I disagree. There have been several people I know, including myself, that have never touched a pistol while serving in the military. Many non-combat service personnel (cooks, medical, mechanics, etc) never qualify with or used a pistol. While all military personnel are trained with rifles and have been taught basic safety, they haven’t been instructed on the nuances of CC legality issues. Military personnel should have to go through all the state reqs to get a CC license. TBO I don’t remember my DI or the FM ever talking about the 4 rules. Maybe they did but called it something else. The only safety instruction I remember that they hammered home is “point it downrange or a DI will kick your donkey.”
U.S. Veterans Should CC Without the Redtape
- Thread starter the iron horse
- Start date
- Status
IA_farmboy
Member
In the Army I qualified with the M16 rifle and M67 hand grenade, and had minimal training in such fine weapons as the M240 and M249 machine guns, AT4/M136 rocket launcher, M18A1 antipersonnel mine, and the M203 grenade launcher.
While I would love to avoid the red tape should I decide to carry a concealed weapon I don't think my military training makes me any more qualified to carry than the average citizen. The Army did instill the proper respect of the weapons we used and their safe and proper operation, but that gave no assurance of marksmanship and little assurance of safe operation of a handgun.
I agree with those that say this thinking sounds like something out of "Starship Troopers".
"Service guarantees Citizenship"
While I would love to avoid the red tape should I decide to carry a concealed weapon I don't think my military training makes me any more qualified to carry than the average citizen. The Army did instill the proper respect of the weapons we used and their safe and proper operation, but that gave no assurance of marksmanship and little assurance of safe operation of a handgun.
I agree with those that say this thinking sounds like something out of "Starship Troopers".
"Service guarantees Citizenship"
IA_farmboy
Member
One more thing...
Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran. Honorably discharged, or at least until TPTB found out he wanted to renounce his citizenship.
Lee Harvey Oswald was a veteran. Honorably discharged, or at least until TPTB found out he wanted to renounce his citizenship.
Kaeto
Member
When I went through boot in the Navy (1981-85). My boot company didn't get any training on any weapon but the 1911. And that was just how to dissasemble and reassemble it. No range time at all.
41magsnub
Member
I disagree. As a fairly typical Army veteran in a combat MOS (Combat Engineer) I had approximately 15 minutes of training with a hand gun and I had to worm my way into that (don't confuse this with time on other large weapons which I had substancial training on). I had zero training that I think had any relevence to CCW use.
Adding to that, we all know the types of people in the military. There are lots of good people that I would trust and some that frankly I can't believe are allowed to handle a pocket knife. Given that a person has to pretty much try to get anything other than an honorable discharge, veteran status alone means nothing to CCW ability.
Regardless of a person's position on if training is required or not for CCW, veteran status should have no bearing one way or the other.
Adding to that, we all know the types of people in the military. There are lots of good people that I would trust and some that frankly I can't believe are allowed to handle a pocket knife. Given that a person has to pretty much try to get anything other than an honorable discharge, veteran status alone means nothing to CCW ability.
Regardless of a person's position on if training is required or not for CCW, veteran status should have no bearing one way or the other.
Last edited:
wjustinen
Member
Interesting thought, but
as any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is a "shall not" everyone should be able to carry - openly or concealed - without jumping through .gov hoops.
as any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is a "shall not" everyone should be able to carry - openly or concealed - without jumping through .gov hoops.
I agree with the original poster. But, I also think anyone without a felony record and/or a violent criminal charge should be allowed to do the same - open or concealed.
We're coming to the point in US history where our "citizen" is more like a plebe, and the real citizens are like the citizens of Rome: privileged and given preference. Just like Paul of the Bible got away with a lot because he was a citizen, police, military, judges, rich businessmen, etc. get a bit of preferential treatment by the system.
That's not the America the founding fathers established. Should us 'regular' citizens be exempted against our will from voting, too? How about just giving super-citizens the ability to own firearms, not us mere citizens?
Sorry, no. I'm a citizen - an equal sovereign member of this United States, just as everyone else is.
Furthermore, if everyone was given equal standing in the body politic, there would be much less disdain for those who carry the torch. If you had the acknowledged responsibility to defend yourself, to fight the fires, to participate in the political system, etc. - would you not hold a higher esteem for those who willfully take that burden upon themselves as a service to others? I know that's true for me.
