DOD Lame Ducks: Preemptive Strike Against Troop Carry

carch-22In a move designed to undermine the prospect of troops carrying defensive sidearms, lame duck Obama Administration officials have promulgated regulations “permitting” it[.pdf] — regulations that are jam-packed full of Catch-22 restrictions, punitive bureaucracy, and impossible requirements. These regulations recall the many times that these same officials took the side of Islamic terrorism against their own troops, not to mention their party’s history as the party of Jim Crow. As we discuss the points of the regulation below, bear in mind the history of the “literacy test” used in the Jim Crow era to keep blacks in a second-class situation, as we paraphrase from memory John Ross’s retelling of an old legend:

One election day in 1960, Martin Johnson decided to vote. Some young guys from Ohio had come through, and, under the glare of officials and deputies, had helped Martin and his wife and many other people of the town register to vote for the first time.

Martin was a little nervous as he approached the polling station in the county courthouse, because nothing good ever happened to him or his family in that place, and not a deputy but Sheriff JW Pepper his ownself was there.

“Why the Sheriff here?” he whispered to one of the kids from Ohio, who had to stay outside. “Don’t let him bother you. He says he’s doing a literacy test.”

“Well, I can read just fine,” Martin said, and took his place in line.

The white lady in front of him got to the head of the line, and he watched her interaction with Sheriff Pepper closely.

“Here is your literacy test,” Pepper said, and held up a newspaper, the same County Clarion that Martin had read this morning. “Read me the headline.”

“Election Day 1960,” the lady said, amused. Martin exulted for a minute. This was going to be easy.

“Here is your literacy test, boy,” Pepper said, and held up a different newspaper. “Read me the headline.”

“But… Sir… Mr Sheriff… that paper be Chinese!

“Boy, read me the headline,” Pepper repeated sternly.

“It says, no colored folks are goin’ to be voting in this county today.”

It is no exaggeration to say that E-Ring suits see troops, especially soldiers and Marines, and especially enlisted troops, with the same paternalistic contempt their Jim Crow grandfathers reserved for the “colored.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, who has tirelessly striven to put our troops at a disadvantaga against peer competitors and Islamic terrorists alike, promulgated the new regulations, with the approval of Social Justice Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.

Work and Carter, and their families, are guarded around the clock by men with guns. In today’s Washington, safety and protection of your life and family is a perk that comes with rank, not a human right.

The faults of the DOD policy are many and glaring.

  • Delegates authority to Lieutenant Colonel and Commander level commanders. While normally anything that pushes power down to the battalion, squadron, or ship commander is a great thing, in this case those officers are being put in an impossible position between anti-self-defense superiors and the right-to-life of their own troops.
  • Does nothing to encourage commanders to grant this permission.
  • Makes an authority letter only valid for ninety days. If the commander wants to stick his neck out and let his people defend themselves, he has to resign and redistribute the letter four times a year — 12 times in a three-year command. This is a waste of a commander’s most precious resource, time, but it’s not a pointless waste. The point of the Bob Work rule is that it’s a “sickener,” designed to impede the commander from taking this action.
  • Every letter and every change must be reported directly to the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center.
  • All authorizations must be cleared with military lawyers, the new Commissars, who have veto authority over commanders’ decisions.
  • Authorization only applies on the post but not within any buildings. 
  • Authorization limits service members to state requirements, for example, 10-round magazines in New York.
  • Authorization will depend on completion of a DOD qualification, which does not yet exist, every 12 months.
  • Hinges authorization, not just on qualification or a commander certification, but on acquisition of a civilian license from the authorities in every individual state the service member will work in.
  • Firearms must be unloaded and secured (i.e. in a safe) when off duty, for those authorized to carry issue firearms. Private firearms (if authorized) can be on the service member’s person, on or off duty.
  • The policy exempts the National Guard; they don’t permission to defend themselves unless  their State Governor gives it to them, but must remain soft targets.

