Watch LCDR White receive a Letter of Reprimand for his actions...

A Navy officer and one of the Marines murdered in last week's attack on a military center in Chattanooga fired their personal weapons at the gunman, according to a report published Wednesday.

The Navy Times, citing multiple military officials familiar with internal reports on the tragedy, reported that Lt. Cmdr. Timothy White, the commanding officer at the Navy Operational Support Center, fired his sidearm at Mohammed Abdulazeez during Thursday's attack.

The paper, citing a Navy official, also reported that one of the four Marines killed in the attack fired his 9mm Glock at the gunman. A Navy sailor also died in the shootout, as did the gunman. The possibility that the Marine had used his personal sidearm during the shooting was first reported by The Washington Post Monday.

A source close to the investigation told the Navy Times that while the details of the attack's final moments are unclear, authorities have uncovered no information that contradicts the Navy's own reporting.

Law enforcement sources told Fox News Tuesday that the FBI recovered the Glock at the scene and noted it did not belong to either the shooter or police. The sources said the weapon had been fired. Details about what type of weapon White used are unclear.

It is still unclear whether the shots that killed Abdulazeez were fired by White, the Marine, or local police. Fox News has learned that autopsies of the gunman and his victims have been completed and could be released later this week. The Navy Times reported that investigators won't know who fired the shots that stopped the rampage until a ballistics assessment is performed.

It is against Defense Department policy for anyone but military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property. It was not immediately clear whether White would face disciplinary action.

The shooting at so-called “gun-free” military installations in Tennessee has prompted calls for a policy change.

Governors in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Indiana and Florida have ordered National Guardsmen to be armed, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott relocated recruiters to armories.

U.S. military officials have said security at recruiting and reserve centers will be reviewed, but the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection. He said there are concerns about accidental discharges and other security issues related to carrying loaded weapons.

However, Gen. Mark Milley, the man tapped as Odierno's replacement as Army chief of staff, told the Senate Armed Services Committee Tuesday that if legal issues could be resolved he thinks it would be appropriate, in some cases, to arm soldiers manning recruiting stations.

Tucked in strip malls in rural and suburban communities and in high-traffic city spots like New York's Times Square, military recruiting and reserve stations are designed to be open and welcoming to the public. The troops inside aren't allowed to carry weapons.

The ban is largely due to legal issues, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. U.S. forces don't routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. And Pentagon officials are sensitive to any appearance of armed troops within the United States.

Meanwhile, The New York Times reported Wednesday that the gunman, 24-year-old Abdulazeez, searched the Internet in the days leading up to the attack for information from Islamic sources about whether martyrdom would to forgiveness for his sins, such as drunkenness. The Hixson, Tenn. native was due in court after being arrested in April on a charge of driving under the influence.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/22/nav...ga-gunman/

Well in Afghanistan and Iraq, Military recruiting/enlistment centers were primary choices for Islamic suicide bombers. I have No problem with Our Guys being armed with Automatic Weapons. Better safe than sorry.

(07-22-2015 12:25 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  It is against Defense Department policy for anyone but military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property. It was not immediately clear whether White would face disciplinary action.

Implicit here is that White survived the attack. It's hard to conceive what disciplinary action would be sufficient to discourage future such transgressions. It's hard to conceive what disciplinary action they could impose that would stick on his resume that would make it look bad in the future.

His resume will read:

• Survived attack by Islamic terrorist by firing back at him
  [*} Received *** as disciplinary action for firing his weapon at an Islamic terrorist
  

The chain of command will have to think on that a bit to figure out what the appropriate disciplinary action would be to accomplish both of the criteria mentioned above.

I swear I heard on the radio this morning that in Michigan it is legal (since March of this year) for active duty personnel at recruitment centers to carry their personal weapons at work.

I think they just have to have their CC license.

I guess maybe there's a reason they aren't armed?

Quote:GAINESVILLE, GA (CBS46) -
A Navy recruiter is recovering in the hospital after accidentally shooting himself with his personal weapon that he brought to work Friday morning.

Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office

(07-22-2015 02:19 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 12:25 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  It is against Defense Department policy for anyone but military police or law enforcement to carry weapons on federal property. It was not immediately clear whether White would face disciplinary action.

