Rethinking CHL for former/current military


PDA






IA_farmboy
September 3, 2007, 01:39 AM
There was a thread on this forum that proposed offering a CHL for anyone that is currently in the military or was honorably discharged. The way I understood the argument is that these people had training in the safe use of firearms, were trained in basic marksmanship, and served their country thus earning the privilege of being able to carry a concealed weapon throughout the USA.

My first response was, "no, no, and hell no!" Military veterans are not any different than any other citizen and deserve no special privileges because of their service. I thought the idea sounded too much of "service guarantees citizenship" from Starship Troopers.

I thought about this some more. I also heard about how there is a federal law allowing former police to carry a concealed weapon (HR218). So, now I've changed my mind. Let's let anyone get a CHL with nothing more than a NICS and a DD214. In fact make it federal like HR218.

The reason I changed my mind is not because I think former military are any more deserving or qualified than the average citizen but it's to regain our rights a little bit at a time. Make so many laws allowing concealed carry that someway and somehow any one will likely be able to get a permit. Make it so that those that want to disarm us must fight through all the laws that explicitly allow one to carry a concealed weapon.

So far we have HR218 allowing current and retired police to carry a concealed handgun. Let's have a law for military veterans. I propose we next try for those that have a hunting license. We'll call it merely a "convenience" law so that people that wish to bundle up for winter hunting don't have to get a conceal license for trying to keep their muskets dry or keep their revolvers from freezing. After all these people have been trained in the proper use of a firearm in order to get their hunting license, they have served the public in controlling deer and turkey populations so driving is safer in our communities. Granting them the ability to carry a weapon to protect themselves from wild animals and otherwise allow them to hunt safely and effectively is the least we can do, right?

What do you all think? Good idea? Bad idea? Please offer means to improve the idea and ways to make this happen.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rethinking CHL for former/current military" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
DWARREN123
September 3, 2007, 10:35 AM
In Tennessee the law is you do not have to take a class if you have retired/got out within 5 years or less. Still have to jump thru the other hoops and pay the processing fee.

Everyone should be allowed to carry if they can legally own a firearm!

wideym
September 3, 2007, 01:02 PM
I've seen too many admin pukes in the army to trust them with an automatic CHL. Many only go to the range when made to or they can't get their buddy to fake up a range scoresheet. Even in the Infantry we rarely used pistols.

Remember: Not every cop is SWAT.
Not every soldier is Special Forces.
Not every every citizen can be trusted to do the right thing.

CleverNickname
September 3, 2007, 01:16 PM
Just because someone was in the military doesn't mean they know anything about use of force laws, about where it's legal to carry, about conflict resolution or even whether they can safely operate a handgun. While I don't think a class or a permit should be required to carry, if one group of people has to go through it, everyone should.

Blackfork
September 3, 2007, 02:53 PM
Any system grows more complex over time, especially bureacracies. It's very tempting to load them up with MORE exceptions, exclusions, set-asides and special-use permits. Makes them collapse further.

Of course it tends to make the police skip all the complexities and make up their own law on the spot.

Maybe we ought to be lobbying for one week a year where no firearm laws apply, then start expanding to no permits needed for military, over 90, in National Forests, on National Holidays before sunset, et, et.

Sistema1927
September 3, 2007, 04:23 PM
Some animals are more equal than others.

IA_farmboy
September 4, 2007, 06:00 AM
This is about the same reaction I saw before...
"Not every soldier is special forces."
"Some animals are more equal than others."
"Everyone should be allowed to carry if they can legally own a firearm!"

I'm not proposing that all one needs to do is show a DD214 to get a CHL. I'm proposing a law similar to HR218. Follow the link for reference:
http://www.leaa.org/218/

What HR218 did was allow any currently active or retired LEO the ability to get a shall-issue, federally recognized, CHL. I'm proposing the same for current and honorably discharged military. The goal is to create more federally recognized protections of our Second Amendment rights. It's a boil the frog technique.

Why should a retired LEO be granted any more rights on concealed carry than the average citizen? Truth is that they should not, and yet we have HR218.

