Florida Carry Alert! Military Concealed Carry Rights Held Up

[StogieC]

FLORIDA CARRY, INC. LEGISLATIVE ALERT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – April 1, 2011

SB 1220 & HB 499 – Active and Veteran Military Concealed Carry –
Qualified to defend a nation but not allowed to defend their families.

Members and friends,

States across the country allow military personnel and honorably discharged veterans to obtain licenses to carry concealed firearms without regard to their age or where they are stationed. Florida requires that our troops be full time U.S. residents and over 21. This denies the fundamental right to bear arms to our off duty Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines who are stationed overseas and all service members and vets, even in the U.S, who are not yet 21.

Driving, gunning, and commanding military weapons systems that could lay waste to a small town in a matter of minutes requires sound
judgment and restraint. Being engaged in combat, peacekeeping, and enforcement operations as troops and small unit leaders demonstrates
that our young adult military members are quite capable of making reasonable and responsible decisions. Our military members receive thousands of hours of firearms instruction and regular mental health evaluations in addition to the state concealed firearms license training and background check requirements that will still need to be met.

Far too often we hear in the news about our troops who are home on leave or just back from combat deployments becoming defenseless victims of violent crime. Qualified to defend a nation but not trusted to defend their own families at home.

It is critical that these bills get scheduled in Senate and House committees as these bills need to pass three committees prior to April 26th.

Florida Carry is urgently requesting your immediate action to get this bill on the agenda. We need everyone to fire off an e-mail to Senator Evers, Representative Patronis, and the committee members.

Feel free to use the e-mail helper below, and thank you again for your solid support. We’re almost there, and we just need a final push to get this bill to the Governor’s desk for his signature.

E-mail Helper (feel free to cut, copy, paste, and edit to suit)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

TO:

[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

SUBJECT:

SB 1220 and HB 499 – Let our troop’s voices be heard!

Dear Senators and Representatives,

SB 1220 and HB 499 has been going nowhere since committee hearings started. It is imperative that SB 1220 and HB 499 get scheduled for both the Senate Criminal Justice Committee and the House Government Operations subcommittee immediately, in order to make the April 26 cutoff date.

Senator Altman and Representative Drake have made multiple requests for scheduling the bill, and have been ignored to date.

Our military members receive thousands of hours of firearms instruction and regular mental health evaluations in addition to the state concealed firearms license training and background check requirements that will still need to be met. Being engaged in combat, peacekeeping, and enforcement operations as troops and small unit leaders demonstrates that our young adult military members are quite capable of making reasonable and responsible decisions. Far too often we hear in the news about our troops who are home on leave or just back from combat deployments becoming defenseless victims of violent crime. Qualified to defend a nation but not trusted to defend their own families at home. This must change.

There is no substantiated reason for this bill to be stalled at this point.

Please get this bill scheduled immediately for committee consideration. Our service members and veterans deserve to have this
bill acted on.

Respectfully yours,

<your name>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[mljdeckard]

As a member of the armed forces, I am not in favor of supporting rights for military members that are different than those for regular citizens.

And the members who aren't 21 certainly have not had THOUSANDS of hours of training in handling weapons safely. (Those in the Air Force and Navy have had very little training.) I can't think of very many of my lower enlisted guys, past or present, who I would endorse to carry as a civilian. I never had a mental health evaluation. Nothing in the military prepares individuals for the rules of engagement and laws they need to know to carry as civilians.

When I was in Germany I was assistant armorer to a HHC company of an armor battalion. I had unaccompanied access to hundreds of weapons, everything from M-3 grease guns to Mk 19s. I bought a Taurus 9mm from a friend of mine, and when I went to have it added to my orders to bring it home with me, I was turned down because I wasn't 21 yet. I know how stupid the laws are, but I absolutely will not endorse the idea that someone should be allowed to carry simply because they are a member of the armed forces.

 

[StogieC]

This is about the incremental restoration of rights. There are cases in the courts to restore 18-21 carry but until those cases are won, this is a step in the right direction.

 

[mljdeckard]

I don't think giving military members an option that regular citizens don't have is a step in the right direction.

 

[KenW.]

Now if we could just let them have a beer before they turn 21. They can vote, they can drive, they can die for thier country etc, let 'em have a beer!

