TexasCHLforum.com

Air Force tells brass they can OK guns on base, citing 2015 shooting that left 5 dead

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.

I would love to see that letter.

Overall this is a step in the right direction, but a couple things really irk me.

Like this, this is rich:

"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."

So if you have to tell them they can do what they were already empowered to do, then maybe they weren't really empowered to do it?

And this:

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.

Shame on the Navy, or DOJ, or both, for leaving this guy hanging for months.
They should give him an attaboy for guts and foresight. If he needs any "correction" it would be some training on tactics so he has a better chance at putting the scumbag down next time.

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.

Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence

I'm offended by the last quote in the story

In 20 years in the Air Force, only went to pistol range a few times...however Snake (Mk82 500# high drags) and Nape (naplam) beat anything you could CC or OC. Oh, and 6000 rounds per minute 20mm works well too.

ELB wrote:Like this, this is rich:

"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."

So if you have to tell them they can do what they were already empowered to do, then maybe they weren't really empowered to do it?

USAF Base Commanders have always had the ability to do it. Unfortunately, they also know that if they allow it and there is one incident where someone is killed, that base commander's career is finished.

The USAF "leadership" is neither mission driven or people driven. They are, with only rare exceptions, career driven. They're willing to crap all over the people in their unit, if it will make them look good to the higher-ups.

Pawpaw wrote:

ELB wrote:Like this, this is rich:

"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."

So if you have to tell them they can do what they were already empowered to do, then maybe they weren't really empowered to do it?

USAF Base Commanders have always had the ability to do it. Unfortunately, they also know that if they allow it and there is one incident where someone is killed, that base commander's career is finished.

The USAF "leadership" is neither mission driven or people driven. They are, with only rare exceptions, career driven. They're willing to crap all over the people in their unit, if it will make them look good to the higher-ups.

IMO this is similar why a lot of 30.06 signs get posted. The many of those who post signs realize that the signs won't stop a criminal from bringing a gun on their property, but they don't care, because they fear a licensee accidentally/negligently shooting someone or something more than they fear that someone is going to purposely commit a crime on their property.

Back when I was in the Marines, all duty Officers and NCO's wore a handgun.

CleverNickname wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

ELB wrote:Like this, this is rich:

"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."

So if you have to tell them they can do what they were already empowered to do, then maybe they weren't really empowered to do it?

USAF Base Commanders have always had the ability to do it. Unfortunately, they also know that if they allow it and there is one incident where someone is killed, that base commander's career is finished.

The USAF "leadership" is neither mission driven or people driven. They are, with only rare exceptions, career driven. They're willing to crap all over the people in their unit, if it will make them look good to the higher-ups.

IMO this is similar why a lot of 30.06 signs get posted. The many of those who post signs realize that the signs won't stop a criminal from bringing a gun on their property, but they don't care, because they fear a licensee accidentally/negligently shooting someone or something more than they fear that someone is going to purposely commit a crime on their property.

A lot of people believe that, but I think most the time their hands are tied by legal crap. At Dyess AFB we had an incident where several of our folks were included on an ISIS hitlist. The rule about not having weapons on base was preventing people from being able to be armed driving to and from work, so our Wing Commander put his staff on a solution. DoD ID card holders active/retired/dependants that also have a CHL are now allowed to store a weapon in their car while at work (with some caveats). AFAIK the only other base with this policy is potentially DM. Anyway the point is that even to get this approved it was a legal nightmare that took months of research and approvals. It's easy to say "a real leader should just do what's good for their people regardless of the law" or that it means they are more concerned about their career than their people's safety but think about it...do you really want a military that is being run as if its above the law? I certainly don't. We just need to ensure we are electing people that will set the legal environment that will unchain these leaders. For the record, the man that started the ball rolling is now running for office, Col (ret.) Michael Bob Starr. If you live in the Lubbock/Abilene area you owe it to yourself to check out his campaign. Additionally, the policy was finally signed and publicized by our current wg/cc Col David Benson, so this happened over two separate regimes.

I think legal backing like what was covered in the story is exactly what leadership needs to provide them top cover in making decisions that go against the WWADI (Way We've Always Done It). Also, of note, this authority to designate augmentees looks like it rests at the squadron level (Typically O-4 in a non-flying squadron and O-5 in a flying squadron).