Florida Carry Alert! Military Concealed Carry Rights Held Up

[altitude_19]

Generalities regarding the responsibility of 18 year olds are pointless here. The Second Amendment never said "If they're a responsible sorta guy who is of age to drink a beer." You'd better dump that mentality, lest someone questions whether or not you're "responsible and mature" enough to vote next election. A vote is arguably more dangerous, given its potential to endow the wrong man with the powers of Commander in Chief, and the chance to annihilate Eastern civilization. If you're ok with 18 year olds voting, best get on board with their packing heat. Nobody will destroy America with a handgun; Elections on the other hand...
A free, adult citizen of the USA is entitled to ALL of their constitutional rights. Whether or not it upsets your delicate sensibilities or makes you nervous is your problem.
By the way, the last shooting at my base took place in family housing, and the perp was over 21.
Finally, no I can't back this legislation. I'm already uncomfortable with the legal priveleges afforded to Police...I won't become the next priveleged class.

 

[armoredman]

I said when I turned 18 that I was an adult on probation for three years...
Lower all adult responsibilities and privileges to 18.

 

[Hacker15E]

I'm a combat veteran, and I don't believe in the concept that some citizens are more equal than others.

Military veterans should not have any firearm rights that are any different than any other American.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Military installations are Federal Property. I don't know a lot of federal property, other than national forests and parks (and there are restrictions even there) that allow anyone to carry unless they are an employee and the firearm carried is part of their official duty. Restriction of weapons on federal installations is nothing new.

As for issuing CC permits to those under 21: I feel it should be up to the individual state they are a resident of. Michigan, the age is 21, as it is for most of the states, as far as I know. If a state did allow issuance of CC permits to 18+, then the legal residents who qualify (as any servicemember should) can apply and be granted a permit through the same channels as any other joe civilian. It may become null and void when they PCS, due to lack of reciprocity, but thats a chance you have to take.

Now, I also feel that if you hold a CCW license (in your state of residence) there should be some sort of option to carry that weapon on post. It shouldn't be automatic, I'm sure the Unit Commander and Base Commander and probably the Commander of the Military Police/ Security Forces should have to approve. In any event, a lot of rules, regulation, and policy would have to be rewritten for what would in reality be a small portion of the population.

 

[crossrhodes]

No justication to change

I joined when I was 17yrs old. Do you think I had enough training to CCW then....NO. I was training to engage an adversary in a hostile environment which is an Apples to Oranges difference when walking around peaceful civilians on your home turf. Two mind sets with two different types of ROE's.
Hundreds of hours of CQB training under your belt does indeed give you the advantage of firearms handling, safety and target engagement for a specific environment but, requires a very specific method and mindset of thinking.
As one OP stated, being in the military doesn't mean you know how to handle a firearm. I've seen plenty of 0151's that had trouble passing the basic annual pistol qualifications and safe firearms handling portion of their training.

 

[Paris]

What is preventing these people from applying for a permit through normal, civilian channels in the State of Florida? Why is the military involved at all? You can either meet Florida's criteria on an individual basis or not. I don't see where the military should be involved in the decision.

 

[crazysccrmd]

TX allows military to get their CHL at 18. As an NCO I don't necessarily believe this to be a good thing. I have young soldiers who just aren't mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with carrying. That said, I also have soldiers who are of legal age who I wouldn't endorse either. We are combat arms (scouts) who are all very familiar with firearms.

I don't think that military should have special rights above ordinary civilians. Privileges (VA Loans/GI Bill/ETC) are one thing as an added benefit of the service we give, but to extend that to constitutional rights is a bit extreme.

 

[Strykervet]

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.

I generally agree with this. I had to do the same thing everyone else did to carry here, but that just means getting fingerprints, filling out a form, and waiting on the mail.

In states that have difficult laws or where you have to take a safety class, I think those rules should be amended or softened. Anywhere a cop doesn't have to take the class to carry, a soldier, especially combat arms, shouldn't either.

And what is wrong with being 21 to carry? It is a pretty big responsibility. Sure, being in the military is too, but that is different. You are in a unit. I had this one guy as a room mate in the army, and I can say for certain he shouldn't ever carry. He ended up in Levenworth, 2 years hard labor, for the stupid stuff he did. Had he been armed off duty, he'd be dead or still in prison (if he isn't now).

Nobody ever said they couldn't protect their family. A shotgun, a rifle, you name it. But carrying in public is kind of a big deal to me. I don't want some 17 yo knucklehead private just out of basic thinking he is King Kong toting a Glock around town. His training didn't prepare him for this, it prepared him to tote a machinegun around somebody else's town and shoot whoever he is told to shoot at. That or cook that other guy's dinner, whatever. Sorry, but I gotta say no on this one.

 

[mljdeckard]

Being in the military does NOT mean a person is of the correct mindset and training to carry off-duty. They are two different things. I have supervised soldiers whom I would not trust to carry a gun at all.

 

[Johannes_Paulsen]

Agree w/mljdeckard. Training to use a rifle in combat conditions does not mean one is ready for the legal and moral implications that come from carrying (and using) a firearm in civilian life (to say nothing of the fact that people who serve in other roles may not have much day-to-day experiencing with firearms at all.) My dad did 20 years in the USAF, flying C-130s. He certainly didn't retire as an expert in handgun use.

I have to confess to a little bit of discomfort at the idea of institutionalizing a separate legal privilege with regard to ANYONE with regard to the right to carry. Smells a lot like the way things are done in New York or Boston - sure you can carry, as long as you're a member of the privileged elite. No thank you.

 

[Owen Sparks]

The idea that rights can be granted in return for service to the state is the tip of a very dangerous wedge.

 

[oneounceload]

If you're ok with 18 year olds voting, best get on board with their packing heat.

Incorrect - and in your analogy, you seem to be confusing a Federal law with a State's right

 

[altitude_19]

You'd be in favor of allowing states to prohibit 18 year olds from voting in STATE elections then (same rhetoric)? States have their rights so long as they do not interfere with the US Constitution. When they do, The Supreme Law of our land trumps whatever state may be stepping out of line.