm pretty sure it's the same here as well when it comes to carrying in your car on school property.

When in VA, there were many times that i forgot i had mine in the vehicle and entered post with it. They asked one day if i had it, i had to think about it, said no because i didn't, and then asked, what would have happened had i said yes, and the kind Wackenhut guard said, "Sir, i would have had you do a u-turn so you wouldn't get yourself in trouble when we randomly pick your truck for a search". I thought that was nice and very considerate, since i saw the guy almost everyday, same time, on my way to the gym.


Then there was the time that they searched, I did have it in there, covered up with my towel in my driverside door compartment of my F150. I was nervous as you know what because it was an honest mistake and had forgotten to take it out earlier. They didnt touch anything on mine, they just ran the mirror under the vehicle, looked under the seats and the hood, and in the glove box. In my center console i had some buck shot, and they didnt say anything about that. Dont know if that was allowed or not.

Fiercely Loyal
11-10-2009, 20:21
I did read everyones comments after mine before I posted again ( I don't make it a habit to fire from the hip) but gentlemen arming every soldier may not have done a single thing at Ft. Hood. What that coward did was truly awful. There isn't a word for it actually. Clearly something needs to be done. If more *good training* (thats the key) were implemented I wouldn't scream and throw a fit.

I believe your SA on the tone of this matter is lacking. I have been a holder of CCW 4 years now in my state . I am not an MP however I do have the good common sense for a shoot no shoot scenario when lethal force should be employed.

The tremendous fear you have about regular Joes as a mass body is not unjustified as I personally feel that the lowering of military standards in the recent past has been shocking.

However I am not advocating a blanket CCW. This would require mandatory training and who better than 18B's, SNCO MP's, or someone that can show tangible training and experience in the subject matter teach this? Hell require your Joes to attend the training as additional weapons training so your guys aren't flagging you. As an NCO you have no one to blame but yourself for not making on the spot corrections and corrective training. So far I see how Big Army has broken your faith in the fellow soldier but why punish those who are mature and responsible by not affording them the opportunity?

What do you think about Israeli who has a Carry Permit? Where as long as you have the permit you can carry open or concealed, and anywhere such as government offices, military installations, malls, supermarkets, sports arenas, and synagogues. Does it make you nervous to think that there are also off duty soldiers carrying their M16's and a mag openly in the public?

Fiercely Loyal
11-10-2009, 20:44
The States make effective "laboratories" of democracy.
How have the concealed-carry policies of Vermont and Alaska worked for them?

If they prove effective, why not try it in all areas under federal jurisdiction?

Well as a citizen the great state of Alaska it has been working great. I still have a CCW even though it is not mandatory. I cared enough to get the proper training on GO / NO GO PLACES and SCENARIOS. This also quantified on paper my ability to employ said use of force.

I have not seen a spike in weapons related crimes. I have been pulled over (speeding) and when presenting my CCW I have gotten some odd looks from the Anchorage Police Department asking why I am even disclosing to them.

So from first hand experience I know that it is working very well.

Also as a caveat I went thru the mandatory training to carry as an Armed Guard. This was two separate courses. One was a two day handgun classroom and one day range which we had to qualify with State Trooper scores (90% hit). Then there was a 3 day Full Auto Carbine course thru our Gunsite adjunct instructor here in Anchorage. It included transition drills, shoot no shoot (hostage or not), and many other decision aiding tools. This was used for a civilian employed Military Installation protection contract.

This is a drop in the bucket when it comes to other experienced folks but I feel that it shows that there is a measurable amount of training that an armed guard must get to work for the military. Why not use this as a base for the CCW training?

Dozer523
11-11-2009, 08:09
I believe your SA on the tone of this matter is lacking. Easy there, Triman's opinion is not SA dependent (wanna talk SA? refer to Stickey who can't remember if he's carrying) I have been a holder of CCW 4 years now in my state .So what? I am not an MP but Triman is a Cop however I do have the good common sense for a shoot no shoot scenario based on. . .? four years of experience carrying, the training you got four years ago? Not being a LEO? when lethal force should be employed. as opposed to Triman seems to have some greater training as he can distinguish the categories of threat situations.

The tremendous fear you have about regular Joes as a mass body is not unjustified as I personally feel that the lowering of military standards in the recent past has been shocking. This old saw?

