Honor Combat Heroes with Right to Wear Sidearms

The honor should be bestowed on decorated American military personel of allowing them the right to wear their sidearms would not only help to increase moral, but increase base and public safety. All active duty military members who have received the Bronze Star or higher (DSC, Silver Star, Medal of Honor, etc) for acts of valor in combat should be given the same rights to wear their own personal sidearm as federal government law enforcement officers under the LEOSA act of 2004.

While in uniform, pistols can be worn outside in a proper manner. While off duty they can be concealed. Oustide of highly restriced areas, most decorated service members should be able to wear their sidearms on duty bases. Off duty, the same restrictions for carry should apply under the LEOSA act. This honor of wearing a sidearm is strictly optional, and is for the decorated service member to determine. Carry restrictions would controlled by Congress---military commanders would have no rights to intervine or place any restrictions on storing or carrying of the individual's private weapon. ID cards would be issued similar to those of the FBI, CIA, DEA and other federal law enforcement bodies.

Random shootings like those at Ft Hood and other cases of fratracide might have been more quickly addressed by the very best soldiers who have proven themselves under fire---if they were carrying a gun. Although the number decorated combat service members is low, the chace of one of them being present during a random crime scene, mall shooting or other terrorist act would only help the situation be resolved more quickly. The additional honor of being allowed carry rights would be an outward sign to others in the military to see, and improve moral and fighting spirit.

 

You only get issued a weapon in accordance with a specific duty, and you turn the weapon in immediately upon completion of the duty.
Not everyone is issued a sidearm, why should they carry one just because they were awarded a certain medal or decoration...if carrying the sidearm is not needed for their assigned duty.

An award or decoration does not guarantee the awardee has character either...maybe in that one particular moment they exhibited valor...
Tim McVeigh was awarded a Bronze Star and later in life blew up a Federal building, detonating the truck/bomb right outside the building's daycare center.

I can't agree with your assertion certain troops should be allowed to carry a sidearm regardless of their duties.

 

Reading the fine print: this for active duty troops, and to carry their own, privately purchaced pistol. I know what complete ***es the military are as far as allowing privately owned weapons on base ---but the military brass can cram it. There will be the same mental health restrictions as with the LEOSA guidelines. The Timothy McVeighs you fret about would be even less likely to commit deviant acts if they were given more respect while on duty.

 

It's not the Wild West...you use the weapon you're issued...no personal weapons carried on a base. If you don't need a weapon for your assigned duty, you don't carry your own personal weapon in lieu of not being assigned a weapon. Regardless of one's military record replete with decorations and awards.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

I understand your (rigid) thinking, but I see more chaos and on base killings like that at Ft Hood in the future. Who would have been more effective taking out that Islamo-fascist gunman...an 18 year old MP with his duty gun, or veteran of combat who has proven himself under fire using his own weapon? (They usually give the bronze stars and higher awards to E-5's and above and ARCOMs to the privates).

The main issue is honor and trust. To give this extra, visible measure of trust of wearing a sidearm---decorated members can even wear their US issued duty arm as an option--- shows something much more than just having a lump of metal on the end of a ribbon.

 

You don't earn medals for special privileges. There are plenty who served honorably and were never decorated with higher "status" awards...plus there are very few MOH awardees who remain on active duty, most are post-humously awarded. Just about everyone in uniform has had some sort of weapons training to some extent, it's not a question of trust...trust is already established...
it's about maintaining control of a base...in particular an armory. There are other means to prevent a Ft. Hood style of shooting, than allowing concealed personal weapons to certain designees. The bigger issue was ignoring the red flags that the Major was exhibiting prior to the shooting. They ignored them on the basis of cultural sensitivity to his religion, or more specifically the fact he was Muslim.

Speaking from experience, I was issued an M9 pistol along with the rest of my flight crew...only on sorties designated as combat related (flying into hazardous duty areas for example)..and upon completion of said sortie...returned the pistol to the armory that issued it. Flights not designated as combat related, no weapons were issued. I practiced what I preach and never expected special treatment.

 

While in the war zone, most soldiers are going to be armed with their US-issued duty weapon(s). This honor of wearing a personal sidearm is more for the situations when the medal winners are stateside or in duty stations where they are not going to have their weapons on them all the time. Again, the same rules would apply to an FBI agent on or off duty.

As I was speaking, guess what, another mass shooting in Conn. My idea will of course not pass thru with our current leaders. Other armies in the past allowed their officers to wear their sidearms full time, such as with Germany during WW2.

Most combat soldiers are not awarded for their acts of bravery---and that's just tough. For the lucky survivors, I think the honor is appropriate. For everyone else, be inspired.

 

Considering that as of late, the services give out medals, commendations and decorations like candy...the meaning behind them is not what it used to be. Separate from the more prestigious awards. The Bronze Star would need a V device to indicate heroism, otherwise it might indicate meritorious service only

Too complicated to figure out who gets to carry conceal or open carry on a military base...it won't help morale necessarily.

