USMC Firearm Policy Updated to Allow Concealed Carry for Self-Defense on Base

[Old Dog]

What I want is for you to answer my question. I said that most military members don't get handgun training. You said you disagreed with me saying that but you never actually said that it was an incorrect statement. Was I incorrect or not?

I'm saying, in my experience (insofar as the USMC and USN is concerned), you are incorrect (as of when I left active duty). You originally said most military members get ZERO handgun training. Based on my experience (I retired in 2006 after more than 20 years on active duty), and my last two combat deployments having been for OIF between 2003 and 2006, MOST of the Marines and Sailors with whom I deployed had SOME handgun training.

I will not presume to speak of the current state of handgun training for active duty, but since I enlisted in the USMCR originally in 1977, I can state emphatically that by the time I retired (USN), most active duty personnel with whom I served were receiving some pistol training, and yes, much of it was simply familiarization, but by 2003, we were light-years beyond what the status was back in the day … I'm not entirely sure why you want to argue this with me.

 

[Ignition Override]

AK103:
At OTS (Lackland Medina Annex) in '78 we touched a gun One time, and fired .38 wadcutters. That's all.
In the ANG we fired wadcutters maybe once per year, and it was just a few rounds to fill a "square" on paper.

Of course this must have changed years later.

 

[LaneP]

AK103:
At OTS (Lackland Medina Annex) in '78 we touched a gun One time, and fired .38 wadcutters. That's all.
In the ANG we fired wadcutters maybe once per year, and it was just a few rounds to fill a "square" on paper.

Of course this must have changed years later.

Some folks are going to get a kick out of this but the last time I M16 qualified in the USAF/ANG guess what we shot? A pneumatically operated M16 on a simulator. I'm not kidding, these are M16's that are modified with an air hose that actuates the bolt and the trigger activates a laser in the bore that "scores" hits on a projected target on the wall. You see a red dot appear on your "target" where ever your "bullet" hit, and air pressure blows the bolt back and forth just like the real deal.

They have setups for M16, M9 and M243. I kid you not. If you were deploying to the sandbox you had to live fire, this was just for in-garrison folks that needed their qual updated.

 

[Jammersix]

Most folks in the army get zero handgun training, because most folks in the army are in an MOS that doesn't require it.

 

[Craig_AR]

A few comments:
1. As a few others have commented, all the USMC has done is allow MARINE LEOs to carry while off duty, as long as they have LEOSA credentials with them. A baby step, but at least a step forward.
2. About four years ago I had business on the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) headquarters base in Florida. I was gratified fo see that every SOCOM military member on base was wearing an issue sidearm. Friends who had been on other special operations locations, such as parts of Fort Bragg, told me the same happens there.
3. In 1981 I was at a week-long meeting with USAF security police representatives in Europe. One of their biggest concerns was when and how to mass-arm USAF members in case of land war in Europe. (For those with insider memories, the 4102M scenario.) Essentially, they had no trust in allowing enlisted forces such as aircraft maintenance workers to be armed.
4. On a recent visit to a nearby installation, I noted one young soldier wearing a sidearm. I asked if installation now allowed arming. No, they do not, However, as part of the protection plan, each building has one person armed each day on a rotating duty basis. That person is responible for protection of the occupants as they either shelter in place or evacuate in case of an active shooter event.
4. Each Service handles initial and ongoing training in firearms differently. The USMC consider every Marine in the infantry, and trains accordingly. My experience in USAF was the other end of the spectrum: while every member going through officer training or basic training has initial firearm qualification, once on duty, only those in direct combat specialties or en route to combat zones had recurring training. Since I was not on a deployment roster, I had to wheedle my way onto the range for re-training every few years.
5. Some forum members have recalled very limited firearms training opportunities during their years of service. During the late 70's and all of the 80's, ammunition budgets were limited, and as a simple money-saving measure, the services only offered recurring range training to direct combat and pre-deployment members.

 

[bearcreek]

I'm saying, in my experience (insofar as the USMC and USN is concerned), you are incorrect (as of when I left active duty). You originally said most military members get ZERO handgun training. Based on my experience (I retired in 2006 after more than 20 years on active duty), and my last two combat deployments having been for OIF between 2003 and 2006, MOST of the Marines and Sailors with whom I deployed had SOME handgun training.