However I am not advocating a blanket CCW. This would require mandatory training and who better than 18B's, SNCO MP's, or someone that can show tangible training and experience in the subject matter teach this? Hell require your Joes to attend the training as additional weapons training so your guys aren't flagging you. huh? As an NCO you have no one to blame but yourself for not making on the spot corrections and corrective training. Well, that's a comfort, So we can blame Hasan officer rating chain. Nice to see the NCO off the hook for once.S So far I see how Big Army has broken your faith in the fellow soldier but why punish those who are mature and responsible by not affording them the opportunity? I have not seen the broken faith but neither have I seen a way to vet the "mature and responsible". According to the old saw (referred above) ALL who are in the Army are are mature and responsible because somewhere, sometime, someone determined they were?

What do you think about Israeli who has a Carry Permit? Where as long as you have the permit you can carry open or concealed, and anywhere such as government offices, military installations, malls, supermarkets, sports arenas, and synagogues. I think it's Great with a capital G because Israel is surrounded by openly hostile enemies who routinely open fire on Isreali citizens who are all required to be in the active military and serve in the Reserve practically forever. But, I don't think that is the case in America so it's a DOTS arguement.Does it make you nervous to think that there are also off duty soldiers carrying their M16's and a mag openly in the public? Well, yeah it sort of makes me nervous that off duty Soldiers are walking around with weapons that should be in a rack in an arms room with ammunition that should have been turned in when they left the range. That might just be me. Let's not pile on. . . Triman offered his opinion. Took a few responses, a few lumps. Let's not pile on. . . unless it's me doin' it :rolleyes:

LongWire
11-11-2009, 09:01
With respect--and at the risk of hijacking the thread--I am of the opinion that MAJ Hasan's attack is still underway and that the army remains the target of that attack.


While the conditions that you listed should be viewed as second and third order effects, I think that you give him way too much credit. And lets quit referring to him as Maj, shall we? He is a traitor and should not retain the title.

While everyone digs up the links and point fingers as to whether he had or didn't have connections with AQ, I am not sure that it matters.

I'm figuring that they found that this guy was unstable and would do something with or without them, which helps them out either way. Give him a little push, maybe even a sharp prod.....and wait.

akv
11-11-2009, 10:45
With respect--and at the risk of hijacking the thread--I am of the opinion that MAJ Hasan's attack is still underway and that the army remains the target of that attack.

Sigaba,

You bring up an interesting point as always. Perhaps I'm a cynic, while we should never underestimate our enemies, is it possible we must also guard against overestimating their intellect, sophistication, and capabilities?

Why is not as simple as Hasan was a traitor and a coward. We need to honor our dead, take care of our wounded, increase our security levels, learn what we can from this, and move on with the GWOT? I'm not sure if this event is a dilemma or on opportunity for the Army to tighten up it's shot grouping on domestic security measures.

I admit I don't see much use for psychiatrists or therapy, I would defer to combat vets here , but my guess is they attach a higher value and derive catharisis from PTSD by talks and time spent with fellow combat veterans from this and previous wars, men who can relate by experience under fire.

On a larger sense Al Qaeda has proven to be a treacherous foe, but I question if UBL is truly the evil genius we attribute him to be. He is certainly zealous, amoral, and dangerous, but is he a renaissance man, brave, well read, a born leader, or just a murderous thug of reasonable intelligence with some money? He's no Saladin, a historic Islamic warrior respected by his adversaries for both his martial prowess and his chivalry. It seems he didn't go down swinging at Tora Bora but scurried away abandoning his followers like an average man. I don't know the answer here, readings of the "Al Qaeda Reader" seem to indicate the leaders of the movement are not even scholars of Islamic text. Sophisticated or not, they still have to go, but are we building them up to be bogeymen instead of just bearded wolves in robes?

Utah Bob
11-11-2009, 16:27
Just saw footage of the interior his apartment. He had a lot of self prescribed medication in a shoebox. Don't know what types yet but I'm betting they weren't antacids.

Fiercely Loyal
11-11-2009, 17:57
The thread is defiantly taking a direction unintended.

Is there any required training that you would like to see if there was a CCW program available for Federal Installations? Reference material that you may feel pressing and or statistics.

Also the question is who would be willing to support a bill making a CCW for Federal Installations?

