CCW for Active Duty Military Personnel.

[Poogsdad]

Recently on CalCCW.com a young Marine stationed in Southern California inquired about obtaining a CCW. My perception is that this desire is becoming more and more common among Active Duty Military Personnel, not just in California, but throughout the US as well.

This young Marine recieved a lot of good advice from many members of the CalCCW Forum. This was my response:

Generally speaking, military personnel when off post and out of uniform, are no different than any other resident.

However, some approving authorities may have some exemptions for active duty military personnel.

For example a federal and or state background check may be waived because active duty military personnel are federal employees and subject to periodic federal background investigations that are quite a bit more intrusive than anything a State or Local approval authority may require.

Training requirements or testing regarding safe weapons handling may also be waived for active duty or retired military personnel. Here in California, for example, I believe active, reserve, or honorably retired military personnel are exempt from the requirement to have a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) to purchase a Handgun.

Some military personnel, such as Military Police, Corrections Officers, CID Investigators, and Special Operations personnel regularly carry weapons off-post during the course of their normal duties. State or local approval authorities may recognize this and waive the requirements for a CCW under these circumstances.

Please remember, however, that the quality of the relationship shared between the local military organizations and the local approval authorities will play a large part in any waivers or exemptions afforded military personnel. Whether the State is "Shall Issue" or "Discretionary Issue" will also play a part as well.

If waivers or exemptions are afforded active duty military personnel, it is quite likely that a Provost Marshal Endorsement will be required.

By way of disclaimer, the information provided above is based upon my own experiences while on active duty at Fort McClellan, AL and Fort Bragg, NC.

Both Alabama and North Carolina are "Shall Issue" states and are also very "Military Friendly". Unfortunately, California is neither of these.

Given world events of the last few years, however, and a renewed appreciation for military personnel here in California, I would not rule out the possibility that some counties may eventually afford some waivers or exemptions to miltary personnel regarding CCW.

Thanks,


Though my response was specific to California CCW Requirements and probably is more appropriately posted in the California Section of this forum, I felt it may have some value for other Active Duty Military personnel elsewhere in the US.

Thanks,

[Stubob]

We are getting a ton of e-mails from our active duty Military looking to get their permits for when they get back from overseas, or in the states looking to get their permits.

One common thread is "Our Government will trust us to give up our lives for the freedom of others, but we can not carry a side arm when we get home."

I would like to see the Military have the same benefits as our Law Enforcement with the ability to carry in any state. We have the greatest Military on the planet because of our people. I would love to move into a housing addition with all Vets or active duty.
I bet the crime rate would be ZERO.

There are many states that have the Verteran exceptions and each state is different. We are trying to get these together and post. Like Texas does not require Vets to take the shooting portion, and other states do.

Thanks for posting.

[Ford Truck]

I served in the U.S. Army from Jan69-Jan72 & I vividly remember the disdain my First Sgt. had for anyone in my battery who had a privately owned firearm. They had to keep it in the Arms Room & sign it out & sign it in & such behaviour was "discouraged". There was almost an air of panic when privately owned firearms were signed out for any reason. We used to shoot trap & it was a lot of fun, but we paid for it. It's alight to voluntarily offer yourself up to be thrown into the meatgrinder of war, but don't expect to be able to utilize your 2nd Amendment rights while you're defending those rights. That's just one of the reasons I didn't stay in the Army. I could go on, but I don't want to get on a rant.

[DMorrison]

I of course have already spoken my mind in regards to the military, restricting our rights. Not only the 2nd amendment but others. Stubob, I think you might be right, if you lived in a community full of vets or military, especially if they have got a taste of combat you will be hard pressed to find a criminal ready to invade it. And at the unlocked gates with no security, a sign should display my favorite dysfunctional vet quote, "I've killed better men then you!"

And thanks for your confidence in our armed forces, although I have to say i don't agree with the idea that we should be extended the same right as cops. At least not all of us. Many of you know there are soldiers and there are combat soldiers. And there are many types of soldiers, pay clerks, cooks, mechanics. They all play their role, and each of them is important. However the most action their weapon ever sees is going through the clearing procedure going into the Chow Hall. I would like to see a federal CCW program, that involves a screening and training process for soldiers. Because the streets of Iraq aren't the same as Mainstreet USA. I feel soldiers should have the option to carry off-duty, as many do. They should be given a nationwide life time permit, screened and given the rights that they defend, hell at least that one. But then again, i feel any responsible citizen should have that right. But it won't happen, because as disgusting as it is, there are scum-bag soldiers who use their volunteering to go to war as an excuse to commit less then admiral activities. Soldiers who play the PTSD card, many not even earning it. It's sad, but it's true.

