Military and State pistol permits?


PDA






Dominus
July 11, 2009, 04:52 PM
I know each state has their own rules regarding permits.
I also recall reading a post on here about Military personal having relaxed requirements compared to us civilians in some states.
I for one am happy to see our Military personal get some perks for all the hard work that they do!


The real question is, which states have these relaxed requirements regarding Military personal?
Are there any other legal differences for the men and women serving our country?

If you enjoyed reading about "Military and State pistol permits?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
THE DARK KNIGHT
July 11, 2009, 05:00 PM
Because the military people are superior to us lowly civilians right? They should get less unconstitutional restrictions on their freedom than us plebes?

John Parker
July 11, 2009, 05:01 PM
Some states allow the DD-214 as the training requirement for a CCW. As a veteran of two wars myself, I don't think this is a great idea. The vast majority of military jobs these days are not weapons related, meaning that many military personnel are not competent with small arms (we've all seen or heard stories about people at the clearing barrels, right?) Furthermore, a good CCW class also covers many of the legal aspects of concealed carry, something that can be very helpful.

Dominus
July 11, 2009, 05:05 PM
Because the military people are superior to us lowly civilians right? They should get less unconstitutional restrictions on their freedom than us plebes?

I'm not asking to debate the issue of who deserves what.
The fact remains that some states willingly give military personal different standards the same way they give retired law enforcement different standards.
I'm just looking to find out which states do this.

tank mechanic
July 11, 2009, 05:10 PM
Colorado waives the requirement for taking a CCW class if you are military. Still have to pay the exhorbitant(imo) fees for the background check.

jim in Anchorage
July 11, 2009, 08:57 PM
That was just a friendly poke at your spelling. Currant is a type of berry. The correct spelling is current. The "8*)" is html code for . It just didn't come out that way. But back on the topic, I was under the impression that CC is legal in Alaska without a permit. I'm sure there are some places where it's not allowed though - probably worth looking into if you're going to carry. Personally, I only carry for animal protection when out in the woods. Military folks are not allowed to carry CC by order of our post commander.

This was on the alaska outdoors forum posted by a active duty Army member based in Ft Rich,Anchorage. So even if the state relaxes the requirements,the military may say otherwise. By the way,it was my spelling under discussion:uhoh:

Dominus
July 11, 2009, 09:08 PM
Thanks all for the info.

Mags
July 11, 2009, 09:30 PM
Most states just either count military training as firearm training and/or will give you a CCW permit as a resident even if you are a non-resident as long as you have orders putting you in that state providing you meet the resident rquirements besides actual residency. Those are the only "perks" I know of.

RapidFireBeak
July 11, 2009, 09:35 PM
Military folks are not allowed to carry CC by order of our post commander.

Did he mean on post or off? On post, of course, carrying personal weapons is prohibited.

I wouldn't think the commander has any authority to tell his soldiers not to carry concealed off duty/off post. Correct me if I'm wrong (preferably with a high-level JAG decision and the rationale), but it seems like a clear constitutional rights issue. The commander may or may not know his own authority (didn't a fort in GA recently try to keep closer tabs on their soldiers personal weapons, due to an increase in suicides?)

In fact, I specifically remember a question similar to this being asked during officer training (can you restrict the ability of folks under your command to own weapons) and the answer was no, you can't violate their constitutional rights.

Back to the original topic, here in TX there are a number of perks for AD/retired military, including
1)The $140 fee is eliminated for AD, and halved for retired
2)AD can apply for a CHL at 18 rather than 21
3)Proof of military training in pistols can substitute for the required class (not that great an idea, in my opinion)

Mags
July 11, 2009, 09:39 PM
Oh yeah military Commanders can tell you where you can go and where you cannot on or off base, they also can restrict to on base only. They can tell you that you cannot partake in shooting sports or even ATV riding because it is to dangerous. When you sign on the line you now fall under the UCMJ your Constituition rights are out the window as far as the COmmander is concerned.

possum
July 11, 2009, 09:48 PM
i am in the US Army, an Infantry Squad Leader, i have not recived any "perks" as far as ccw (mine is ga, and it is a few dollars and about a 2 month wait here for everyone) and anything gun related is concerned. nor would i want it. who am i that i should be treated any different than the average citizen? as a matter of fact members of the armed services are just a cross section of the US population, ie there are gangsters, thugs, drug dealers, thiefs, child abusers, etc in the Military just like there is in the civilian sector. And don't think for a minute that we are more "highly" trained, most soliders can merely meet the standards that the Army sets which is way low. as well most people in the Army, might can qualify with a rifle, but have no idea when it comes to handguns, shotguns, and more importantly the moral, ethical, and legal aspects of ccw.

i personally and a very very few other members of my unit and the Army actually seek out and attend training outside of work outside of the Army. I train to be prepared, and to be able to bring my men back alive, as well be able to teach and train them on things that they wil never have the chance to get from the Army.

