Soldiers NOT Up In Arms

By guest author Frank Selden

As the anniversary of the Fort Hood shooting nears, intensity will likely increase on Congress to reconsider the personal weapon ban for military personnel on US military installations. I urge careful consideration as a complete reversal may cost more lives that it might have saved at Fort Hood. I have a recommendation that might help arguments on both sides.

As an Army National Guard soldier for 15 years I reserve my remarks to the weapon ban as applied to the Army. On our nearby base, Fort Lewis, all soldiers assigned to and personnel residing on base must register their privately owned weapons within three working days of their arrival or acquisition of the weapon. Civilians working on or visiting Fort Lewis are, generally, not allowed personal firearms on base. State concealed weapons permits do not apply.

Personal weapons must be stored on Fort Lewis in either a Unit's Arms Room or family quarters and can only be carried in a vehicle when traveling to and from authorized hunting, target practice, matches, or off-post locations. When transporting weapons, they must be secured in the vehicle's trunk or, if the vehicle doesn't have a lockable trunk, encased in such a manner that it's not readily accessible to the driver or passengers. Weapons must be transported unloaded and ammunition stored separately from the weapon.

How does this save lives? Life in an Army barracks can reach a rowdy level that would make Animal House residents blush. Coupling typical military testosterone with alcohol, deployment stress, relationship issues and weapons in a confined space adds a level of consternation not addressed in the usual arguments. Some commanders, and many military personnel, believe that the private weapon registration probably saves lives on every major installation every year.

We trust soldiers with weapons in a deployment zone, so why not on a home station base? If someone on a combat zone post decides to use a weapon in an unfriendly manner there are several armed soldiers and civilians immediately available to make sure that pissed-off soldier doesn’t get a second shot. We could apply this model to home installations, yet we don’t; because the environments are not the same.

In a combat zone we are continually threatened by attack from outside the post at any moment. We are always prepared. Our primary focus is the combat mission. At home we repair equipment, train, exercise, fill out paperwork, spend time with our families. I for one, enjoy all of these activities more without weapons in the vicinity. Any one of us could take action to drop a shooter, but that usually means someone has been shot. Off-duty soldiers armed with personal forearms can prevent a Fort Hood massacre from escalating past the first few victims, but this approach does little good when the target is a commander, co-worker or estranged spouse. The national discussion of whether to reverse the Clinton ban should include a careful evaluation of what the presence of weapons brings to everyday situations on a military installation. Current rhetoric from Mark Levin and others, focusing merely on the Fort Hood massacre, fails to make a weapons ban decision based on the total dynamic of introducing weapons into our military workplace.

I do though have a suggestion for this discussion which could address the concern of our troops as “sitting ducks on our own bases.” To understand this idea one needs to understand our force protection system.  Force Protection Condition, referred to as FPCON, is a terrorist threat system overseen by Department of Defense directive, and describes the measures to be taken by security agencies in response to various levels of terrorist threats against military facilities. FPCON Alpha applies when there is a general threat of activity against personnel and/or installations, the nature and extent of which is unpredictable. FPCON Bravo applies when an increased or more predictable threat exists. As situations escalate, specified commanders would implement Charlie or Delta measures.

Each higher level incorporates all of the measures adopted at the lower levels and adds additional security measures. These measures can differ between branches of service. For example, at a higher threat level a ship commander can implement procedures for the expedient issue of firearms and ammunition from the ship’s small arms locker. There is currently no measure at any level that would allow Army commanders to open the Unit small arms lockers (where the personal weapons are stored) when faced with an increased threat level.

The DoD could allow an addition FPCON measure, at perhaps FPCON Charlie and under installation command decision, to grant off-duty solders access to their personal weapons if not be issued military weapons at that level. Since the current Army weapons ban is reportedly authorized by Secretary of the Army, we should not need a complete ban reversal or Congressional action to adopt this idea. Although this idea would not help in a Fort Hood situation, it could be an incredible advantage as an FPCON measure. It would also alleviate fears of both those not wanting private weapons in their work environment and those feeling undefended during an external threat.

Frank Selden is a partner with Selden & Youngs estate planning law firm, Bellevue, WA.