TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood, I greatly respect your service to your country and your steadfast position on this issue. While we disagree, and there are items within your most recent post which I disagree and could attempt to pick apart, I think I've said my peace. Others will ultimately decide this issue, and I doubt either of us will get a direct vote on it anyway. I appreciate your insight and convictions.

Purplehood wrote:

austinrealtor wrote:With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

Many of those folks you describe live in the barracks and don't have POV's. Who are you going to appoint to do all this inspecting? Sorry, I will stop.

Notice I didn't say "inspected every time" I said "subject to inspection" .... my non-military background is showing here, but don't you have someone of a higher rank inspecting barraks from time to time? And just because someone lives in the barracks and may not have a personal vehicle, doesn't mean they can't propertly secure a firearm in an approved lockbox or small safe of some kind, privately purchased of course.

Anyway, these are all just details and should be left to DOD. The point is, it is easy to simply dismiss these ideas as "trouble waiting to happen". But - as I tried to point out with the GW quote above - easy ain't always right. And taking away a free person's rights because of what he MIGHT do with those rights is simply unAmerican. I get that the military is "different", but as has been discussed earlier, if an authority is going to take away self-defense rights then they darn sure better make CERTAIN that they provide an airtight defense for those people whose self-defense rights they are taking away.

With all this talk on my mind about certain military personnel who really cannot be trusted with guns, except when training or facing the enemy, I ran across this quote today. Speaks VOLUMES ...

"It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it."
George Washington

Now, I'm not saying you strap an M9 onto the hip of every 18-year-old private. Heck, they wouldn't qualify for a CHL, much less be capable of competently open carrying a loaded sidearm. But personnel of a proper age, maturity, discretion, and ability (to be determined by DOD) should be allowed to open carry a sidearm on post during their daily routine. Perhaps some should even be required to do so, but again I would leave that up to DOD to decide particular policy. And those with a CHL should be allowed to keep their personal firearms on base, secured (behind "double locks" and subject to inspection) in their residence or private vehicle at all times until off base.

Anyway, reading that quote from ol' George just really struck a chord with me.

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:5thGenTexan said
"The news agencies must report Hasan as a "suspected" or "alleged" gunman because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and to do otherwise is to open themselves up to a huge libel lawsuit if, in fact, he was not the killer (not likely, but media has to cover themselves on this). Remember Richard Jewell? He was absolutely unequivocally the madman who tried to blow up the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta ... until he wasn't. Mr. Jewell will live comfortably the rest of his life off the libel and slander lawsuit settlements with the big media outlets."

Jewell died August 29, 2007, from natural causes at the age of 44. He was suffering from severe heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, and obesity.[4]

Jewell's case became an example of the damage that can be done by reporting based on unreliable or incomplete information, and spurred the media to use "alleged" and "person of interest" (instead of "suspect") more frequently.[

The red quote was taken from the Wikipedia article. You can read the full story of Mr. Jewell's life at the link below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

SIA

Wow, I had no idea he died. Well I guess his relatives are enjoying NBC's (or General Electric's) money.

stroo wrote:I have no problem with gun free zones under certain conditions one being that the party responsible for the zone ensure that it is gun free. Courts, airports, maybe military bases (they are a different world) arguably should be gun free because of the particular circumstances. Courts and airports generally go to great lengths to attain gun free status by imposing significant security screening. I have been on a couple of military bases, my son in law is a Marine, and the security at those bases was nothing like a court or an airport's security. It would be pretty easy to bring a gun on the bases I have been on, particularly if you are stationed there. So for those you who think it is too difficult to have limited numbers of people carrying concealed or otherwise, do you think it would be easier to set up screening like they do for courts and airports?

If we want gun free zones, then we should make sure they are gun free!!

I like your thought process here. Gun free ONLY IF truly gun free. But I would add some legal liability to that and say that if you're going to declare your premises to be "gun free" and - through negligence of you or your representatives proven in a court of law - someone sneaks a gun into your premises and commits a crime, then YOU are legally liable (civil court, not criminal) for any harm caused to me or other unarmed citizens in your premises.

The #1 reason most gun-free zones are made gun free is fear of legal liability. Let's turn that around 180 degrees and put the responsibility to make a gun free zone ACTUALLY gun free on these people. Then see what happens ...

5thGenTexan wrote:"The news agencies must report Hasan as a "suspected" or "alleged" gunman because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and to do otherwise is to open themselves up to a huge libel lawsuit if, in fact, he was not the killer (not likely, but media has to cover themselves on this). Remember Richard Jewell? He was absolutely unequivocally the madman who tried to blow up the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta ... until he wasn't. Mr. Jewell will live comfortably the rest of his life off the libel and slander lawsuit settlements with the big media outlets."