I have a load of respect for the Militray and the folks that i work with however i have to be honest and that is exactly what i have been.

danbrew
July 11, 2009, 10:41 PM
Amen. Thanks for your service, possum. Former 11B squad leader here as well and I echo your thoughts.

:D

SHvar
July 11, 2009, 11:57 PM
I agree with Possum in so many ways. Although there are PT standards there are many, many soldiers that struggle to barely make the minimum standards, there are a horrendous number of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen that cannot qualify on their rifles, handguns, etc all of the time. These things are skills taught and learned, if you dont expand, make use of, practice, you lose them. Its amazing how many non combat units let their soldiers get away without taking annual PT tests, and qualifying on the M-16, they pencil the qualification in.
I was stationed on a post that had division 4 mile runs which required by order of the post commander all units to participate, there was a 1 mile long group of stragglers mostly MPs, Pay and Finance, etc walking along the shoulder of the road miles behind their units. We had Brigade runs that were 6 miles long of which by order NO ONE WILL FALL OUT. Our Battalion 8 mile runs were the same way, you were dealt with by the old Sgt Major if you fell out, because he never fell out or slowed down from the front, we were Infantry.
The federal laws, and most state laws allow police/retired police to be either exempt from CCW requirements, or allow them to not have to take the classes for a Lethal Weapons Certification.
My weapons qualifications, and skills were something I was, and am very proud of, I try to keep them current and more than adequate in my mind.
The base commander makes the rules on post and off post when it comes to anyone stationed there. The military makes the rules on or off duty for all soldiers and how they live. Technically you can be court martialed for gettting tatoos if they choose to enforce the rules. A sunburn can be an article 15 if you got it off duty, destruction of Governement property.
Im sure carry of firearms off duty by soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, is directly controlled by military law, if not by almost all if not all post commanders. Check the laws, and rules before assuming you can carry. After all you have no rights to sue, or go to court while in active duty.

NavyLCDR
July 12, 2009, 12:01 AM
i am in the US Army, an Infantry Squad Leader, i have not recived any "perks" as far as ccw (mine is ga, and it is a few dollars and about a 2 month wait here for everyone) and anything gun related is concerned. nor would i want it.

Georgia has the greatest perk of all for military personnel who are in GA, you don't even have to be stationed in Georgia and can be just visiting:

An active duty military member while in Georgia can carry exactly like law enforcement with no permit required. Concealed, open, in prohibited places (except without a permit, the Federal school zone restriction would apply).

Georgia Statute:
16-11-130. Exemptions from Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-128


(a) Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-128 shall not apply to or affect any of the following persons if such persons are employed in the offices listed below or when authorized by federal or state law, regulations, or order:

(1) Peace officers, as such term is defined in paragraph (11) of Code Section 16-1-3, and retired peace officers so long as they remain certified whether employed by the state or a political subdivision of the state or another state or a political subdivision of another state but only if such other state provides a similar privilege for the peace officers of this state;

(2) Wardens, superintendents, and keepers of correctional institutions, jails, or other institutions for the detention of persons accused or convicted of an offense;

(3) Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States;

John Parker
July 12, 2009, 12:05 AM
An active duty military member while in Georgia can carry exactly like law enforcement with no permit required.

NavyLT, you've always been spot on when discussing just about everything, but can you please source this?

NavyLCDR
July 12, 2009, 12:09 AM
I just edited my above post to include the reference.

Not sure if the link will work or not:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=392c06b37804be2f9ad914eff9e25438&displacement=0&oldFmt=FULL&oldAlias=%a7%26nbsp%3b16-11-130.%26nbsp%3bExemptions%20from%20Code%20Sections%2016-11-126%20through%2016-11-128&oldtcsvrnid=TAAQAAMAAFAAEAAI&_fmtstr=BOOK&alias=&_stateList=alias&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVtz-zSkAb&_md5=5b8919f4aeefc88e2eb7cc634f8765d6

And then up on top of the page use the little blue back arrow to see what military are exempt from.

