Survivalist Forum banner

DoD Employee On-Post Firearms Carry...

6K views 60 replies 20 participants last post by  ForestBeekeeper 
#1 ·
For those in the military or DoD employees on federal installations, the DoD Directive 5210.56 was updated (dated the 18th) in November.

The good news is they added Section 4, which gives general guidelines "for permitting privately owned firearms on DoD property by DoD personnel for personal protection purposes that are not associated with the performance of official duties".

Now, this is just DoD guidance, so each service and agency will need to figure out how to implement. There is some specific guidance, such as a 21-year old requirement, obeying state and local restrictions (when traveling off post) and including some form of training requirement. It's interesting that the guidance includes both open and concealed carry. So, the guidance may be there, but if you have a draconian service, garrison or unit commander, it may not get much traction. I'm still not clear on who the "army authority" is who is the individual that can allow the carry of personal firearms. Some think it's an O5 commander, the garrison commander, the provost marshal, or might end up be at the O6 or first GO level commander; I think every service will have slight variances.

So, carry on-post still does not allow carry in federal buildings (makes sense as this is a DoD guidance and federal law still restricts carry in federal buildings). What it does allow is for open or concealed carry in or out of uniform. Even more important for those trying to figure out "bug home" from work plans, this guidance makes allowances for storing your firearm, unattended in your vehicle. This is probably the biggest win.

The do mention that background check are required and that must be overlaid by any UCMJ or disciplinary incidents that unit commanders may feel disqualify a service member from carrying. I don't see that as a prerequisite, but if you're a young 22 year old E5 and you get into a physical altercation that ends up being a some form of UCMJ punitive punishment...may get your ability to carry revoked. Additionally, any damages you cause (thinking most likely ND) you are individually liable (not the government); which is no different than in the real world for carrying for personal protection.

Sure, there are concerns about "workplace" violence, but most threats have been identified by intel-assessments are for service members traveling to and from work.

This may not end up being ideal knowing how the services, individual installations and differences in commanders may impact or "add to" the guidelines with their own restrictions; however, it's a great step for those who work on restrictive installations when putting together their bug-home plans.

My advice if you want to make this request once the details are finalized, is get your state-issued CHL. If your state doesn't require training (like my current state of GA), take a basic class in case they make that a requirement. Service guidance should come down soon, so be prepared to apply.

ROCK6
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Ft. Bliss already issued guidance that there would be no approval for on post carry under our current post commander. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised to see that being the case across the board. Also from what I understand it's only authorized for E-7 and above and must be renewed every 90 days.
 
#8 ·
First, your installation commander can't authorize it right now anyways. Until the SecArmy makes provisions through supplemental guidance, training materials and designates the "arming authorities", these provisions are not in effect. My guess would be the garrison commanders designated as the "arming authorities"; however, if they delegate that down to battalion or brigade level, the installation commander will have no say, especially if the proponent of AR 190-14, the Army's Office of Provost Marshal General (OPMG) incorporates the SecArmy's guidance into the regulation.

I'm surprised the post commander would take such as stance on a combat-arms installation; that sucks, but hopefully their replacement will have a different stance. Even on a non-combat arms installation, Fort Gordon has always been very pro-gun. I don't get the E7 and above authorization...that makes no sense outside of mistrust for the lower enlisted. I could see, since the DoD minimum age is 21, that authorizations could be 21, E5 and above as most E5's are at least 21. I've seen more NDs from mid-grade officers than enlisted...it's not so much as an age issue as it is a competence and training-level issue.

Training will be the key. Some states (such as TX) require training for their CHL. Here in GA, there is no training requirement, just the background checks. We all know that outside of MPs, standard Army pistol qualifications (and PMI) don't provide anything near what is typically required for carrying concealed. Again, find a qualified instructor if your CHL doesn't require training and get a certificate for verification if provisions don't become too restrictive or draconian.

I do believe the "army authority" will designate the installation/post commander in the Army. This relieves a lot of battalion and brigade commanders, making the installation commander the fall-guy for permissions. This will be interesting on how they implement the guidance. The pessimistic side of me thinks the permissions will be so restrictive that few will attempt the draconian measures every 90-days if the minimum time allowance is kept.