That, and the potential for a scandal is high, and like any major corporation CEO nothing scares a general more then a scandal. Sometime i'll tell you guys why US Army AK has posted a policy against it's soldiers carrying POW's (Privately Owned Weapons)

[pioneer461]

I would like to see the Military have the same benefits as our Law Enforcement with the ability to carry in any state.

Generally speaking, law enforcement officers cannot carry in any state. In most states off duty officers may only carry in their home state, with some exceptions, and generally have no police powers in other states.

In order to qualify to carry in all states, under HR218, officers and retired officers must go through annual qualification, and meet certain other criteria.

Just because someone is in the military, they should not automatically have CCW permits issued. They should be vetted, just as everyone else.
Anyone who has been in the military, especially those who have been Military Police, know that not all military personnel are necessarily the most upstanding members of the community. Some, sadly, are downright scoundrels.

[DMorrison]

My initial reaction was defensive Pioneer. Everybody has their Sh**bags. Although has a hard headed Grunt, i gotta say most of ours ARE MPs (all in jest guys) in fact I agree I don't believe service memebers need a free pass, camoflauge doesn't mean you know how handle gun, or a situation that requires a gun. Either way, I just hope the military will universaly accept state standards on CCWs.

[deathintheafternoon]

Generally speaking, law enforcement officers cannot carry in any state. In most states off duty officers may only carry in their home state, with some exceptions, and generally have no police powers in other states.

In order to qualify to carry in all states, under HR218, officers and retired officers must go through annual qualification, and meet certain other criteria.

LEO can now carry under LEOSA, which passed in 2004
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-218
Are the provisions of the final law that much of a serious barrier to LEO carrying? Exactly what kind of LE organization doesn't require officers to qualify with their weapon etc? If this is true, then the law needs to be amended. Given all the resistance Ted Kennedy gave the Senate version, I'm sure any provisions were necessary compromises to get it passed. But to paraphrase both Reagan and T. Roosevelt on practical politics, you take what you can get today and go back tomorrow for the rest.

As for CCW for military:,

1. In Georgia, which contains many bases, you CAN carry concealed if you are active duty military, under the same statute as off-duty LEO.
Check LexusNexus http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/default.asp
OCGA 16-11-130
This was the subject of controversy at first but was clarified in an attorney general's opinion, which you can also find online.

I would carry a copy of both docs with your military ID, as local LEO don't always know the laws they are charged with upholding, and aren't always military friendly, though usually.

2. Anyone in the military can pretty easily obtain a Florida CCW permit by mail. You can use a photocopy your ID for the training requirement, and can get the provost marshall, (or G-2 office that does clearances) to do fingerprints (usually free). If you make a few phone calls you can do everything in a day. Such a permit gives you most of the US shall issue states by reciprocity. Not perfect, but a practical COA.

3. On a practical level, anyone who is a commissioned officer, must obtain a Secret or higher clearance. They and any enlisted soldier with a Secret or higher clearance must have had a criminal background investigation performed. Also, qualifying with a personal weapon is one of the AWT (Army Warrior Tasks) which every soldier must complete annually, regardless of MOS. So there is no practical reason, at a minimum, why every commissioned officer in the military shouldn't be automatically able to carry the same as an off-duty LEO. The same should probably also be true for NCOs who have a clearance, which is most NCOs E6 and above. It may be different in other branches, but that's the way I see it as from an active Army perspective.

But let's get to the heart of the matter instead of dancing around it.

Just because someone is in the military, they should not automatically have CCW permits issued. They should be vetted, just as everyone else.
Anyone who has been in the military, especially those who have been Military Police, know that not all military personnel are necessarily the most upstanding members of the community. Some, sadly, are downright scoundrels.

The larger issue, is that the 2nd Amendment is not a second class right. You cannot nor should not be deprived of any constitutional rights without due process. When you start to talk about training requirements and "vetting" what you are really doing is walking down a slippery slope to "may issue".

While I wince at many of the folks who join me at the polls on election day, I prefer that discomfort to the alternative. I don't want an an abridged right that can only be exercised with the approval of a government bureaucrat, paperwork filled in triplicate, and hundreds of dollars in fees. Poll taxes and property requirements aren't freedom.

