President Trump to Review Ban on Military Personnel Carrying Firearms

President Trump to Review Ban on Military Personnel Carrying Firearms
President Trump to Review Ban on Military Personnel Carrying Firearms

Arizona -( One of the Second Amendment themes Candidate Donald Trump campaigned on was that military personnel should not be made into disarmed and helpless victims.

President Trump said on Friday, 23 February,  he would be reviewing the current policies about military personnel carrying personal defensive firearms. From

President Donald Trump said Friday that he would review policies that keep troops from carrying personal weapons onto military bases.

“If we can’t have our military holding guns, it’s pretty bad,” Trump said in a wide-ranging speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Committee conference in Maryland, “and I’m going to look at that whole policy on military bases.”

“So we want to protect our military. We want to make our military stronger and better than it’s ever been,” Trump continued in the speech, in which he also renewed his call for allowing trained teachers and military retirees to carry concealed weapons in schools.

When I joined the U.S. Army on active service, I had been competing in university pistol competitions for four years.  I knew more about pistol shooting and the civilian use of deadly force than my non-commissioned officer instructors. But, as a commissioned officer, I was not allowed to carry a personal firearm for self-defense… unless I was acting, as an additional duty, as a military game warden.

It struck me as a ludicrous example of hypocrisy and a direct contradiction of my sworn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, that I, as a trained military officer, was not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Military personnel voluntarily give up some rights when entering the military. They are under the command of their officers. They are subject to inspection for their health and welfare. They must, within limits, do what they are told and go where they are ordered.  They are not required to disobey illegal orders, but they put their career on the line and risk severe punishment, if, on review, the order turns out not to have been illegal. They are limited in their First Amendment rights.

President Trump is on the correct track. The military should protect its members, allow them to protect themselves, and show that military commanders support the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, as they are sworn to do.

Commanders in the military are responsible for their troops.  Many are under the age of 21. Commanders, in some ways, are father figures that have enormous responsibilities and power.

As Commander in Chief, President Trump can require military commanders to respect the Second Amendment, but give them guidance and goals to allow them to exercise their judgment and enhance their authority while doing so.

He could require that programs be set up to allow for the exercise of Second Amendment rights, in concert with the requirements of military discipline.

Soldiers could be expected to earn the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights for the protection of themselves and their unarmed comrades, in peacetime.  The right to do so could be taken away for cause, just as rank can be taken away for cause.

The requirements to carry could include passing an objective written test about the use of deadly force, and a shooting test that would be no more stringent than officers are required to pass to qualify with a pistol.

Military members would know that any shots fired by them would be investigated. Carry under these circumstances could be made a part of their official duties. They would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any infractions. Because they would be under military discipline, they could carry in any part of United States territory under that authority.

Safeguards should be put in place to ensure that Commanders do not play administrative games to avoid this duty to the Republic and the Constitution.

These circumstances would be similar to those of states with shall issue concealed carry laws. People who have taken the time and trouble to obtain a carry permit have proven to be extremely law-abiding. There is little reason to believe that soldiers under military discipline would be less responsible.

Members of the military give up some of their rights in order to serve.

©2018 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten:Dean Weingarten

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is the other side of the 2nd amendment in action. We the people have the right so that we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. Your second amendment rights are under enough attack, don’t give them away!

Kevin Gilbert

There is a tremendous amount of desire on the part of the Modern Democratic Party (Read that as Progressive Socialists) to control everyone. I truly do believe the DNC Leadership is scared of an armed public.

The over-riding question to them should be: What are you doing, or What kind of actions are you undertaking that you need to fear the American people with Arms???


Civilians with no military training can carry but military people, who have all had training, can’t carry. I am assuming the military still have to take weapons training. Anyway, WTF is the government thinking by not allowing soldiers to carry even though, in a lot of cases, the use of a gun is their job. During the Cuban Crisis I was assigned to a small Air Force installation that was a radar squadron and we were put on alert which meant stay on base. We were given m-16s to walk around the parameter of the radar unit, as if the… Read more »


The biggest argument against arming military members (I served 20 yrs in the Navy) is that many are not mature enough to do so. I say this would mature them up pretty quick. Discipline would be better and since this would start out as a senior rank program it would provide incentive for juniors to work on advancing. Another carrot would be to provide for incentive pay for those choosing to do so similar to hazardous duty pay. And once qualified it should be like LEOs being able to carry nationwide since military members change duty stations so frequently. I… Read more »

American Patriot

I agree with most of what you say Except extra pay for carrying, because it is not hazardous duty. The same goes for teachers, if you want to carry (in schools or on base) you need to pass qualification tests. We don’t need to make incentives to carry you’re either that type of person or not, it’s about self-protection Not being a law enforcement officer. Most military servicemen get training with rifles not pistols unless your MOS required the need. I trained & qualified with the .45 because I was a UH-1 helicopter crew chief that’s what we kept on… Read more »

Marc DV

Go on Base with Your Weapon, Go to the Armory and exchange it for a service weapon. Simple easy and safe. If the Government can’t trust the Military with weapons , We’re in DEEP $#!T. No Everyone is not going around with Rifles, They can be issued a Hand gun . ( flavor & Brand of this year ) During my Tour Not all were issued hand guns That Needs to change ! We were given at the time the problematic M16A1 gave up an M14 that Fired covered in mud or . A gunners had 1911s anti tank had… Read more »


Guns on military bases! What an idea. Oh yeah the terrorist Hasan had two. Why shouldn’t commissioned and NCO’s not be allowed to carry?

Robert W

I retired a few years ago after some 22 years of faithful and honorable service to our country. I carried many of them years on duty both at home and afar, in a few of my duty stations in the states i wish that I had the right to carry because of the areas that I had to go to while serving in the capacity of my job recruiting in the inner city as well as some rural areas all of which I had to do alone with no backup but a government issued cell phone ( by that time… Read more »

Matt in Oklahoma

I wish I could believe it but after listening to him this weekend I just don’t know.

Wild Bill

Matt in OK, I don’t know either. That is why I am lighting up the internet wires of the POTUS, my two senators, and my congressman. I diplomatically urge them not to fall for the DNC ploy of gun control because that would separate them from their voting base. The socialist/DNC/libs would like nothing more that to take control of House and Senate so that they can wrongly impeach Trump.


My son, now retired, was at one time a Bradly commander. He was assigned to that duty while over seas. But he like others, was not allowed to carry a weapon on post when in Killeen Texas. I guess you remember how that turned out. Like thousands of other career soldiers he was trained on a variety of weapons but was not allowed access to them on post. Something about that just doesn’t sound right.

Reginald Hafner

About time the Clinton nonsense was reviewed and trashed.

Pistol Pete

You are right ( what democrat is not full of nonsense) If it’s ok for a solder to carry on the field of combat he should be aloud to carry on base.


People keep talking about “Clinton nonsense” which is crazy. When I was in the Army in the 60s no one was allowed to carry firearms on base unless you were on guard duty (unloaded rifles) or military police. Personally I think civilians, active duty or retired personnel with a License To Carry should be allowed to carry on base.


Clinton was the corrupt-criminal-idiot that got the “no loaded firearms of any type” permitted on base (any Federal property) pushed through the then, and still now ultra-corrupt Congress.

That’s why they keep referring to it as such, and deservedly so.