There are many in the military that have not touched a firearm since basic military training, that puts them ahead of many in the current population. Just like HR218 I would propose that one would still have to pass the same training any other concealed carry license holder. HR218 doesn't grant a free pass on any training and qualifications, I'm not proposing that anyone get a free pass either. What I am proposing is the shall-issue to current and honorably discharged military.

It started with HR218. Let's continue with shall issue for military. Then go on with whatever "honorable" profession one can think of. Perhaps firefighters, they work hard to keep our cities and homes safe. They can come under attack by ne'er-do-wells that wish to burn our houses down. Then move on to farmers and ranchers, they work hard to feed our families but are in rural areas were the police can take time to get to, where thieves like to steal their equipment and livestock. Airline pilots and airport security, they need to arm themselves against those nasty terrorists we keep hearing about. Physicians and nurses, these fine upstanding citizens are targets for muggers, anti-abortion zealots, animal testing wackos, etc.

Those that want to take our guns away keep trying to kill our right to keep and bear arms with a death by a thousand paper cuts. I'm just proposing a counter attack with the same technique.

MaterDei
September 4, 2007, 06:30 AM
Not every every citizen can be trusted to do the right thing.

I think I'm going to be ill. :barf:

Double Naught Spy
September 4, 2007, 08:42 AM
What HR218 did was allow any currently active or retired LEO the ability to get a shall-issue, federally recognized, CHL. I'm proposing the same for current and honorably discharged military. The goal is to create more federally recognized protections of our Second Amendment rights. It's a boil the frog technique.

So you want to create more federalized protections of our Second Amendment rights by creating an elite class that will have more Second Amendment rights than other citizens. Just great. Actually, it doesn't sound much different than celebrities, politicians, and other such "special" folks getting carry permits in places like California and New York City. By and large, I think the general gun community find such elitism distasteful.

CannibalCrowley
September 4, 2007, 09:10 AM
By and large, I think the general gun community find such elitism distasteful.

They didn't find it distasteful when HR 218 was up for vote.

buzz_knox
September 4, 2007, 09:32 AM
They didn't find it distasteful when HR 218 was up for vote.

That's because of the gun community was promised that if we supported HR 218, those it benefited would support national concealed carry reform. We made our calls, supported the bill, it got passed . . . and the promised support never appeared. It went back to "carry is good for professionals but not for civilians."

HR 218 and the circumstances surrounding it are the primary reason for opposing these kind of proposals, not supporting them.

Blackfork
September 4, 2007, 10:06 AM
I can't remember one instance on video of ANY uniformed police or armed forces unit or members preserving the Second Amendment. This included state police, local police, sheriffs depts, constables, FBI, ATF, and National Guard.

Maybe their rights should be limited, not expanded, if they aren't going to follow the oath they took, but instead enforce illegal laws made up on the spot by paniced politicians.

highfive
September 4, 2007, 11:35 AM
We did have an oath but included in there is to follow the orders of the ones appointed over us. So for you every military has to lose some rights because they followed orders. For X or Y reason they follow those orders. Probably somebody thought it was a bad order but that same person has a family to feed. So where that person or military stands? Is good for them to die for their country but not to carry a gun?

JLStorm
September 4, 2007, 12:48 PM
It works in Israel

http://www.kythri.net/pictures/IsraeliGirlsBuyingIceCream.jpg


Ok, more seriously, I have 7 CCW's (I travel a lot) and most of them required training courses, none of those courses were harder than a basic NRA course. However most of them talked much more about civilian use of force laws than gun safety or firearms training. LEOs are pretty much covered on the use of force front because they are governed by slightly different rules and they are (or should be) well trained on them. Military and retired military however likely have no training on this as it applies to civilian life. If a state requires this type of training I think that military members should have to take it as well, and if that type of training isnt required most states already accept a dd214 in lieu of a training course. The big difference between HR218 and a CCW is HR218 is federally recognized by states that do not honor CCW. I do not think military members need a federally recognized CCW any more than a civilian does, and it should be all or nothing on that front.