Neither is prior restraint in the exercise of a right. It is illegal to abuse freedom of expression by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but there can be no prior restraint. Would we accept the notion that only properly trained, licensed, and vetted individuals should exercise the right to free expression? Should only "licensed journalists" with a degree in journalism be allowed to blog, or post on forums about politics?

Why would we accept such an arguement with regard to our most important freedom, the freedom to defend our lives, liberty, and property? States like Alaska and Vermont have it right. If you are a convicted felon prohibited by law or terms of parole from keeping or bearing arms, and you get caught, you should pay the price. We should not however make criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens, or create bureaucratic barriers to the practice of fundamental, inalienable rights, just because the thought of others exercising their rights makes us "uneasy". Whether folks are military, LEO, or a left-handed basket-weaver shouldn't matter.

[DMorrison]

Firstly, thanks for that information about Georgia. And I agree absolutely in regards to Alaska and Vermont's intelligent implementation of CCW laws. I would like to add in regards to your military it is my experience that almost e every soldier, at least in Brigade Combat Team, has his secret clearance. I know it's a requirement for Infantry, and know quite a few privates who have jumped through hoops to get it. We have Iraq to thank for that. But I have to say, I find shooting a rifle/carbine is very different then shooting a handgun, and the annual qualification is I will say almost exclusively with the rifle. For example a normal Infantry platoon, (apr 40 ind) has two pistols amongst them. Usually given to their 240 gunners. But like you said, it truly shouldn't matter, and upstanding citizen should be able to carry if it is their decision to do so. So all this talk really goes back to, as you said, "Big Brother" accepting the 2nd amendment as it reads.

[pioneer461]

In order to qualify to carry in all states, under HR218, officers and retired officers must go through annual qualification, and meet certain other criteria.

LEO can now carry under LEOSA, which passed in 2004
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-218
Are the provisions of the final law that much of a serious barrier to LEO carrying? Exactly what kind of LE organization doesn't require officers to qualify with their weapon etc? If this is true, then the law needs to be amended. Given all the resistance Ted Kennedy gave the Senate version, I'm sure any provisions were necessary compromises to get it passed. But to paraphrase both Reagan and T. Roosevelt on practical politics, you take what you can get today and go back tomorrow for the rest.

I'm not sure where to begin.

A. Take a look at my signiture line. "HR 218 qualified." That means I know what I'm talking about, at least on this issue. 8)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

B. "Are the provisions of the final law that much of a serious barrier to LEO carrying?"

The only barriers I know of to any qualified officer is at the local and state level, for political reasons. In my case, my home police department's chief refuses to qualify retirees. I therefore, had to find another department in Oregon willing to qualify the retirees of other departments. The law does not make nationwide carry mandatory, but optional. No police department MUST go along with it.

The only compromise I know of to the passage of HR218, was the elimination of nation wide carry for non-LEO CCW permit holders. The bill had languished in committee for years until that was removed. The argument that got it through committee and then through congress, was Sept. 11th 2001, and the Dept. of Homeland Security agreeing there should be more trained, armed cops carrying everywhere they go.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

C. "The larger issue, is that the 2nd Amendment is not a second class right. You cannot nor should not be deprived of any constitutional rights without due process. When you start to talk about training requirements and "vetting" what you are really doing is walking down a slippery slope to "may issue".

No argument from me. Feel free to challenge any state laws you wish.

There's the way it should be, and there's the way it is.

Most states have laws that allow military carry for on-duty military, on official duty. If Georgia allows any GI who wishes to carry concealed, then good for Georgia.

As for vetting and slippery slopes, I am not in favor of convicted violent felons, or mentally defective folks carrying firearms.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

D. "Would we accept the notion that only properly trained, licensed, and vetted individuals should exercise the right to free expression? Should only "licensed journalists" with a degree in journalism be allowed to blog, or post on forums about politics?"

Read the fine print in the McCain / Feingold Campaign Finance Reform act. Only major news papers and individual citizens may say certain things 30 and 90 days before a national election. If you and I want to form a group and run a political ad during that time period, we have committed a federal crime. We can be jailed for political speech. George Bush signed it into law, and the Supreme Court saw no problem with it. How's that for Freedom of expression?

