http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/troops-concealed-handguns-armed-military-recruiters This, in Georgia combined with OCGA 16-11-130, is a big, big deal.
I believe this to be the DoD directive they are talking about. I haven't read it in detail, but it looks to be pretty comprehensive. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056_dodd_2016.pdf
4.2. ARMING AUTHORITIES CHARGED WITH PERMITTING PERSONS TO CARRY PRIVATELY OWNED FIREARMS. (bold and underlining mine) "this is another feel good piece of law/authority to seem like they are following the 2nd Amendment" In 6 mos. do a freedom of information request and see how many commanders have allowed privately owned hand guns on DOD facilities!! The arming authorities charged with determining whether to permit DoD personnel to carry privately owned firearms on DoD property: a. May grant permission to DoD personnel requesting to carry a privately owned firearm (concealed or open carry) on DoD property for a personal protection purpose not related to performance of an official duty or status. Permissions granted under this section do not apply to carrying a firearm within federal buildings unless the arming authority specifically determines, after consultation with servicing legal counsel and in accordance with applicable DoD policy, that an appropriate exception under Section 930(d) of Title 18, U.S.C. applies.(1) All permissions will be in writing after verifying that the requester meets the requirements in this issuance. Written permission will be valid for 90 days or as long as the DoD Component deems appropriate and will include information necessary to facilitate the carrying of the firearm on DoD property consistent with safety and security, such as the individual’s name, duration of the permission to carry, type of firearm, etc.
Seven years to decide on something as simple as allowing personal carry? Is the timing with respect to the election just a coincidence?
I think this is pretty good progress, especially given who our current commander in chief is. However, this policy is going to give local commanders a lot of latitude on what they want to do. Commanders may choose to be overly cautious. There is going to be a lot of fear of NDs and accidents. And the military is very good about making policies very bureaucratic and painful to implement, ie, expects lots of paperwork and red tape before allowing soldiers to carry. It's a good thing to see, even so.
The Trace is mad. The Trace @teamtrace 4 hours ago The Army Chief of Staff—a fmr. Ft. Hood commander—has argued against service members carrying private guns on base. http://www.military.com/daily-news/...s-soldiers-carry-concealed-firearms-base.html … The Trace @teamtrace 4 hours ago Service members who wish to carry private guns on bases "should not be subject to past/pending disciplinary action." http://www.military.com/daily-news/...plan-allow-personnel-carry-firearms-base.html …
i think the every day real world translation of this will be: no change. officers at that level are political, and will not accept any unnecessary risks that might tarnish their career. they will view their soldiers carrying personal weapons as liabilities, and therefore will not approve them unless there are some extenuating circumstances. the short (90 day) expiry, combined with the bureaucracy that will be required for a soldier's application to reach an O-5, and for him to research it, will guarantee it will rarely, if ever, happen. this is a meaningless platitude of a gesture by whomever was behind it. though, it might be a stepping stone to something better down the road for them.
I agree with phaed. At most, it's a step in the right direction, to accept that SOMETIMES Under some SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A few SPECIAL PEOPLE can carry for personal protection, BUT ONLY while obeying every ridiculous gun law on the books in the city, county, state, and Nation where these military personnel are stationed.
You are right, but only to a point. This all predates Trump, who has said that the rules in place are crazy. This move forward, despite it being BS on a practical level for the reasons you state and others, will make the real move forward less of a change and easier in the future for Trump's SecDef.
Plus, all military forms filled out in triplicate and approved by the entire chain of command, sergeant up to general officer.
Perhaps Trump will cut through all the red tape and BS politics of the upper ranks to get this honestly implemented.
Left out retirees. Travel to base once every few years for ID card renewal. Have to sanitize car for trip.
I think this is a step in the right direction, but I am just not sure how many commanders will actually go for it. Granted, there will be lots of O-5s out there that still have a backbone and would approve it, but I do see that their boss and their bosses boss may make it almost impossible. When I was still serving, there were occasions when I simply FORGOT that I had my weapon in the car and sometimes even on me! I know...terrible, right? When I got home and *realized* my mistake, I was always thankful that I wasn't nabbed in a random vehicle search and the next day, I trying my damnest to leave it home.
The old cards didn't expire and the new ones expire only once...when you hit 65 years old, after that, you get the "INDEF" expiration. I do understand that your spouses card will expire, but now you can allow them to go by themselves to get it renewed (changed that last year on the DEERS website) which to me is AWESOME! I figured I spent 22 years going on and off mil bases and I have no real desire to do so anymore. Since I retired in 2014, I have been on a base once.