If Congress does not overturn these restrictions within 60 work days, they become permanent; a long lame-duck session focused on bigger fish could guarantee that our troops are unable to defend themselves for months, or years, into the future. This may not be its intended consequence; it’s doubtful that Carter or Work think of the troops enough to actually want to harm them, they’re more indifferent to them and, as all DC satraps, focused on self-service. These regulations are there not to harm individuals, even though they will do that, but to score bureaucratic points — the currency of Carter’s and Work’s world.

Bear in mind that this “permission” is not something that E-Ring suits who oppose the very idea just decided to do. They were directed by Congress to do it, and are “complying” with the bare minimum document — the bureaucrat’s defensive mode, passive resistance and dumb insolence. Congress, where the lives of mere enlisted men and their politically powerless families are also not usually on the scale, either, was shocked out of its normal glutton’s torpor and acted on this after the Fort Hood Massacre, in which an Islamist unwisely recruited by the Army Medical Department had an attack of Sudden Jihad Syndrome and committed a spree of murders and attempted murders.

Of course, not all the current administration’s appointees think the Fort Hood Massacre was a bad thing. Then-Chief of Staff Casey dismissed the deaths of 13 troops as “a tragedy, but“, asserting that the real damage would be if anyone let a realistic view of the war knock ‘diversity” off its perch as the prime, overriding Army value.

Current Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley, who is, like Casey, the very model of the modern social justice general, approves the new rules, and considers the results of the Fort Hood shooting, where one of his precious Diversity Beans snapped and started shooting people, a great success: Police stopped the incident before more than 55 people were shot, after all, and none of the victims were generals.

Milley himself has armed bodyguards, around the clock and everywhere he goes. Rank has its privileges. Apparently one of them is self defense.

(DOD Policy.pdf)

23 thoughts on “DOD Lame Ducks: Preemptive Strike Against Troop Carry

  1. Keith

    I’ve noted before the only people the SJW’s and Progressive/Tranzi/Cosmos want to have firearms are there protectors so no real surprises here. I swear the US military is starting to look more like the Earth military in Tom Kratman’s and Michael Z. Williamson’s scifi books.


      oh no. not at all. They also want the state to have guns. So they can use those guns to kill us and take our guns from us by force when enough people finally see the light and realize all us NRA baby killers will only give up our machine guns by blood shed.

      I’m not even using hyperbole there. I have seen comments like that and worse all over anti-gun facebook page groups like everytown for gun safety


    Some days I have to really be careful when reading stuff like this.

    Often I find myself reading some news or post like this and get so pissed I can barely stand it. Not very good for my ulcers.

    It is amazing so many people manage a little sanity when idiocy like this is just flaunted day after day after day in a never ending parade. It just keeps piling up on good people.

  3. Tom Stone

    It’s not just the troops that are treated with this kind of patronizing contempt, it’s everyone who isn’t “Part of the club”.
    There’s a non trivial chance that the Electoral College will flip to enthrone Hillary Clinton.
    They are under a LOT of pressure to do so, and yes, they are that stupid.
    The readers of this blog are smart enough to realize some of the probable consequences.
    Interesting times indeed.

  4. James

    Proud to report the UTNG has supported concealed carry by its members for years. If you have your permit, go ahead and carry.

  5. Aesop

    “I’d like to carry a weapon.”
    You must be crazy!
    “So, do I get to carry the weapon?”
    I’m forbidden by regulations to let crazy people carry weapons.
    “But you only said I was crazy for wanting to carry a weapon!?!”
    That’s right. That’s Catch-22.
    “That’s some catch, that Catch-22!”

  6. bloke_from_ohio

    A couple Air Force Bases have a policy that effectively say you can carry on base as long as you meet the state requirements. Granted you cannot carry inside the buildings, a fact that is powerful dumb, but it was a start. I say was since this policy will likely rescind the local ones that were better. Oh well, back to hauling around a big heavy rock, it worked for Cain…

  7. Badger

    If the Soros->Klinton-backed Greenie recall snowflakes are unsuccessful I fervently hope to see a large exodus from the E-ring as the Depends-wearing tofu cycles out & some carnivores cycle in. I like Aesop’s approach; with permanent rank set at O-6, since it seems when they got that (P) after their rank is when they go TDY to the neutering facility. That will save some log transactions in tracking personal GO sidearms (if the command over RIA still engages in that practice; been awhile).