The concept behind this is similar to getting an on post motorcycle endorsement. You would be required to already have your specific states CCW and this would require DOD mandatory standardized training to enable you to be certified to carry on Federal Installations.

Forget about a blanket reciprocity in all 50 states. Keep it simple. You can carry in your state on your installation and if you are in a state that recognizes yours for reciprocity purposes then you can carry on the installations in that state as well.

This would prevent any fiascos of someone carrying concealed on TDY, and getting into trouble in that state. In other words check ahead and make sure you are legal.

Also 2 days and no emails back from NRA ILA. Will call tomorrow if no response still and see who I can talk to.

Sigaba
11-11-2009, 23:12
...I think that you give him way too much credit. And lets quit referring to him as Maj, shall we? He is a traitor and should not retain the title.
Perhaps I'm a cynic, while we should never underestimate our enemies, is it possible we must also guard against overestimating their intellect, sophistication, and capabilities?

Why is not as simple as Hasan was a traitor and a coward.Longwire and AKV--

The aspects of the attack that I discussed above came to me in thirty seconds of thinking of Hasan as a malingerer and traitor. How long did he mull over his motivation and his options during those hours and days in which he planned his attack?

I have little doubt that he's a traitor. But we need to understand the extend of his treachery beyond the people he shot. Leaving aside momentarily the controversial topic of his religiosity, one still has left Hasan the American, the man, the soldier, the officer, the psychiatrist, the family member, the friend, and the neighbor. He is a traitor to all of these components of his being.
I admit I don't see much use for psychiatrists or therapy, I would defer to combat vets here , but my guess is they attach a higher value and derive catharsis from PTSD by talks and time spent with fellow combat veterans from this and previous wars, men who can relate by experience under fire.FWIW, there are professionals in the various fields of psychology that would agree with you. Generally, they take the position of "What ever works for the patient." Some practitioners of Kohutian self-psychology and relational psychoanalysis are convenient examples.

Others would argue that only a professional trained in a specific field in a specific way can help patients. Freudians devoted to drive theory fall into this category that, IIRC, is shrinking in size <<quadruple entendre rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com/)>>.

In defense of the latter view, there's a legitimate concern that lay persons attempting to find their own "talking cure" may not have the skill set to maintain a "working relationship."

Imagine if a very close friend were to tell you about her or his issues. Your initial responses motivates that friend to unburden himself by sharing some exceptionally intimate experiences, feelings, phantasies, and thoughts. From one moment to the next, a discussion about, say, drinking too much, performance issues at work, and turmoil at home takes an unanticipated turn into a conversation centering around taboo subjects.

Would you know how to monitor both your friends and your affective states to respond appropriately? Would you grimace? Would you show disgust (or approval)? Would you know what to ask to start the process of reality testing? (A convenient example of this type of encounter is in No Country For Old Men by Cormac McCarthy.)

In regards to PTSD, I wonder if your solution centers around an unnecessarily narrow definition of the disorder?:confused: Is the connection the event causing the PTSD or is the connection the dynamic itself? Could a warrior suffering from combat induced PTSD not also provide psychological strength to a survivor of a horrific accident or victims of rape as well as his brothers in arms?He is certainly zealous, amoral, and dangerous, but is he a renaissance man, brave, well read, a born leader, or just a murderous thug of reasonable intelligence with some money?Here, I disagree with you in the strongest terms possible in your use of the term "renaissance man." At its heart, the concept of the renaissance man is the Renaissance. At the core of the Renaissance was humanism--a concept that stressed the exploration and celebration of the myriad aspects human condition as a tribute to God's glory. However diverse Mr. bin Laden's skillset is (or was), he's no renaissance man because he is an enemy of humanity.Sophisticated or not, they still have to go, but are we building them up to be bogeymen instead of just bearded wolves in robes?IMO, this question capsulizes brilliantly an enduring debate on this BB. I agree that there are instances in everyday life where seeking answers to the question "why?" does not help in finding viable solutions. And sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. However, in this case, I think we're living through a period where at least twelve historical dynamics are in collision. While much of the focus on this BB--and in America--is on three of those dynamics, I am increasingly concerned that this focus is leading us to neglect the other nine.

