CAll TO ACTION

[Taypo]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

Like the recruiter who recently shot himself in the leg while illegally carrying? We aren't talking SEAL Team 6 here.

[psijac]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

Is the teacher a part of a Teacher's Union?

He could stop an active shooter and have sex with a 15 year old student in the same week and all the principle could say is, "Sorry my hands are tied"

[mojo84]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

Is the teacher a part of a Teacher's Union?

He could stop an active shooter and have sex with a 15 year old student in the same week and all the principle could say is, "Sorry my hands are tied"

Can you better explain your point? My initial reaction is, this comment is ridiculous and totally off base.

[Excaliber]

I have an answer to this - if a citizen turns a blind eye to the law and ends up being a benefit to society, society should turn a blind eye to that one infraction. Society gets to choose with the benefit of hindsight. Let the rules slip one time since lives were saved, or enforce the rules to no particular purpose other than to say the good samaritan should have been denied the chance to be of service. Seems clear.

As for situational ethics, maybe that should always play a part. I don't want the merits of any case against me judged with respect to demographics or statistics. I want the merits of my particular case evaluated.

But I do understand the concern. Laws should apply equally and at all times.

This is great in theory and a disaster in practice. It assumes that the lawmakers who create a statute are infinitely wise and have taken every possible circumstance into account. This is clearly not the case, and there has to be a mechanism for exceptions.

What used to be called "common sense" (when it was common) is frequently used by prosecutors who simply decline to prosecute when justice would not be served by doing so. The case of the Lt. Cmdr. in Chattanooga is a classic opportunity to apply that tactic to good effect.

[Bitter Clinger]

White House petition started by former Service Member and briefed on Fox this a.m.:

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
Change the laws regarding current and former military and their right to carry personal firearms on government property
We the people request President Obama and Congress, under the authority of the second amendment, enact legislation effective immediately to ensure all current and former military members be granted the following rights to carry firearms:

1. The right to carry personal firearms on federal property, including military establishments.

2. The same national carry rights as current and former law enforcement officers and federal agents.

Additionally, we request the President take whatever action necessary to ensure that Lt Cdr. Timothy White will not be prosecuted for his actions on July 16, 2015.

Published Date: Aug 02, 2015

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petiti ... t-property" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[baldeagle]

So, it would be perfectly fine for teachers to break the law and carry in schools as long as they don't get caught until they have to use the gun on an active shooter?
I have no doubt what the response would be on this forum if a teacher with a CHL was busted with a gun in school if there was not an active shooter, but somehow it all becomes ok once a shooter shows up?
I think some of us need to research situational ethics and see if that is a road we want to travel.

You should try comparing apples to apples.

There is a difference between the duties, purpose & training of a soldier & those of a teacher. Disarming a soldier on duty is as outrageous as banning a teacher from talking in the classroom - both serve no logical purpose.

#1: How many serving members of the military have ANY pistol exposure? Now, take your answer and subtract the MP's, the officers, the MI guys and the SF guys. I'll gladly stand behind putting armed guards on entrances of any federal/state/military installation, but allowing the rank and file to carry concealed is asking for trouble. In this instance, its an officer we're discussing so he, at minimum, had M9 exposure.

#2. Your comparison to a teacher not talking is also moot - that's part of the job description, or mission. A recruiter doesn't need a weapon to fulfill the mission.

We're rapidly approaching the point where we need to follow the Israeli model of troops behind armed all the time, but until that changes the law is what it is.

If a member of the armed forces makes the choice to carry, they have the responsibility to practice, just like you and I. Assuming they won't do that is denying them their rights on the basis of speculation. I suspect you wouldn't make that same argument for private citizens. It smacks of the "they're too young to carry" argument, which is hogwash.

[Taypo]

I'm denying that they're qualified to carry, based simply on the fact that they're military. You and I have more experience with carrying concealed than the majority of the armed forces. I've not seen a single mention of training, licensing or testing in ANY of the knee jerk "Let them carry guns!" posts or articles mentioned here. Just being military isn't enough. Prove competency, the same way Texans do, in order to carry.

[teraph]

Taypo,

Every single Service Member goes through firearms training, except for Chaplains (but some of those guys can really shoot). It does not matter the branch of service. Some get more than others (Marines, combat arms etc) and some get less (Air Force, Research Officers). They all have proven their competency with firearms.