  8. Jim Scrummy

    After reading it three times and trying to figure out who I would have to go to get permission to even just have my edc weapon stored securely in my vehicle, it’s worthless words on paper (it’s what DC does best, create worthless words on paper-nothing of value is created in DC, NOTHING). It’s a mother may I have the opportunity to defend myself…ahhh nope. Hopefully the congresscritters see this as grade A+ BS and overturn it. I walk past the “leadership” pictures on my way into the building and always think to myself…losers. Not sure if the damage to the military by the Zero midwits can be functionally repaired?

  9. Pingback: WeaponsMan: Preemptive Strike Against Troop Carry By DOD Lame Ducks | Western Rifle Shooters Association

  10. John Distai

    A plug for the literacy end of this – for those who haven’t read “Catch-22”, it is highly recommended. Audible has an audiobook version.

  11. Dave

    It’s a cowardly CYA bailout by the Pentagon, putting the onus on commanders who now have to choose between defending the safety of their own careers and allowing their troops to defend themselves.

  12. Air

    What about retirees or contractors (not on a contract that requires carry), or me that fits in the previous listed? I thought my life mattered.

    1. Dienekes

      My contractor son (pilot) at Bagram is now able to move about on base, although he must do so with a “battle buddy”. Both unarmed, of course.

      Sort of clarifies who does and who doesn’t matter in the big scheme of things.

  13. DSM

    It’s still my SP background I guess. It’s far, far from perfect but seems standard boilerplate from the same arming guidelines we were held under for on-duty arming.

    Our “Authority to Bear Arms” roster was updated almost daily; deletions or suspensions (disciplinary, medical, PRP, etc) could be pen & ink but any additions had to be reprinted. The approvals came from the commander or whoever was on G series orders at the time. The installation commander (for the Air Force) is the responsible authority but usually delegates this to his SP unit commander.
    Side question: How do Army units currently control access to weapons from unit arms rooms? I know weapons aren’t checked out willy nilly but what mechanism, if any, prevents PVT Snuffy who is pending NJP or worse, or maybe just loaded up on narcotics from wisdom teeth extraction, from drawing his weapon?

    I believe the mag limitation and other state specific rules are a bow towards jurisdictional issues. Not all DoD land is under exclusive jurisdiction. Much is concurrent and even a great amount is solely proprietary. Saying PVT Snuffy could carry his Glock 26 with his 33rd mag on Hanscom AFB, MA would put him at odds with the state if his duties carried him into an area under concurrent jurisdiction. They *could* have made an exception or a free-for-all while on property under exclusive jurisdiction of the DoD. Then how do you reliably delineate Go/No-Go zones or procedures to transit them? Could it be done? Yes, of course. Can one reg predict every scenario or situation though? The same point was made when the bases went to state drinking age instead of a post specific age….and the downfall of the service clubs but that’s another story.

    Facility restrictions may just be those designated as controlled or restricted areas. I’ll look into this more at work. They have been talking LEOSA here, the rules are a little different but I do think those same limitations apply.

    1. Mike

      In the Army, restricting someone from drawing his weapon from the company armsroom is at the company commander’s discretion, although if the First Sergeant tells the NCOs and the armorer “PFC Snuffy is not to have access to a weapon”, PFC Snuffy isn’t going to get access to a weapon.

      A behavioral health specialist can put ‘no weapons access’ in a note to the company commander, and the company commander is going to pass that along to those concerned in the company as well as inform the battalion leadership at Command & Staff when they get around to talking about ‘soldiers with issues’.

      1. DSM

        That seems quite functional but at the same time really informal I guess is a proper word. And this is where my thinking hits a brick wall at being overly institutionalized as it were to following the daily arming rules we lived by. How do the MP detachments handle it? Every one of them I worked with while deployed all spoke a similar language so maybe it’s the daily arming requirement?

        To be certain, our on-duty flight chief (think shift sergeant) could immediately restrict access with just a verbal to the armorer but it had to be followed up in writing from the arming authority. I never saw one that was overridden.

  14. Pingback: Daily Links | Waiting for the Barbarians

Comments are closed.