AustinRealtor believe me with the impact of that little law school in your namesake City on my family over the years I get the libel implications. However I don't believe Jewell was caught setting the timer of the bomb as it went off. I have no problem with the use of suspects when there is not clear cut irrefutable evidence of the act I think getting shot while holding and firing the "smoking gun" would be hard to claim innocence. To be libel it has to be NOT true, of course anyone with a handsome bank account or a 50/50 shot at winning can find a lawyer willing to argue anything in a lawsuit. That was one of the reasons I avoided the second of the family business' I just hate feeling slimey and arguing a lie leaves me feeling like a pile of goo.

I agree with you, except that none of these newspaper editors or TV producers were THERE. Sure they can take authorities' word for it, and that would likely provide them legal cover in most cases. But authorities all but declared Jewell the culprit and he's now a rich man because the media ran with it. Again, I agree the suspect in this case is basically caught red-handed. But on something this explosive, that is not enough. At a minimum, the media will wait until the suspect is formally charged.

$1,000 to $1,200 price I keep seeing quoted for the Five-seveN must be a suggested retail price or something. You can buy one for $855 here ... http://www.gtdist.com/ProductDetail.asp ... 3868929120" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

edmart001 wrote:I am not a vet, but I have a son who is. While I will not try to speak for him, I do agree that during my visits to Fort Benning, it did indeed seem to me to be a much different world and I agree that CHL on post is probably not the right answer in that world.

I remember a phone call with my son shortly after he had completed training and was assigned to 3ID. When his Mom asked what the barracks was like he replied, "Mom, it's a lot like a college dorm, but you've really got to always remember that everyone here is trained to kill and many have done so before and are very efficient at it - so we all really have to be careful with name-calling".

I also note the after return from each of his two deployments to Iraq, there were always events of soldier on soldier violence, which often resulted in a fatality. To this, my son said, it's difficult to transition back and some folks just can't do it. Others come home to wives and girl friends who are shacking up with someone else, personal finance in a mess, no family support and for some, the Army is their family.

I really salute all those who have volunteered to serve, past and present, but I can certainly see how having a multitude of personal weapons on post and readily available might not be the best answer.

Interesting, thoughtful, and worthwhile post. Thank you. Gonna have to soak in some of this and let it simmer in the old brain a while.

Purplehood wrote:I have no intention to be rude. But I suspect that you have never experienced the Military lifestyle for any period of time, and I mean nothing derogatory in that. But it is a completely different world, and after reading your responses I stand by mine.

Purplehood, I have had the honor and privilege to be accompanied to a few military installations, often by a retired Colonel (my father in law). Also am the proud cousin of an active-duty US Army Captain. But I readily admit that my knowledge of military life ends there, with exception of a few movies I've seen .

I would very much like to know more detail about why you feel that military personnel carrying sidearms is such a bad idea. I challenged some of your assertions because they sounded so much like the assertions of those who're against campus carry, and I did go to college and know that "world" very well and completely disagree with those assertions in the academic world. I'm honestly curious why it is so different for military, who are already trained in how to effectively and safetly utilize firearms (more than can be said for many people who privately own firearms).

I am not a "guns everywhere all the time" type of person. Without special clearance, I don't think unauthorized civilians should be allowed to carry on base (CHL or not); however, I do wish there was some sort of well-regulated "check in" procedure so that I could have my firearm with me when I drive to the base - secure it with MPs or whatever - and then retreive it on my way out. As it stands now, anytime my wife and mother in law want to go to a PX I either can't go, or have to leave my guns at home

But I do feel a number of current "gun free zones" should not be gun free. Even if I don't like the idea of every idiotic Tom, Dick, and Harry carrying a gun, I am willing to allow them to do so (assuming of course they are properly licensed and criminals and other wackos are excepted) if I too am allowed to more fully exercise my rights under 2A. This is the current system in "unlicensed gun free zones" like 95% of the places we go in our daily lives. Why should schools, company parking lots, etc be any different? For that matter, why should military posts be any different (again, assuming proper levels of security and clearance)?

5thGenTexan wrote:I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting real tired of the news agencies PC garbage of referring to the "suspected" Fort Hood shooter. When you are shot and apprehended with the weapon in hand you are not a SUSPECT you are a MURDERER.

The news agencies must report Hasan as a "suspected" or "alleged" gunman because he hasn't yet been convicted of anything, and to do otherwise is to open themselves up to a huge libel lawsuit if, in fact, he was not the killer (not likely, but media has to cover themselves on this). Remember Richard Jewell? He was absolutely unequivocally the madman who tried to blow up the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta ... until he wasn't. Mr. Jewell will live comfortably the rest of his life off the libel and slander lawsuit settlements with the big media outlets.

Often in these mass shootings, the shooter is reported as just that "the shooter" or "the killer" because said person is already dead. And, as we all know, dead people don't sue. But this case - and the guy in Orlando - are unique in that the "suspects" were captured ALIVE.