What we are discussing is carrying in public, not ownership. While I may agree with much of what you say, the reality is there are over 20,000 local, state & federal gun and anti-gun laws on the books nationwide. I firmly believe in and fight for, the right of any law abiding, mentally sound adult who wishes, to carry a firearm concealed or openly. The key is law abiding, mentally sound and adult. The only states that allow that sort of thing are Vermont and Alaska. I also believe we should vigorously support conservative politicians who seek the presidency, and who will appoint judges that believe in the Constitution. These stupid laws were not forced on us overnight, and it will take time to remove them.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Flags%20and%20Icons/39548723217645.jpg

[deathintheafternoon]

Scoundrel n. a mean, immoral, or wicked person;
--Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language, Second College Edition.

In your original post, to this thread about obtaining CCW permits as a member of the military, you stated that:

Just because someone is in the military, they should not automatically have CCW permits issued. They should be vetted, just as everyone else.
Anyone who has been in the military, especially those who have been Military Police, know that not all military personnel are necessarily the most upstanding members of the community. Some, sadly, are downright scoundrels.

What you are stating is that there is a need to screen members of the military who wish to apply for a CCW permit, because some may not have the moral fiber and personal character that in your opinion should be prerequisite to obtaining a permit.

I replied not because I disagree with your assertion about the character of some members of the military, but rather because I disagree with the notion of using subjective criteria such as moral character to deny someone the ability to exercise a constitutionally guaranteed right.

Perhaps you meant that they should undergo criminal background checks, but that isn’t what you said. Also, anyone who enlists in our military today has to undergo varying levels of background checks. Waivers are sometimes granted to those with a criminal record, however not typically in cases involving the sort of violent crimes which would bar someone from obtaining a CCW permit.

You stated later, in your second post:

I firmly believe in and fight for, the right of any law abiding, mentally sound adult who wishes, to carry a firearm concealed or openly. The key is law abiding, mentally sound and adult.

But I can’t help wondering if what you meant by “law abiding” is really “LE, retired LE, and friends and family thereof”. Or perhaps folks of certain ethnic, religious, political, or socio-economic backgrounds but not others. I can’t help wondering because historically this is why gun laws were passed, and how gun laws were applied. It is also how they still are applied in “May-Issue” states.

The biggest impediment to fighting gun-control is not the whack-jobs of the political left and the Brady Campaign. It is folks who own guns, and maybe even belong to the NRA, but who really only favor gun-rights for themselves. As the saying goes, the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. I would add, or the “right” of retired and off-duty cops to carry a gun. But if there weren’t folks who thought that way, politicians, especially a lot of “mainstream” or “moderate” Republicans, wouldn’t be able to get away with merely paying lip service to the Second Amendment.

A. Take a look at my signiture line. "HR 218 qualified." That means I know what I'm talking about, at least on this issue.

Duly noted the first time I read your post, along with your signature block stating you are retired-LE, hence why I chose to respond.

I support LEOSA, and would support a similar bill for military personnel, not because of my own status and because it would grant me any special privileges, but rather because these are good tactical moves in the political fight to save the Second Amendment.

If we want to get our Freedom back, it will have to be the same way it was stolen. Like Johnny Cash’s “psycho-billy Cadillac” we have to “get it one piece at a time”.

[Outlaw]

Take it from a 20 year military vet: Contrary to some beliefs, there are bad guys in the military. Just pay attention to the North Carolina Marine murder. (Assuming this guy is guilty. Sure looks that way). I always have and always will have the utmost respect for my fellow Soldiers and Police Officers. However, that doesn't change a fact of life. Just like there is a bad cop now and then, there are also bad GI's now and then. I've known a few. There is no good reason military personnel just like civilians should not have a background check before being issued a weapons permit. I'll say again, I mean NO disrespect to any PD or Military personnel. Just sharing my experience on this matter.

[DMorrison]

there is non taken of course Outlaw. You are correct, there are bad apples everywhere. And despite the fact that the boys I deployed with, i trust unconditionally over there, there are a few who's judgement I don't trust back in "the real world" I don't think the military should get a free pass, no more then anyone else.

[deathintheafternoon]

...There is no good reason military personnel just like civilians should not have a background check before being issued a weapons permit. I'll say again, I mean NO disrespect to any PD or Military personnel. Just sharing my experience on this matter.


One good reason is that criminals who intend on committing crimes with a firearm, do not, as a rule, bother with trying to buy their firearms legally, or applying for a permit to carry them legally. Statistics on crime rates for CCW permit holders, which are negligible, support this. So background checks, as a rule, don't really stop criminals from committing crimes involving guns, they just create another hassle for law abiding gun owners.