simpleguy
September 4, 2007, 01:14 PM
If criminals need no training to carry guns and spray bullets, from a legal standpoint, why should we require more? Most of us that carry concealed seek training out of a personal responsibility. As Blackfork said in post #5, bureacracies do grow more complex over time. I think we need to make it easier to get concealed permits. So a DD214 and NICS and good to go I say. Those who carry have less trouble with the law by their nature.

illspirit
September 4, 2007, 01:24 PM
There's a hearing about this coming up. Not sure exactly what they'll be talking about yet though. http://judiciary.house.gov/oversight.aspx?ID=368

Thursday 09/06/2007 - 10:00 AM
2237 Rayburn House Office Building

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security

Hearing on the Implementation of the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004” (Pub. L. No. 108-277) and Additional Legislative Efforts Aimed at Expanding the Authority to Carry Concealed Firearms

CannibalCrowley
September 4, 2007, 01:26 PM
I do not think military members need a federally recognized CCW any more than a civilian does, and it should be all or nothing on that front.

What makes a group of civilians (LEOs) need a federally recognized CCW more than military members or other civilians?

simpleguy
September 4, 2007, 01:37 PM
Personally, I don't care wether or not they are former military or LEO's, I think the goal would be to get more people to carry period. The more that carry and exercise the right the safer we all are.

romma
September 4, 2007, 02:18 PM
Where does "The Right Of The People" only qualify Law enforcement and Military?

JLStorm
September 4, 2007, 02:41 PM
What makes a group of civilians (LEOs) need a federally recognized CCW more than military members or other civilians? I dont agree with that either, but it is already in effect. If I was an LEO I certainly wouldnt want to be without a weapon, so I understand the desire for safety, but they should have to get a permit and pay the fees everyone else has to pay.

I paid at least $1700.00 on my CCW's (about $1000.00 on NV since I had to apply there and I am out of state) believe me, it makes me bitter that an LEO on vacation in some other state doesnt have to jump through the same hoops I did. The only people I dont believe should need CCW's are federally deputized individuals who are required to carry 24/7. Basically my rule of thumb is that if you can legall carry on a plane and your not the piolt, you are good to go without a ccw :)

IA_farmboy
September 8, 2007, 03:24 PM
Good comments from all, thanks.

I reread what I wrote and realized I contradicted myself. I try this again and try to answer some of the comments.

I'm not trying to create a group of elites that have the "privilege" of being able to carry a concealed firearm. I'm trying to establish laws that protect our Second Amendment rights one step at a time. Just formally proposing a law that would grant the ability of military veterans to carry a concealed weapon should be good for our cause as it would raise the same questions brought up here to those in Congress.

Some states already consider a DD214 sufficient proof of firearm training, that and a NICS check will get one a concealed carry permit. Other states allow people within their border to carry concealed without a permit. Some states simply do not offer such permits. If this is taken to Congress then perhaps it might just pass and we get one more step in the right direction. Even if it doesn't pass it will hopefully get many to think about how the law reads right now and lead to other laws to protect our rights to protect ourselves.

The reason I think military is a good place to start is because people realize that members of the military have firearms training. Training that is consistent without regard of which state one resides. It appeals to emotion and patriotism. It is something that I think just might get passed.

Once we have laws to protect military veterans rights, and we already have the one for retired LEOs, then we can try again with other laws making similar arguments. Why are former military and police granted rights above any other citizen? The usual response is that these people have had background checks and training. Then we can argue that the training should be available to all in some form. The background checks already exist in NICS.

I'm thinking of ways to take this step by step in a way that the federal government can reasonably be expected to. I don't like the idea of having to do this but the alternative is not very pleasant either. The federal government should not have to impose such rules on the states (the states have constitutionally protected rights too) but given the fact that many states have ignored the Second Amendment I think it is well within the jurisdiction of the federal government to do this.

Many have taken the argument that the Second Amendment protects only the rights of militia to keep and bear arms. Once a person is honorably discharged from the military they remain part of the federal reserve force. These people should be able to have weapons easily accessible to them to not only practice their marksmanship but to defend the nation at short notice.