What I think you are trying to get at, is that you think that they are going to become a liability to anything firearm related. With that being said, how about those states that do not require proof of training (WA, PA), or those that allow unlicensed open or concealed carry (AZ, AK, WA (open) etc)? Many of those people in those states have far less training than a slick sleeve Airman, with less common sense than that 18 year old Infantryman. And they carry!
Or, better yet, how about the stories of cops and Feds that incurred a case of Glock Leg, or those NYPD cops that shot 16 rounds, and hit 9 bystanders? (Links below) They have had extensive pistol training and they are also armed professionals. What is the difference though?
The difference is that we are trained to "support and defend" through superior firepower. And we are the disArmed Forces of the United States of America when it comes to any form of terrorist attack on our own soil. Before Chattanooga, there have been many other attempts at attacking military installations. Fort Dix NJ, Fort Hood TX, Fort Bliss TX and Norfolk VA all have had terrorists attempt an attack and 2 of them succeeded. These are just the attacks off of the top of my head. I was nearby at one of these. It was not pretty and I know I am not alone when it comes to pushing some boundaries to ensure the safety of those around me.
If you are allowed to carry in your home, your neighborhood, your place of work, your grocery store, and your "big box store", why are we not? Especially when it has been proven many times over that we (the Military) are (relatively) soft targets for any form of attack? Yes, we may have armed guards at the gates. Would you still carry in a community where you had controlled access and armed cops minding the gates? And the response time on many installations is comparable to the times off post. And this does not even cover recruiting stations, National Guard Depots or any other place that is not a major installation. ALL of which have far less security than post does. I do not just want the military to carry, I would like some form of National Reciprocity, but there are times where we (as a firearms community) must take that small step before we can take the big one. I will personally be ecstatic if I am allowed to lawfully defend myself and my family next time an attack happens. Not if, but when.

As a side not, to me it sounds like you are being an elitist about Texas, and have some misconceptions. If I have misinterpreted, please enlighten us.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/empire-state-b ... d=17078377
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0 (DEA Glock Leg)

P.S. We get and give use of force, laws and regulations about firearms (open and concealed, civilian and military) very 6 months or so. And I am not SF, MP or any other MOS that gets to carry concealed daily. And allowing us to carry will actually be cheaper (lives and $) when the next event occurs and everyone is reacting and dying.

[Right2Carry]

Taypo,

Every single Service Member goes through firearms training, except for Chaplains (but some of those guys can really shoot). It does not matter the branch of service. Some get more than others (Marines, combat arms etc) and some get less (Air Force, Research Officers). They all have proven their competency with firearms.

What I think you are trying to get at, is that you think that they are going to become a liability to anything firearm related. With that being said, how about those states that do not require proof of training (WA, PA), or those that allow unlicensed open or concealed carry (AZ, AK, WA (open) etc)? Many of those people in those states have far less training than a slick sleeve Airman, with less common sense than that 18 year old Infantryman. And they carry!
Or, better yet, how about the stories of cops and Feds that incurred a case of Glock Leg, or those NYPD cops that shot 16 rounds, and hit 9 bystanders? (Links below) They have had extensive pistol training and they are also armed professionals. What is the difference though?
The difference is that we are trained to "support and defend" through superior firepower. And we are the disArmed Forces of the United States of America when it comes to any form of terrorist attack on our own soil. Before Chattanooga, there have been many other attempts at attacking military installations. Fort Dix NJ, Fort Hood TX, Fort Bliss TX and Norfolk VA all have had terrorists attempt an attack and 2 of them succeeded. These are just the attacks off of the top of my head. I was nearby at one of these. It was not pretty and I know I am not alone when it comes to pushing some boundaries to ensure the safety of those around me.
If you are allowed to carry in your home, your neighborhood, your place of work, your grocery store, and your "big box store", why are we not? Especially when it has been proven many times over that we (the Military) are (relatively) soft targets for any form of attack? Yes, we may have armed guards at the gates. Would you still carry in a community where you had controlled access and armed cops minding the gates? And the response time on many installations is comparable to the times off post. And this does not even cover recruiting stations, National Guard Depots or any other place that is not a major installation. ALL of which have far less security than post does. I do not just want the military to carry, I would like some form of National Reciprocity, but there are times where we (as a firearms community) must take that small step before we can take the big one. I will personally be ecstatic if I am allowed to lawfully defend myself and my family next time an attack happens. Not if, but when.

As a side not, to me it sounds like you are being an elitist about Texas, and have some misconceptions. If I have misinterpreted, please enlighten us.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/empire-state-b ... d=17078377
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0 (DEA Glock Leg)

P.S. We get and give use of force, laws and regulations about firearms (open and concealed, civilian and military) very 6 months or so. And I am not SF, MP or any other MOS that gets to carry concealed daily. And allowing us to carry will actually be cheaper (lives and $) when the next event occurs and everyone is reacting and dying.