I instead ask what "good reason" there is for having such background checks to begin with?

Just pay attention to the North Carolina Marine murder


Maria Lauterbach, the Marine you mention, was killed by blunt force trauma to the head and a slit throat. She wasn't killed with a gun. If Cesar Laurean, the alleged culprit, had chosen to shoot someone he probably would not have been deterred by a criminal background check as there hasn't been any indication he had a criminal record. As a Marine Corps spokesman put it his record indicated he was a "stellar marine" who hadn't been in trouble before. So he could have bought a gun and shot her with it, even WITH criminal background checks.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/FedCrimes/story?id=4137754

[DMorrison]

I watched report on FNC I think, but either way something about that whole situation is fishy to me. In some ways, it sounds like this woman may have been less then...honorable. It comes from the idea that seems to be circulating that even after she reported him for assault/rap they still had a "friendly" relationship. I can't speak for the marines, but I know how a situation like that in the army might work. And essentially, his commander would council him, and give a direct order to stay away from her pending results of the investigation. Apparently this man had a stellar record, which doesn't mean he isn't capable of murder or rap, but at the same time she would not have been first heartbroken woman to embellish a litte. Unfortunately whatever the truth his, the young man has sealed his fate by running.

[Outlaw]

Deathintheafternoon, your also right as well as Dmorrison. My point was since the background check is now a fact of life, there should be few exceptions. D, your also right about the guys you deployed with. I feel exactly the same way. Military folks tend to form a very tight bond, expecially when in harms way. Like they said in the Movie, "They didn't die for America, they died for each other". When it's over they go to the local NCO club or bars and fight each other like cats and dogs. (been there, done that during the VN war). Unless an outsider gets in the way; then we all pounced on their ass. I know some of those guys wouldn't amount to much once let out of the airplane back in The World. A few of them proved it the hard way. And yes, the North Carolina story has a lot of holes in it. We'll probably never hear the real story. :cry:

[pioneer461]

"...because some may not have the moral fiber and personal character that in your opinion should be prerequisite to obtaining a permit."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not going to be drawn into a long, drawn-out, point-by-point argument here. My opinion has nothing to do with it. As a Vietnam War veteran and career police officer, I have known too many members of the military, some whom I have arrested and convicted, who should not be issued CCW permits. Just because someone is in the military does not automaticly mean they are of sound character.

If you think they are, then God bless you.

[Bill of Rights]

One good reason is that criminals who intend on committing crimes with a firearm, do not, as a rule, bother with trying to buy their firearms legally, or applying for a permit to carry them legally. Statistics on crime rates for CCW permit holders, which are negligible, support this. So background checks, as a rule, don't really stop criminals from committing crimes involving guns, they just create another hassle for law abiding gun owners.

I instead ask what "good reason" there is for having such background checks to begin with?

This precisely has been an issue I've pondered, and please pardon me for hijacking the thread- if you guys want, I'll split it to something other than "US Military"- but here's the issue: Right now, background checks(BGCs) are the law of the land, and by them, we've shown that CCW folks are in the high 90% range for obeying the law. If we remove the BGCs, we have no way to differentiate nor any way to keep the criminals from going down to Guns R Us and picking up whatever. That, of course, leads us to the question of "why should we?" in that buying a gun should not be any more a criminal act than buying a steak knife, a couple bottles of cleaning products, or a case of toilet paper, and to criminalize that purchase is to practice "preventative law enforcement", a la the movie "Minority Report". (We're going to arrest you for the crime we think you might commit.)

For me, it comes down to that. Just because someone committed a felony, even a violent felony, in the past does not mean that they're going to again (think "crime of passion"). Keep in mind as well that it takes only a stroke of a bureaucratic pen to turn any action at all into a crime, and to turn a misdemeanor or even an infraction into a felony. If, to borrow from another thread, "deactivating government control of a home thermostat" was made a felony charge, should the person so doing really be deprived of the ability to defend his or her home, property, and oh yes, life?