I'm a military retiree. I am glad to see laws of this nature, but also have reservations about allowing military folks to gain things over what the civilian population is permitted. A cost savings is great, but they should fill all the same squares the non-GI's have to.

 

[Uteridge]

We don't need any rights that are not afforded to ordinary citizens. But yes, we should all be able to carry a gun anywhere, anytime; regardless of age or residency.

 

[StogieC]

GI Bill, Veterans Administration, Medical, Dental, Vision, Home loan guarantee, burial, education...
Veterans EARN what they are afforded and MUCH more!

I won't disarm a 20 year old combat wounded vet.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I won't disarm a 20 year old combat wounded vet.

and no one is. I'm a veteran who has served in both time of peace and time of war and seen combat action. Yes, members of the military do earn a lot of rights, and a lot of privileges civilinas do not, but nothing a vet has issued to him/her or earns due to military service puts them in a different category. Florida has laws regarding CCW licensing, as do all states. If the law is no one under 21 can obtain a CCW, I don't disagree with that. No one is saying a 20 year old wounded vet can not arm himself, he simply just can do so concealed. But neither can the 20 year old college kid or Burger King employee. We are a nation of rules and laws. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[StogieC]

See post 3.

 

[merlinfire]

Extra firearms rights for the military really isn't much, since pretty much all anti-gunners aren't against gun rights for military and police. But it is something.

 

[Rail Driver]

I don't think giving military members an option that regular citizens don't have is a step in the right direction.

Why not? Do regular citizens risk their lives to defend our nation on a regular basis? I certainly believe that active duty and (not dishonorably) discharged soldiers should be exempt from state firearms licensing restrictions (though I also believe that regular citizens should also be exempt from licensing but that's for a different thread as this one is specifically about the military)

 

[Bonesinium]

Many states allow people under 21 to obtain carry permits, unless I am reading this wrong, this wouldn't give military members any more rights than civilians.

 

[Ron James]

When I was stationed at Fort McPherson in Ga. I had to show proof of residence to acquire a CCW permit. Didn't hinder me at all. As military personnel, You are considered a resident of what ever state your military post is in. I simple had to get a letter from the JAG office stating regardless of where my driver license was issued ( Michigan in my case ) I was legally a resident of Jonesboro, Ga. Done deal. The same was required for Washington state. I always kept my home of records in Michigan so I never had to pay state income taxes. Catch 22 as far as the state is concerned, but works out very well for the military. BTW. a concealed permit does not authorize any military member to carry on a military installation, which in my opinion is as it should be.

 

[gavelwacker]

"BTW. a concealed permit does not authorize any military member to carry on a military installation, which in my opinion is as it should be."


I can think of a bunch of soldiers at Ft. Hood, Tx. that would argue that point. Just because you are on a Military Base/Reservation does not mean that you are expected to sacrifice your right to self-defense when the situation arises. And those situations can happen anytime, anywhere without warning!
David.

 

[Ron James]

That type of event can happen anytime, any place, sorry, after so many years in the Army, I know way too many people who are not responsible enough to carry concealed, even if they are in the military. Unfortunately a uniform does not automatically increase intelligence or responsibility. As a First Sargent I have even had a whacked out private try and shoot me with a, believe it or not a RG-10, I was luckier than Regan, the privates gun didn't fire. Hell, I wasn't even the one he was angry with. No I still believe that concealed weapons have no place in the barracks.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's very dangerous to have the law apply differently to different classes of citizens. Either all 18-year-olds should have the right to carry, or none should. The mere fact that someone's in the military should not convert him into an elite class, not subject to rules that apply to others his age.

The reasoning in support of this is specious. Military arms usage is far different from civilian arms usage, in that the military member is not acting as a free agent. He uses guns under strict rules of engagement, and within a tight command structure. On stateside bases, he can't even keep personally-owned guns outside of secure storage. If the argument against allowing 18-year-olds to carry is because they lack maturity and judgement, then that applies whether they are in the military or not.

 

[Packman]

Hmmmm. This is interesting.

On the one hand, I agree with some of the posters who oppose rights being guaranteed to military members, but denied to the general person. I have the utmost respect and gratitude for our men and women in uniform, but I don't know that they should be given greater leniency under the law when they're out of uniform.

