Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Military and State pistol permits?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Dominus, Jul 11, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dominus

    Dominus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Location:
    NY
    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?
     
  2. THE DARK KNIGHT

    THE DARK KNIGHT Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2009
    Messages:
    1,550
    Location:
    NJ
    Because the military people are superior to us lowly civilians right? They should get less unconstitutional restrictions on their freedom than us plebes?
     
  3. John Parker

    John Parker Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    679
    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.
     
  4. Dominus

    Dominus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Location:
    NY
    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.
     
  5. tank mechanic

    tank mechanic Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    colorado springs
    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.
     
  6. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,531
    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:
     
    Last edited: Jul 11, 2009
  7. Dominus

    Dominus Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Messages:
    168
    Location:
    NY
    Thanks all for the info.
     
  8. Mags

    Mags Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,235
    Location:
    Belgium
    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.
     
  9. RapidFireBeak

    RapidFireBeak Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    Location:
    TX
    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)
     
  10. Mags

    Mags Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    3,235
    Location:
    Belgium
    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.
     
  11. possum

    possum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,942
    Location:
    Concord, N.C.
    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.
     
  12. danbrew

    danbrew member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2009
    Messages:
    408
    Amen. Thanks for your service, possum. Former 11B squad leader here as well and I echo your thoughts.

    :D
     
  13. SHvar

    SHvar Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    648
    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.
     
  14. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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;
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  15. John Parker

    John Parker Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    679
    NavyLT, you've always been spot on when discussing just about everything, but can you please source this?
     
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2009
  16. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
  17. Kansan

    Kansan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    West of the Mississippi
    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)
     
  18. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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.
     
  19. Kansan

    Kansan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    West of the Mississippi
    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.
     
  20. Kansan

    Kansan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    148
    Location:
    West of the Mississippi
    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).
     
  21. jim in Anchorage

    jim in Anchorage Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,531
    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."
     
  22. possum

    possum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,942
    Location:
    Concord, N.C.
    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.
     
  23. hwp

    hwp Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    142
    Location:
    Sevier County, TN
    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.
     
  24. John Parker

    John Parker Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    679
    NavyLT-you've got to be able to sign into LexisNexis. Being a prof has it's perks at times.
     
  25. NavyLCDR

    NavyLCDR member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,691
    Location:
    Stanwood, WA
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page