AUG 05, 2019
For nearly the past eight
months, I have served as the U.S. Army’s primary Physical Security Manager for
4th Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment in Germany. One of my chief responsibilities
in this role is to conduct inspections on my unit’s arms rooms, which serve as
storage facilities for military-grade assault rifles, machine guns and other
equipment. To pass the inspection, the storage facility must comply with a
strict set of standards. Furthermore, the person charged with issuing weapons,
as well as the end user, must meet a comprehensive set of criteria.
In my lifetime, incidents of
gun violence in the U.S. have progressed from rare anomalies to seemingly
everyday occurrences. Over the past week, the attack on Sunday in Dayton, Ohio,
the atrocious massacre in El Paso, Texas on Saturday, Tuesday’s shooting at a
Mississippi Walmart, and the Gilroy Garlic Festival shooting in California last
weekend have left 36 Americans dead and nearly 70 injured. These tragic events,
unfortunately, add to the growing tally of more than 250 mass shootings in the
U.S. this year alone, according to the nonprofit research group Gun Violence Archive, which
defines a mass shooting as an incident in which four or more people are shot,
not counting the perpetrator, in roughly the same place at the same time. That
is more than one a day.
Prior to joining the military,
I often wondered: What if there were a way to put military-grade restrictions
on military-grade assault rifles? And, if so, would the restrictions actually
reduce gun violence? Spoiler alert: there is, and they do. Preventing improper
storage and the civilian use of military-grade weapons is straightforward: We
must thoroughly examine situations in which they are properly stored and
employed.
The weapons storage facilities
in my squadron each consist of one small room that contains approximately 50 to
100 M4 assault rifles along with other weapons and equipment. The facilities
are equipped with a motion-sensor intruder detection system, a General Services
Administration-approved vault door and a high-security lock that provides
resistance to physical attacks and even protects against liquid nitrogen
exposure. Failure to meet those standards is unacceptable; in the event of a
breach in established security protocol or established security requirements,
the unit is held liable and ceases operations until the deficiencies are
corrected.
Conversely, in the civilian
world, very few Americans who own firearms comply with standards anywhere close
to those of a military-grade arms room. This is also unacceptable. Yet in many
states, firearm owners are not held liable for crimes that occur as a result of
improper weapon storage. In short, U.S. civilian firearm policy should follow the
military’s example of consolidated weapons storage facilities with
multi-layered security measures to avoid weapons falling into improper hands.
Each of the six weapons
storage facilities in my unit is managed by an “armorer”—a soldier charged with
maintaining the facility and issuing weapons to soldiers. To serve as the
facility “armorer,” the soldier must conduct a security screening that is
signed by his or her unit commander, security clearance manager, medical
provider, provost marshal and non-military local law enforcement. All of these
checks ensure that the person is reliable and will not abuse his or her
privilege. Although a great amount of confidence is placed in the “armorer,”
that soldier does not maintain the keys to the weapons facility. Instead, the
keys are maintained, inventoried, locked and kept under 24-hour surveillance by
an independent entity. That entity only issues the keys to the “armorer.”
Comparatively, the keys to access locked firearms in a private residence are
rarely, if ever, constantly watched. Independent, trustworthy weapons issuers,
sellers, distributors and key guards would prevent unauthorized access to
deadly assault rifles.
Nearly 600 soldiers in my
squadron have access to military-grade assault rifles. Many of these personnel
are soldiers who undergo a strict background check. After a substantial review
period, many obtain a valid security clearance, and thus are entrusted with our
nation’s most sensitive information. In other words, a security clearance is an
intangible badge of significant and considerable trust.
However, even the immense
trust granted to those soldiers does not extend to their handling of a
military-grade assault rifle. No soldiers are permitted to store their assigned
assault rifle at their personal residence, nor do they have permission to
transport their weapon in a personal vehicle. Soldiers are also limited to
possessing one rifle at any given moment for a training exercise. What’s more,
even the most reliable soldiers must specify to the weapon issuer what is the
intended reason for, and duration of, their weapon use.
The military established these
important guidelines for soldiers because military-grade assault rifles are
killing machines. Yet everyday Americans with a less thorough background check,
or even none at all, are held to a lesser standard than our nation’s trusted
military personnel. Firearm policy solutions must target and resolve this
paradox.
While strict, U.S. Army
weapons storage regulations are clear, easily understood, efficiently
implemented, multi-layered and enforceable. The U.S. Army is a standard-bearer
of safe firearm policy. Ironic, isn’t it, that conservative gun rights
advocates tend to be reflexively pro-military but would never agree to the
application of any of that same military’s gun-safety standards? Consider it
hypocrisy of the highest order.
U.S. Army practices show that
strictly regulated weapons facilities, access to firearms and training for
assault rifles directly promote proper and safe firearm use. “Heavy hearts” and
“thoughts and prayers” are not enough for family and friends who have lost
loved ones to gun violence, and we should not continue to pretend that they
are. If the U.S. Army is consolidating the storage of military-grade weapons
and requiring strict background checks for those personnel issuing and
receiving such weapons, why doesn’t the government adopt the same policy
guidelines for civilians?
One last spoiler alert: It
should.
No comments:
Post a Comment