Accountability will be key as well. The lowest level commander who can impose UCMJ must know who in their formations have permissions to carry their personal firearm on post. If a junior NCO gets into a fight resulting in punitive UCMJ actions, they likely would get those permissions revoked. This is what scares most commanders, but I really think many fear the worst and are simply poor leaders who have little trust in their troops. Heck, when I was a BN XO at Fort Hood, I was able to get over 30 NCOs and officers into a CHL class to get their CHL, that included the BN CDR. If a commander can't trust their troops to carry off duty (which many already do), or with these provisions allowing carry outside of federal buildings, then they shouldn't trust them to carry on-duty or in combat...it's truly as simple as that.

I know the approval procedure is in place and may, at the commanders discretion, be used. I just don't ever see any commander admitting that someone under their command is performing duties and has responsibilities that require them to carry a concealed weapon for personal protection even when off duty.
I think this is the misconception; it has nothing to do with their "official duties". Section Four of the DoD Guidance specifically separates provisions for carrying a personally owned firearm "outside of official duties" for personal protection. After talking with my commander (a BG), once you explain it's no different than driving down town with your CCW, however, you can't wear it in a federal building which is no different than these provisions. Again, no different than use in national parks...in fact it's the exact same.

The biggest provision is that for those who don't live on post, they can commute with their CCW, properly store it in the their vehicle for work and have it accessible when they commute home.

The other benefit with a pending pro-2A administration is that constituents will be able to apply pressure through a more pro-2A congress and administration. Some Senior Mission or garrison commanders may be opposed, but I can see them getting internal and external pressure.

The bottom line is that this just allows service members (and DoD employees) to carry "to work", not "at work". I'm okay with this premise and it's a good start. It still leaves many vulnerable at work, but allowing me to store my firearm in my car allows me to defend myself where I'm likely more vulnerable which is travel to and from work.

Also, for those living on base, this does away with the challenges of having a state issued CHL and dealing with the vagueness of how to get on and off base with your CCW.

ROCK6
 
#11 ·
thanks to rock6 for pointing out section 4 of the new dod firearms policy. all i want is to be able to lawfully carry my ccw onto base properly secured in my vehicle. i hate being turned into a serf, deprived of my rkba for a whole day, for the sake of a run to the commissary. let's hope that base commanders don't sit on this one.
 
#15 ·
I am positively STUNNED about that FL base. A commander that actually trusts his people completely! WOW!
I concur that the majority of base commanders (who will end up being the authority having jurisdiction), being political POS who will NOT allow weapons not under their direct control to be carried on base. You have to travel through the base to get to your ship or cammand.
MHO based on 10 years enlisted service in the navy weapons field and 10 more as a Naval Weapons Officer.
A smart base commander, a true leader, would have CCW personnel be trained and placed in an augmentation security team status when on base.
 
#18 ·
I just disagree with the concern for some moral responsibility. We took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, I find it fitting we support our Soldiers in exercising it. Sure we can place some restrictions, control measures and ensure training occurs...but if any commander fears losing their job for the actions and decisions their subordinates, and lets that drive their mistrust of those in their command, they are not fit to command.

The moral responsibility failed at Fort Hood. Commanders can't guarantee the personal safety of thier Soldiers in combat, in the workplace or when off duty. The moral responsibilty should support allowing their Soldiers to defend themselves if they meet the requirements and wish to exercise those rights.

Just my opinion as I think we give an enormous amount of responsibility to Soldiers when deployed but fear giving it to them when at home. Train as you fight, but dont fear living as you're trained.

ROCK6
 
#20 ·
if any commander fears losing their job for the actions and decisions their subordinates, and lets that drive their mistrust of those in their command, they are not fit to command.
Oh, I agree...just saying that the law protecting them from legal liability is just the tip of the iceberg, even in terms of consequences. Most commanders just want to do what's right anyway.

Anyway - the point of all this is that there are a lot of commanders out there who will support this legislation.
 
#19 ·
Personally I think all officers should be required to be armed, both in and out of uniform. I'm fine with E-7 (or E-8) and above being armed at all times as well. Base commanders should not be able to change this without written permission from the Secretary.

They should be able to carry any place, anywhere and anytime, the same as a sworn police officer or FBI agent, etc. If they are drinking or have personal business before a court of law or it would interfere with their duties (Engineer, Submariner, etc.), then common sense would prevail and they would secure their pistol as the situation merited.

Just like being trained to wield a saber in the past, all officers and senior NCO's need to be trained to a very high standard of pistol craft. As with the Saber and Sword of old, your pistol should be a badge of office and a symbol of your authority and responsibility. Being trained to use these weapons and adding additional responsible armed "Good Guys" to society will benefit everyone.
 