Of these nine, the "crisis of modernity" (a driving force in the Great War, the rise of Nazism, and World War II), should compel us to leave no stone unturned in our efforts to understand the enemies of global civilization.*

YMMV.
The thread is defiantly taking a direction unintended.Sorry for the non-linearity. It is my habit of discussing three things at a time.
Is there any required training that you would like to see if there was a CCW program available for Federal Installations? Reference material that you may feel pressing and or statistics.

Also the question is who would be willing to support a bill making a CCW for Federal Installations? I would want to know more about the liability and risk mitigation issues in worst case scenarios.

For example, if a person with a federal CCW with all the required additional training and certification up to date were to fire his weapon under justifiable circumstances and unintentionally injure (or worse) a third party, who would be legally and economically responsible for the consequences suffered by this third party?

_________________________________________
* To be clear, I am not equating the jihadists (or anyone else) to fascists. My point is that the Western world is still working through its "crisis of modernity." In America, this effort was interrupted first by the "long peace" of the Cold War, the rise of Clintonian democracy, and now GWOT.

akv
11-12-2009, 09:01
Here, I disagree with you in the strongest terms possible in your use of the term "renaissance man." At its heart, the concept of the renaissance man is the Renaissance. At the core of the Renaissance was humanism--a concept that stressed the exploration and celebration of the myriad aspects human condition as a tribute to God's glory. However diverse Mr. bin Laden's skillset is (or was), he's no renaissance man because he is an enemy of humanity.

Sigaba,

I worded this question awkwardly we are actually in full agreement here. Leonardo Da Vinci was a renaissance man, The point I was trying to make was UBL exhibits none of the traits I mentioned, we are building UBL up to levels of sophistication I'm not certain he possess, I believe he is certainly not a renaissance man, just a murderous thug.

Fiercely Loyal sorry for the hijack.

Utah Bob
11-12-2009, 16:37
Source is here (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/10/john-lott-ft-hood-end-gun-free-zone/)

Time to Put An End to Army Bases as Gun-Free Zones

by John Lott

,FOXNews.com

It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan.

AP

Shouldn't an army base be the last place where a terrorist should be able to shoot at people uninterrupted for 10 minutes? After all, an army base is filled with soldiers who carry guns, right? Unfortunately, that is not the case. Beginning in March 1993, under the Clinton administration, the army forbids military personnel from carrying their own personal firearms and mandates that "a credible and specific threat against [Department of the Army] personnel [exist] in that region" before military personnel "may be authorized to carry firearms for personal protection." Indeed, most military bases have relatively few military police as they are in heavy demand to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unarmed soldiers could do little more than cower as Major Nidal Malik Hasan stood on a desk and shot down into the cubicles in which his victims were trapped. Some behaved heroically, such as private first class Marquest Smith who repeatedly risked his life removing five soldiers and a civilian from the carnage. But, being unarmed, these soldiers were unable to stop Hasan's attack.

The wife of one of the soldiers shot at Ft. Hood understood this all too well. Mandy Foster's husband had been shot but was fortunate enough not to be seriously injured. In an interview on CNN on Monday night, Mrs. Foster was asked by anchor John Roberts how she felt about her husband "still scheduled for deployment in January" to Afghanistan. Ms. Foster responded: "At least he's safe there and he can fire back, right?" -- It is hard to believe that we don't trust soldiers with guns on an army base when we trust these very same men in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately, most of CNN's listeners probably didn't understand the rules that Ms. Foster was referring to.

The law-abiding, not the criminals, are the ones who obey the ban on guns. Instead of making areas safe for victims, the bans make it safe for the criminal. Hasan not only violated the army's ban on carrying a gun, he also apparently violated the rules that require soldiers to register privately owned guns at the post.

Research shows that allowing individuals to defend themselves dramatically reduces the rates of multiple victim public shootings. Even if attacks still occur, having civilians with permitted concealed handguns limits the damage. A major factor in determining how many people are harmed by these killers is the amount of time that elapses between when the attack starts and someone is able to arrive on the scene with a gun. Ten minutes must have seemed like an eternity to those trapped in the attack at Ft. Hood. All the multiple victim public shootings in the U.S. -- in which more than three people have been killed -- have all occurred in places where concealed handguns have been banned.

