U.S. Veterans Should CC Without the Redtape

[the iron horse]

Veterans, I think, should be allowed to conceal carry in any state without having to go through the training and fees.

They have already been trained.

Application papers only. (or none)

What do you think?

 

[Guitargod1985]

I believe so as well. In Florida, vets do not have to show proof of training course - just a copy of discharge papers. But they still get screwed out of $70 for application and $42 for fingerprints just like the rest of us.

 

[davec]

I believe some people are citizens, and other people are SUPER citizens.

SUPER Citizens include (but not limited too)

Elected members of government (state, local, federal)
judges
police
fire department
corrections
EMT/paramedical/nurses/doctors
members of the military

since they give so much to society they should be rewarded with SUPER citizenship status.

Everyone else is just a regular citizen and has to follow the rules that SUPER citizens are exempt from.

 

[Frog48]

Retired after 20+ years of service, absolutely.

Honorably discharged, sure.

General discharge and below, no. They should have to go through all the same hoops as the rest of us.

 

[fletcher]

I could see waiving fees, but not the training. Firearms training from the government (or anywhere for that matter) does not necessarily provide education on the laws and legal issues associated with CC, so I can't say I agree with waiving class/training.

 

[HiroProX]

I'd be opposed because I'm in general principle opposed to special privileges.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

I think everyone should be able to carry without a permit necessary, any weapon anyone wants, I don't believe in special priveleges for anyone, be they military, cops, judges, politicians, etc.

 

[the iron horse]

I forgot to add this in my first post:

I believe Vermont has the best idea.

Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.

 

[uneasy_rider]

No training is required for anyone in Georgia. That's the way it should be.

The second amendment doesn't mention anything about training, and lack of training should not be used by bureaucrats to discriminate against people.

Training is good, but should not be a requirement to excercise a fundamental right.

 

[Sistema1927]

I am a veteran, but I think that this is a really, really bad idea.

Why not allow any citizen to carry weapons, concealed or openly, without having to obtain any kind of permission or filling out any paperwork?

 

[the iron horse]

I believe Vermont has the best idea.

Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.

 

[busy_squirrel]

Sounds a bit like a two-class society. That'd be Starship Troopers "citizen or civilian" debate all over again. My vote is open carry everywhere, shall issue concealed carry registration.

 

[Regolith]

I'm with AntiqueCollector on this one. Anyone who is eligible to own a firearm should be able to conceal carry without a permit, just like in Alaska.

 

[GlenJ]

20 year Navy Vet here and I couldn't disagree more.

 

[trueblue1776]

Half the guys I served with didn't even shoot in the right direction. Let alone the 10% that wash out on the first deployment, or the 10% with PTSD when they get back. Not all of us are directly related to Jesus himself (but I'm Aberham's first cousin).

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I could see waiving fees, but not the training. Firearms training from the government (or anywhere for that matter) does not necessarily provide education on the laws and legal issues associated with CC, so I can't say I agree with waiving class/training.

Kindly point out to me where the 2nd Amendment says anything about training or education in laws and legal issues. I must have seen an abridged copy. Mine only says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I must have seen an abridged copy. Mine only says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You must have gotten the abridged copy since mine has more verbiage then that. It goes on to discuss why it was important that individuals not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed. Something about a well-regulated militia.

Are you suggesting the founding fathers had no plans that these people who carried firearms be trained in their use or simply that they didn't intend to deprive someone of the right of self-defense simply because they had not been trained?

 

[schloe]

Horrible idea

 

[Art Eatman]

After Basic Training, one in ten of the entire US military is actually trained in the use of weapons.

While the Texas CHL system does require a demonstration of competency in shooting, the majority of the deal is discussion of applicable state laws concerning the use of deadly force in self defense. A good bit of time is spent on conflict resolution through peaceable means, not violence; that is, how to avoid problems in the first place.

Given the world as it is, regardless of "woulda, coulda, shoulda" about the Second Amendment, veterans are not necessarily qualified.

Art

 

[GRIZ22]

They have already been trained.


Yes, maybe. The majority of vets have little if any pistol training. I think that being a vet is okay to qualify as training for a CMP purchase (and that's pushing it) but not to get a carry permit.

I'm a Viet Vet and still in the Reserves (40 years in June) and I don't think it's a good idea.

PS I don't think of demonstration of some ability to hit a target in an infringement of 2A rights.

 

[RobTzu]

No training?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment means trained and organized. The militia system that the founders envisioned (and had) was very similiar to the Switz system. Males between 18 and 45 are in the militia if they are not in the Armed forces. The have a uniform, rifle, ammuntion, and other necessary accoutrements in their home - maintained in good condition ready to be used. Congress, and most -if not all- states are derelict in their constitutional duties at the present time. Check your state constitution. For instance the Kansas State Constitution Article 8 states:

"The militia shall be composed of all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years, except such as are exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state"

and

"The legislature shall provide for organizing, equipping and disciplining the militia in such manner as it shall deem expedient, not incompatible with the laws of the United States"

I know what some are thinking, that is the National Guard but, US code Title 10 Section 311 states:
"the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

Which makes clear that the militia does not exclude non-guard soldiers. The US constitution however does not make provisions for an "unorganized" militia however. So what ever label they slap on it, a militia it still is, and armed, trained, and organized it must be. Strictly speaking, the 2A is a collective right, in the sense that "we the people" are collectively, the militia. Not only are gun bans unconstitutional, The several states should PROVIDE us with the proper and neccessary firearms to fulfill our duty in the state militias. But that is not done for two reasons:
1: It is anachronistic, to them... even though the Switz have this system today.
2: State militias are a "check" on federal power, and tyranny in general. If the police are outmanned and outgunned by "We the people", a Police State is problematic to achieve.

/rant off.

 

[Feanaro]

The Rule of Law requires that all be treated equally. I don't believe that some [strike]animals[/strike] humans are more equal than others, whether they have sacrificed or not.

 

[Mannix]

I believe some people are citizens, and other people are SUPER citizens.

SUPER Citizens include (but not limited too)

Elected members of government (state, local, federal)
judges
police
fire department
corrections
EMT/paramedical/nurses/doctors
members of the military

since they give so much to society they should be rewarded with SUPER citizenship status.

Everyone else is just a regular citizen and has to follow the rules that SUPER citizens are exempt from.

Sarcasm, or product of the NJ education system?

 

[flynlr]

as a Military member since the early 80's, I know that the majority of people in the military only receive basic firearms training. my first attempt at qualifying with my 38 smith that I carried as a Air Crew member was a dismal failure.
It wasn't until I took training out in the real world that I felt I had become Proficient enough with firearms to safely carry. I have easily fired tens of thousands of rounds down range off duty, compared to maybe 2000 rounds since 1984 while training in the military .
so in short a bad idea.

 

[kingpin008]

First, special privileges for special people? No thanks. No disrespect to our veterans, but that's sort of anti-American, isn't it?

Second, my father was a psychologist in the Army during the last part of the Vietnam War. He tells me stories of some...interesting individuals who came through his office after rotating back to the states. People that you wouldn't want near a butter knife, let alone a concealed firearm. People who went home to their families, when they should have gone home to a mental ward.

I can see where you're coming from in your post, but it doesn't make sense. Being a soldier, and a Veteran makes you many things, but it does not necessarily make you an automatic candidate for the carrying of a lethal weapon, especially when your fellow Americans cannot. We should be honoring our Vets, for sure - but some things should not be treated as "privileges" for some, and unattainable for others.