[Taypo]

Taypo,

Every single Service Member goes through firearms training, except for Chaplains (but some of those guys can really shoot). It does not matter the branch of service. Some get more than others (Marines, combat arms etc) and some get less (Air Force, Research Officers). They all have proven their competency with firearms.

What I think you are trying to get at, is that you think that they are going to become a liability to anything firearm related. With that being said, how about those states that do not require proof of training (WA, PA), or those that allow unlicensed open or concealed carry (AZ, AK, WA (open) etc)? Many of those people in those states have far less training than a slick sleeve Airman, with less common sense than that 18 year old Infantryman. And they carry!
Or, better yet, how about the stories of cops and Feds that incurred a case of Glock Leg, or those NYPD cops that shot 16 rounds, and hit 9 bystanders? (Links below) They have had extensive pistol training and they are also armed professionals. What is the difference though?
The difference is that we are trained to "support and defend" through superior firepower. And we are the disArmed Forces of the United States of America when it comes to any form of terrorist attack on our own soil. Before Chattanooga, there have been many other attempts at attacking military installations. Fort Dix NJ, Fort Hood TX, Fort Bliss TX and Norfolk VA all have had terrorists attempt an attack and 2 of them succeeded. These are just the attacks off of the top of my head. I was nearby at one of these. It was not pretty and I know I am not alone when it comes to pushing some boundaries to ensure the safety of those around me.
If you are allowed to carry in your home, your neighborhood, your place of work, your grocery store, and your "big box store", why are we not? Especially when it has been proven many times over that we (the Military) are (relatively) soft targets for any form of attack? Yes, we may have armed guards at the gates. Would you still carry in a community where you had controlled access and armed cops minding the gates? And the response time on many installations is comparable to the times off post. And this does not even cover recruiting stations, National Guard Depots or any other place that is not a major installation. ALL of which have far less security than post does. I do not just want the military to carry, I would like some form of National Reciprocity, but there are times where we (as a firearms community) must take that small step before we can take the big one. I will personally be ecstatic if I am allowed to lawfully defend myself and my family next time an attack happens. Not if, but when.

As a side not, to me it sounds like you are being an elitist about Texas, and have some misconceptions. If I have misinterpreted, please enlighten us.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/empire-state-b ... d=17078377
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7ufT_6Kgy0 (DEA Glock Leg)

P.S. We get and give use of force, laws and regulations about firearms (open and concealed, civilian and military) very 6 months or so. And I am not SF, MP or any other MOS that gets to carry concealed daily. And allowing us to carry will actually be cheaper (lives and $) when the next event occurs and everyone is reacting .

How much of that firearms training is with pistols? How much of is it concealed? Take at a look at the other people in your unit - you trust every single one of them with a concealed weapon while at whatever job you do on a daily basis? If you can honestly tell me yes, then I envy you and your unit.

You have every right to defend yourself and others - more so than most civilians I'd say. Open the armory, issue rifles and ammo and the problem is solved. - just like any other deployment. There is ZERO reason why someone in uniform needs to carry concealed.

I'm not elitist - I hold the military to the same high standard that I held myself when I was active. A ND in one of the shall issue states is a byline in the local paper. A ND in the on post Burger King is national news.

At the end of the day, you make good points. I don't agree with them but that doesn't make them any less valid. Thanks for serving and keep your head down

[Jumping Frog]

I'm denying that they're qualified to carry, based simply on the fact that they're military. You and I have more experience with carrying concealed than the majority of the armed forces. I've not seen a single mention of training, licensing or testing in ANY of the knee jerk "Let them carry guns!" posts or articles mentioned here. Just being military isn't enough. Prove competency, the same way Texans do, in order to carry.

Well, I'll deny that any training or licensing should be required by the gooberment for a human being to exercise their God-given right to bear arms in self defense, and also point to the apparent lack of any widespread problems in the many states that allow unlicensed open carry, much less the seven states that allow unlicensed open or concealed carry.

Instead of saying the military doesn't meet Texas standards, I'll point out that our standards are too restrictive anyway.

[teraph]

Taypo,

First off, thanks for the interesting discussion. It is not often people can discuss like this. And FYI, if it seems like malice, anger, frustration etc are in this, they are not directed at you or anyone specific. More the issue as a whole.

