B!ngo said:
I know you are playing devils advocate here, but I could not disagree with that sentiment more strongly:
1. Layering band-aids on bad law is just bad. Greater complexity, precedent for more special classes, and reduces the chance that the fundamental problem will be addressed;
2. I am an ex-mil guy and am a huge supporter of our military men and women. Nonetheless, making the military a 'special class' and in particular, giving them special access to weapons on our shores just smacks of bad policy and a dangerous precedent that plays out badly in many (lesser and poorly governed) nations across the globe. Are we close to realizing any dangers associated with that precedent in our country? Nope, but I would never step near such a line.
Fix the law. And thanks to the FFL for contributing his/her time and money to help out this soldier. And if you seek any cost-offsetting contribution, let me know.
B
We create special classes of people with more (or less) privileges and rights all the time in our society. They usually are tied to some level of training, and also some level of public trust.
Only doctors can write prescriptions for certain medicines, only police can deprive you of your rights under certain circumstances, only certified pilots are allowed to fly airplanes, only CDL holders can drive vehicles over 10,000 pounds or carry hazardous materials. The examples go on and on.
Military members are already given a number of special privileges due to their service. Servicemembers are exempt from a number of Virginia gun laws regarding proof of residency and an exemption from the now repealed 1-gun a month law. National Guardsman are even immune to arrest by local law enforcement when conducting their duty. The repeal of one gun a month was a hard fought battle in the state legislature, but not once did the special classes (to include CCW holders) which were exempt from the law hurt the effort to have it repealed.
To keep it on the topic of guns, we give commercial pilots the right to carry in the cockpit, judges the right to carry in courthouses, sworn law enforcement the right to carry just about anywhere, and yes, CCW holders are also a special class given special rights to carry a firearm.
The reverse is also true. Felons and those convicted of domestic violence are completely denied their 2A rights. That is also a special class.
I agree that sometimes these classes are overstretched. I my state any prosecutor can now carry concealed with no training required. What makes them more or less responsible than your average citizen? There are numerous other exceptions that have been carved out in the CCW code that are blatant political favors.
The point is that special privileges and rights exist everywhere in our society, and they usually come with corresponding responsibility. And that is a good thing if we wish to live in a somewhat ordered society. Absolute equality sounds good in theory, but I think that very few even on this forum would like the idea of violent felons legally carrying concealed weapons. Fortunately we have laws for that which do not prevent the act, but at least remove that individual from society for a longer period of time if they are caught.
Back to the original proposal, soldiers have all received some level of basic firearms safety instruction, in many states at least enough to where proof of basic military training is enough to obtain a CCW without any further training. They bear a heavy social responsibility, especially post 9/11. They also sacrifice greatly to society by giving up large amounts of personal freedom to defend this country. A full repeal of DCs gun laws for the immediate future is a pipe dream, so the proposal to allow them to possess guns in the districts is reasonable and does nothing to harm the overall 2A movement.
