How to Arm Your Spouse

May 22, 2015 / Comments (25)


With ISIS now targeting American soldiers and their families, the GOP wants to take action to protect them.  They have proposed a bill that would allow military spouses to buy and possess firearms wherever they are stationed in the US.


Currently, under the Gun Control Act of 1968, civilians can only buy guns in the state where they legally reside.  An exception has been made for soldiers, since they may be stationed in a state that is not their legal residence.  This bill, however, would expand that exception to include the spouses of service members.

Click here to learn more.

“Considering the threats we face from Islamic extremists, foreign and domestic, and lone wolves, it is prudent that our military families have the tools they need to protect their loved ones,” he said.

“Spouses should be able to purchase handguns in the state where their husband or wife is stationed,” he added. “They have the right to protect themselves, and this bill allows them to fully exercise their 2nd Amendment right.”

Are you in favor of arming military spouses?  Let us know in the comments.

Want more? Check out other articles on our site:

25 Obscure Bushcraft Survival Skills

13 Top Survival Skills | Learn Now, Survive Later

This Simple Trick Could Be the KEY to Survival

25 Responses to :
How to Arm Your Spouse

  1. Dennis Cox says:

    Arming military spouses is only the most basic of common sense. Unfortunately, this is the commodity that is the most lacking-especially in the Democrap Party!

    1. Ron says:

      Absolutely! In fact, the Pentagon should be proactive and enroll every military spouse in a firearms safety/self defense course, the successful completion of which would enable the spouse to be issued a U.S. military sidearm. Don’t hold your breath for this to happen, however.

      1. Greg Day says:

        Trouble with the military furnishing the weapons?
        It’s several fold…
        They wouldn’t own them, so they must “turn them in” on demand or when spouse retires-and can you imagine the progtards screaming of ‘a WASTE of taxpayer money, which could be better used to pay welfare, food stamps and other entitlements”!!!
        I believe however that teaching self defense, firearm safety and training on a firing range would not just be helpful to them-it also is MORE armed & KNOWLEGEABLE defenders of innocent victims

      2. Skyhawk says:

        A .45 automatic is not quite suitable for most spouses. My wife finds a .38 special revolver more suitable.

        1. Rick says:

          Our military armories stock more then just .45’s. My father served undercover in Berlin during the time of the “Wall” and wore a suit to work rather then a uniform. His issued sidearm was a Walther .380. Our government armories not only have .380’s, but .38 special and 9mm in a variety of sizes. So they could provide whatever the spouses are most comfortable carrying. After several trips to a range they would become comfortable with any recoil and you would be surprised at what some women prefer as a concealed carry. I know a number of women that are proficient with a 1911, but others may prefer the lighter recoil of a 9mm or .38 special. It mainly depends on the gun they are shooting. A heavier gun has much lighter felt recoil then some of the lighter, small frame, polymer guns that are now popular. They can be given an option as to what they are most comfortable with, if provided for them.

  2. Candace Smith says:

    Yes, most definitely! !!
    Our government would be doing a huge injustice not to allow this just on principal alone!!! If we know the threat is clearly there, why wouldn’t one be allowed and encouraged to protect life, limb, and property??? I think it’s sad, but at the same time…our government has allowed so much to slip under the fence…now it’s come down to a matter of life or death…if we don’t look out for and protect each of our own kind now, it could be very detrimental to our country as a whole!!!!

  3. AR says:

    It’s a great idea.

  4. Craig Bathurst says:

    Absolutely !!!!

  5. Sparky43207 says:

    Most definitely. Most spouses are living out of their home state to be with their spouses and not by choice.

  6. cool breeze says:

    i’m in favor of arming all righteous and patriotic americans

  7. Greg Day says:

    In fact, why shouldn’t ANY American be ‘allowed’ to purchase and posess a legal firearm ANYWHERE in the US-an UNINFRINGEABLE right under the 2nd ammendment!???!!

  8. Rick says:

    Our government has in its armories, millions of retired weapons that are still serviceable that could easily be made available to these spouses at no charge. The weapons are just sitting in storage taking up space and will not be released to the public like they used to do in the past, because of all of the gun control debates going on. It used to be common for the government to sell to the public any obsolete inventory.

    1. Ron says:

      This is exactly what I was suggesting. I wasn’t implying that spouses should be given the current-issue sidearm. There is undoubtedly a huge inventory of very adequate weapons which used to be disposed of through the DCM program that could be re-purposed for this program. Perhaps a very nominal “purchase” fee could be charged upon issuance, obviating any need for said weapon to be turned in when the service member retires or the family is transferred. A special permit should also be issued upon completion of the training course I mentioned previously, allowing the weapon to be possessed/carried on any U.S. military post.

  9. Lori Volkman says:

    I’m a military spouse, and one who has been threatened – by first and last name – by ISIS “sympathizers.” Google my name and Cavuto and you’ll see what I mean. I’m lucky because I live in my state of residence, but most spouses don’t. I’m a former prosecutor and now a military family advocate, and I can tell you that there are already federal exceptions that allow military families to do things like drive, get certain occupational licenses, and conduct business in states other than their own. If federal law can control driving out of state, certainly a law can be enacted for a constitutionally protected right. I would happily testify.

  10. DanInOsprey says:

    And, after meeting reasonable requirements, let them both – soldiers and spouses – carry on base. Whenever my wife and I drive up to MacDill AFB, for BX and Commissary, ID cards, etc. – whatever business I may have there as a military retiree – I am supposed to (and always do) first drive to the armory there and check whatever guns we may be packing, and then pick them up before leaving. Personally I think that’s crazy. It’s also why that muslim major Nidal could freely shoot up a facility at Ft. Hood, TX against UNARMED soldiers, some of whom probably had Texas carry permits. Gun free zones are as stupid and wrong as “Free speech zones” on campus and as dumb (and wrong) as opposition to positive voter ID. Why do rational adults let the dumbest among us make the rules?

  11. Rick says:

    It is unfortunate, but the times we are living in are far different from the past generations. We are now facing terrorists on our own home turf. The news reports of IS establishing compounds just across the border in Mexico, and there is no telling how many are in our country at this time. Our armed services personnel serve their country, putting their lives on the line for far less money then most employees in the private sector. We owe it to them to offer as much protection to their families as we can, while they are away on assignments. Our government is trying to reduce retirement benefits to our service men and women, and it is just plain wrong! We need to give them the respect and benefits they deserve. And help them to provide a life for their families without having to resort to food stamps! We live in the greatest country in the world. But, it is declining rapidly, and we need to reverse this trend before it gets any worse. Just my humble opinion!

  12. Rick says:

    I know it is a different topic, but gun control is not the answer to our nations problems with violence. You can restrict all the guns you want but the thugs and criminals will still have guns. They do not obey the laws to begin with, and certainly won’t obey any gun control laws. The more the chance of a citizen being armed, the less chance the criminals will target them as a easy target. History proves this. You can’t pass a law and have it to prevent criminals from committing crimes. It just doesn’t work that way.

    1. Ron says:

      The terrorists certainly don’t care about our laws. Like Hitler in Germany during the 1920s and -30s, they are trying to destroy democracy using the tools of democracy. If anything, they use our own laws to protect themselves against us!

  13. dittybop says:

    this makes perfect sense to me! maybe the troops should also be armed while stationed here, so as to prevent another Ft. Hood!

  14. Skyhawk says:


  15. Karen R says:

    I believe in everyone being armed. Not just against ISIS. Against any threat, including the many poisonous snakes we have in Texas…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


We would like to pass along this  sure-fire report to keeping your firearms. 


Please fill out the form below :

Please fill out the form below :