Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base

Discussion in 'General Firearms Discussion' started by IDMTfirefighter, Jan 26, 2016.

  1. IDMTfirefighter

    IDMTfirefighter Member

    394
    19
    So basically top AF leadership is telling their wing commanders they are authorized to what they were already authorized to do. Well something is better than nothing.

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/2...-shooting-that-left-5-dead.html?intcmp=hplnws

    A review of active shooter cases by the Air Force has confirmed what gun rights advocates have long been saying: Firearms in the hands of good guys are often the best bet for stopping massacres.

    The military branch earlier this month sent out a letter to its base commanders around the nation reminding them that they can authorize subordinates to carry guns, even while off-duty and out of uniform. It also established three programs to help ensure that armed service members are in a position to protect their bases.

    "None of these programs gives the installation commander authorizations they didn't already have the authorization to do," Maj. Keith Quick, the Air Force Security Forces Integrated Defense action officer, said in a statement according to Military.com. "We are now formalizing it and telling them how they can use these types of programs more effectively."


    “Finally, someone in the federal government is recognizing what has been obvious to sheriffs and police across the country...”

    - John Lott, Crime Prevention Research Center

    The memo followed a review by the Air Force of “active-shooter incidents across the country,” which was spurred by last July's attack on a recruiting office and nearby reserve center in Chattanooga, Tenn., in which four Marines and a Navy sailor were killed.

    In that attack, Muhammad Youseef Abdulazeez's rampage only ended when responding police shot him. But an ensuing investigation determined that the base's commanding officer fired at Abdulazeez with his personal weapon and one of the murdered Marines had an unauthorized 9-mm. Glock on him when he was killed.

    In the aftermath of the shooting, questions were raised regarding one of the military officers involved in the shootout, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, and if charges would be filed against him for discharging a firearm on federal property. Nothing has been formally filed.

    "The investigation is still working its way through the leadership process," Lt. Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman, a spokeswoman for the Navy tells FoxNews.com.

    Past reports have suggested that charges will not be filed against White.

    Critics immediately asserted that armed military officers at the recruiting office where the rampage began, as well as more armed Navy personnel at the base, could have saved lives.


    Related Image


    usafopencarry2
    Expand / Contract

    said its review of "active-shooter incidents across the country" found that many ended without police intervention because someone present with a weapon stopped the shooter. (USAF)


    An Air Force spokesperson acknowledged to Military.com that the attack in Chattanooga was the reason for the review and outcome.

    Quick said three programs established by the Integrated Defense team enable commanders to increase security through conceal-carry. One of the new initiatives, the Unit Marshal Program, enables commanders at every level permission to work with security forces to train Air Force members and allow them to open carry their M9 service pistol at their duty location.

    The Security Forces Staff Arming program enables more security officers to carry a government-issued weapon while on duty.

    “Finally, someone in the federal government is recognizing what has been obvious to sheriffs and police across the country,” John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, told FoxNews.com. "Concealed handgun permit holders have stopped dozens of what would have clearly been mass public shootings."

    The U.S. military has always had the authority to allow open and conceal carry, but has mostly used discretion in allowing service members to tote weapons on bases.

    “As far as I'm aware, it's always been in the power of military commanders to make decisions of this nature,” Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence tells FoxNews.com. “But the men and women leading our military understand their mission and the risks that come with barracks and mess halls full of guns.

    "Don't hold your breath waiting for them to embrace America's degenerate gun culture. They won't, and
    thank God given the potential implications for national defense."
     
  2. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,715
    NE Utah
    Apparently Ladd Everitt is a full retard liberal, who has absolutely no clue what the people that use guns for their country think.

    Degenerate my shiny white hiney.:mad:


    My real question is, is this going to be a case by case authorization for most commanders, or a policy for everyone?

    And of course...will they authorize?

    It's ridiculous to me that ANY commander would fear his troops...but then, I've seen some troops get fully s++t faced and lose their minds, too.:eek:

    So it comes down to balance...does authorizing weapons lead to more incidents, or does it STOP incidents that could get really bad?

    Once the commander realizes that the bad guy will have a gun no matter what he decides, the answer is obvious.
     

  3. histed

    histed Supporting Member

    4,329
    3,836
    [​IMG]
     
  4. IDMTfirefighter

    IDMTfirefighter Member

    394
    19
    Well I don't have an issue with an organization who's goal is to stop gun violence (CSGV.org). However, their issue seems to be with the guns themselves as opposed to those who use them illegally. We all know limiting gun ownership from lawful citizens won't to anything to deter criminals, in fact it will embolden them. Right goal wrong solution.
     
