We trust our soldiers with weapons while deployed, we can trust them on base

This month, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth signed a memorandum that finally brings some sanity to security on U.S. military installations.

Titled “Non-Official Personal Protection Arming on Department of War Property,†the policy lets service members apply for permission to carry their privately owned firearms on base.

To a lot of folks that might sound like another bureaucratic tweak, but for those of us who have worn the uniform, and especially for a guy like me who spent years as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force, then built a career as a gunsmith, it's a long-overdue acknowledgment of reality. The Second Amendment shouldn't be checked at the main gate.

For years, military bases have lived with a ridiculous contradiction.

We take young men and women, train them rigorously with weapons, deploy them overseas where they make life-and-death decisions under fire, and count on their discipline and judgment. Then we bring them back to live with their families, shop at the commissary and go about daily life, only to tell them they have to disarm in the very places they call home.

That never made sense. In today's threat environment, it's become downright dangerous.

Remember the 2019 terrorist attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola? Three service members dead, eight more wounded by an extremist right there on base.

Last August, five soldiers were shot at Fort Stewart, Ga., not by some foreign enemy but by one of their own. And earlier this year, a shooting at Holloman AFB  in New Mexico left one person dead and another injured.

These weren't battlefield casualties halfway around the world. They happened right here on American soil, inside installations that are supposed to be among the safest places in the country.

The hard truth is violence doesn't respect base perimeters.

Whether it's terrorism or insider threats, today's military bases face real risks. And for too long, policy has forced trained, responsible service members into unarmed vulnerability.

I've spent my life around firearms, and I know what it takes to handle a weapon safely and effectively under stress. Service members have already proven they can do that.

Critics will counter that more guns on base means more risk. It ignores the obvious: These aren't random civilians off the street.

They're uniformed service members who have passed weapons proficiency training and background checks, and live under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Every one of those tragic incidents on base happened while good people were stripped of the tools to fight back.

“Gun-free zones†aren't safe zones — they are target zones. Bad guys with evil intent don't read the signs and suddenly decide to behave. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun who is ready and able to act.

If we trust our troops to carry arms and defend the nation overseas, it's insulting to tell them they can't protect themselves, their spouses and their kids on the base.

Seconds count in a crisis. Military police are outstanding, but they can't be everywhere at once. Service members who live and work on post know the layout, the routines and the people. Empowering the responsible ones among them is common sense, not recklessness.

 Hegseth's policy change gets back to a basic American principle — constitutional rights aren't optional or dependent on your location. They're yours wherever you go.

I've seen firsthand the responsibility that comes with bearing arms and the trust it requires.

This memo places that trust where it belongs: in the hands of the men and women who have already sworn to defend this country.

That trust is well-earned. It's about time policy caught up with reality.

Glenn Fleming served as a staff sergeant in the U.S. Air Force. He lives in Kerrville.

Have a response? Send us a letter to the editor.