Why arming military recruiters after Chattanooga is so legally complicated – The Washington Post

“Arming DoD personnel (i.e., administrative, assessment, or inspection, not regularly engaged in or directly supervising security or law enforcement activities) shall be limited to missions or threats and the immediate need to protect DoD assets or persons’ lives,” the directive continues. “DoD Components have the discretion to keep designated staff personnel qualified and available or on call to perform duties.”

That directive can be changed by the Pentagon or adapted to suit its current needs. It has similarities to the 1992 version issued during President George H.W. Bush’s administration, and an earlier one released in 1969, Henderson said. That would appear to give Carter leeway to arm more service members at military installations on federal property like Fort Hood. But it’s unclear what the military can do for recruiters. They commonly work out of commercially leased office space, and must adhere to state laws when it comes to carrying weapons in public.

via Why arming military recruiters after Chattanooga is so legally complicated – The Washington Post.

I do not see where state law impinges on the supremacy of federal law here, provided recruiters and other service personnel are carrying government issued weapons in the performance of their duties.

By Mr. Lamothe’s reasoning, the troops engaged in training in Jade Helm or its smaller cousin Robin Sage would be operating under the auspices of Texas, North Carolina, and various other state firearms laws. That simply isn’t the case.

Furthermore, while recruiting stations are typically commercially leased properties, they are considered as federal installations, just as any other federal government offices using leased property.

There are issues to work out. But state laws have nothing to do with it.