Kansan
July 12, 2009, 12:17 AM
I'm also in the Army. Kansas did not give me any perks as far as CCW requirements. I still had to go to the 8 hours of training. The two firearm-related "perks" I've received in the last 13 years of service are

1. The CMP considers military service as good enough for their shooting requirement for buying an M1 Garand... And it covers their "club affiliation" requirement too, if I recall correctly.

2. Military orders to a particular State are occasionally enough to qualify you for resident-status... Which means you can buy a firearm in that state or get the resident hunting licenses and tags... Even though you may officially be a resident (for tax purposes) of your home state. Which means you can enjoy resident status in two states at once (where you are stationed and your home state)

NavyLCDR
July 12, 2009, 12:27 AM
2. Military orders to a particular State are occasionally enough to qualify you for resident-status... Which means you can buy a firearm in that state or get the resident hunting licenses and tags... Even though you may officially be a resident (for tax purposes) of your home state. Which means you can enjoy resident status in two states at once (where you are stationed and your home state)

Kansan - in regards to firearms purchases, there is caveat that must be met. A military member must be present in a state with the intention of making a home in that state to be a resident for firearms purchases. A "home of record" state of a military is typically not legal for them to purchase handguns, or private party sales, because they, usually, are no longer present in the state with the intention of making a home. A military member, for the purpose of firearms purchases, is ALWAYS a resident of the state they have permanent orders to.

Kansan
July 12, 2009, 12:41 AM
You're correct. However, I believe there are some exceptions. Although I'm stationed in another state, I own a home in my home state (obviously Kansas), have my drivers licence, CCL, car registration, etc., in Kansas. With that documentation of intent (and actual property ownership) in my home state, I would have no problem purchasing a firearm there. And, as you stated, with my orders and actual presence in my duty-station State, I would also not have a problem purchasing one here.

Kansan
July 12, 2009, 12:58 AM
That being said... I haven't tried to buy a firearm there while I wasn't actively living there, so maybe I would run into problems. I just assumed I probably could if I wanted to. Hmmm. Ok, so I guess worst case, one of the "perks" is that you can enjoy resident status in whatever state you are stationed even though you pay taxes somewhere else. (Would that even be considered a perk or a right? I don't know, it's getting too late. I'm going to sleep).

jim in Anchorage
July 12, 2009, 03:51 AM
Rapidfirebeak-this is the response I got from quoted Ft Rich solder"That's everywhere. I think the reasoning is that too many of the younger, "less restrained" folks would carry concealed, then get themselves in trouble. I personally don't carry for a couple reasons - it's the rule, and I have a wife who isn't subject to it. If I ever need a gun for defense, my wife will hand over hers. (I certainly am not going to hide behind her and let her do the shooting.) I do still carry for animal protection while out in the woods though. I seriously doubt the post commander would have an issue with that."

possum
July 12, 2009, 08:51 AM
NavyLt,
i am aware if the GA Statute that you posted however i choose not to use it to my bennifit nor tell others about it. for the reasons i stated above. also there has been much debate weather that statue applied to Military at all times or just when carrying because of the job.

hwp
July 12, 2009, 09:08 AM
People need to remember one thing and that is the US military is one of the most anti-gun groups in the world.

The gun laws for personel on base are worse than any anti gun city in America. The military does not even fully trust its fighting men with guns unless they are supervised. A co-worker was in haiti on a "peace keeping mission" and was ordered to patrol a street with an empty rifle. Guns are checked in and checked out as needed. They are not allowed to be taken home, or practiced with unless official. A security guard for Brinks is trusted more with a gun that a combat veteran by the US military.

John Parker
July 12, 2009, 11:14 AM
NavyLT-you've got to be able to sign into LexisNexis. Being a prof has it's perks at times.

NavyLCDR
July 12, 2009, 11:45 AM
NavyLt,
i am aware if the GA Statute that you posted however i choose not to use it to my bennifit nor tell others about it. for the reasons i stated above. also there has been much debate weather that statue applied to Military at all times or just when carrying because of the job.

1. Why not tell others about it? If there is something in the law that makes it easier for a person to have the means to defend themselves, and I know about, I would not want to withhold that information from them. By the states' requiring us to pay them for a license to carry a gun, especially in Georgia, where you have to be licensed to carry at all, open or concealed, the state has taken the RIGHT to self defense away from us and turned it into a state privilidge that one must pay for.