So, basically, your answer to my question is that you don't know about most but that the Marines and Sailors that were in a combat MOS that were deploying got some handgun familiarity training. In other words, since most members of the military are not in a combat MOS, they get......zero handgun training.

I'm not entirely sure why you want to argue this with me.

Two reasons. One, it's annoying when people dance around simple questions. Two, it seemed as if you might have been saying that I was incorrect. When I'm wrong, I like to fix that as quickly as possible, so if you had info that proved me wrong I wanted to read it so that I could change my mindset.

Many civilians have this idea that just because a person is in the military that they're a highly trained weapons and tactics expert. So, you get statements like this, from the OP,

Finally some common sense. If members of the US military can't be trusted to carry weapons for their own protection who can be?

The whole discussion is kind of moot in a way because the only thing that's changing (even if the headline of the article is extremely misleading) is that Marine Corps LEO's can carry off duty on base. In their case, since they are obviously among the minority of military members who do receive handgun training, the OP's statement would actually apply.

 

[rskent]

CCW seems to work everywhere else. So why not?

 

[Ignition Override]

All of this proves that—to most civilians—the expression “out of the military” is totally misleading and without meaning, unless the context is added.

Many can only imagine video clips from news channels or movies.

 

[FlSwampRat]

One thing I've learned from decades of military service...the high brass doesn't trust troops with arms while in garrison.

Tell me about it.... As an on duty MP I carried a .45 with one full mag and no second mag.

 

[AK103K]

CCW seems to work everywhere else. So why not?

The "control trip" that the military is.

 

[Igloodude]

In the 90s, shipboard sailors (including me) got annual pistol familiarization if they were inport quarterdeck watchstanders. Knowing what I know now, that training was pretty close to useless, beyond "keep it in the holster and don't touch it unless you actually need to shoot someone", because most of the familiarization was an afternoon of touching the pistol as little and as gingerly as possible because any mistake whatsoever would get you sent back to the ship un-qualled.

Went to shore duty, and a friend introduced me to Bullseye, and I bought my own 1911. A year later there was a "ribbon shoot" with the local reservists that I managed to join, and I easily qualified Expert and felt truly comfortable and confident with a 1911 in my holster, though I was still clueless from a tactical standpoint.

For me, i.e. anecdotally, "fam-fires" are pretty much the same thing as taking your child to the range for the first time and teaching them that a gun is dangerous and should not be played with without adults around.

 

[TikkaShooter]

Ive seen a few who came out of the military and were supposedly trained there, that I thought the same thing.

They wanna be what they weren't and why is the question.. It takes a lot of rear echelon people to support the Infantry and without them, no ammo, food, fuel, mail etc. In short, no rear echelon, no win. So, they need to walk with pride as no war would have ever been won without them.

 

[Skeptic13]

I guess this is a step in the right direction but it is not concealed carry for all. With only off duty LE now allowed to carry I don't think the marines are actually going to solve any problems. This seems more of a feel good, look like your doing something kind of step. A baby step at best.

 

[Steve in PA]

I was in the USMC 1979-1983 and I was anti-tank assaultman (0351) for most of that time. The only handgun “training” we got was in boot camp and then FAM (familiarization) fire before being deployed. This was with the old 1911 pistols. That was the only time I got to touch a pistol.

It wasn’t until my last year when I cross trained as a mortar gunner (0341) before going over to Beirut that I “qualified” with the 1911 since as the gunner, my issued weapon was a 1911.

I don’t know how the off-duty MP’s are going to withdraw or secure their pistols. Back in my day, everything was stored in the armory.

As far as regular jar heads carrying? I don’t know, I’ve seen lots of Drunken fist fights in squad bays, barracks and E-clubs. Toss in some firearms??

 

[Texas10mm]

I was in the USMC 1979-1983 and I was anti-tank assaultman (0351) for most of that time. The only handgun “training” we got was in boot camp and then FAM (familiarization) fire before being deployed. This was with the old 1911 pistols. That was the only time I got to touch a pistol.

It wasn’t until my last year when I cross trained as a mortar gunner (0341) before going over to Beirut that I “qualified” with the 1911 since as the gunner, my issued weapon was a 1911.

I don’t know how the off-duty MP’s are going to withdraw or secure their pistols. Back in my day, everything was stored in the armory.

As far as regular jar heads carrying? I don’t know, I’ve seen lots of Drunken fist fights in squad bays, barracks and E-clubs. Toss in some firearms??