Blessings,
B

[DMorrison]

I think we may very well have exhausted this subject, at least in regards to the military. Because by default, (requirements for being part of the military), you qualify for the purchase of a handgun, thus in any shall issue state you qualify for a CCP. The answer for this, really would be a Federal level permit, for anyone wishing to obtain a permit, I am not against military having to take a class to get so. But we are now generally talking about extended qaulifications. And the truth is, the military is no different then any other walk of life. We got a lot of smart, capable, and mature people. We also have a few bad apples, just like there are crooked cops, reckless firemen, incompetent EMT's, and a whole of lot of everyday citizens who have never been convicted of a Felony who are maybe not ideal candidates for owning or a carrying a firearm, on the other hand it is their right to do so. The benefit, and often a misconception, of being in the military is training. There are those of us, generally combat arms, and miltary police who receive advanced tactical training. Then we go to war, and learn what it means to get shot at, we learn what works in combat and what doesn't. We get past that "ohh shit" factor, when the bullets start flying (and believe me, the first time you get shot at, there is that half second delay, where mentally confirm what just happened.) In today's military with the way in Iraq being what it is, we learn and practice a lot of target identification, whether we like it or not, I was more worried about going to jail, then dieing of there.

It is not up to us, or the government to screen demographics for eligibility. To deny the right, on the idea that they may do something that is illegal. As long as they have not displayed any danger to society. That right should be protected. Like we said before, Alaska and Vermont have it right, albeit I learned a lot from the lawyer last night at my CCP class.

[tuna]

What gets me, is that even if you have a civillian CCW, it is a PITA to bring a firearm on base.
As background, I'm a full time technician in the Air National Guard and while I'm not talking about carrying while at work, I am not allowed to have my firearm locked in my car for use after work. In Mass, we have pretty strict transport laws, so having the firearm secured in a container wouldn't pose any significant safety problem, but is still a no no.

[BrianDeschenes]

And thanks for your confidence in our armed forces, although I have to say i don't agree with the idea that we should be extended the same right as cops. At least not all of us. Many of you know there are soldiers and there are combat soldiers. And there are many types of soldiers, pay clerks, cooks, mechanics. They all play their role, and each of them is important. However the most action their weapon ever sees is going through the clearing procedure going into the Chow Hall.

Thinking like that is what is so wrong with the Army today. I'm a mechanic and I don't feel like I'm not a combat Soldier. When I'm not fixing Bradleys, I'm driving, gunning and dismounting from them with our scouts. All my Soldiers know that the fastest way to piss me off is to tell me that they don't need to know something because they are "just" a mechanic. I've been to Iraq 2 times, for a combined total of 27 months, and I've been in enemy contact both times. I've engaged the enemy in direct fire and been highly successful. I put 100% effort into prepping for every mission and demand the same from my Soldiers. We are not going to end up like Jessica Lynch. Everyone in the Army has their part to play, and it's essential. Anyone who is off the FOB in Iraq is subject to attack at any time, regardless of your job. It's just the way it is. Our scouts know that when my vehicle is in their convoy that I'm bringing something to the fight, and not just someone to babysit. This attitude of people accepting that half the Army doesn't "need" to be ready to fight is why a lot of us envy the Marines. That wouldn't be tolerated from them. I do, however agree with the part of your post about using caution with issuing permits. Most of the skills you learn in the Army and the ones you pick up in Iraq don't fit in well with the intent behind concealed carry. I have a Texas CCW permit and carry daily. I think training on conflict avoidance and the obligation to retreat if possible should be taught to anyone who wishes to carry. Since these ideas are not present in military training, I think we should still go though the course and qualify. I think the class put out by the Texas DPS is very informtive and I learned a lot from it.

[DMorrison]

Sorry if I offended you, I know that many people leave the FOB, and engage in the enemy. I am only speaking from my experience. I suppose the grunt mentality prevailed there a little bit. In the same sense it's impossible for you devote or your soldiers to devote the time in training that we do towards combat operations as you wouldn't be able to complete your job. And as you and I know the mechanics job is awful important over there.

[BrianDeschenes]

Indeed sir, and I appreciate you comments. I suppose I probably overreacted a little bit and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to take a shot at grunts, if it wasn't for you guys, I'd be out of a job :P

[AmmoHouse]

What gets me, is that even if you have a civillian CCW, it is a PITA to bring a firearm on base.
As background, I'm a full time technician in the Air National Guard and while I'm not talking about carrying while at work, I am not allowed to have my firearm locked in my car for use after work. In Mass, we have pretty strict transport laws, so having the firearm secured in a container wouldn't pose any significant safety problem, but is still a no no.

This is what gets me going also!
I live off base, so I can't have it on base. South Dakota isn't as strict as other bases have been, but I haven't asked the question either. I don't carry it on base on purpose, but there has been times I forgot I had it. I clearned it, removed the magazine and stored them in seperate places in the truck. If they would've searched, I would have still been in trouble.

