White House petition asks for military permission to carry concealed firearms on government installations

By: Joshua Cook
24

Mass shootings on military bases illustrate the problems with gun control, perhaps more effectively than any other tragedy.  Military personnel, highly trained in the safe and effective use of firearms, shouldn’t be disarmed and left helpless enough that they can’t even protect themselves on military bases.  After the second such incident since 2009, a White House petition is asking for such rules to be eliminated.

military petition - conceal - open carry

See Petition here.

The petition starts “Military service members must be allowed to carry concealed firearms on all Federal and State installations when they are in possession of a current valid concealed weapon permit issued by the state.”  Indeed, armed, trained military personnel would be able to carry concealed weapons at places like school and state capitol buildings as well, both of which are very vulnerable to attack.

It goes on to say that, “had concealed carry been permitted, service members could have potentially stopped the shooters at Fort Hood and the Washington Naval Yard.”  Concealed carry was forbidden at the locations of both the Fort Hood and Washington Naval Yard, though they were both military installations.  Had military members been able to carry their weapons, the shooter in both cases would only have been able to kill one or two people before being killed himself, if he had even attempted the shooting.


When James Holmes carried out the Aurora Theater shooting in 2012, he passed multiple, bigger theaters and went to the nearest location which forbade concealed weapons.  A couple days later, another person attempted a shooting at a movie theater in San Antonio and was stopped before he was able to fire a single round.

The person who stopped him was an off-duty policewoman.  Similarly, a couple days after Sandy Hook, a would-be mass shooter at a mall in Oregon was stopped by someone with a concealed weapon.  Stories like this are more common than those of mass shootings, though they don’t gain as much media attention because they simply don’t impact as many people’s lives.  The main counterargument to these statistics by gun control advocates is that more guns in society will allow more gun-related accidents.

That is not an issue in allowing well trained military professionals to carry concealed weapons.  There are many such people in society, and they could make a difference in combating mass shootings while avoiding the arguments used by the left.  There is simply no justification for leaving military service members helpless on their own bases, but the benefit of this petition could extend far beyond that simple truth.

Obama launched the “We the People” petition platform in September 2011, initially stating that he would respond to every petition with 25,000 or more signatures.  The first petition was for the White House beer recipe.  After the 2012 elections, the petitions became a popular outlet to draw attention and demand the president’s response to popular concerns and discontentment, and soon the number of signatures requires for a response increased to 100,000.  This petition, though, is just over 2,000 signatures so far  after only three days.

The following two tabs change content below.

Joshua Cook

Joshua Cook is a writer and a political activist. His articles have also been cited on sites such as DrudgeReport, InfoWars, Reason.com, WND.com, Breitbart.com, DailyCaller and FreedomOutPost.com. If you have any tips please email him at [email protected]

  • Tom Babilla

    We have an alternative if the White doesn’t back carrying firearms. We offer a unique product that is less-lethal and will fire pepper spray accurately at 405 MPH at 23 feet.
    Please check out this prodcut at http://www.jpxpeppergun.com

    • Ed

      Still restricted under current regulation, I can’t even carry a pocket knife with a 3.5″ blade on base under current rules. Machete’s that you can buy in the exchanges are also restricted unless your job requires one, they aren’t complete pricks about it if you buy one and go immediately off base with it however.

  • Diane

    I just went and signed the petition, but the article above is incorrect. The petition still needs over 97,000 signatures. I suspect the writer read the wrong number.

  • Diane

    I just went and signed the petition, but the article above is incorrect. The petition still needs over 97,000 signatures. I suspect the writer read the wrong number.

  • Jason

    Yeah, the numbers are backwards in this article from the actual petition. May want to correct that.

    • ThinkingLeader

      Thanks. Corrected

      • rica77

        This is dubious, I realize mistakes can happen. I question the integrity of the journalists when information is at first misrepresented and then quickly “fixed”. Why not proofread one’s own article?

  • Chad Funckes

    While this is an interesting topic, as a former military member I may have some disagreements about the suggestion that we should allow anyone, other than military police to carry weapons on military or federal installations.