2. There is no debate about whether that statute applied to Military only in the line of duty. The state Attorney General has published an opinion that says that the statute is clearly worded that it applies any and all times a member of the US Military is present in Georgia, whether or not actually on duty.

NavyLCDR
July 12, 2009, 11:47 AM
NavyLT-you've got to be able to sign into LexisNexis. Being a prof has it's perks at times.

Nope, I am nothing special. I just got in through googling Georgia Statutes. Maybe you have to go into through the "front door" and then drill your way into it:
http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

Sorry about that.

NavyLCDR
July 12, 2009, 11:52 AM
That being said... I haven't tried to buy a firearm there while I wasn't actively living there, so maybe I would run into problems. I just assumed I probably could if I wanted to. Hmmm. Ok, so I guess worst case, one of the "perks" is that you can enjoy resident status in whatever state you are stationed even though you pay taxes somewhere else. (Would that even be considered a perk or a right? I don't know, it's getting too late. I'm going to sleep).

The situation you speak of is completely left up to the honor of the purchaser. I have a Wyoming Driver's license. I could take that Wyoming Driver's license and buy any firearm from a Wyoming FFL, showing that driver's license. However, for me, it would be lying on the 4473 to say that I am a resident of Wyoming, because I have no intention of making a home there. Why would I intend to make Wyoming a home when my soon-to-be-ex-wife is there?!? :D

Anyway, in that situation, it truly is up to the integrity of the person. The FFL and the BATFE aren't going to care.

Now, you active duty ID card, and properly endorsed permanent orders to a state are valid proofs of residency for an FFL the minute you execute those orders and are all the ID that is required.

Dominus
July 12, 2009, 12:18 PM
NavyLT, thanks for great info!

CGisler90
July 12, 2009, 01:00 PM
In georgia, you need a Georgia Firearms License to conceal or open carry a pistol. If you have a military license (currently enlisted in the military) you do not need a GFL to open carry or conceal. Although, you do have to subjectto beackground checks, with a valid GFL you don't have to. I love my state. :)

hillbillydelux
July 12, 2009, 01:07 PM
People need to remember one thing and that is the US military is one of the most anti-gun groups in the world.

This is absolutly true. I have much more freedom off base than I do on base. We can not carry on base unless in a security type roll and using an issued weapon. If a military member lives on base and has firearms the red tape and rules governing it are worse than hitler himself could imagine. Sure we can go overseas and carry all manner of weapons but back in the states we are treated like 12 yr old children in reguards to firearms. As far as perks for military service many states wave the need for a ccw class (which I personally do not agree with) as stated above many in the military have desk jobs or such that dont involve weapons at all. Air force, Navy and coastguard weapons training in boot camp is a joke at best.

possum
July 12, 2009, 01:46 PM
1. Why not tell others about it? If there is something in the law that makes it easier for a person to have the means to defend themselves, and I know about, I would not want to withhold that information from them. By the states' requiring us to pay them for a license to carry a gun, especially in Georgia, where you have to be licensed to carry at all, open or concealed, the state has taken the RIGHT to self defense away from us and turned it into a state privilidge that one must pay for.

2. There is no debate about whether that statute applied to Military only in the line of duty. The state Attorney General has published an opinion that says that the statute is clearly worded that it applies any and all times a member of the US Military is present in Georgia, whether or not actually on duty.

there are 2 reasons that i haven't told people about it, and i think they are very valid reasons.

1) i am not a lawyer, barracks type or any other, and i personally didn't understand the statute. I was told one thing by a guy that took the Utah ccw permit class, the class was taught by a Lawyer from Atlanta, and he said that the statue applies to us no matter on duty or off as you understand it, so basically that was a he said she said thing, and that wasn't good enough for me to pass on to others. and on the other hand, a good friend and my training partner said that it was only if on duty, performing your job. so basically i was getting conflicting intel, and none of it concrete enough, to be able to pass on to others. and i would not want to be the guy to tell my men, and fellow troops wrong intel, especially something that can be a potential weapons crime.

I brought up the "opinion" that was published by the GA State AG, to my training partner, and he stated that it was exactly that an opinion and not a statute or law. again i am not a lawyer and i didn't understand the statute.

