Surprisingly, apart from a select few personnel, military installations are generally regarded as gun-free zones. Up until recently, only specific security teams, like military police, were permitted to carry firearms while on duty.
Commanders enforced strict consequences for other servicemembers caught with weapons, which could range from demotion and pay cuts to court-martial, dishonorable discharge, or even imprisonment.
Many argue that these penalties do not dissuade attackers. After all, gun control isn’t likely to affect those intent on harming fellow soldiers.
Just look at the incidents at Holloman Air Force Base in 2026, Fort Stewart in 2025, the Naval Air Station in Pensacola in 2019, Chattanooga’s recruiting base in 2015, the Fort Hood shootings in both 2014 and 2009, and the Navy Yard attack in 2013. Combined, these tragic events resulted in 24 deaths and left 38 people injured. In each case, unarmed personnel—like JAG officers and Marines—were forced to shield themselves while the shooters continued their rampage.
However, that dynamic shifted with comments from Army Secretary Pete Hegseth.
Up until recently, it has been nearly impossible for Department of the Army employees to get authorization to carry and store personal firearms, aligning with state laws. Effectively, guns were banned on military bases nationwide unless you were part of a training program or a military policeman.
When troops were deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, carrying weapons was mandatory, even on bases. These soldiers needed to defend themselves against legitimate threats, and oddly enough, there haven’t been reports of them turning their firearms on one another.
So, it begs the question: Why would we want to make it simpler for assailants to target military personnel? Why leave soldiers at Fort Stewart vulnerable against armed attackers with nothing to defend themselves?
This situation wasn’t always the case. The reorganization of the military initiated by the George H.W. Bush administration in 1992 introduced stricter firearm regulations. By 1993, President Clinton refined these rules, effectively outlawing personal firearms on base.
If we trust civilians with guns, why not the military? “Our service members undergo superior training,” Hegseth noted.
Clearly, these penalties don’t prevent attacks. Gun control measures don’t deter those who are set on committing violence against their peers. Most mass shooters don’t expect to survive, meaning that threats of further punishment likely don’t carry much weight for them, especially given the potential for life sentences or execution.
Yet, these regulations put a heavy burden on law-abiding soldiers. When they carry firearms for personal protection, they risk being labeled as felons, jeopardizing their futures. These policies not only disarm innocent individuals but also signal to determined attackers that they won’t encounter armed resistance.
While military police manage base entry points, they can’t be omnipresent like civilian police forces. Military installations operate more like towns, facing similar challenges as civilian law enforcement does in mass shooting scenarios.
Uniformed personnel are easily identifiable, which offers a tactical edge to attackers. They might wait for an officer to leave or focus on another victim. In either case, there’s a reduced chance that law enforcement will be available to thwart the attack. And, if violence breaks out, who do you suppose will be the primary target?
Interestingly, studies have revealed that civilians with concealed carry permits can often deter active shooters. Conversely, even though police respond to fewer incidents, attackers are more likely to kill officers.
Following the second Fort Hood terrorist attack, Gen. Mark Milley, who led the base’s III Corps at the time, testified, “We had law enforcement on-site to respond… Police arrived within eight minutes, and the suspect was neutralized.” But those eight minutes were tragically too long for three slain soldiers and 12 others injured.
Again and again, killers exploit regulations ensuring they won’t face armed opposition. The writings of mass shooters frequently reflect a disturbing tendency: they deliberately select gun-free zones where potential victims cannot defend themselves.
It’s telling that over 93% of public mass shootings occur in locations where firearms are prohibited.
Ironically, soldiers holding concealed carry permits can protect themselves off-base but find themselves defenseless on military grounds. Fortunately, recent changes are set to alter that landscape.
Allowing trained military personnel to carry firearms on base reestablishes their basic right to protect themselves and others in life-threatening situations. Disarming the very individuals we rely on during combat does nothing to enhance safety and only serves to leave our military at risk when they should remain secure.