    1.) You are assuming that every member of the armed forces is “highly trained” in the use and safety of firearms. So for reality check, this is completely FALSE. The US public sees a soldier as it’s “armed forces” a person who fights, gets shot at and returns fire in combat. In reality this is a small number of the US armed forces when compared to the number of people employed. For example an LS (Logistics Specialist) with the US Navy may have been in the “armed forces” for 10 years and have only seen or handled a firearm 1 time…in boot camp…and depending on the time he/she was in boot camp that “firearm” was likely a laser tag version of an M-16, not even a real gun. On a ship, when you reach a certain paygrade and have to be armed for watches, you would be astonished at how many struggle with shooting of firearms in only the capacity to show proficiency for their watch standing duties. To assume that a majority of the Navy, Air Force, Marines and Army are “well trained” in firearms is a big leap of an assumption.

    2.) Don’t forget that in Fort Hood and in the Navy Yard the shooter was or had been a member of the military. Don’t forget that a lot of young soldiers, sailors and Marines, especially the “highly trained in firearms” type had to pass NO clearance investigation before they enter the military and don’t forget that many of the young in the military do not want to be there after they first enlist and do not understand why they must deploy here and there and a lot are angry. Not to mention the individuals returning from war with depression, PTSD and other mental disorders from combat. I have seen many a young person pissed off at just having to do shit work, so enraged that they are punching steel bulkheads and kicking shit around…do not forget that these are still kids! (37% of the marine corp is 18-21) One pissed off E-2 at his E-7 with a gun is asking for problems IMHO. One drunk E-3 in the barracks pissed off that the guy next door is bangin his girlfreind…

    3.) “highly trained” is taken out of context. Yes for those whom using a gun is a daily routine, does not mean they are trained in US type policing. Soldiers are not cops. They are trained in firearms, but not conflict management and not in disarming tactics, like talking a person down etc…they have those kind of people on base, they are called base police.

    4.) For the example at the Navy Yard…how many people shot were in the military? None, because NAVSEA is a building full of civilians and maybe a handful of officers. If every military person on the NAVSEA complex was armed how much difference would it have made? I would argue not a lot as there are hardly any even present there.

    So the argument is, that you want to take the highest stressed, most at risk for mental disorder population of all of the United States and tell them all to carry guns to work everyday? That is the solution for what happened at the Navy Yard? Where a civilian, shot a bunch or other civilians? Where is the logic in that? I am all for the right to bear arms, but there has to some logic to this. Taking away everybody’s guns is not an option, but neither is telling everyone in america that they should be carrying one around. By the logic that everyone should carry a gun, the shooter at the Navy Yard was full within his right to have a gun and use it there. So stop the investigation for his security check BS, that shouldn’t have mattered because everybody should be carrying a weapon.

    • Garrett

      Chad,

      You need to actually read the article before posting. The petition isn’t calling for every military member to be able to carry a firearm, it is calling for the ability of concealed weapon permit holders that are in the military to be able to carry on base. This is a small percentage of each base.

      • Chad Funckes

        Is the next step then to allow concealed carry holders into courthouses, city and federal buildings? Do away with the metal detectors there? The rule is not in place to just randomly take away rights, it is there for a reason.

        • RA

          Yes the
          rule is there for law abiding people to be victims. None of the gun free zones
          are safe. Court house is a poor example. People are getting prosecuted there.
          More of a reson to commit a crime of passion. But in the post office, DMV or a park? Come on! You know that it will only result in more deaths if a nut gets in there with a weapon.

      • Chad Funckes

        “Candidates School at Quantico was put on lockdown late March 21 following an apparent murder-suicide. Marine officials said Sgt. Eusebio Lopez, 25, shot and killed Cpl. Jacob Wooley, 23, and Lance Cpl. Sara Castro Mata, 19, before turning his gun on himself. All three Marines were staff members at the school, considered a revered proving ground for prospective Marine officers.”

        hmmm a male shoots a male and female in the BEQ…with no guns “allowed” on base…

      • Chad Funckes

        http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20130925/NEWS/309250037/Commandant-calls-new-crackdown-barracks-life-Marine-behavior

        Why is all this necessary you think? I think we should allow guns, that sounds legit…

    • Ed

      Depends on where they are stationed actually, LS’ on my sub stand topside and below decks watchstations, both are armed and they are also trained as ships reaction forces.

