DC Right to Carry for Military intro’d

[southallatoona]

Was scrolling around on a blog earlier and saw that Congressman Phil Gingrey from GA (he's from my state) introduced an amendment yesterday to a big defense bill that would exempt active duty personnel in DC from most of their rules. DC is famous for some of the strictest gun laws on the books and yet it still has a ton of murders …glad to see someone up there “gets it”…be nice if we can get rid of these restrictions for all, but giving these 40,000 soldiers in DC the right to carry in the meantime seems like a no-brainer.

[fragtagninja]

Yes and no.

If only military and police can carry guns that sounds a lot like a fascist state to me.

On the other hand I know plenty of guys that have served and totally trust them to do the right thing.

Still that sounds sorta similar to putting the military in a law enforcement position.

[raimius]

As a military guy, it's certainly nice to be trusted to do the right thing and/or get benefits. I wish the law applied to the average joe, as well. Creating various classes of citizens is usually a bad idea.

With military and off-duty LE and gun rights, I sometimes wonder if carving out exceptions is a "foot in the door" or trying limit rights to "trustworthy" stereotypes.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fragtagninja

Still that sounds sorta similar to putting the military in a law enforcement position.

Law enforcement?

I don't think so. But to me it smells like another group of special entitlement people, akin to the LEOSA that now allows police officers to carry everywhere. Military personnel working in and around DC are not fighting an active war, they are going to a daily job and going home after work -- just like everyone else who lives in or near DC and works in DC. I see absolutely zero reason why another group should be entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights when "civilians" who are doing the same exact thing every day are deprived of their 2A right.

And I say this as a veteran. I am not anti-military. I am anti-special entitlements for certain classes of society.

[Alabama Shooter]

In GA no carry permit is "required" already for military so I see where he gets the idea from.

I am kind of opposed. Figure if only military are carrying sooner or later one of them will do something stupid leaving everyone holding the bag for some sort of media circus.

Although I guess baby steps are better than no steps at all.


The irony that military is not allowed to carry on a military base is not lost on me after more than 20 years in the military. If he wants to fix something fix that first.

[tyme]

No. Absolutely do not want.

With all due respect to those in the military, why do we need more laws making some people more equal than others?

Walking the streets of D.C. as a civilian (i.e. not part of a training maneuver or official duties), one set of rules should apply to everyone, whether they're military or law enforcement or neither.

[fragtagninja]

Perhaps we should explore this a bit more. Police are always on duty in a way. My dad carried a pistol on him every time he went out the door. If he encountered a serious crime in progress he would have stopped it. That said what of MP's? They are federal law enforcement. However they do not operate under the same rules as civilian police. So would it be okay for an MP to carry the same way Leo's do? Or is that getting to close to martial law? I am of course against giving anyone special rights, but the OP has a point. Could this open up grounds for getting CCW for civilians in DC?

I would also like to point out that just being in the military does not make you responsible. Plenty of people get in trouble for stupid stuff. My wife's cousins's husband nearly got a dishonorable discharge for sneaking off base multiple times. He was caught and warned. They finally told him 1 more and you are a DD. He is not someone I would trust with a gun let alone trust him to be the only person in a room armed. He is not a bad person per say, but he lacks critical thinking skills and the ability to prioritize.


So if we were to do this would it not be sort of putting our soldiers in a sort of law enforcement role? If the only ones allowed to carry guns are police and military what other reason could there be? It certainly cannot be for personal protection because otherwise everyone would be able to do it. Do you see my line of logic?

As mentioned before these military members are not in an active war zone, so what other need could they have for them?

[Alabama Shooter]

That said what of MP's? They are federal law enforcement.

Are not.

So would it be okay for an MP to carry the same way Leo's do?

Only on Federal/ Military property.

So if we were to do this would it not be sort of putting our soldiers in a sort of law enforcement role?

Really, really do not want. Mostly not even allowed and a really bad idea in general.

It certainly cannot be for personal protection because otherwise everyone would be able to do it. Do you see my line of logic?

Not really. There is a segment of the population that thinks only the police and the military should be armed. That segment is dangerously crazy.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by fragtagninja

Perhaps we should explore this a bit more. Police are always on duty in a way. My dad carried a pistol on him every time he went out the door. If he encountered a serious crime in progress he would have stopped it. That said what of MP's? They are federal law enforcement. However they do not operate under the same rules as civilian police. So would it be okay for an MP to carry the same way Leo's do? Or is that getting to close to martial law? I am of course against giving anyone special rights, but the OP has a point. Could this open up grounds for getting CCW for civilians in DC?