Either all get the privilege or none.

Combat experience not-with-standing, plenty of civilians are on military bases also and an "OK Corral" type of shoot out between good guys and bad guys injuring a civilian, would open up the military to lawsuits....despite the "Rambo" fantasy embedded in folks who carry a firearm, the real world is a little different...particularly with innocent bystanders around.
Combat experience doesn't necessarily translate as an identical scenario to a shooting spree similar to Ft. Hood.

It's called Risk Aversion and the Federal government is wise to implement a no personal firearms allowed to be carried on base...as their policy.

 

There is a lot more involved here then just being able to carry your own weapon. And many of the reasons are very real.

First off, is logistics. In the US military, they only have to worry about supplying a single round, the 9mm (although a very limited number also carry the .38 and .45). It is the round that everybody carries, so not only are they readily available from our own units in case of low supply, but also by all of our allies use the same round.

Another is replacement parts. If my rifle or pistol breaks, my armory just gives me another one, and off I go. Or they can pull parts off of another one and get mine working again in short order. If everybody has different weapons, then this all goes out the window. And how are you going to get replacements for a P95 or Blackhawk in a combat zone? Or find somebody experienced enough to fix it when it breaks?

Then you come to another issue, ammunition used. All rounds in use by the US are in complete compliance with the Hague Convention and the Laws of Land Warfare. If we had to supply our own ammunition, I would bet dollars to doughnuts that such regulations would be violated in short order. Most specifically, hollow point ammunition.

I can guarantee that if what has been suggested here passed, within months you would have Soldiers and Marines being refered to the Hague for trial for violations of the Laws of Land Warfare. Either that, or dead ones because their weapons malfunctioned, or they ran out of ammunition.

Sorry, I am completely against such an idea. If you want to show individuality, get a fancy combat knife. But leave the actual weapons alone.

 

First, the US should withdraw from the Hague Convention immediately. (Should never have signed it.) All issue ammo should be hollow-point or steel-core AP.

Second, 9mm is a very common caliber; if it's not the most common semiautomatic pistol caliber, it's probably very close. (Only other one I can think of anywhere near as common would be the .45ACP.) Be it a Browning, a Glock, a Walther, a Beretta, a Taurus, or a Makarov, they all use the standard 9mm round.

 

Oh yea, great idea. Then we can return to the way it was in the old days. Run up the blood red banner, take no prisoners, kill and torture and mutilate whoever you want, however you want.

Sorry, don't think you are going to find that idea very popular in the military.

This still leaves a lot of other problems. This is not the Wild West. Next thing, people will be saying we should get rid of the uniform requirements, and let people wear whatever they want.

What next then, units voting for who should be their officers?

 

I addressed most of these issues above . The wearing of the sidearm, which would be one's own personal sidearm when not in a warzone like A-Stan, would be optional. A sidearm is usually a last-ditch weapon, if you have to pull one of these out instead of your rifle, you're in deep **** already. If you are already assigned to wear a military issued sidearm---then the medal winners will wear that. If they are in the warzone or on base in another country, they use ball ammo. Stateside they use whatever is legal for civilians like hollowpoints. The military would not be responible in any way to provide ammo or repairs for individual owned weapons.

This idea will not pass anyway. Many people in the military and government can't see the forest because of the trees.

Most any good modern miltary type handgun could be given to large ape to throw around his cage all day, and still fire at end. Breakage rates are insignificant.

 

Sure .. thats what we need .. a bunch of people with PTSD walking around with guns and the tacit govt approval to use them.

There is a huge difference between military service and police duties. The rules of engagement are vastly different.

 

As if there are no stressed-out cops around.

If caught off duty with their own personal handgun, who would be more likely to be cool under fire and take out or disarm an armed criminal actively shooting others?

A) a 20-yr old rookie cop with two years writing tickets, no armed confrontations, maybe qualifies with his gun once a year---if he's lucky. Or....

B) a 20-yr old decorated combat veteran with two years fighting experience, who has performed acts of heroism while under the stress of fire?

Although their numbers are fairly small, many of those decorated for acts of valor are hardcore infantrymen or special forces. Their shooting skills and mindset would eclipse those of the average cop. You've been watching Rambo and too many movies about PTSD.

 

Really? So as an American, if I am not a decorated combat veteran, I do not have the same rights as others?

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) say I.

Whilst I appreciate the military and the sacrifices they do make, I see no reason as to why former military should have a different set of rights as I. In fact, I find the thought rather ridiculous.

This country was not designed to have tiered rights for some very good reasons. I seem to recall some letter we sent to England, where it was discussed that we have inalienable rights and are all equal.

 

If you notice, I am in the military, and have served for over 15 years. And I think the idea is absolutely stupid, pointless and without any thought or purpose as well.

 

If it will help "morale" the combat decorated service personnel can always carry their own chapstick..

