Yeah, Presidential Protection would shit a brick if Mattis tried that. And he’s too smart to try.
Sure. He vetted. But it ain’t their job to trust anyone.
Military regulations only apply on military reservations. If military police are patrolling off post, it means they have an agreement with local law enforcement to be able to do so.
If a general authorized themselves to carry a side-arm on the Pentagon reservation, such authorization would be meaningless as soon as they stepped off the grounds and VA law would apply. Local cops aren’t going to care about rank at that point. They might grant military police a certain professional courtesy, but AFAIK they aren’t authorized to carry in public like, say, federal agents might.
No. Military regulations are a different set of rules governing the operation of a particular class of persons in this case military officers and other ranks. Same way as law enforcement is regulated by different rules than private citizens.
If a General carries a firearm in the course of his duties then it is regulations which govern it.
:dubious:
I find that difficult to believe. Will wait for a US lawyer to say definitively, but Federal law trumps state law and providing for the regulations of them armed forces is Federal law.
You are right that ordinarily military officers are not permitted to carry off duty, but that a function of the military not the civil authorities. If military authorities order them to carry then s/he may.
There was a 2013 amendment to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that explicitly included military police, but a 4-star general is unlikely to have an ID identifying themselves as a law enforcement officer. Note that, under that law, only on-duty law enforcement officers could carry in the Pentagon Mall (assuming they prohibit firearms, which I think is a safe assumption). Off-duty cops (including military police) would not be allowed to carry in the mall. On-duty military police would not have jurisdiction in the mall, but again I’m not sure that they’d get kicked out by Arlington cops based on some professional courtesy. I just know that it’d be highly unlikely for Pentagon police to be there in the first place.
Anyone in the military who’s not a card-carrying LEO does not get special rights to carry weapons off post unless martial law is first declared. At least, that’s my understanding, but we can wait for a lawyer to clarify.
I think the OP has inadvertently gotten into a special case.
I am not a lawyer and don’t know any of the rules, but it has been my experience that there are specific rules covering the carrying of weapons by military personnel and that those rules are intended to project a lot of symbolism. By that I mean weapons are considered symbols as much as tools by military policy. When soldiers carry weapons, either on or off base, it means something to the military-far more than it would mean to a civilian. I base this primarily my experiences in the immediate aftermath of Katrina when the military arrived in large numbers to provide relief. 90% of the military did not carry weapons carrying out their duties-but some did. In those cases, the weapons were not really there to be used, real disasters are very peaceable events. Bad guys are like everyone else and have better things to do than cause trouble. Almost all the stories you hear about violence after a major disaster (not a civil disturbance-this isn’t the same), are misunderstandings or trigger-happy civilians and law-enforcement people overreacting. That certainly was the case after Katrina. Weapons were never needed and when used nothing good came from it. But the military had and displayed weapons as symbols, kind of like a badge. I remember the feeding stations set up after the storm. They were run initially by the military. The civilians all came by in cars (well almost all, some people living nearby walked), and there was one lone guard at the entrance to the parking lot sitting in a chair with an unloaded rifle. I took that to mean that here was where the military was in charge, outside of that perimeter the local law enforcement was in charge. But the weapon was clearly and obviously unloaded and he didn’t interact with anyone. All the supplies and crowd control at that station was done by civilians. They recruited a popular local minister to greet people initially and send us on to the correct line (water, food, other). The military patrols in the neighborhoods were all unarmed (at least visibly, I assume there were appropriate tools inside the military vehicles). The police which conducted their own patrols were regular deputies with regular service weapons. A friend of mine assisted at the command center right after the storm. They had trouble successfully getting the military called in to certain areas-until they realized the orders to deploy had to specifically state that weapons were to be issued but not deployed. Leaving that out meant the order didn’t meet the legal requirements and the automated order system the military used wouldn’t process it. It got worked out in a few hours. So I believe that the use of weapons by the military is a very highly regulated thing not even generals can just up and decide to start packing. It depends on the location and circumstances. Another example. After 9/11 Air Force 1 landed at Barksdale AF base on its way to Offet and President Bush made a short speech on television. When the plane landed the commanding general there and all his senior staff were wearing sidearms and the base was on lockdown. Someone had pushed all the buttons and people were following some very serious orders. Given that Barksdale is a nuclear base, telling them to go on alert must be quite a big deal.
Sure, but even a general always has to answer to his command structure. There’s always somebody higher, and then you get to the civilian leadership who aren’t military themselves.