For several days now, some in the media and various gun control groups have focused on a so-called "cop killer" gun that Hasan used. The five-seven is a conventional semi-automatic pistol. In fact, the bullets that it fires are relatively small, only being in the .22 caliber class. Unlike rifles, even higher caliber handguns don't fire publicly available ammunition at sufficient velocity to penetrate a police officer's vest. There is a special type of handgun ammunition that can penetrate some types of body armor, but under federal law it is not legal to manufacture or import that ammunition for sale to the public.

For the safety of our soldiers and citizens, we hope that this simple fact about the Ft. Hood attack and the role that gun-free zones played in allowing yet another multiple victim public shooting becomes part of the news coverage itself. The political debate about guns would be quite different if even once in a while a news story clearly explained that there has been another multiple victim public shooting in a gun-free zone.

Fiercely Loyal
11-12-2009, 22:19
Utah Bob thank you for the article.

I am laughing at the comments that are left below the article on source page. I thought I've heard some things involving this but there is a fella on there saying if we carry all the time it would turn into a possible Coup. Some folks don't get it.

Fiercely Loyal
11-12-2009, 22:52
Ok so I have been trying to find the bill or law that made Military Installations gun free zones. Many articles say it is a 1993 act but so far i cannot find it within the The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (signed in 1993, came into law 1994) or the The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (came into law 1994).

My thought process is now instead of creating a new standard why not get the old legislation repealed? Any help is appreciated since I am just a young buck and do not know much about Clinton's first term.

nmap
11-12-2009, 23:08
Ok so I have been trying to find the bill or law that made Military Installations gun free zones. Many articles say it is a 1993 act but so far i cannot find it within the The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (signed in 1993, came into law 1994) or the The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (came into law 1994).

My thought process is now instead of creating a new standard why not get the old legislation repealed? Any help is appreciated since I am just a young buck and do not know much about Clinton's first term.

LINK to Article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/)

Excerpt:

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. 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. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

I interpret this as meaning it is not a law, but rather a regulation promulgated by the POTUS.

I'm not sure I would bet too heavily on the current POTUS changing that.

LongWire
11-13-2009, 01:07
I interpret this as meaning it is not a law, but rather a regulation promulgated by the POTUS.

I'm not sure I would bet too heavily on the current POTUS changing that.

I'm sure it's conveyed in the guidelines driven down to Installation Commanders which is published in the Post Regulations. My assumption is that Installation Commanders can "add to" but not "take away" from the DOD Guidelines.

Fiercely Loyal
11-13-2009, 10:53
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=18&issue=003

Great article with reference to numbers on how Right To Carry has lowered crime rates.

HowardCohodas
11-14-2009, 08:25
Safe Streets in the Nationwide Concealed Carry of Handguns (http://www.nationwideconcealedcarry.com/)

The Founders knew that the sovereignty of every new generation would be challenged more by their own servants than by any other entity in the world.

Now it is here.

Our good friend John Longenecker has written an eye-opening book about the truths of sovereignty and authority Americans have avoided for far too long, truths we all must know if we wish to live on safer streets.

I personally recommend this new book about self-rule and why the "sleeping giant" is now awake as Americans are refusing to be victims ... in all things.

Animal8526
11-23-2009, 05:11
It truly saddens me to hear any service member advocate any type of "gun control", as if it worked anyways.

As if it didn't violate the spirit and sanctity of the oath we all took.

It seems so many of we who have been trained "professionally" in the use of firearms are wary of the proverbial "other guy" using them with reckless abandon.

The fact that gun control is flawed at it's most basic premise and that our constitution enumerates that a mans ability to posses and bring to bear arms is a birthright for the purpose of maintaining the ultimate check and balance against the state (how the hell are "we the people" supposed to do that when we let the state dictate the means and methods we exercise our "right" with?) notwithstanding, tell me this...

When exactly did we move from being a nation where the martial use of arms was effectively learned from family elders, friendly mentors or by self instruction, to this nation where only "qualified" individuals were bestowed the trust of the public to bestow the knowledge of our birthright on us?

Think long and hard on that one for me.

At some point we slipped from a father teaching a son how to load a musket, to the point where we are now. At some point men learned from other men whom they trusted how to be effective with a firearm. Now it seems we must seek out these "qualified" individuals and pay large sums of money to achieve any level of "respectable" training.

If the above isn't coherent, forgive me. I'm wrapping up the tail end of long overnight shift.

