The House voted 215-214 Tuesday night to approve an amendment from Rep. Jeff Crank, R-Colo., that would establish a presumption of approval when qualified service members and Pentagon civilian employees request permission to carry personal firearms on military installations.
The vote came less than a year after an Army sergeant allegedly used a personal handgun to shoot five fellow soldiers at Fort Stewart, Georgia, in August 2025. Other soldiers tackled and disarmed him, and all five victims survived. Personal firearms were prohibited on post at the time, according to military officials.
Three Democrats joined most Republicans supporting the measure. Three Republicans and independent Rep. Kevin Kiley of California opposed it. The amendment would not automatically authorize personnel to carry firearms on military property but would shift the default from denial to approval for qualified applicants seeking commander permission.
What the Left Is Saying
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., a former Air Force officer, argued that the amendment undermines good order and discipline within military ranks. "This changes a fundamental dynamic on our installations," she said during floor debate. "Commanders need flexibility to address unit readiness and safety concerns specific to their formations."
Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., pointed to data from the Department of Defense showing that domestic violence incidents involving service members with access to firearms result in higher fatality rates. "We're not talking about hunters or sport shooters," she said. "We're talking about changing policy based on a single incident when the existing process has worked for decades."
The Congressional Progressive Caucus called the amendment "dangerous overreach" that circumvents military leadership's chain of command authority. Armed Forces Committee Democrats warned it could complicate base security protocols and create coordination challenges between civilian law enforcement and military police.
What the Right Is Saying
Rep. Jeff Crank, R-Colo., who authored the amendment, said service members face threats on and off base that current prohibitions do not address. "Our troops defending this country should have the right to defend themselves," he stated. "Commanders already have discretion under current law—this simply ensures qualified individuals aren't arbitrarily denied."
Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., a retired Air Force brigadier general, supported the measure, arguing it provides an additional layer of protection for personnel living on isolated installations. "There are real security gaps at some of our facilities," he said. "This gives trained professionals a path to protect themselves and their families."
The National Rifle Association and several veterans' organizations praised the amendment as correcting what they described as an unfair restriction on Second Amendment rights for those who serve. House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Lisa McClain called it "a common-sense measure that respects the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform."
What the Numbers Show
The vote margin of 215-214 represents the narrowest possible passage in the chamber, with the GOP holding a thin majority requiring near-unanimous Republican support. Three Republicans—Reps. Mike Lawler of New York, David Joyce of Ohio, and Rep. Young Kim of California—joined all voting Democrats in opposition.
The Fort Stewart shooting in August 2025 resulted in five injuries but no fatalities after fellow soldiers intervened. The suspect was an Army sergeant who allegedly used a personal handgun registered to his vehicle despite the post's prohibition on personal firearms.
Current Pentagon policy, established through Defense Department Directive 5210.56, prohibits carrying personally owned weapons on military installations without specific authorization. Commanders may grant exceptions for hunting, sport shooting competitions, or security concerns but maintain broad discretion to deny requests.
The NDAA amendment is part of the larger fiscal year 2027 defense authorization bill, which would authorize approximately $1.15 trillion for national defense—about $252 billion more than Congress appropriated for defense programs in fiscal year 2026.
The Bottom Line
The narrow passage highlights Republican leaders' reliance on their slim majority as the House works through NDAA amendments this week. The firearms provision now heads to the Senate, where it will face scrutiny from both chambers' Armed Services Committees during conference negotiations.
Military installation commanders and base security officials have expressed mixed views on implementation challenges. Pentagon spokespeople said they are reviewing the amendment's language but declined to comment on specific operational concerns before the bill reaches conference.
The broader NDAA includes provisions on military pay raises of 5% to 7%, weapons production expansion, and accelerating investment in missile defense and autonomous systems. The bill would also rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War—a provision included in the legislation that drew less attention than the firearms debate.
Debate on remaining amendments continues Wednesday, with final passage expected later this week after lawmakers work through approximately 320 proposed changes.