Fellow 0351 here. About the same time period. Were you west coast or east coast?

 

[bearcreek]

I don’t know how the off-duty MP’s are going to withdraw or secure their pistols. Back in my day, everything was stored in the armory.

Why would "withdrawing" it be a problem? I'm sure they can figure out how to "withdraw" their own pistol from wherever they store it.

 

[herrwalther]

Allowing 2300 Marines who carry on duty to carry off duty won't make a difference. At least it is start.

I am always on the fence about this issue, of allowing the military to carry. Yes, there should be some carry allowed. But I also know Joe does stupid stuff in the barracks involving copious amounts of alcohol. It is the very reason why personal firearms are not allowed in the barracks. Possible solution is allow carry but you have to check out your firearm from the armory and return it end of the day?

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

View attachment 882001

lol, this...

 

[Lycidas Janwor]

I've stated my position before on other posts concerning young enlisted military personnel having private firearms in the barracks or on their person. I did almost 21 years in the army and was an NCO for 18 of those years supervising young 18 and 19 year old soldiers. I served in air defense artillery, military police, combat engineers and field artillery so I've had exposure to a number of different fields and the people that are in those military specialties. Many were competent and level headed but there was that 10% of immature and childish types that found all kinds of way to get into trouble. Add alcohol to the mix in the barracks with a group of testosterone hyped young men with that 10% in there and you are going to have a serious incident with a firearm. When deployed in a combat area there is no alcohol for everyone to get drunk on and there are a lot of NCOs and Officers on hand to keep things under control. In garrison back at their home base most NCOs and officers live off post and aren't there to keep tabs on what is happening in the barracks. During field training exercises everyone carries their assigned weapon but don't get caught with live ammo, you will be in a world of hurt. Yes in combat soldiers are firing mortars, machine guns, artillery and small arms but they are supervised about as closely as you can be supervised. Once an individual has reached NCO rank he has demonstrated judgement and maturity and should be allowed to carry a personal weapon.

No doubt there's a lot of young testosterone going around, that said, I'd allow people who have say, 10 years or so of good service (and who are not young, dumb, and full of xxx) to apply for a the right to CC on base.

 

[fireside44]

Allowing 2300 Marines who carry on duty to carry off duty won't make a difference. At least it is start.

I am always on the fence about this issue, of allowing the military to carry. Yes, there should be some carry allowed. But I also know Joe does stupid stuff in the barracks involving copious amounts of alcohol. It is the very reason why personal firearms are not allowed in the barracks. Possible solution is allow carry but you have to check out your firearm from the armory and return it end of the day?

So, being inebriated on government property is ok, but not carrying a sidearm at work even though civies do at their jobs? Typical government level "common sense" regulations.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Regardless of what we think the military has its ways and its them or the highway.

I've personally always thought it strange that there are so many unarmed personnel on a base aside from guards or MPs.

The same concerns that have been mentioned here of how enlisted folks act are true for civilians too, and yet civilians have no problem getting a CCW (obviously as long as everything checks out).

Point being, I feel pretty confident that there are just as many immature and party prone civilians that have CCW's as there are possible military personnel that COULD have a CCW, or just OC.


But, as I said, the military knows what's best for itself.

 

[bearcreek]

So, being inebriated on government property is ok, but not carrying a sidearm at work even though civies do at their jobs? Typical government level "common sense" regulations.

You're suggesting prohibiting military members who live on base and are off duty from drinking?

 

[fireside44]

You're suggesting prohibiting military members who live on base and are off duty from drinking?

No, you suggested it. I merely stated, asking, that you can be inebriated on gov property but not ccw legally the way civvies do?

 

[bearcreek]

No, you suggested it. I merely stated, asking, that you can be inebriated on gov property but not ccw legally the way civvies do?

I certainly did not suggest that. The answer to your question then, is generally yes. Military members, in many cases, are allowed to drink in their homes, even when those homes are government owned.

 

[Boattale]

Having lived in an open barracks with 70+ other Jarheads I can tell you that there were maybe 4 or 5 who had the common sense and maturity to have open access to firearms.

Correct.

But. When I was a Company Armorer, anytime I had the keys on me I also had a loaded 1911 on me. That was on Okinawa in 1972. There was some civil unrest on the island at the time, that may have been why the policy.

PS - another 0351 here. Never carried or fired anything related to the MOS after BITS. Did carry mortar parts though. Fired more than a few rounds too.