2) as in my earlier post there are many people in the Military that are not the caliber of people that should be carrying in the first place. that would take advantage of the statue and get themselves in trouble. they can't drive without getting in trouble, they can't go to river street without getting into a fight. if they can't do the basic things without being chaptered, receiving article 15's etc, they would not do well carrying.

also the majority of the folks in my unit couldn't care less about ccw, or what goes with it. the ones that do, go out and get their ccw and are normally of the higher caliber of gun owner/ shooter and they are ethical, responsible adults, that add to society instead of retract from it.

i am all about the 2ND amendment, and ccw, also with that i like to do things that put and keep gun owners and ccw holders in a good light. there are many just in my unit alone that would bring dishonor and discredit to ccw holders, gun owners etc, and do the kinds of things that give the anti's fuel for the fire.

possum
July 12, 2009, 01:51 PM
This is absolutly true. I have much more freedom off base than I do on base. We can not carry on base unless in a security type roll and using an issued weapon. If a military member lives on base and has firearms the red tape and rules governing it are worse than hitler himself could imagine. Sure we can go overseas and carry all manner of weapons but back in the states we are treated like 12 yr old children in reguards to firearms.
100% right you are.

RapidFireBeak
July 12, 2009, 03:52 PM
your Constituition rights are out the window as far as the COmmander is concerned.

While the military can (and does!) restrict your freedom, there are limits. Military personnel do not automatically lose all constitutional rights.

Remember the flap at Fort Campbell, KY a few months ago? Some infantry unit commander tried to make all the soldiers under his command report on information about personally owned firearms (including those kept exclusively off post), storage, and concealed carry. Someone much higher up than him swatted it down, officially because he "was not acting within his authority."

While the commander in AK may have issued a similar order, I have doubts that it would survive a legal challenge. It seems to be a pretty clear violation of the soldiers' constitutional rights.

Mags
July 12, 2009, 03:57 PM
You are correct sir, it is more correct for me to have said your rights are limited or restricted than completely gone.

kingpin008
July 12, 2009, 04:15 PM
Dan - For the love of God, STOP TYPING IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! It's the same as shouting, and will get you ignored by pretty much everyone.

"Amendment", not "Ammenment". It's kind of an important difference.

kingpin008
July 12, 2009, 04:38 PM
Dan - It's got nothing to do with getting along. I've got no problem with you - you just joined today. I was merely pointing out that if you continued to post all in caps like that, people would quickly become annoyed.

And as far as correcting the spelling - yeah, that's important too. People look at this site to learn about the second amendment and gun rights - if we can't even correctly spell the things we're trying to support and promote, how do you think that makes us look?

Bottom line, I'm not trying to bust your chops. Take my comments to heart or discard them entirely, I don't care. Just trying to suggest a little closer scrutiny of what you put out there is all.

Elbert P . Suggins
July 12, 2009, 04:58 PM
Dan, the whole point to the issue at hand now is it is very annoying to look at mispelled words. Many people have trouble spelling and when they post on sites such as these it is like finger nails down a blackboard. You see the words as correctly spelled and others see them mispelled. When you CAP your words or color them red it only makes it worse. It doesn't make you stupid or something less, but only should show you that improvement;) of spelling and word selection in forming sentences forms your argument in a more stronger and forceful way.

bigione
July 12, 2009, 05:54 PM
S.Dak doesn't require any class for CCW but does for hunting license. There a free hunter safety class is required.. It is your personal responsiblility to know the applicable laws and obey same. Milatary personel stationed here get residenct status for hunting privileges.

happygeek
July 12, 2009, 06:19 PM
Some of these newfangled web browsers nowadays have spell checkers that'll correct you when you're typing up your post on THR, or any other forum for that matter. May I suggest Firefox 3.0?

Getting a CCP in WA is a bit quicker for military. It might be because they know you're not a convicted felon if you're in the military, so that might speed up the background check. I got mine in the mail in only 8 days :D

WA state does trust us more with guns than the Army does. To be on post you have to register your guns, and I know how much we all love the idea of registering our guns with the federal government. That and you're not allowed to carry them around, or keep them loaded, and if I'm not badly mistaken the rule is they have to be stored in a lockbox at all times. Luckily I'm off post and I never bring them on post so I don't have to deal with that.

I think a lot of the Army's rules come from dealing with idiots though. The Army can be quick to take away everyone's freedom to do something because a couple of idiots hurt themselves and/or others while doing said activity. It's sad that there are people like that who screw something up for everyone else through their stupidity, but that's the way it is in the military.

If you enjoyed reading about "Military and State pistol permits?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!