[MSgt_Of_Marines]

I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm also a U.S. Marine. I had no problem or qualms with having to submit for a background check. My opinion is EVERYONE should require a background check. Semper Fi, armed with a CCW in Denver, CO.

[tuna]

I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm also a U.S. Marine. I had no problem or qualms with having to submit for a background check. My opinion is EVERYONE should require a background check.


Gonna have to disagree with you on this. I'm a law abiding citizen, if there is no proof or suspicion that I am not, I should not have to submit to a background check. I take it with that whole "not be infringed" part to the 2A.

It's the same with vehicle searches (off base, by civillians) with the whole "Well, if you've got nothing to hide, then will you open your trunk?" Each time we allow ourselves to lose a portion of our rights, we pay hob trying to get that right back.


But yeah, since we've lost so much already, I submit to the background checks just like everyone else - but I don't do it gladly.

[99sparks]

I don’t think everyone in the military should be issued a CCW. However, if requirements to purchase a handgun are met they should be given the opportunity to take a civilian training course and be issued, to carry in every state and territory of the U.S. By military I include all reserves and retired persons. The course could even be on military facilities. Of course a major part of the course is when not to shoot and when shooting is authorized. I think a course that runs 3 to 5 days would far surpass anything any state requires for CCW. This should be a federal program and a state should have no input, exception for training requirements that should exceed any state requirements anyway. It might even help straighten out the mess in CA, and a few other states. - Life time issue.

[MSgt_Of_Marines]

99sparks, can't speak for other states, but colorado requires a week long class to be issued a CC. Benefit of the military, that's all I do is shoot guns, good old letter from the CO stating I have extensive fire arms training was my waiver from paying $150 for the weekk long class. Military perks I guess.

[pioneer461]

Gonna have to disagree with you on this. I'm a law abiding citizen, if there is no proof or suspicion that I am not, I should not have to submit to a background check. I take it with that whole "not be infringed" part to the 2A.

But yeah, since we've lost so much already, I submit to the background checks just like everyone else - but I don't do it gladly.

How would you propose the federally licensed firearm dealer KNOW you are an honest, law abiding citizen?

To take the "shall not be infringed" argument one step further, can I assume that you are okay with convicted, violent felons being legally armed? Where would you draw the line? How do we find out if that line has been crossed? If you know of a better way than NICS to find out about a person's criminal history, what is it?

I'm very much in favor of any law abiding citizen who wants, to be armed. But in order to acheive that, we have to know who is law abiding, and sadly we can not take everyone's word for it.

Unfortunately, some members of the military do not remain law abiding and cross the line. While military service should be honored, and accepted as proof of firearms familiarity (especially Marines), a person's current criminal status should be established. The same is true of cops, doctors, fire fighters, what-ever. People from all walks of life are capable of going over to the dark side of life.

http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb294/pioneer461/Flags%20and%20Icons/freemen.gif

[Outlaw]

Hey Msgt. What week long class are you speaking of? A Colorado CCW permit only requires an NRA approved class. Most are half or a full day long. Mine was half a day with firing the gun included. Correct me if I'm wrong. Logon to RMGO. They have it all there.

[Bill of Rights]

Gonna have to disagree with you on this. I'm a law abiding citizen, if there is no proof or suspicion that I am not, I should not have to submit to a background check. I take it with that whole "not be infringed" part to the 2A.

But yeah, since we've lost so much already, I submit to the background checks just like everyone else - but I don't do it gladly.

How would you propose the federally licensed firearm dealer KNOW you are an honest, law abiding citizen?

To take the "shall not be infringed" argument one step further, can I assume that you are okay with convicted, violent felons being legally armed? Where would you draw the line? How do we find out if that line has been crossed? If you know of a better way than NICS to find out about a person's criminal history, what is it?

I'm very much in favor of any law abiding citizen who wants, to be armed. But in order to acheive that, we have to know who is law abiding, and sadly we can not take everyone's word for it.

Unfortunately, some members of the military do not remain law abiding and cross the line. While military service should be honored, and accepted as proof of firearms familiarity (especially Marines), a person's current criminal status should be established. The same is true of cops, doctors, fire fighters, what-ever. People from all walks of life are capable of going over to the dark side of life.