 

I'm not the gun control freak here. The Founders didn't pile on hundred of gun control laws like we have now. Some of the career military types here are very enamoured with miltary's restrictions on privately owned weapons on base. Clinton put extra restrictions in 1993, and of course Obama did in 2010. I think some of the career guys see soldiers as slaves instead of citizen soldiers. All soldiers in base housing must register their private weapons with the MP's on base and of course not be able to carry one on their person while on base. At Valley Forge, I don't remember George Washington having his officers lock up all the weapons there in an armory, but maybe he did.

Anyway, I don't support most laws on gun registration or laws restricting carry, or gun bans on any type weapon for honest, law abiding adult citizens up to and including .50 cals. I do support coming down hard on anyone is convicted of violent crime. I'm for punishing the felon, not blaming the type of weapon used.

I think allowing active duty soldiers decorated for valor to wear their own sidearm while stateside on base would endanger no one but the bad guys. The same thinking on gun control and limited rules of engagement are what got our Marines killed in Beruit, and USS Cole bombed and the Twin Towers leveled.

 

Aren't these people subject to FLASHBACKS?

 

I hope we can avoid the us vs them sort of debate. I resigned my commission as an O-4, and any officer worth their salt places the welfare of those in their charge, above their own. Need I remind you that the same restrictions placed on the enlisted in terms of personal firearms...apply to the officer corps as well. We were all property of the U.S. Government and as such subject to the same UCMJ, DoD policies and directives. It's all in the Constitution...the same both enlisted and officer swore an oath to defend and support. If you take issue with a specific policy, I suggest taking it up with your representative...

 

Actually, this was the policy back in the 1980's as well. I remember when I cheked into base housing at my last duty station in the Marines, and had to do the same thing. And I also had to tell my command when I had first bought my rifle.

This did not start under Clinton, it was the policy when Reagan was President as well.

You can believe whatever you like. Just as I can. And if you think it is "military restriction" and "career guys seeing soldiers as slaves", well, it just makes me glad you were never in my unit.

 

I think it is you that has been watching too many Rambo movies.. and the last thing you want is Rambo loose in a civilian situation.

Training for military is completely different than training for a police officer and they are completely different roles. The circumstances for which one is allowed to use lethal force .. and how that force is applied is much different. The training is for how to avoid using that force .. not to win some battle.

If ex military personell wish to join the police service then they need to go through the training like everyone else. They should be welcomed with open arms.. as they are .. but they need a different kind of training.

 

As a Constitutional purist I am not a fan of thinking that the police are the be-all, end-all guardians of individual freedom and safety. The right for an individual to protect himself and his family should not be infringed. This applies to civilians and soldiers, whether they live on base or off. So if a private citizen is cornered at a public place and being shot at they have no right to protect themselves with their own gun???? In your Fantasyland, will the cops always majically appear the instant a crime happens to protect them?

As I spent several years in the Army, that my brother is a cop, and that I have taken different courses on gun useage and training---I think I know what I'm talking about. The police usually have no Constitutional right to defend you. Having extra training is what a responible person who carries a gun would do anyway.... But should not be made into another gun control law.

There may be no study, but common horse sense would tell most folks that an armed soldier who has proven himself in battle under fire would perform better in a firefight than a typical cop who has never drawn and fired his weapon in an armed response.

 

Everyone's experience in the military is different---all based on MOS, rank, duty stations, the years during which one served, and of great importance also, who was in charge of you.

As I like to tell it as it was, I am no not making a fantastic statement about my E-6 and above leadership, who, in over half the cases, did in fact treat me and others in our units with the same level of personal care and respect that a 17th century master would have given to his slaves (that he didn't much like). This was just bad luck on my part. I didn't have too many problems with the officers, but the average section chief and Battery 1st SGT and Warrent Officer in the different units I served in were most honestly what I could describes as "punks." My MOS was bad enough on its own, and given the experiences I had with my fellow soldiers, only 1 in 15 guys that I knew re-enlisted---the rest left active duty. I went on to serve in the National Guard for a short time.

I hope you were not like the sorry leaders and had more care and concern for your guys. For you to think that bad leaders do no exist in the military is being naive.

 

Being that I am a "constitutional purist" .. I believe in right of a civilian to protect himself and his family .. not only against threats from other civilians but threats from the "State" - Police government and so forth, as well.

I recognize that "The State" is part of the problem .. and the police are all too often no better than the criminals .. much though because of poor laws.

It does not warm my heart to Cops harrassing prostitutes or 10 state troopers breaking down the door of a pot smoker, or arresting 19 yr old (military age) university students for drinking alcohol.

Putting untrained ex-soldiers on the streets in a position of authority is not the solution to the problem.

Part of the problem, in my mind, is that if the state does not respect individual liberties of others .. why on earth would we expect the youth that we bring up in such a society to respect the individual liberties of others.

You reap what you sow.