Want to know why an ND at a post BK would be national news? Because the media wills it. Nothing more, nothing less.
And you are right. There is no way for me to trust every single Soldier in my 5000+ person Brigade. It is impossible to trust everyone because you do not know everyone. Do I trust those that I do know? Yes I do. I trust them because I (as a leader) took the time to get to know, train and teach them. Whether they are in my Platoon, Company, Battalion or on the other side of my Brigade. That is one of the basic tenets that I have always been taught. You train your Soldiers to think for themselves and to do the right thing. You train them to be responsible adults and Professionals in their career field. You train them to respond threats in the best manner possible, not cowering and hiding. Tactically finding the "high ground" and eliminating the threat as necessary. In the decade I have been in, I have never had a single one of my Soldiers get any form of NJP, because of how I trained and trusted them to do the right thing. Albeit, that does not mean I have not nailed them to the wall for doing stupid things. It has ranged from simple slaps on the wrist all the way to standing in front of Battalion and coming to attention/parade rest for those coming into Battalion and addressing them by rank and name. Then preceding to explain why he was there.

(Not to be read by the Brass. They might have an aneurysm)
As for opening the Armory, why should we? If we are allowed to carry, why not carry what we own? It is our right to defend ourselves, we should not need DoD permission or weapons and ammo. That would bring it under their purview, allowing them to make it Commander's Discretion (it is already there. The post Commander has the authority to allow Service Members to carry as he sees fit) and allow them to enact all kinds of regulations against it. The Brass should be left out of this. They, like many other people in power, have forgotten much of what it means to have your boots on the ground. Laying in that foxhole, stumbling out of a vehicle, walking down the street without an escort etc. Many of them do not realize the day to day life that the Joes, the NCOs and the Company Grade Officers work in. At FT Hood, they recently put a policy in place banning the use of standard 1qt water bottles (which a massive chunk of Soldiers use daily) in uniform. Many feel that the Camelbak is to aggravating for daily use and that is why many carry water bottles. They may be great and all when you do not have a free hand and need some water, but they suck in day to day work life. I am sure you have seen your version of this insanity at least once in your career.
As for Service Members concealing....why shouldn't we conceal? Give me a good reason other than "you are in uniform" (that answer reminds me of the "because I said so" answer). The main reason I have is the same as those that refuse to open carry. Because I would like to. If we are looking at it in a tactical sense, it means that you have less of a noticeable footprint (camouflage works in the crowd too). Realistically and honestly, personal weapons should be concealed. BECAUSE you are not working in an official armed capacity. You are working as a Service Member doing your job. (Imagine all the tinfoil hatters if they suddenly saw Service Members in uniform carrying CONUS, it'd be hilarious and saddening)
Side note: Personally I would love to go back to the old leather belts and holsters. They looked sharp in dress uniform.

The rest of my argument lies exactly where Jumping Frog took it. There are way to many restrictions in our 2A rights.

Thanks for your service and the discussion. But I am too hard headed to keep my head down, but thank you anyway. It is appreciated.

[Taypo]

Note: I just got back from the gym, so any typos are a result of exhaustion rather than being an idiot :)

I'm more and more aware of the ridiculous crap going on in the Army these days. I hate to be one of the old timers that tells the new blood how easy they have it, but...We didn't have Camelbacks. We had the old school canteens on the old school web belts that were held up with the old school suspenders. I wasn't aware they DX'd the quart bottles, but I did hear about them putting out the ban on gallon jugs. I've also gotten an earful about the sad state of the barracks and the ridiculous new draw downs. It's a rough time to be in uniform, man. Glad I'm from a different era.

Maybe I'll get back around to the topic at hand tomorrow when I've had a chance to think about it some more. I'll be honest though, we're not gonna change each others mind so it may just be two dudes banging their head on the wall lol.

Im going to assume you're at Hood, but if you ever make it up to the Dallas neighborhood give me a shout. I'll buy the first round.

[E.Marquez]

So the position of a former US Army Sergeant major, just recently retired, and who on occasion may have stretched the rules a bit.

If you break the rules, you should be charged...,the officer doing the Art 32 can recommend no charges, lesser charges, or the full deal.. the appointing officer can concur, or set aside the ART32 finding, can charge anyway, choose a lesser charger or non at all...If charged and IF found guilty, it is at that point the commander with a duty and responsibility to hear mitigating circumstances as to why the punishment should be less or none, can decide what the punishment should be.

If the LT CDR is found to have violated Federal law or Navy regulations, he should stand a Art32... And then the Navy commander with Court Martial convening authority can make a decision from there.

This is no different than what i would expect (and accept) if i were to carry a gun into a post office and by chance stop a violent crime in progress using my concealed weapon.
Charged, Grand Jury at least......

[jmra]

If one takes the position of "it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6", then they shouldn't complain about being tried by the 12.