Taking the argument of the rights of the militia being able to keep and bear arms we can take this further. Selective Service is effectively, if not actually and legally, a militia. If we can get a law granting federally protected concealed carry for military veterans then maybe we can take that to the next logical step that any one registered with Selective Service has the right to concealed carry.

I'm just tossing ideas around. Right now there is a pending SCOTUS case over handgun bans. I am very curious to see how that turns out. It may be that case is the first domino I'm looking for. Even if it does go in favor of the individual right to keep weapons it will not stop there. There will be many other laws and court cases to follow.

MarkDido
September 9, 2007, 01:43 PM
I am retired Navy and had to follow the same CCW procedure as anyone else in Florida.

FL DOES waive the training requirement if you provide a DD-214 but I'm not sure if just presenting one is good enough, or does it have to show some sort of firearms training/qual?

Mine had Expert Pistol, Expert Rifle and my Small Arms Instructor qualification on it.

lacoochee
September 9, 2007, 02:13 PM
Nope, DD-214 is all that's necessary in Florida for the training requirement. I personally think that's a mistake (yes I have one as well), I took the training class (it's cheap and relatively short) some of the best money I have ever spent. Florida training requires very little gun time (one shot at range to prove safe firearms handling skills) but the legal stuff is well worth knowing. They also sold me a copy of Gutmachers book Florida Firearms:
Law, Use & Ownership
Sixth Edition (http://www.falsearrestlaw.com/indexbook.shtml). Just because you can shoot well does not make you aware of the local laws.

buzz_knox
September 9, 2007, 11:13 PM
I'm not trying to create a group of elites that have the "privilege" of being able to carry a concealed firearm. I'm trying to establish laws that protect our Second Amendment rights one step at a time. Just formally proposing a law that would grant the ability of military veterans to carry a concealed weapon should be good for our cause as it would raise the same questions brought up here to those in Congress.


So you're basically arguing that by dividing our forces, we will conquer? We've seen the end result of that with HR 218: the elimination of any reason for the group that received the benefit to support general CC reform.

As for using the different classes to show general reform, you've already shown the inherent flaw in the argument. You have argued that these groups should receive special treatment because they have training, experience, etc. You follow that up by using these special classes to argue for the same privilege for everyone. The rebuttal is to remind you of your original argument: the special privilege was justified by the additional training and experience, which these other groups lack. It's the precise argument used today to explain why certain groups should be entitled to access to firearms because of their training, job requirement, etc., but the general public should not.

Robert Hairless
September 10, 2007, 12:15 AM
I urge a federal law requiring automatic issue of a nationwide Concealed Wepons Permit for cranky old men. We need it more than any other class of Americans because we are more irritating than other people.

Autolycus
September 10, 2007, 03:55 PM
How about we just go with a national permit?

Or better yet national reciprocity.

As much as I dislike the federal government issuing these I would much rather just have a Vermont style law nationwide. I dont think it will happen but I could deal with a national permit.

WuzYoungOnceToo
September 10, 2007, 04:36 PM
As much as I dislike the federal government issuing these I would much rather just have a Vermont style law nationwide. I dont think it will happen but I could deal with a national permit.
Yes, that's exactly what we need. The federal government relieving the states of yet another area of authority.

birdbustr
September 10, 2007, 04:53 PM
Getting into states rights sounds like an arguement from say....1861-1865.

I am active duty Navy, and as a former Weapons officer responsible for training and qualifying ships personnel in all weapons onboard, I am here to tell you that not everyone in the military is qualified for a concealed carry permit. There are some people that just can't get it.

Now if you can qualify for EXPERT in pistol, then you have demonstrated more than any state requires, and any state or federal government should recognize that!

Mental competency is another matter completely. Criminal background checks is the best way that I know of unless a psych evaluation is a feasible additional requirement. (Don't really think that's a possibility).

saltydog452
September 10, 2007, 06:02 PM
I don't know about licensing for the CHL, but I do think that the guys and gals stationed out of state or country should be able to get a renewal.

salty.