JAGO
11-23-2009, 05:56
LINK to Article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/11/end-clinton-era-military-base-gun-ban/)

Excerpt:

Among President Clinton's first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. 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. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

I interpret this as meaning it is not a law, but rather a regulation promulgated by the POTUS.

I'm not sure I would bet too heavily on the current POTUS changing that.

nmap and F.L.

18 USC 930 Possession of F/A and Dangerous weapons in Fed Facilities

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t17t20+550+0++%28%29%20 %20AND%20%28%2818%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%2 0%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28930%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20 %20%20%20%20%20

10 USC 1585 Sec Def Authority to authorize

http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+1086+0++%28%29%2 0%20AND%20%28%2810%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND% 20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%281585%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20% 20%20%20%20%20%20

DoD Dir 5210.56

It is DoD Policy:
1. To limit and control the carrying of firearms by DoD military
and civilian personnel. The authorization to carry firearms shall be
issued only to qualified personnel when there is a reasonable expectation
that life or DoD assets will be jeopardized if firearms are not
carried. Evaluation of the necessity to carry a firearm shall be made
considering this expectation weighed against the possible consequences
of accidental or indiscriminate use of firearms. DoD personnel
regularly engaged in law enforcement or security duties shall
be armed. Procedures on authorization to carry and the carrying of
firearms are in enclosure 1.

Generally 18 USC 930 is the statute and the reason you see the signs at the gate advising that pistol permits are not recognized is to comply with the notice requirement of 930.

930 has traditionally been used - for instance, Bureau of Prisons doesn't care who you are - cop or not - no guns. USASOC had a requirement that all check their guns - FBI HRT agents took exception, but the policy stood.

v/r
phil

917 Hog
11-23-2009, 12:15
I have a few questions concerning open carry. I have read quite a bit on concealed carry, but have not found nearly as much on open carry.

1. What are the main pros and cons of open vs. concealed carry?

2. Would open carry be a more viable solution for federal licensing recognition (ex. permit affixed to a holster)?

3. Why is open carry rarely discussed as opposed to concealed carry (at least in my experience)?

I am not a LEO nor do I have a CCW (although I have considered it), my weapons experience is limited to the range. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana, an open carry state, yet I have only seen 2 people carrying openly in the eight years I have lived here (part of the reason for the question).

From the Louisiana State Constitution:

Article I Section 11

The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

Peregrino
11-23-2009, 13:53
I have a few questions concerning open carry. I have read quite a bit on concealed carry, but have not found nearly as much on open carry.



Standard blurb for new members who are still learning the ropes: "The SEARCH Button is your friend". We've had numerous discussions exploring CCW and alternatives, e.g. Open Carry. No new questions until you've exhausted the search function. I wish you success in your research.

ccrn
11-23-2009, 18:05
Psychology questions/exams are a slippery slope for the negation and regulation of one of our RIGHTS (I take the 2ed to cover CCWs for law abiding citizens, that whole pesky "shall not be infringed" part). I would prefer that psychologists have little to no chance to dictate who gets a permit and who does not.

I firmly agree especially in regards to PTSD which I believe is not a legitmiate reason to deny anyone a CCW. I think its interesting that it has become a subject at all in recent weeks after Ft Hood considering MJR Hassan was not combat arms, had never deployed in a career of 10 years (amazing), and was never diagnosed with PTSD.

As far as all military members carrying on post Im not sure I would be comfortable with that. After being in the Infantry for almost 5 years Im currently in a school for a noncombat arms MOS and to my dismay most of the soldiers around me cannot handle a weapon properly or safely. Maybe NCOs and Officers who had met or exceeded the requirements of a rigorous course aimed at carrying on post for the protection of other soldiers...

Per the issue of a national CCW I also would prefer that the feds keep their fingers out of it if only for the seperation of powers which I think the feds have too much of.

What is very frustrating is not being able to protect myself or family in some states while in others I can. It would really be nice to see the states come together on this one ie MO or KY who simply recognize any ligitmate current CCW holder-

Buck
01-12-2010, 22:21
I think this is one thread that I actually read 3 times...

It is actually rather disturbing that we still have people that believe, that only certain people should be given the ability to protect, and defend themselves, from what our forefathers thought most important, Life, Freedom, and the pursuit of common happiness. When will people figure out that we will always have a psychopath being a psychopath, a terrorist doing what he thinks is his God's will, and always, always some person will make excuses for them on why it is our fault.