No way.

That "Foot in the door" argument was foisted off on us by a lot of LEOs several years ago when HR 218 (which became the LEOSA) was being debated in Congress. LEOs appeared in droves on every "gun" forum on the Internet, asking us all to support them in getting national carry, and promising that once we helped them get it, they'd help us get it.

Well, we helped, and they got it. How much LEO support have you seen anywhere since then for national concealed carry reciprocity for "civilians"? None, that's how much. This would be just more of the same -- another group of special people who are allowed to exercise their Constitutional RKBA while the majority of the populace is not.

MPs are not cops. If an MP sees a bank robbery in progress, he has exactly as much (and as little) authority to intervene as you do.

If anything, passing something like this would only delay getting legal carry for citizens in DC. It wouldn't help anything.

[armsmaster270]

Coast Guard are also federal Law enforcement, M.P.s are primarily involved with military where C.G. are involved and interact with civilians. Much like DEA and Customs.

[press1280]

A lot of these bills introduced by Congress having to do with DC gun laws have seemed to be more about bargaining chips than actually doing something about DC's strict gun laws. I believe they've had DC carry bills used to offset DC getting a vote in the House.

[SamNavy]

Here's the link:
http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/11/gi...rry-amendment/

Here is the bill:
http://gingrey.house.gov/uploadedfil..._amendment.pdf

The verbiage:
(b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Consent of this congress that active duty military personnel who are stationed
or residing in the District of Columbia should be permitted
to exercise fully their rights under the Second Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States and therefore
should be exempt from the District of Columbia’s restrictions on the possession of firearms.

I'm both excited and dismayed by this. As a member of the military, it's always nice to get a discount or even be "let off with a warning" when I show my ID, but I have to agree with not wanting to be labeled as special.

I have no more or less right to self-defense than anybody else who has earned the public trust and is legally able to own firearms. But I'm not exactly certain that this is a carry bill. "Exempt from restrictions" could mean anything... open carry?

On the other hand, it was just a few years ago when nobody could own handguns in DC. If the details of this bill could be ironed out and actually allow mil residents to CCW, then it's certainly a "first step" towards CCW for everybody.

Alas, mil personnel still won't be able to carry to work, which has always struck me as strange. Perhaps a better play for a senator looking to support military interests would be to go to the DOD and see about creating a program where active duty personnel could carry on base... maybe preventing the next "Fort Hood" incident.

[Evan Thomas]

I have great respect for those who serve in the military, but I've become more and more disturbed by the way the respect we all have for these individuals has been transformed into a kind of blind worship of the military as an institution. I think it's a dangerous trend, because dissent over military policy is treated as "not supporting the troops." This has made it very hard for people (and for politicians) to oppose wrong-headed uses of the military such as the war in Iraq.

To me, this is just another step toward treating the military as a special class of people who should have more rights than the rest of us -- it's a form of propaganda that indirectly fosters the notion that that the institution can do no wrong.

I'd rather support decent veterans' benefits and adequate pay for active-duty military personnel. In particular, it's a disgrace that when National Guard members are sent overseas, their families often wind up on food stamps, and when they return, they're denied the same services and benefits as regular military.

[Alabama Shooter]

That "Foot in the door" argument was foisted off on us by a lot of LEOs several years ago when HR 218 (which became the LEOSA) was being debated in Congress. LEOs appeared in droves on every "gun" forum on the Internet, asking us all to support them in getting national carry, and promising that once we helped them get it, they'd help us get it.

Well, we helped, and they got it. How much LEO support have you seen anywhere since then for national concealed carry reciprocity for "civilians"? None, that's how much.

Ok. Let me get this straight.

You really believe that anonymous people on internet sites claiming to be cops were supposed to provide some kind of "payback" or support for alleged support that you somehow personally provided to get LEOSA passed? And that these same people are not giving this alleged promise of support in some kind of undefined "scratch my back" type of deal? And then according to you they did not give it?

Does that make any sane or reasonable sense to anyone?

Oh, and BTW if you have been keeping up with current events at all you would notice that large numbers of sheriffs have put it out on the line in opposition to gun control in a number of states. And just recently in my state there was huge support from most departments for the gun act that was just passed down here greatly liberalizing gun and SD laws.