The Amigo
September 10, 2007, 06:41 PM
Force comes in numbers the more the better Im Pro anything that will put more guns in the hands of decent people vs criminals.

The reason you will never see this is because you will always see some nucklehead complain about well if I dont have some candy you shouldnt:barf: Big changes like this usually dont happen overnight baby steps fellas, if only people realized that usually big empires fall little by little.

I think if someone had the decency to fight for the freedom I have right now and to keep my county safe, why not? some people say we shouldnt create special citizenry. Im sorry you can say all you want but any GI who is willing to take a bullet and live the hardships of a military life for my country is a special person in my book.

However all aside I dont think a dd-214 shall be all it takes. If you have had some type of qualification with a fireams sure. Ive met some people in the military with more than 8-10 years that havent touched a gun and ive met some sailors that I wouldnt trust with a plastic fork :D

But I agree the more the better. To say well he dont deserve it cause I dont is a perfect example of a selfish person sorry but thats not me. CCW for all is my motto, I dont care if im the first or the last one to get one but we must build the bridge that overcomes the obstacle one bolt a a time.

woodybrighton
September 19, 2007, 07:25 AM
LEO's should in theory at least be competent with a hand gun and know when to draw etc etc.
can't say that for all military had the misfortune to be on a range when signal types came to do there annual range day just say it wasn't pleasant.

Autolycus
October 21, 2007, 08:14 PM
Quote originally posted by WuzYoungOnceToo: Yes, that's exactly what we need. The federal government relieving the states of yet another area of authority.

As opposed to the states taking away the rights of the people already? There are some rights that are not subject to the authority of the government, both federal and state. I have to ask if you support the Firearms Owners Protection Act as it is unconstitutional. However it does allow gunowners to legally transport their firearms across the country? You have the ability to travel with a gun in your car through IL, NY, CA, and MA even though your not allowed to carry it.

In IL if you did not have that law in place you could be arrested as an out of state resident (assuming you are not an IL resident) simply for having a disassembled gun in your trunk. You might just be pulled over for a broken taillight or something but you would have committed a felony and could go to jail. However the government overrode the states rights to decide their gun laws and violates the states rights.

orionengnr
October 21, 2007, 08:50 PM
So you're basically arguing that by dividing our forces, we will conquer?

No, I think that what he is saying is that the incremental approach can be an effective one.

Our adversaries have long been using the incremental approach with some success. Perhaps we can use it to similar effect.

Sheldon J
October 21, 2007, 09:20 PM
It works in Israel
And I bet the rate of assault on those ladies is real low too!:evil:




Ok, more seriously, I have 7 CCW's (I travel a lot)

OK so are those mostly issued by individual states or are you refering to other than the USA? :confused:
In MI if you are from state A and have a state B CCW then your license will not be acknowledged. :rolleyes:
Can you say reciprocity, which is what is needed here, and National Reciprocity would be a very good thing, after all every state recognizes every other state's DL and some of their training amounts to nothing more than can you drive around the block with out killing someone.:cuss:

Dave in PA
October 23, 2007, 02:45 PM
the way I understand the retired LEO CCW is that the LEO still has to qualify to his department's standards, and the range card has to be signed off by current department training officer.

Another question is where do you draw the line for former military? Retirees only, or do you include anyone with a DD214 and Honorable Discharge including reservists whos only active duty was initial entry training and two weeks a year until they got out of college?

buzz_knox
October 23, 2007, 02:48 PM
No, I think that what he is saying is that the incremental approach can be an effective one.

The incremental approach is being utilized via the successful campaign to get individual states to enact non-class based concealed carry reform. That has been amazingly successful.

The class based reform approach was tried with HR218. It was and continues to be a complete failure in terms of general reform.

Grizzly Adams
November 10, 2007, 09:43 PM
I've read good argruments on both sides of this issue. I personnally don't believe that a DD214 alone should be the qualifying factor.

Autolycus
November 14, 2007, 07:18 PM
We need to get national reciprocity along the lines of drivers licenses. That way we can carry in every state without fear of harrassment.