Some people need to read, and empathically try to understand what it was our fore fathers meant to create in America.

"The Constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed"
--Letter to John Cartwright from Thomas Jefferson--
He didn't say power is inherent to the states, or the Feds, but to the people..

I have had many interesting conversations with people about this topic, and their common question is always the same, but why should beople be allowed to have automatic weapons, or AR style rifles.

My answer is that when the Constitution was written, the common weapon was a musket, in which the designers wanted equal firepower in the hands of the people in case it became nessecary to usurp irresponsible power of a Government who was not of the people, thus allowing all men to bear common arms of that time, being the musket.


Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
-The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
-The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


I worry at times for our future, with some of the remarks I see daily, my question is...

When we start making people take tests to have them be able to carry that which is our RIGHT, given to us in the second amendment, should we maybe include these criteria also, so we can even further constrain those who will fight?

- 6' in height
- Some skin color determined by our Legislative Branch
- Be of an income of at least 100K / Year
- Be in good standing with our LEO

If your actually readying a list of prerequisites, you've missed the point...

'How glorious fall the valiant, sword in hand, in front of battle for their native land!. '

'A slave's life is all you understand, you know nothing of freedom. For if you did, you would have encouraged us to fight on, not only with our spear, but with everthing we have.'

Gotta love those Spartans... Wonder if their Senate ever thought of disarming the people...

Buck

Blitzzz (RIP)
01-12-2010, 22:34
GUN CONTROL...a federal registry of all weapons is a first step.
A way for anti gunners to make gun folk feel the government really wants us to have guns. NO...NO...NO.

Utah Bob
01-13-2010, 20:32
I have a few questions concerning open carry. I have read quite a bit on concealed carry, but have not found nearly as much on open carry.

1. What are the main pros and cons of open vs. concealed carry?

2. Would open carry be a more viable solution for federal licensing recognition (ex. permit affixed to a holster)?

3. Why is open carry rarely discussed as opposed to concealed carry (at least in my experience)?

I am not a LEO nor do I have a CCW (although I have considered it), my weapons experience is limited to the range. I live in Shreveport, Louisiana, an open carry state, yet I have only seen 2 people carrying openly in the eight years I have lived here (part of the reason for the question).

From the Louisiana State Constitution:


The pro of open carry is you can feel like a real stud with that iron on your hip.
The cons are that everybody now knows you are armed. This freaks some people out and they call the cops. It also lets any bad guys present know you have a nice gun that they may want.
I prefer to carry concealed. YMMV.

Here's a website for open carry advocates. Open Carry (http://opencarry.org/)

HowardCohodas
01-13-2010, 23:04
The pro of open carry is you can feel like a real stud with that iron on your hip.
The cons are that everybody now knows you are armed. This freaks some people out and they call the cops. It also lets any bad guys present know you have a nice gun that they may want.
I prefer to carry concealed. YMMV.

Here's a website for open carry advocates. Open Carry (http://opencarry.org/)

I'll go along with our "cons," especially since I have made the same arguments to my students when the issue of open carry comes up. However, those who advocate open carry frequently have more thoughtful reasons. Not the least are that many states have open carry laws that predate concealed carry laws. Thus, open carry is permitted more freely and can serve to be a counterpoint to the "no carry" crowd. In many ways I'm grateful to them since I am unwilling to do it myself.

Buck
01-14-2010, 07:07
I'll go along with our "cons," especially since I have made the same arguments to my students when the issue of open carry comes up. However, those who advocate open carry frequently have more thoughtful reasons. Not the least are that many states have open carry laws that predate concealed carry laws. Thus, open carry is permitted more freely and can serve to be a counterpoint to the "no carry" crowd. In many ways I'm grateful to them since I am unwilling to do it myself.

Interesting comment, when one considers the irony in your tagline in your signature

Buck

HowardCohodas
01-14-2010, 07:52
Interesting comment, when one considers the irony in your tagline in your signature

Buck

Guilty. Like many things in my life, my accomplishments don't always reach my aspirations. But I like to keep my goal in front of me as a reminder to do better.

Team Sergeant
01-14-2010, 08:21
The pro of open carry is you can feel like a real stud with that iron on your hip.
The cons are that everybody now knows you are armed. This freaks some people out and they call the cops. It also lets any bad guys present know you have a nice gun that they may want.
I prefer to carry concealed. YMMV.