Pioneer,

With respect, I also disagree with this. How does the FFL know that the buyer is a law-abiding citizen? First, I disagree with the so-called "need" for FFLs. We don't federally license car dealers who sell machines which are capable of being used in the commission of crimes, nor do we federally license knife dealers, nor gas stations nor farm supply stores-For the relevance of the last two, consider Oklahoma City. Second, the FFL still does not know that the buyer is law-abiding, only that he or she has not yet been caught at a crime that would disqualify him/her from buying within the unConstitutional laws we presently have.


Be that as it may, I also disagree that it is the responsibility of the shopkeeper (FFL, in this case) to know that the buyer is law-abiding. Rather, I think it's the responsibility of the buyer to obey the law with his/her firearm and the responsibility of the police to track him/her down if/when he/she doesn't. It is also the responsibility of the intended victim to protect him/herself. Tuna is quite correct that you should not have to prove your innocence with a background check.


How do we keep convicted, violent felons from being armed with firearms? In part, I think that if they are out of prison, they should not be restricted, and in fact, you know as well if not more so than many of us that those restrictions do not stop the criminal from being armed, they just restrict where he or she can buy the weapon in question. Simple answer; keep them behind bars or put their sorry butts in the ground, and like you, I agree that this applies no matter to what group one belongs.

Blessings,
B

[tuna]

Thanks bill, for saying everything I was about to say....

**First off, we are talking about how we feel about these laws, not whether we comply with them or not, and until we get off our sorry collective butt and vote bad politicians out of office, we will continue to follow these BS laws**


No other activity that could have lethal repurcussions polices itself to such a degree as gun owners. We seem to gladly give away our rights to prove that we only want to shoot skeet. Why do we constatnly need to prove ourselves to be law abiding? A DWI conviction in some states disqualifies you for a firearm, but guess what, the guy who kills someone while driving drunk for his 7th time, can buy a car without a license and (if he looks old enough) buy a bottle of booze without ID, and that combination has killed more people in the hands of my Senior Senator than all my guns combined (that I know of anyway, my SKS and M1 may have a rich history behind them that I'm unaware of).

[Bill of Rights]

Thanks bill, for saying everything I was about to say....

**First off, we are talking about how we feel about these laws, not whether we comply with them or not, and until we get off our sorry collective butt and vote bad politicians out of office, we will continue to follow these BS laws**


No other activity that could have lethal repurcussions polices itself to such a degree as gun owners. We seem to gladly give away our rights to prove that we only want to shoot skeet. Why do we constatnly need to prove ourselves to be law abiding? A DWI conviction in some states disqualifies you for a firearm, but guess what, the guy who kills someone while driving drunk for his 7th time, can buy a car without a license and (if he looks old enough) buy a bottle of booze without ID, and that combination has killed more people in the hands of my Senior Senator than all my guns combined (that I know of anyway, my SKS and M1 may have a rich history behind them that I'm unaware of).

Glad to help, Tuna. I thought of another point, too: "Law-abiding" just means complying with what a collection of politicians has decided to implement. Politicians... you know, those folks we all decry who lie to us to get elected and then make backroom deals to pass stuff we don't need so they can stay in office?

I read a couple of days ago about a law that was passed in '07 (forget which state) that due to improper phrasing, removed any lower age limit on when people could marry, such that technically, a man of 50 could marry a 4 year old girl and be fully within the law, since at 4, she could not be pregnant. This law was ripe for abuse by pedophiles, so they took the first opportunity to correct the error by repealing the law in special session (special session for another purpose, BTW).

The point? Legislators are not perfect by a long shot, and indeed, our record of law-abiding behavior as CCW holders far exceeds theirs, and they wrote the laws! A law could be passed making driving your car to the store on Sunday a felony crime, such that running out of milk for Sunday dinner or running out of diapers for the baby at nearly midnight on Saturday night would mean either a felony crime, a walk to the store, or bothering a friend so you could drive their car to the store.

Bottom line, I think that "felony" should be a term applicable to a crime that has a victim and that does that victim significant damage in physical or financial ways, i.e. murder, battery, rape, robbery, etc. The businessman convicted of insider trading is not a violent person to be locked up for years to protect society from the damage he could do.

Blessings,
B

[vff]

Show me one gun law that has ever prevented a criminal from obtaining a firearm and I'll show you a dumb criminal!

Gun laws are designed to control the law abiding citizen and no one else!

I believe in the 2nd amendment and it doesn't require me to get a background check, prove my sanity, or pay a tax to exercise my right!

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."