So, until a court of law pronounces these very much alive people guilty, they are "suspected" or "alleged" murderers.

If there's anything I learned in 4 years of journalism education and 10 years as a practicing journalist, it's never to risk libeling a living person no matter how sure everyone is that they did it.

Purplehood, I have grappled with your post since I read it earlier today. I greatly respect your insights, and can't thank you enough for your 24 years of service to this country.



But I must, respectfully of course, say that many of your answers reminded me of the same answers that antis give when the subject is allowing concealed carry on college campuses, parking lots, and other gun-free zones. Granted, the scenarioes are a bit different as you seem to be specifically discussing military-issued firearms being carried under general order from military command. But some of the basics of your argument fall flat to me either way:

Purplehood wrote:In the US it is a world of difference ... There are dependents (spouse and children) everywhere.

There are spouses and children around police officers' off-duty lives. And many of us CHLers have spouses and children. What makes the military so different that having weapons - treated and stored properly of course - around spouses and wives is more dangerous in a military context?

Purplehood wrote:There are young servicemembers that are out for the first time in their "adult" lives, couldn't afford college and are now learning to work during the day and party during the night. How do you secure weapons in the barracks, base-housing or worse yet, off-base housing (which is more common than you might think)?

Again, how is off-base housing any different from a LEO storing weapons at his/her private residence? Or a CHLer or any citizen with a shotgun? As for the fears of young service members out on their own for the first time, drinking and partying, etc. Well, I have the same answer for you that I gave to the University of Texas president in a letter earlier this year .... in a nutshell, don't let anyone under 21 participate; don't let anyone who has been drinking participate. These are already laws in the civilan world; structure a military carry policy similarly.

Purplehood wrote:Do you want Moms and Dads toting their M-16/M-4 to the Commissary, PX (the mall) or the Base Hospital while carrying a couple of squealing toddlers?

My personal thought on this is military personnel should be carrying holstered sidearms while stateside, not slinging their long guns everywhere they go. For on-base housing, perhaps a secured area for each barraks to keep the long guns etc? (not sure if this is already done?).

Purplehood wrote:The Military would than have to look at liability issues. How do you provide, inspect and insure that all weapons are secure at a married-couples base or off-base residence? What do we do when Pvt. Such-and-Such goes UA or AWOL with his/her weapon?

Again, similar concerns are easily and routinely overcome in the LEO and civilian worlds. As for liability, that is a red herring used by every company that prohibits their licensed employees from carrying.

casingpoint wrote:
Without proper recognition by Washington of the Ft. Hood shooting as the combat event in the War on Terror that it was, the dead and wounded will not receive their Purple Hearts. Unacceptable.

great point. And I concur, each military casualty of this event deserves a Purple Heart.

C-dub wrote:So, the latest is that the shooting only lasted about 3 minutes? The last report I heard this morning was that it lasted for almost 30 minutes.

Reading between the lines of all the reports I've heard today, the 3-minute response time is from the time the first 911 call was received, understood, routed. Who knows how long it took before someone was able to actually dial 911. I'd guess a total active shooter time frame of at least 10-15 minutes.

I am by no means an expert on the 5.7x28mm round, nor the FN Five SeveN handgun. But I've seen/held one at a gun shop, and also seen/held other FN firearms (the P90 bullpup rifle) that use this round.

Five SeveN - http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=263" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
P90 - http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=262" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A guy at a local shooting range showed me the P90, a "bullpup" design, and it has a remarkable magazine mounted horizontally on top of the weapon that holds - I think - 50 or more rounds. He said he's fired a P90 and they were very fun to shoot, with even less recoil than the light-recoiling 5.56x45mm NATO round from an AR-15 type weapon.

Guessing a bit here, but seems to me this round was meant to be a replacement or alternative to the standard 5.56x45mm NATO round (FN web site lists 5.7x28 as "NATO recommended", whatever that means). The fact that FN was able to adabpt the same round for both a bullpup assault rifle and a handgun leads me to believe the whole development is intended as some sort of NATO catch-all round for urban combat and law enforcement/SWAT purposes.

Anyway, it's certainly a very deadly and viable cartridge. Bet that gun has some kick to it. Imagine firing a slightly tamer 5.56mm round from handgun?!?!

ExMarlboroMan wrote: CHL should be an option for military personal , on base or not. They should have the right to defend themselves and not have to wait for a leo to do the job.

No need for CHL. Just make it a standing order that all active duty personnel will strap on their GI sidearm and OPEN CARRY AT ALL TIMES while on any military base or Federal property of any kind.

Of course, that will never happen because "what if one of those brave young soldiers just suddenly snapped and started shooting?" .... then he/she could be STOPPED before 12 innocent lives were lost!!!