Yet, if you look at places within this country where the "super citizen" exists - urban environments - and the average 'citizen' is essentially at the whim of command of the mayor, police, governing bodies (Metro Port Authority, I'm looking at you), there is a great deal of disdain and hatred for those groups by those who don't directly bend the ear of said group and/or individual...
So what? Did you know how the pistol worked? Then good enough. I wouldn't think it reasonable to withhold a carry permit from a wet-behind-the-ears Bambi who's boyfriend is stalking her or a grandmother who's house was recently being watched by criminals simply due to lack of 'training'. It's not rocket science and can be figured out on one's own quite easily. All that's really needed is a flier with the rules and general principles, in my opinion - there are states which take this stance, and do not have any requirements for getting a concealed (or open) carry permit. You know, assume your fellow citizens are reasonably competent and aware of their own abilities, and all. And if they're not, well... cull them.
We're coming to the point in US history where our "citizen" is more like a plebe, and the real citizens are like the citizens of Rome: privileged and given preference. Just like Paul of the Bible got away with a lot because he was a citizen, police, military, judges, rich businessmen, etc. get a bit of preferential treatment by the system.
That's not the America the founding fathers established. Should us 'regular' citizens be exempted against our will from voting, too? How about just giving super-citizens the ability to own firearms, not us mere citizens?
Sorry, no. I'm a citizen - an equal sovereign member of this United States, just as everyone else is.
Furthermore, if everyone was given equal standing in the body politic, there would be much less disdain for those who carry the torch. If you had the acknowledged responsibility to defend yourself, to fight the fires, to participate in the political system, etc. - would you not hold a higher esteem for those who willfully take that burden upon themselves as a service to others? I know that's true for me.
Yet, if you look at places within this country where the "super citizen" exists - urban environments - and the average 'citizen' is essentially at the whim of command of the mayor, police, governing bodies (Metro Port Authority, I'm looking at you), there is a great deal of disdain and hatred for those groups by those who don't directly bend the ear of said group and/or individual...
So what? Did you know how the pistol worked? Then good enough. I wouldn't think it reasonable to withhold a carry permit from a wet-behind-the-ears Bambi who's boyfriend is stalking her or a grandmother who's house was recently being watched by criminals simply due to lack of 'training'. It's not rocket science and can be figured out on one's own quite easily. All that's really needed is a flier with the rules and general principles, in my opinion - there are states which take this stance, and do not have any requirements for getting a concealed (or open) carry permit. You know, assume your fellow citizens are reasonably competent and aware of their own abilities, and all. And if they're not, well... cull them.
joab
Member
The whole you pull it you shoot it part for starters
41magsnub
Member
Caimlas: Please don't partially quote posts and use the lines out of context to try to prove your point.
What you seem to have missed was that the fairly typical soldier has no more training that is relevant to CCW situations than some joe off the street. Most folks even in a combat MOS never handle a pistol. They qualify on an M16, throw a few grenades, and maybe but not automatically qualify on an MG of some kind or a grenade launcher.
I was atypical in that I handled a pistol at all at any point. I had to sneak in and borrow the battalion XO's pistol to get to shoot and qualify. Helped that we were both from Montana and knew some of the same folks so he made an exception for me. On top of that the qualification was a joke. We had guys holding pistols sideways like a gang banger still qualifying without somebody asking what the hell they were doing and correcting them.
Again, my point is that as an Army veteran nothing I learned in the military has much bearing on any situation I can think of where a CCW permit might come into play and I had more weapons training than the average joe. In an area where training is required to get a CCW most military service should not be a factor one way or the other.
quoting my original post: "Regardless of a person's position on if training is required or not for CCW, veteran status should have no bearing one way or the other."
What you seem to have missed was that the fairly typical soldier has no more training that is relevant to CCW situations than some joe off the street. Most folks even in a combat MOS never handle a pistol. They qualify on an M16, throw a few grenades, and maybe but not automatically qualify on an MG of some kind or a grenade launcher.
I was atypical in that I handled a pistol at all at any point. I had to sneak in and borrow the battalion XO's pistol to get to shoot and qualify. Helped that we were both from Montana and knew some of the same folks so he made an exception for me. On top of that the qualification was a joke. We had guys holding pistols sideways like a gang banger still qualifying without somebody asking what the hell they were doing and correcting them.