I have great respect for those who serve in the military, but I've become more and more disturbed by the way the respect we all have for these individuals has been transformed into a kind of blind worship of the military as an institution. I think it's a dangerous trend, because dissent over military policy is treated as "not supporting the troops." This has made it very hard for people (and for politicians) to oppose wrong-headed uses of the military such as the war in Iraq.

To me, this is just another step toward treating the military as a special class of people who should have more rights than the rest of us -- it's a form of propaganda that indirectly fosters the notion that that the institution can do no wrong.

You are missing some very important pieces of the puzzle. The Justice
Department Right Wing Extremism report that came out in 2009 pretty much said that right wing former military members were a huge threat as terrorists. I am still waiting on the other shoe to drop on that. Something tells me it never will because the report was a blatant smear campaign.

Today the blind worship in the media extends to all things Federal Government. The military just happens to be an indirect beneficiary of that. During the Bush years there were a lot of cheer leaders from all sides that made it difficult to be critical of the military as there were 2-3 "wars on terror" going on at any one time. Remember we all hate terror so anyone who fights it must be good. Especially the guys coming back missing arms and legs. "Waving the bloody shirt" is a concept older than that term.

Really it is not even that. There are plenty of negative news reports about the military just very little critical analysis. The media seldom does critical analysis of anything anymore. But "do no wrong"? I could post a dozen articles that came out this week about "wrong doing" in the military.

But military members generally do not have special rights and privileges. Only less rights and privilege.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Alabama Shooter

You really believe that anonymous people on internet sites claiming to be cops were supposed to provide some kind of "payback" or support for alleged support that you somehow personally provided to get LEOSA passed? And that these same people are not giving this alleged promise of support in some kind of undefined "scratch my back" type of deal? And then according to you they did not give it?

Yes, I believe that. I was part of the (Internet) discussions when it went down.

Does that make any sane or reasonable sense to anyone?

What part of it does NOT make sense to you?

Oh, and BTW if you have been keeping up with current events at all you would notice that large numbers of sheriffs have put it out on the line in opposition to gun control in a number of states. And just recently in my state there was huge support from most departments for the gun act that was just passed down here greatly liberalizing gun and SD laws.

I follow these things very closely. The surge in rhetoric from sheriffs has not been about interstate carry reciprocity, and it did not originate upon passage of the LEOSA. The RECENT show of rhetoric by sheriffs (mostly in the west and south) arose only when the latest gun control schemes came into play, post-Sandy Hook, raising the prospect that in some jurisdictions LEOs (including sheriffs and their deputies) might be charged with going door-to-door looking for contraband "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines. Despite (some) sheriffs' vocal and welcome dissent regarding the latest proposals, they (the sheriffs) have not generally shown us any meaningful, useful support for national concealed carry reciprocity, and the support they've shown certainly did not gear up when the LEOSA was passed.

[Alabama Shooter]

What part of it does NOT make sense to you?

All of it. The fact that you thought that such an event would occur from discussions on internet forums being the most striking. I don't think there is any possible result that would have met your expectation.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I think that the congressman has noble, yet misplaced intentions.

It would make a shut down of the capital and martial law more effective. But then again, maybe that is his point

[Glenn E. Meyer]

1. Won't happen.
2. The foot in the door argument won't hold up. One argument about concealed carry is that only those with extreme training (like the law and the military) are worthy to carry. Thus, I agree there is no transfer to the average civilian carrier.

3. Let's not bicker. Present evidence - not opinion about the other guy.

[ClydeFrog]

I'm not a JAG(Judge Advocate General) lawyer or have a JD, but I did serve on active duty for 4 years in the US Army MPs(what was 95B now 31B).
Many changes have taken place in the DoD/US military since 2000 or so.
The gun shop chit-chat & "rumor-control" you may hear from your cousin's co-worker's barber's uncle is not the law or DoD/DA policy.

1st off, the US Army according to official sources ceased "CONUS law & order" missions or "law enforcement" in the United States as of 2012, per DA(Dept of the US Army) regulation.
MPs or "military police" no longer conduct criminal investigations, write tickets, man gates/access control/force protection, do drug suppression(undercover operations), patrol or security, AWOL apprehesions, or traffic accident investigations.
These duties in CONUS(the "lower 48 US states") are now done by DA/DoD employees(083 police, 085 security or PMCs/contractors).
To my limited knowledge, the USACIDC or CID(Criminal Investigations Command) still conducts some criminal investigations & special missions(like PSD or security details for high ranking general officers/SECDEF, etc).
The CIDC is separate from the US Army MPs or "PMO"(Provost Marshals Office).
The Provost Marshal(normally a US Army Major, Lt Col or Colonel) is like a sheriff or police chief on a US Army post.