  5. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    As many of you know, I've a Civilian Contractor on a prominent AFB. While I believe the odds are slim, I'm still crossing my fingers.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  6. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    25,121
    1,376
    INDY
    Just grab an "alien gray blaster" ;)
     
  7. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    I didn't read the thread past this post. Don't need to. I'm evolved in several AF social media sites and this has been discussed in depth. Who knows how this is playing out on our AFBs. It appears this is a reinforcement of existing AF policy giving the commanding officer authority to regulate unofficial firearms policy on the installation. However we are just old hounds who really know nothing about this issue except what we experienced while in the Force.

    The consequences is, BS! No one ever served on any installation that allowed anything approaching CC. It probably does not happen, and in our opinion never will.

    What might be possible would be a training program that would qualify trained individuals. This would allow the arming of troops outside the Security Forces in times of emergency. But again it is the consensus of the lifers I hang with the numbers a wing commander would feel comfortable with authorizing would be ineffectualy small if it happened at all.

    It's encouraging to see the Air Force has such a policy. But in application...nope it ain't there. As one retired MSgt said, "There is no chance they'd trust us with uncontrolled firearms."
     
  8. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,715
    NE Utah
    Amen Duster.

    When we did gate guard or pay officer guard, they would give us a gun, but no bullets. :rolleyes:

    And that was on a nuclear site.:cool:

    The K9 patrols that ran the fence line got bullets, as did the tower guards, all out of the MP company.

    The only time we got bullets was if we were in the exclusion areas where the nukes were, or on an "air mission" pulling guard duty of some type.

    Air Mission was how we moved real nukes, three Chinooks, one with a nuke and a bomb mechanic and a guard from the Ordnance company, then two full of MPs.
     
  9. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    **** an a man its amazing we survived.
     
  10. IDMTfirefighter

    IDMTfirefighter Member

    394
    19
    For many years now the AF has been using Security Force Augmentee's. These are Airman pulled from all squadrons on base who serve 90 day rotations with SF's. They receive additional training in weapons, security, force protection, law enforcement etc. The "cops" giving you access to an AF base is likely not a military LEO at all but a medic, loggie, maintenance troop etc.

    However in the end we still have an anti-gun CIC and NO wing commander is gonna put his future star on the line.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2016
  11. duster066

    duster066 Supporting Member

    Nothing new there dude. We called them augy doggies. CBPO guys to shore up the perimeter. All with additional training with small arms.

    Sounds to me like whom ever is in command has authority to make judgement. Whether they do or not is a matter of need and politics.
     
  12. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    For more than a couple of years, we had Civilian Contractors as gate guards, not AF personnel at all. Sure, there were official Security Police somewhere. But they weren't at the gates.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Kirk
     
  13. nfitzsimmons

    nfitzsimmons Fitz Member

    I don't expect to ever see anyone get permission to carry their personal weapons on base, it's a nice dream but one I don't think will ever happen. The unit marshal program would allow you to open carry an issued M9 at your work center after some training. That is about the best you can hope for if you really want to carry at work.

    Open/concealed carry at work isn't the biggest wish for me. I would like the ability to just have one in my car while on base. The daily commute from home to base and back every day is when I feel the most vulnerable. Of course, as the saying goes, "Wish in one hand..."

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/01/20/us-air-force-looks-increase-armed-presence-bases/79076504/
     
  14. Ah Hell, 90 days? I did it for weekends at a time. Two days chilling at the gate and doing town patrol. Which was fine for the most part, but Saturday night shifts were annoying; loved watching the red-card alchis stumble onto base at 12:01 AM. A lot of the time you could let them on, but some were so damned obvious that you HAD to call their Shirt and tell 'em they had a troop that broke curfew. Luckily I never had a DUI roll through at least.
     
  15. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    34,500
    10,715
    NE Utah
    Curfew? Really? Were they worried you'd hang out with the wrong crowd? Did you lose your X-Box privileges? Sent to your room with no supper?:confused:

    Holy moly...you guys really are country club.:D
     
  16. Pfft, the Marines weren't even allowed to go off-base period. They kept raping little girls (that's actually not a bad joke, they really did).
     
  17. Rachgier

    Rachgier Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah, I got nothin'. We do tend to have some nut jobs in our ranks.
     
  18. shepherd321

    shepherd321 Supporting Member

    1,693
    608
    Very often, I carried my own concealed full 20 round magazine.
     
  19. On base?


    ....
     
  20. shepherd321

    shepherd321 Supporting Member

    1,693
    608
    yes, its not like you got patted down.