Again, my point is that as an Army veteran nothing I learned in the military has much bearing on any situation I can think of where a CCW permit might come into play and I had more weapons training than the average joe. In an area where training is required to get a CCW most military service should not be a factor one way or the other.
quoting my original post: "Regardless of a person's position on if training is required or not for CCW, veteran status should have no bearing one way or the other."
41magsnub
Member
To those differentiating between vets and non vets because the vets have been in a combat situation before and had to make a kill or be killed determination, what percentage of vets actually saw combat or deployed to a location where it is likely? I sure didn't and I would wager that is by far the majority.
Even those that did deploy somewhere... what about the Air Force file clerk in an air conditioned office in Kuwait and didn't even carry a weapon? What about the green shirt on a carrier in the Persian gulf? Both did combat deployments but nothing they did has relevance to CCW situations. There are way more soldiers in non-combat roles than there were combat soldiers.
Even those that did deploy somewhere... what about the Air Force file clerk in an air conditioned office in Kuwait and didn't even carry a weapon? What about the green shirt on a carrier in the Persian gulf? Both did combat deployments but nothing they did has relevance to CCW situations. There are way more soldiers in non-combat roles than there were combat soldiers.
Alphazulu6
member
A class is not going to teach someone the inherent instincts of a shoot or be shot situation. You are going to do what you are going to do unless your taken through some type of serious military type training program that cannot be done in the 40-80 hours that CCW classes take.... most are only 20 I believe.
Let me reiterrate. EVERYONE SHOULD AVOID THE RED TAPE FOR A CCW. NOT MILITARY, NOT JUDGES, NOT CONGRESSMEN, EVERYONE.
If you can pass the background check that your not a wanted Felon then yep you get one. Piss on anyone that wants to uphold that RKBR infringement.
jnojr
Member
No.
Tons of people have gone through the military, touched a firearm in basic training, and then never again, or once in a blue moon to requal. Why should those folks get to CCW with no worries, when someone who hasn't been in the military could have far better and more recent training?
Further, the Second Amendment is a right, not a reward to be doled out to those whom the State approves of. We all have a basic, fundamental right to protect ourselves and our families.
Tons of people have gone through the military, touched a firearm in basic training, and then never again, or once in a blue moon to requal. Why should those folks get to CCW with no worries, when someone who hasn't been in the military could have far better and more recent training?
Further, the Second Amendment is a right, not a reward to be doled out to those whom the State approves of. We all have a basic, fundamental right to protect ourselves and our families.
joab
Member
Alphazulu6, I'm not sure why you quoted my post there, because I have not supported the infringement of regular citizens and my post had noting to do with classes and your comment had nothing to do with my response to your "you pull it you shoot" comment
To me that exemplifies the difference between the military mindset you speak of and the mindset necessary to stay legal in a civilian SD situation
The rules of engagement are much different, especially if you are from the generation that taught to shoot into the tall grass and to fire with the gun over your head from cover or to shoot at the sound source of an AK.
And somehow I can't see how using the logic
"If they run they're criminals if they don't they're smart criminals"
would go over well in a civilian court
Military training in no way prepares you for the legalities of civilian carry, but then the Fla course is only four hours of videos and doesn't do much towards that either
Leaving that course you would be relatively sure of which end was the ouchy end but not much more.
To me that exemplifies the difference between the military mindset you speak of and the mindset necessary to stay legal in a civilian SD situation
The rules of engagement are much different, especially if you are from the generation that taught to shoot into the tall grass and to fire with the gun over your head from cover or to shoot at the sound source of an AK.
And somehow I can't see how using the logic
"If they run they're criminals if they don't they're smart criminals"
would go over well in a civilian court
Military training in no way prepares you for the legalities of civilian carry, but then the Fla course is only four hours of videos and doesn't do much towards that either
Leaving that course you would be relatively sure of which end was the ouchy end but not much more.
Aguila Blanca
Member
That everyone should be able to carry, any time, anywhere, is exactly what I want to profess. And IMHO anyone who suggests that we must have classes in the applicable laws is not working to support the 2nd Amendment. Yes, of course I am aware that many states have licenses for concealed carry of handguns. I possess a few of said licenses. But that doesn't mean that I should have to possess any license, and it further does not mean that I should be required to take any class in order to obtain such a (unconstitutional) license.fletcher said:
There were laws against assault, threatening, and murder back when the Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights. Yet they didn't think it necessary to attach any preconditions to the 2nd Amendment. They didn't feel that the People had a God-given, pre-existing right to carry arms only after having taken a class prescribed by some state. If they didn't think it was necessary, why do you?