The DC City Council to my limited knowledge, already has new bills or district laws to exempt active duty service members from certain gun-ammunition laws. This legal/legislative action was due to a huge legal mess & civil lawsuit with DC's Metro PD over a soldier's privately owned firearms & ammunition.
The reporter from the media source; The Washington Times, Emily Miller(a pro 2A/gun ownership) wrote about the new DC area bills/court actions.

Id add that in PA, US service members can carry firearms/ammunition under certain conditions but the state laws are obscure & I highly doubt these statues or ordinances are clearly explained in the Pennsylvania area police academies or sworn LE agencies.
As stated, the DoD & service branch general officers, made many changes after the events at Fort Hood, Texas & the Pentagon(subway spree shooting).
A more recent shooting at the USMC base in Quantico VA, where a OCS candidate shot 2 other USMC students in a romantic dispute, didn't help the pro-gun/armed service member cause.

Suicides & mental health issues are at a record level in the US armed forces too. Suicides now out-number combat related deaths in the US Army.

CF

[kilimanjaro]

The military folks in DC are office-bound at the Pentagon, just like hundreds of thousands on other folks. All of them have the same rights. No special groups.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

1st off, the US Army according to official sources ceased "CONUS law & order" missions or "law enforcement" in the United States as of 2012, per DA(Dept of the US Army) regulation.
MPs or "military police" no longer conduct criminal investigations, write tickets, man gates/access control/force protection, do drug suppression(undercover operations), patrol or security, AWOL apprehesions, or traffic accident investigations.
These duties in CONUS(the "lower 48 US states") are now done by DA/DoD employees(083 police, 085 security or PMCs/contractors).
To my limited knowledge, the USACIDC or CID(Criminal Investigations Command) still conducts some criminal investigations & special missions(like PSD or security details for high ranking general officers/SECDEF, etc).
The CIDC is separate from the US Army MPs or "PMO"(Provost Marshals Office).
The Provost Marshal(normally a US Army Major, Lt Col or Colonel) is like a sheriff or police chief on a US Army post.

Since you mentioned it. The CID guys I know are all 1811's, as in fed criminal investigators, which is a sworn fed law enforcement position, similar to FBI, USSS, etc. Why would a US Army CID guy need permission to carry in DC beyond what is normally granted through orders and LEOSA? Ive never heard of one that was questioned, let alone charged. These folks are already carrying in/around DC typically.

[doofus47]

It would make some amount of sense to me, if it exempted non-active military, but I am vehemently opposed to special groups or rights

[ClydeFrog]

As a US military veteran and a former MP, I can honestly say that its good for active duty & reserve/national guard members to have certain laws or protections.

A regular citizen needs to understand the conditions or special considerations a US armed forces member may have. If they are stationed in South Korea or Japan, return to CONUS on leave or TDY(temp duty) they might need a DL or new hunting permit or fishing license or want to carry a firearm for protection.
It wouldn't bother me at all if those laws or statutes were approved.
I recall a gun magazine item from about 3/4 years ago that explained how 2 US Army helicopter pilots were car-jacked & robbed at gunpoint near Fort Rucker AL.
If these guys were armed, things may have been different.

BTW; President Obama signed into law a updated LEOSA version in 2010 that now includes some US service members(USAF Office of Special Investigations, US Army CIDC agents, NCIS, US Coast Guard, etc).

CF

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ClydeFrog

I recall a gun magazine item from about 3/4 years ago that explained how 2 US Army helicopter pilots were car-jacked & robbed at gunpoint near Fort Rucker AL.

You seem to be suggesting that these two were specifically targeted for a carjacking because they were military, as opposed to just being in the wrong place at the wrong time and driving a car the 'jacker wanted.

I see nothing about your example to justify allowing military to carry when the rest of the populace in the jurisdiction isn't allowed to.

[Navy joe]

<<<<<<Military guy. Ummm nope. One law for all or no law. Remember how cool it was when LEOs got national CCW and they were going to help us? LOL.

Anytime someone invokes the collective and demigod status "the troops" run away, they are an idiot. We are individuals, voluntarily there, and hopefully acting as much like private citizens as the retard writing deployment schedules will allow.