#21 ·
Personally I think all officers should be required to be armed, both in and out of uniform.
There is a limit to what I will require my subordinates to do off duty. I would never think of trying to require them to be armed while on their own time (under normal circumstances, at least). That's tyranny.

I will, however, recommend that they be.
 
#35 ·
army regs are currently being reworked to implement the new directive. Provost Marshal General is currently revising AR 190-14 (REF C) and request to carry a privately owned firearm on DoD property for personal protection will not take effect until implemented by the Secretary of the Army. I have more info but it is marked FOUO and my last name is not Clinton. If anyone with a .mil email wants to pm me I can give you the army reserves memo on it.
 
#37 ·
About time they did this. A few years ago I was working on the Predator/Reaper program when our commander called us together and stated we had a validated threat against us and that we were not to return home by our normal routes. We were told to vary our routines and report any suspicious activity around our homes. We were to scrub all social media, including family members of any mention of our programs. The people who lived off base (95% of the people) were on their own once you left the gates which made a lot real happy. Our commander, an O-6, was ordered to move onto the base as he had been publicly identified as the head of the Pred/Reaper programs. The rest of us were on our own.

I would have been overjoyed if I had been allowed to have a weapon in my vehicle as I trained or competed weekly and had shot the state police qualification course several times as part of our matches. I know I would have passed any qual the base commander could have demanded.
 
#39 ·
Saying all Officers are political creatures or that someone didn't promote because they're not PC enough is really ignorant.

I've found that most COs out there actually want their people to give them the unvarnished truth rather than having smoke blown up their a$$. A$$-kissing & politics has nothing to do with not making O-4.
 
#40 ·
Saying all Officers are political creatures or that someone didn't promote because they're not PC enough is really ignorant.
Every officer I had to work with, was.

I've found that most COs out there actually want their people to give them the unvarnished truth rather than having smoke blown up their a$$. A$$-kissing & politics has nothing to do with not making O-4.
Complete opposite of what I have seen and worked with, both as a soldier and as a contractor. Most officers played the Political Game to get promoted.

I'm guessing you were an officer?
 
#42 ·
Then that means you might have common sense. The majority of officers I had to work with whom had common sense (and generally no stomach for the Officer Political) game were the prior enlisted ones. I only worked with a few Chiefs from the Navy, this was Army and in garrison (non-combat) life, it is Politics all the way! :eek:
 
#44 ·
My experience with both the stateside Army and Air Force is that their culture values process over product.
Garrison=Politics
Combat=Results

Combat tours were preferred in my opinion, because results mattered.

We call our Joint tours our Navy appreciation tours.
We had a couple Chiefs as EWO's, who were some interesting cards, but then again most of the E7's with experience were.
 
#53 ·
If it offends you, it is probably very close to the truth. The majority of officers are political creatures (along with senior NCO's) that is just reality.

If you don't play politics, you don't go far, and if you don't get that . . . I doubt you servers. :thumb:
 
#51 ·
The big win in all of this would be the ability to be armed to and from work on base. To be fair, when I was in uniform I found it troubling and ironic in so many ways that the military disarmed me to and from work and on base, yet the states allowed me to be armed; and this was definitely a factor in my deciding to leave service (among other issues I could no longer tolerate).

It would have been very nice to not have to be disarmed on the journey to and from work, and all the stops along the way. Particularly since it's obvious you are a military member if you're in uniform, or have a particular haircut in a military town, or the decals on the windshields, license plate decorations, etc.

I hope going forward we allow military members that civil right guaranteed under the 2A.
 
#52 ·
The big win in all of this would be the ability to be armed to and from work on base. To be fair, when I was in uniform I found it troubling and ironic in so many ways that the military disarmed me to and from work and on base, yet the states allowed me to be armed; and this was definitely a factor in my deciding to leave service (among other issues I could no longer tolerate).



It would have been very nice to not have to be disarmed on the journey to and from work, and all the stops along the way. Particularly since it's obvious you are a military member if you're in uniform, or have a particular haircut in a military town, or the decals on the windshields, license plate decorations, etc.



I hope going forward we allow military members that civil right guaranteed under the 2A.


Well said. Only disagreement I have with your post is I view the 2nd as a HUMAN right, not a CIVIL right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top