I do remember hearing that during the Gulf War General Schwarzkopf kept a shotgun on the shelf next to him at his headquarters in Saudi Arabia. In case any Iraqi assassins penetrated the base, I guess.
Is the first part in fact true, according to U.S. military regs? I assume there are some regulations and required procedures around issuing firearms, and, except for whatever specific exemptions there are in the regs and procedures themselves, generals are just as required to follow them as anyone else. I don’t know the regs, so I suppose it’s possible there’s some kind of blanket exception that allows anyone of general rank to authorize any kind of firearm for themselves, but I suspect not.
Now in practice, if a general orders a non-com to issue him a regular officer’s pistol, the non-com might not choose to take a stand on whether or not that’s a valid lawful order, and there well might not be anyone who really wants to take up the issue, but that doesn’t mean the pistol is ‘authorized’ (which is the word in the OP).
I’m sure as shit we had a fun thread on whether the CinC can carry one around the White House or whether he needs a license at all.
If we haven’t…take it away!
- off to check *
Yes!
I don’t know U.S. military regs, but the regs I *do *know almost always feature an asterisk saying something like “Unless authorized/exempted by an officer ranked such-and-such and higher”. In my experience, regulations are designed to serve the brass, not to restrict them.
That does not make him a military officer. It makes him one of the civilians in charge of the military. And why would he need to carry a sidearm?
Maybe, but the higher you get in an organization, the more leeway you have to make your own decisions (and deal with the consequences when things go wrong). Privates ask permission to go to the bathroom; generals ask permission to invade countries. With great responsibility comes great power.
Besides, you really think a general is going to waste his commanding officer’s time with petty bullshit like asking permission to carry a firearm? Neither of them want that.
That’s a great set-up, man! You got me. My first thought was— "WAIT a minute! An Israeli officer, general or otherwise, without a weapon?? So I clicked. Then I grinned. 
(after edit time-out)
I hadn’t read the whole thread before I posted. Alessan, wasn’t your post and linked photo of the three generals meant to be super-funny? I thought it to be a very Israeli sort of humor going by Israelis I’ve known.
“These generals? They’re not carrying sidearms. No siree. They’ve got mega-lethal, lead-spewing, death-dealing Negevs (or Minimis, or whatever,) strung over their shoulders but, no sidearms here!”
Instead, people were talking about the authorization and whatnot for some peashooters while these generals are obviously authorized to carry man-cannons. What did I miss?
Pretty much. I’m glad someone got it.
(Although those are M4 carbines, I think).
[bolding mine]
I don’t get this example. If Virginia has open carry then of course the general can walk into the mall with a holstered sidearm. I can too so long as I have the license. I don’t see what this has to do with military regs vs. civil law. Military doesn’t even enter into this example.
Now if your example had that armed five-star general walking into a mall in California (definitely NOT open carry) then we would potentially have a good example of military regs going up against civilian law.
Yeah, I think we are at cross purposes here. I am talking about carrying of an issued weapon, while I think steronz is discussing a privatly owned firearm.
The military generally only regulates the former, while the later is normally (though not always) subject to civilian laws.
I knew someone would call me on the weapons!:mad::mad:
I didn’t even try. I vaguely know of Negevs and Minimis finding their way into Israeli hands on occasion so I just ran with that.
RE: The photo. I literally LOL’ed* when I saw it. I have trouble understanding how anyone around here wouldnt at least crack a smile seeing your post/linked photo combination. But OTOH, I wonder if it’s a bit like the guy in a gorilla suit walking around amidst a group of people
passing a ball. None of the ball-passers see the gorilla because their attention is focused elsewhere.
This statement is rather ironic in that I normally would never use it. But when I realized this time that I did actually laugh out loud and therefore, literally laughed out loud* I couldn’t resist.
**This is interminable!! Yes! Actually! For real! As in–it really happened just as I described it.
MAN it was a lot easier when I could just say or write the word “literally” and people would know what it meant .
(Too late for edit. Again)
[IDF bumper sticker]
Your Carbine is My Sidearm
[/IDF bumper sticker]
In the US Army, when you make Brigadier you get a flag, a belt, and a pistol. The pistol (back when I was in the business) could be a 9mm, a .45 or (weirdly) a .32. A .38 revolver may or may not have been an option. These are gifts, you can keep them.
In other news, half of all general officers must by law be one-stars. Making your second star is a heavy lift.