One go-to argument some Second Amendment proponents cite against stronger gun safety laws is how our nation trusts 18-year-olds in the military to handle weapons of war.
The thinking goes something like this: Since 18-year-olds can vote and serve in the military, they should also have the right to own an assault-style rifle (no mention of drinking, renting cars or how the prefrontal cortex is still developing). We’ve heard this argument in the aftermath of Uvalde in which an 18-year-old gunman purchased a pair of AR-15-style rifles and murdered 19 children and two teachers.
So, let’s talk about how the military handles weapons.
Yes, the government does trust young people in the military with weapons. But that’s not the whole story. Unlike in the civilian world, the military vets people, oversees training and limits access to weapons.
Before anyone in the military handles a weapon, they endure aptitude testing, a physical exam, mental screening, a background check, a fitness assessment and a drug test.
They’ve also attested that they don’t have a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence conviction. The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 forbids anyone with one of these convictions to “ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.”
During training, military recruits learn how to safely handle and operate weapons under the guidance of experienced instructors with standardized syllabi. Those who don’t meet qualification standards get remedial training, and all must maintain recurrent qualifications.
Outside of a war zone, most people on a military base do not regularly carry or fire a weapon.
People on most bases are not as free to carry firearms as they are in many states. Only those with certain types of jobs, such as law enforcement, investigations, security or counterintelligence, are authorized to carry weapons on duty.
Commanders sign “arming letters” to give service members permission to carry weapons on duty. They also periodically review qualifications and training requirements, and can easily revoke arming privileges.
The military also maintains strict rules for the “safeguarding, storage, transport and carrying” of weapons.
Government firearms are stored in an armory when not in use, and there’s an accounting system for weapons and ammunition. Service members must store guns in locked cases when unattended or traveling.
Base commanders can permit someone to carry privately owned guns for personal protection unrelated to their work. However, they must submit a written request, be at least 21 years old, not be in trouble, demonstrate competency with the weapon, meet civilian legal requirements and not be intoxicated.
Joint Base San Antonio lets those who are eligible bring privately owned weapons “in a concealed carry configuration” onto base and store them in personal vehicles.
The vetting process is lengthy, requiring verifications, background checks, locking containers and signatures from commanders.
In other words, while on base, 18-year-olds who are vetted and trained do not have free rein with their privately owned weapons. But off base, 18-year-olds with no training or vetting are free to purchase and carry rifles.
We realize no safeguards will prevent all mass shootings — think of the shootings on Fort Hood in 2009 and 2014. But that’s not the point. Robust safeguards will undoubtedly prevent some forms of gun violence. After all, the military’s rules on weapons are likely written in blood from past tragedies.
We also know that the military spends a lot of time and resources on mitigating risk. And while certainly not perfect, when you consider the military’s demographics and responsibilities, it’s decent at managing risk.
Most Second Amendment advocates say they are patriots and military supporters. Many are veterans, and others like to wear military-style clothing or carry military-style weapons. If so, they should look to the military for gun safety laws.
The military requires vetting, age limits, background checks and training for its people. That’s not unconstitutional for the defenders of the Constitution, so why would it be for the rest of us?
San Antonio Express-News