On the other hand, I vehemently support the right of all 18 year olds to obtain a weapon for self defense. Age is not an indicator of maturity. Further, I recognize that often, an incremental approach is more successful than an "all-at-once" effort. In that regard, I support the proposal, because the military members present a "low threat" demographic to arm in the eyes of many people who would otherwise oppose the measure. This would allow us to pass the bill, then use it as a launching point for extending the right to everyone else. ("See? We did it with these guys and had no problems whatsoever")

I guess I'd say I'm more in favor than opposed.

 

[StogieC]

Hmmmm. This is interesting.

On the one hand, I agree with some of the posters who oppose rights being guaranteed to military members, but denied to the general person. I have the utmost respect and gratitude for our men and women in uniform, but I don't know that they should be given greater leniency under the law when they're out of uniform.

On the other hand, I vehemently support the right of all 18 year olds to obtain a weapon for self defense. Age is not an indicator of maturity. Further, I recognize that often, an incremental approach is more successful than an "all-at-once" effort. In that regard, I support the proposal, because the military members present a "low threat" demographic to arm in the eyes of many people who would otherwise oppose the measure. This would allow us to pass the bill, then use it as a launching point for extending the right to everyone else. ("See? We did it with these guys and had no problems whatsoever")

I guess I'd say I'm more in favor than opposed.

QFT

That is exactly the point in all of this.

 

[CHEVELLE427]

(Those in the Air Force and Navy have had very little training.)

i can vouch for this one.

my GF was in the navy for almost 9 years, when we started going to the gun range i would have thought she knew her way around guns, NOT.

She said she got to shoot a M16 once as a laser set UP and a 9mm 2-3 times. she had a lot of basic learning to do before i could feel good about walking away to let her fend for herself at the range.

she has come a long way in a short time, went from keeping it on paper to grouping.

she was a nurse .

 

[jkingrph]

As a member of the armed forces, I am not in favor of supporting rights for military members that are different than those for regular citizens.

And the members who aren't 21 certainly have not had THOUSANDS of hours of training in handling weapons safely. (Those in the Air Force and Navy have had very little training.) I can't think of very many of my lower enlisted guys, past or present, who I would endorse to carry as a civilian. I never had a mental health evaluation. Nothing in the military prepares individuals for the rules of engagement and laws they need to know to carry as civilians.

When I was in Germany I was assistant armorer to a HHC company of an armor battalion. I had unaccompanied access to hundreds of weapons, everything from M-3 grease guns to Mk 19s. I bought a Taurus 9mm from a friend of mine, and when I went to have it added to my orders to bring it home with me, I was turned down because I wasn't 21 yet. I know how stupid the laws are, but I absolutely will not endorse the idea that someone should be allowed to carry simply because they are a member of the armed forces.
__________________

As a former USAF Officer with 10 years active, 7 reserve, finished as Major, I have seen 18 year olds with whom I would have no problem carrying. I have seen far more who should not. We saw plenty of 30 and 40 year old troops who by personal decisions, life style, drinking who should not be allowed to carry.

All that said, I am a proponent of carry, I carry myself. Back in the early 70's I sold a small handgun to one of my young airmen. I heard that he stayed in and finished up as an E9.

As far as training, in all my time, including the ten years active duty, during Vietnam era, I had less than 6 hours training, and in fact knew more than the instructors for the required training.

 

[hso]

This has turned into a valuable discussion so I've moved it to AD.

I agree with the servicemen who don't want any rights afforded to them that the general public don't have.

Furthermore, I think it is exploitive of folks in the RKBA movement to use their service and sacrifice as a fulcrum to leverage an incremental change in RKBA laws. This sort of legislation can be seen as insulting to the public and to members of the Armed Services and can badly backfire on us.

 

[Mp7]

What "KenW" said.

 

[GreyCoupe]

Absolutely support the rights of active duty, reserve, and honorably discharged citizens to apply for, and receive CCW permits for carry in civilian environments, i.e, off base.

For carry off the installation, military personnel should have to submit to the same process and scrutiny as everybody else.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I support them getting this right because will open the door for all of us. They have as much background checked and training as anyone.

 

[788Ham]

As a former Navy sailor, 67 - 71, I don't think the active duty troops under the age of 21, should be allowed to have a permit for CCW more than civilians! I felt the same as the younger folks when I was 19 years old too, but have to realize some things come with maturity, even though they've been in battle in the sand pile! Off base security lock up for firearms should be required, period!