DC Right to Carry for Military intro’d

ClydeFrog said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
protected classes, service members, veterans....

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
 
ClydeFrog said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
<<<<<<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.
 
Post 24, US military service members...

I disagree with post #24.
They 2 US Army officers(helicopter) pilots were not "targeted" but if they were able to carry authorized or approved sidearms maybe they could have defended themselves.
In the UK & other NATO nations, members of the armed forces are allowed to carry weapons off duty or on leave.

Andy McNab, the former SAS commando and counter-terrorist specialist wrote in his non fiction books how he toted a "disco" gun or a small compact he could wear in a nightclub. McNab wrote that he used a Walther PPK .380acp.

In the book; American Sniper, the late Chris Kyle, the US Navy SEAL, wrote about how a woman felt his concealed pistol in his jacket at a wedding & asked him to keep an eye on the guests, :D.

As stated, new DoD & DA(US Dept of the Army) policy is more strict about personal weapons(firearms). I think a middle ground could be met, where qualified service members can own or possess firearms & be IAW any post SOPs.
 
You already need to be a veteran to get a job(OK, so it is only that an employer gets huge subsidies for hiring a veteran). Why not just make veteran status a requirement for voting?

Giving active military and veterans rights not extended to civilians has only been a tactic used by almost every historic government on a campaign to smother freedom.

I love the "highly qualified professional" blanket and how it covers anyone in the military, police, or in some minds medical first responders. We all know there are some VERY skilled military and police officers and even some very skilled fire and EMTs, but, for the most part, the general training offered to such professionals does not qualify them as skilled with small arms. I have a family member who's entire small arms training in the Navy was firing one magazine off an aircraft carrier's deck in the general direction of a buoy(Aircraft electronics technician). I am acquainted with an Air Force engineer who had more evasive driving training than small arms training(which made sense in his position). People seem to be unable to accept that over half the military is support.

On the other side of the spectrum I shoot/have shot in local informal competitions with several active and retired LEO/.mil who were very skilled. WAY WAY WAY past where I was even when shooting a pistol, rifle and shotgun event every week. Some of them got there with gov training, but most did it on their own dime. As budgets shrink I imagine the latter will become even more common.

I do not like the idea of qualifying someone based on a DD 214 or even active service.
 
Last edited:
I'm active military and would have to agree with some of the others and say this is the wrong way to go.

My service does not make me better or more deserving of rights. It would, however, be great to see EVERYONE (non-felons) get the SAME rights.

No special groups, no "separate but equal" business in relation to guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top