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Who Gets To Carry?
Anybody who's a citizen in good standing.
Period.
What about persons NOT in good standing?
Not a problem. They aren't running around loose.
And Veterans?
I'm a Vietnam Era veteran. Day One at the range: couple of mags. Loading, charging, pointing (aiming) shooting. That was the entirety of our practice. Day Two at the range: three twenty-round mags. Shoot twenty standing, twenty kneeling (or was it sitting?), and twenty prone.
No strip. No takedown. No cleaning. No how-to-clear-jam. No loading of magazines.
Just: "here's a rifle and three loaded mags, now go hit that target sixty times."
We weren't trained. I qualified "expert" twice in four years, and I was completely clueless.
Those who went to hazardous duty theatres got more training.
Having served in the military is not an indication of competence.
Now, if you want to make actual qualifying with both pistols and rifles a requirement in the military, that might help, but it's not enough.
Why?
Rules of engagement.
Military rules of engagement are quite different from civilian rules of engagement. The definition of a "bad guy" is different and the action taken is different.
So . . . no.
No special treatment for former military.
Anybody who's a citizen in good standing.
Period.
What about persons NOT in good standing?
Not a problem. They aren't running around loose.
And Veterans?
I'm a Vietnam Era veteran. Day One at the range: couple of mags. Loading, charging, pointing (aiming) shooting. That was the entirety of our practice. Day Two at the range: three twenty-round mags. Shoot twenty standing, twenty kneeling (or was it sitting?), and twenty prone.
No strip. No takedown. No cleaning. No how-to-clear-jam. No loading of magazines.
Just: "here's a rifle and three loaded mags, now go hit that target sixty times."
We weren't trained. I qualified "expert" twice in four years, and I was completely clueless.
Those who went to hazardous duty theatres got more training.
Having served in the military is not an indication of competence.
Now, if you want to make actual qualifying with both pistols and rifles a requirement in the military, that might help, but it's not enough.
Why?
Rules of engagement.
Military rules of engagement are quite different from civilian rules of engagement. The definition of a "bad guy" is different and the action taken is different.
So . . . no.
No special treatment for former military.
Autolycus
Member
Those of us in Illinois live under the government your proposing. Its horrible.
Alphazulu6
member
...
Last edited by a moderator:
xd9fan
Member
I disagree. This is elitist.
If anybody in a true free republic should get CC....it should be every legal citizen first.
Not cops, not state officials, not even Vets....
In a free society, being linked to big momma Govt shouldn't get you special rank on rights.
I"m sure you mean well
If anybody in a true free republic should get CC....it should be every legal citizen first.
Not cops, not state officials, not even Vets....
In a free society, being linked to big momma Govt shouldn't get you special rank on rights.
I"m sure you mean well
JohnBT
Member
"Who Gets To Carry?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody who's a citizen in good standing."
Anybody? Even the 5-year-olds? You can't be serious.
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Anybody who's a citizen in good standing."
Anybody? Even the 5-year-olds? You can't be serious.
John
Kevin108
Member
I disagree. Since this right is something so many people want to take away from the rest of us, we all need to be playing from the same deck. CC is a right of the people. We don't need any confusion there. I don't think you should be exempt from anything merely because of your occupation.
Man, I'm about to wee-wee in SOMEBODY'S Corn Flakes here, but as a 23 year retired Navy veteran AND small arms instructor while in the Navy, I don't believe I should have any special perks that the average citizen doesn't have....just like I don't agree with the natiowide LEO carry for current and former LEOS
(Ducking)
(Ducking)
Sam Adams
Member
I disagree. What's another name for "veteran"? Citizen. We should all have the same rights. I could see lowering or waiving fees as a way of saying "Thanks for your service," but NO WAY should they have special privileges. Carving out special privileges for "super citizens" is a great way to oppress the masses - it wouldn't be the first time and won't be the last.
I understand your motivation, and believe it to be a good one, but the practical effects on non-vets will be awful - as have the special police privileges.
Rights are rights, citizens are citizens. Period.
I understand your motivation, and believe it to be a good one, but the practical effects on non-vets will be awful - as have the special police privileges.
Rights are rights, citizens are citizens. Period.
Alphazulu6
member
..
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status