Double Naught Spy
November 14, 2007, 08:19 PM
If criminals need no training to carry guns and spray bullets, from a legal standpoint, why should we require more?

You see, they are CRIMINALS. We are not. They don't abide by the law. We do.

Most of us that carry concealed seek training out of a personal responsibility.

No, most seek out nothing more than whatever it takes to get and keep their CCW/CHL. Very few get additional training and of those that do, most don't get a whole lot or don't keep their training current. Most don't even have a range where they can draw from the holster and fire double taps, Bill Drills, etc.

I would even hazard a guess that most CCW/CHL folks shoot less than 500 rounds a year on average.

Autolycus
November 14, 2007, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Double Naught Spy: No, most seek out nothing more than whatever it takes to get and keep their CCW/CHL. Very few get additional training and of those that do, most don't get a whole lot or don't keep their training current. Most don't even have a range where they can draw from the holster and fire double taps, Bill Drills, etc.

I would even hazard a guess that most CCW/CHL folks shoot less than 500 rounds a year on average. Do you have any proof that you can offer for these statements? You sound awfully sure of your claims but yet you have not posted any proof of them. Please do that.

wideym
November 14, 2007, 08:49 PM
Most military people I know are just too cheap to pay over a hundred bucks in fees.
If the state would waive their fees if you show proof of service many servicemen would apply.
I belive they should still go through the CCW class though. Knowing the laws of CCW and knowing how to shoot go hand in hand.

Flyboy
January 6, 2008, 04:13 PM
How about we just go with a national permit?
How about we quit piddling around with permits, and follow the law of the land as written?

IA_farmboy
January 6, 2008, 10:55 PM
How about we quit piddling around with permits, and follow the law of the land as written?

Agreed. While that would be optimal it is also optimistic. I suggest we take back our rights just as they were taken from us, one tiny step at a time. I'm suggesting we start with current and honorably discharged military.

Depending on how Heller v. DC turns out our fight for our rights may be made much easier. Just getting the case heard is a victory.

rrruuunnn
January 8, 2008, 10:17 AM
there was a student in our chl class that claimed to be an ex police officer. maybe, i miss heard him. but he got up in front of the class to give some advice.

chauncey
February 14, 2008, 09:51 PM
I'm not proposing that all one needs to do is show a DD214 to get a CHL.

why not? if we trust an 18-year old kid to carry a Squad Automatic Weapon on a street in Baghdad, why not a pistol on a street in Houston. or a Squad Automatic Weapon, for that matter.

Instead of making them eligible for CMP, we ought to hand every EAS'ing vet an M-1 Garand and 500 rounds of Greek surplus, to go with their GI bill and a downpayment on a house.

ever heard of a school shooting in Switzerland?

chauncey
February 14, 2008, 09:57 PM
double tap

Fisherman_48768
February 14, 2008, 10:11 PM
I don't think a DD214 entitles anyone to a CCW carta blanc but it should get them a reduced fee and shall issue permit as long as they meet all other criteria and take their state mandated safety and law class.
Retired LCDR

chauncey
February 14, 2008, 11:48 PM
I don't think a DD214 entitles anyone to a CCW carta blanc - disagree, as long as it's an honorable discharge, it should be some form of amnesty for previous indiscretions
but it should get them a reduced fee and shall issue permit - I'll agree if you go with "no fee" and a shall issue permit
as long as they meet all other criteria and take their state mandated safety and law class. - if the mandatory safety class is longer than boot camp, I'll agree. otherwise, just like a driver's license, you should be given a book, then take a written exam, nothing more for the law class

wouldn't it be easy if we were the only debate on resolving this?

I'm sorry, I don't know the acronym "LCDR", but please take with a grain of salt the impression I get from many LEO's that sheep don't know what to do with a firearm, and it's up to someone higher and mightier to decide who gets to carry and who doesn't. I just disagree with that.

when you commit a felony, you lose your rights as a citizen.

I consider a Chevy Suburban potentially more lethal than a Glock 17.

If you enjoyed reading about "Rethinking CHL for former/current military" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!