Uniformed servicemembers can request to carry their personal firearms on military installations, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in a video posted to social media Thursday, sparking mixed reaction from veterans in a community that’s at the center of the mental health conversation and knows weapons better than anyone else.

“The War Department’s uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards,” Hegseth said. “These warfighters, entrusted with the safety of our nation, are no less entitled to exercise their God given right to keep and bear arms than any other American.”

“Our warfighters defend the right of others to carry. They should be able to carry themselves,” he continued, signing a memo on camera that he said would direct installation commanders to allow requests “with the presumption that it is necessary for personal protection.”

Previously, privately owned firearms had to be kept off base or in some places, approved for storage in the armory.

Representatives for San Diego bases – including Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego and Naval Air Station North Island – pointed inquiries on how those requests would be processed and how the new policy would be implemented to the Pentagon, which has released few details beyond Hegseth’s announcement.

A release from the department said the memo makes the undersecretary of war for intelligence and security responsible for updating the manual that lays out physical security measures and will authorize officials to review those requests.

“If a request is for some reason denied, the reason for that denial will be in writing and will explain — in detail — the basis for that direction,” Hegseth said. 

He pointed to incidents on bases, including  a deadly shooting last August at Fort Stewart in Georgia, and another at a New Mexico Air Force base last month, as motivation in part for the policy change.

“In these instances, minutes are a lifetime, and our servicemembers have the courage and training to make those precious short minutes count,” Hegseth said.

The change inspired mixed reaction from veterans, much like the national gun debate in a microcosm: some believed it would offer more protection while others worried shootings and suicides would rise.

“I believe this is a step in the right direction for safety,” said Marine Corps veteran Lance Gilson, who spent more than six years at Camp Pendleton.

“There were a lot of times where I thought about, you know what, if something happened right here, right now, is the military police going to be able to respond quick enough?” he said.

“It is my job to protect not only myself, but the others around me and ones who can’t protect themselves,” Gilson continued. “On military bases, it’s not just military personnel. You have civilians, families that live there. And if you’re not able to respond to them in time, you know, that to me is a concerning feeling — knowing that I can respond but I don’t have the tools necessary to be able to effectively respond in that timely manner.”

“I will definitely be more on edge,” said Navy veteran Ryan McCullough, who owned a handgun before he enlisted, storing it with his parents for his five years on base. He said he never felt he needed his personal weapon and was comforted by the fact that no one else had one. “You start hearing stories about soldiers having weapons at boot camp and turning on their own people. You’re like, ‘Oh, there’s a reason why they disarm these people on the base.’”

“I’m not just, you know, a purple hair, left-wing, somebody from California that … wants more gun control,” he said. “There were guards 24-7, right, making the rounds. There was people within your battalion checking on you. So I felt more safe there than I had ever felt before, which is surprising because I thought, ‘Okay, at home, I feel the most safe with my weapon.’”

And after a Navy buddy committed suicide with a firearm a few years ago, McCullough said he worries about more weapons on base, cautioning civilians who may cheer the change.

“It’s different for that person to own a weapon than it is for somebody who just got trained to kill and has lots of things going on and lots more stresses than you,” McCullough said.

“That does concern me, but I do hope that there’s going to be a vetted process whenever they do go through it,” Gilson said of the suicide risk. “Especially mental health check-up, and I think that the leaders will be able to gauge that pretty well, especially at the junior level. And I think that will help mitigate any further suicides, and I pray.”

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court ruling that first equated campaign spending with “free speech.” Sixteen years ago, Citizens United extended similar rights to corporations and unions.

The results are clear: an explosion of campaign spending and growing concern that our democracy is being dominated by a small, wealthy few. In California, outside money plays an outsized role, causing our elections to be among the most expensive in the nation.

Polling shows broad, bipartisan agreement that money has too much influence in politics.

Americans want voters and elected officials — not the courts — to set the rules.

The solution is a constitutional amendment to restore the authority of Congress and the states to regulate campaign spending. We have amended the Constitution before to correct our nation’s course. It’s time to do it again and put “We the People” back in charge.

— Rosalind Hirst, Normal Heights