      Anyways, when I went through boot(Navy) in 98, you were right, we used laser M-16s, great lakes had no actual range. Post 9/11 that all changed, they have since rectified that error. My watch stations went from being one of the few armed to one of 5 or 6 and more small arms lockers added.

      I’ve signed the petition but I do think a few restrictions need to be emplaced for it to happen. Command approval based on training and maturity for one, maybe one for marksmanship as well despite standard qual ranges really not translating well to a moving target situation. I’ve personally got a card to carry my service weapon on base but can only do it while performing a certain job description and it’s not base security, probably wouldn’t be too big a stretch for my command to extend that to whenever on base in uniform but I doubt they could afford to give everyone a service 9mm constantly.

      I live on base after a cross coast needs of the navy transfer so my personal weapons are already on base and I stuck with what I’m familiar with(Beretta 92A1) so it wouldn’t be a big jump for me to start carrying when in uniform openly and concealed(I’m licensed) when in civies. Until I unholstered the weapon, you wouldn’t be even able to tell its not a standard issue M9(accessory rail, composite spring rod and 17 round magazines are the only difference, same ammo).

  • defyentropy

    I’m a little confused – If people are not allowed to carry weapons on a military base, then why aren’t they searched or put through scanning apparatus at entry points? Is this also true for American military installations on foreign lands?

    Why shouldn’t people with legally registered weapons and/or concealed weapons license be allowed to carry on military bases? Is this the military’s way of saying they don’t trust their own personnel?…BUT…it’s OK for them to be a threat to civilians when off the base?

    Doesn’t make sense, but neither do the “gun control” parameters the “politico” are trying to force on all of us.

    • Chad Funckes

      For your first question it is because everybody knows you can not carry on base and to scan the 10,000 people a day who come to work through a gate would be inefficient to the point of insanity.

      In foreign countries it depends on the countries laws. For example you can not carry a pistole’ in Italy anywhere…so if you have a firearm, regardless of your “qualifications” you are not even allowed to import it there, hence you won’t be carrying it on base.

      It is not just them saying they do not trust their own people in point. But why can you not carry a gun into a courtroom or other federal building? So if you can not carry a weapon into other federal places of business, why would they then allow them on a federal military installation? Perhaps the protection of the people working in those installations? Mull that over…

      • defyentropy

        Thanks, Chad, I had no idea of the amount of daily traffic. I guess I assumed the military had more sophisticated & fast scanning hardware for persons & vehicles. Your explanation makes total sense.

  • Kevin Merck

    There shouldn’t be any “gun free zones” anywhere in America.
    They created the zones for the sole purpose of using these areas to carry out false flags for an excuse to confiscate firearms.

  • LocalHero

    Stop begging the damned White House for rights that you already have. Face it; They don’t want you carrying a weapon because it might get in the way of the next fake “shooting” they conduct (Navy Yard, Sandy Hoax, Aurora, etc.) so just carry one anyway like I do.

    • Granny

      The first time you save someone’s life using your weapon, you will probably be arrested for murder. If I was on your jury, I would not convict you however. I wonder how many juries know they can acquit if it’s a stupid prosecution.

  • Arthur

    Don’t military installations have Military Police and armed? I know in my country barracks they are armed

    • Chad Funckes

      Yes, military police are armed and patrol, just like cops outside the fence.

  • judas

    good luck with that petition. The filthy criminal that calls himself Hussein Obama has upped the signatures required for a response to 1,000,000 (one million). The reason military personnel can’t carry a weapon on base is because the unconstitutional president becomes a target for every oath keeper that carries a weapon.

  • jaforush

    Every person should be allowed to carry anywhere and everywhere,,,end of story