Here's a website for open carry advocates. Open Carry (http://opencarry.org/)

Arizona is a big "open carry" state, you see individuals all the time carrying in the open, no sweat. It's gone on for decades. It's no big deal here. If you have a permit you should and are asked to carry concealed. The only individuals that are surprised to see individuals carrying here are from Kalif, NYC and Massachusetts, the states that want cradle to grave goberment assistance.

Arctic
01-14-2010, 09:19
Well my first observation is that while I was training on Camp Pendleton I saw a lot of marines with hip holsters and side arms. Almost every building entry way I think had a 55 gallon drum filled with sand and a small cut out to discharge your weapon into safely after you removed the mag. (SOP to enter a building was clearing your weapon and discharging the charged hammer into the barrel I assume and no they weren’t fancy marine ash trays. :confused:) This was some time ago for myself so if anyone has anything else on it go ahead.

My second observation is the fact that a Federal CCW would be redundant. Holding a CCW is like holding a marriage license or drivers license, i.e. covered under Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, “Such Acts, records and judicial proceedings or copies thereof, so authenticated, shall have the same full faith and credit in every court within the US and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which they are taken.
The full faith and credit clause explains reciprocity in licenses, and extradition in crimes.”

Disclaimer :: Don’t take this the wrong way many states can and do make laws that conflict with the U.S. constitution, unless you want to be that person that sues the hell out the local government for impinging on your constitutional right, do your own research.

Arctic
01-14-2010, 09:50
From a counter terrorist view I just remembered a discussion I had a couple Christmases back, sitting in a crowded mall watching all the sheep walking around, I thought how tragic it would be if instead of trying to kill us on planes some T’s walked into the mall and malls all across America at the same time and started slinging lead and explosives till they ran out or died. Very much akin to the 2008 Mumbai, India attacks, that’s a real reason for the people to get their CCW permits… No one wants to invade America because everyone has a gun or five, but catching us with our pants down is fairly easy with all these laws we’ll have to go home to get them, which requires even more time because the guns and ammo need to be stored in separate secured locations etc etc etc.

Utah Bob
01-14-2010, 10:37
Arizona is a big "open carry" state, you see individuals all the time carrying in the open, no sweat. It's gone on for decades. It's no big deal here. If you have a permit you should and are asked to carry concealed. The only individuals that are surprised to see individuals carrying here are from Kalif, NYC and Massachusetts, the states that want cradle to grave goberment assistance.

True. It's an accepted common practice in Arizona.
Alas even though open carry is not prohibited in Colorado, if you go into most larger towns heeled someone will be on their cellphone to the local PD and many young cops don't know it's not illegal.
I always carry open here on the property but when I go into Cortez, I tuck it away.

FMF DOC
01-14-2010, 10:59
Would like it to be state by state but as mentioned above have all other states honor it... Hell keep it on your current drivers liecense like the box(space) for organ donor. If your ever pulled over or whenever you got to show your ID it's marked right there for all to see that you have the right to Conceal & Carry.
my 2cents

Utah Bob
01-14-2010, 13:58
Would like it to be state by state but as mentioned above have all other states honor it... Hell keep it on your current drivers liecense like the box(space) for organ donor. If your ever pulled over or whenever you got to show your ID it's marked right there for all to see that you have the right to Conceal & Carry.
my 2cents

No need to put it on the license. Currently, whenever you're pulled over and they run your driver license, your ccw will be indicated on the computer.

HowardCohodas
01-14-2010, 17:12
No need to put it on the license. Currently, whenever you're pulled over and they run your driver license, your ccw will be indicated on the computer.

Hmmm... I don't think that this is true for Ohio, but I'll check.

Utah Bob
01-14-2010, 17:18
Hmmm... I don't think that this is true for Ohio, but I'll check.

Can't speak for Ohio but it's pretty standard in most states.

Utah Bob
01-14-2010, 20:28
It is defenatly not the case in California. In CA the local LE agencie issues the CCW usually the Sheriff Department, but some city departments do as well. They keep all records etc and DMV has Zero to do with the CCW's.

Colorado also issues ccw through the local sheriff. But the info goes into the state system. I'm really surprised that California is different.