Implicit here is that White survived the attack. It's hard to conceive what disciplinary action would be sufficient to discourage future such transgressions. It's hard to conceive what disciplinary action they could impose that would stick on his resume that would make it look bad in the future.

His resume will read:

• Survived attack by Islamic terrorist by firing back at him
  [*} Received *** as disciplinary action for firing his weapon at an Islamic terrorist
  

The chain of command will have to think on that a bit to figure out what the appropriate disciplinary action would be to accomplish both of the criteria mentioned above.

The supplement to the supplement of the Medical Examiners Report issued in mid 2016 will determine that the fatal shot wasn't fired by the civilian Police Officer.

(07-22-2015 02:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I guess maybe there's a reason they aren't armed?

Quote:GAINESVILLE, GA (CBS46) -
A Navy recruiter is recovering in the hospital after accidentally shooting himself with his personal weapon that he brought to work Friday morning.

Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office

Yep, because we all know that our soldiers and military personnel can't be trusted to handle weapons properly. ESPECIALLY based on that one instance you linked.

You're a real pillar of this message board. Thanks for all you do.

Quote:The ban is largely due to legal issues, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. U.S. forces don't routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. And Pentagon officials are sensitive to any appearance of armed troops within the United States.

You know, this is something that has not been brought up too often and I think it's something that warrants further discussion. I am not for armed military off a military base in the sense I don't want an Humvee with a .50cal and manned by soldiers with M-16s at the mall, but I struggle to understand why a sidearm is prohibited.

There are two sides here. Interesting.

(07-22-2015 03:03 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 02:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I guess maybe there's a reason they aren't armed?

Quote:GAINESVILLE, GA (CBS46) -
A Navy recruiter is recovering in the hospital after accidentally shooting himself with his personal weapon that he brought to work Friday morning.

Man accidentally shoots self at military recruiting office

Yep, because we all know that our soldiers and military personnel can't be trusted to handle weapons properly. ESPECIALLY based on that one instance you linked.

You're a real pillar of this message board. Thanks for all you do.

"the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection. He said there are concerns about accidental discharges and other security issues related to carrying loaded weapons."

Is this a common issue? The instance Redwing quoted is just one instance of it but this quote makes we wonder.

(07-22-2015 03:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:The ban is largely due to legal issues, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. U.S. forces don't routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. And Pentagon officials are sensitive to any appearance of armed troops within the United States.

You know, this is something that has not been brought up too often and I think it's something that warrants further discussion. I am not for armed military off a military base in the sense I don't want an Humvee with a .50cal and manned by soldiers with M-16s at the mall, but I struggle to understand why a sidearm is prohibited.

There are two sides here. Interesting.

Posse Comitatus.

(07-22-2015 04:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  "the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection. He said there are concerns about accidental discharges and other security issues related to carrying loaded weapons."

Is this a common issue? The instance Redwing quoted is just one instance of it but this quote makes we wonder.

I doubt it's common, but isn't one accidental death too many should it happen?

(07-23-2015 09:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2015 04:41 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  "the Army's top officer, Gen. Ray Odierno, said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection. He said there are concerns about accidental discharges and other security issues related to carrying loaded weapons."

Is this a common issue? The instance Redwing quoted is just one instance of it but this quote makes we wonder.

I doubt it's common, but isn't one accidental death too many should it happen?

I think the 4 murders trump the 1 accidental death.

(07-22-2015 03:47 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:The ban is largely due to legal issues, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. U.S. forces don't routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. And Pentagon officials are sensitive to any appearance of armed troops within the United States.

You know, this is something that has not been brought up too often and I think it's something that warrants further discussion. I am not for armed military off a military base in the sense I don't want an Humvee with a .50cal and manned by soldiers with M-16s at the mall, but I struggle to understand why a sidearm is prohibited.

There are two sides here. Interesting.

If you've ever tried to get on base you'll find many military personnel, mostly security teams, armed to varying degrees. But that doesn't always mean that everyone within the perimeter is safe. as a determined attacker is difficult to thwart.