- Messages
- 2,626
- Reactions
- 3,994
This authorization is granted only to the top level commander of a base. If the installation is small the decision making authority defaults to the higher level base that the remote installation is attached to and … this is the big one … it does nothing to remove or shelter said commander from the liability stemming from a misuse of arms....The next ideation of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) included provisions to allow …
...Tragically, no US commander has had the guts to implement the allowances granted by law...
You are correct in that no base commander has chosen to implement this policy. You are way off base in calling this gutless move; it's an incredibly smart move for many reasons already mentioned in this thread. As long as the commander is liable for the actions of all armed personnel under their watch … they have every right to control who has access to arms.
I'm sure you did not mean it in this fashion, but calling these commanders gutless is inflammatory and highly offensive.
Just as a bit of context regarding my posts in this thread. I'm a former Marine. The Marine Corps is famed for it's marksmanship and the fact their "every Marine is a rifleman first" ethos. Each and every Marine qualifies with the rifle once per year, regardless of their MOS. Overall, they are the best trained in small arms in the entirety of the US Armed forces. I'm not trying to put down the other branches here, just stating the reality of differing missions causing differing types and levels of training.
So, even with the level of firearm training you would find on a Marine Corps base … I still would not in any way shape or form think it a good idea to allow free reign for private arms or the allow even a small minority to be armed 24 / 7. The professionally trained MPs and a few other security force types are the only ones who should have access full time. Now … once off base did I arm up with a legally concealed weapon … you bet your *ss I did!