How can we get a federal concealed carry for our service members and veterans?

I read the hrs and leosa but unfortunately it's relegated to law enforcement, and retirees that have 10 years law enforcement or have been injured and past the probationary period but service connected. It requires qualification every 12 months with the same type of weapon to be carried. Unfortunately, it only provides for people with arrest authority under ucmj as far as military is concerned.
Maybe we can get them to expand it! Thanks Sgt.

That's a true "catch 22"! It's really crazy. We can be in charge of hundredths of thousands of federal equipment while in the military, yet the local yo-cals won't allow veterans with a Good Conduct Discharge to carry!!! Crazy

To civilians we are plastic army men, nothing more.

The police will have one more to take to jail for brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime. How will you be able to convince the police that you weren't part of the problem if both you and the criminal were brandishing and/or discharging firearms in a public place. "Mr. Policeman, I'm not the real criminal here. You see, I was firing my pistol at him while he was shooting at me. The lady that got knocked down trying to run away from the shooting almost had her purse taken by the other guy that was shooting at me."

One would think that since (most of us was 18 yrs old) we joined and defended this great nation of ours from foreign and domestic enemies that upon a RE-1A discharge, you would be able to carry a concealed weapon in order not only to protect yourself, family and friends during emenant danger. Also to help during a crisis and or active shooter situation. Especially since the cowardly acts of 9/11. Isn't that why the HR218 exists?!

Yes, but my point is that there needs to be training before someone is issued a permit. I know all of us know howbtohow to safelybsafely use a firearm. The original issue was a misconception of second amendment rights. We are allowed to carry concealed weapons with proper document and training. I don't think that just because a person was in the armed forces that it gives them an automatic right to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

CPL(P) Shaun Smith MBA, PhD Student] - I'm not sure you fully understand the training regimen and jurisdiction of FAMS and FFDOs. Their training is so far above what an average citizen gets for concealed carry that it's crazy to compare them. I believe FFDOs still have to complete a week of training at a FLETC (where all federal law enforcement are trained). They are also required to complete refresher training (I don't know the interval). FFDO jurisdiction is ONLY IN THE COCKPIT and they have no easy access to the weapon out of the cockpit due to the carry protocol that requires the weapon to be locked in a holster and secured in a flight bag. FAMS training is off the charts compared to anyone else. All they do is train and fly. That training involves a lot of shooting in stressful scenarios including shooting at each other (swapping off who plays the bad guys) in simulated aircraft cabins with simunitions (essentially bullet sized paintballs that sting like hell). There are very few military folks who experience their level of training.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to see some sort of program where properly trained military folk (including retirees) can get nationwide carry privileges. But I believe there needs to be significant additional training that goes along with it. Otherwise, we need to comply with an individual State's decisions on who can conceal carry and what it takes. The other alternative would be for the Congress and President to create a federal concealed carry statute... Don't see that happening anytime soon...

The letter of the law is kind of cool. I've been looking into it further. All possible ports of entry must have clearly marked signage in order for it to be enforceable. So if even one door, front or back does not have a sign, they cannot enforce the gun free policy.
My right to defend myself does supersede a property owner's right to ask me not to carry when the business is 1) open to the public, and 2) has established a history of violence to the level where carrying a firearm would offer opportunity to defend against lethal threats, in my opinion.

I know I sounded brash, maybe arrogant, but I believe my life, your life, every life comes before another person's comfort level. I also believe that any person(s) that mean to actively and maliciously threaten the former forfeits the sovereignty of their right to live. Escalation of force should be observed though.

You're right, if I've concealed properly then nobody would be the wiser. And what I propose for military to carry like a LEO is to earn certification on that level. I just want us to be granted access to that, like an ffdo. Why should pilots get to carry everywhere after a short class and not us?

Sergeant, the NRA? Really, maybe they need to change their name because they are so far from what they were started as. They don't give a shit about anything, it seems, and when lifetime members start telling them that they might have the wrong world view, they get a little whiney about it and throw people out. They are, now adays, more concerned with being so far to the right on things. Many other people are against concealed carry, so maybe investigate why people are against it before you decide that they are wrong and why the National RIFLE Association would be for concealed carry. How do conceal a RIFLE?

A1C Paul Cowan - You seem to be a little left and whiney there AC1.
Just saying.

I agree, though I rarely vote Republican either.

When I was a Police Officer in California taking classes at the local community college we were told we could not carry our weapons on campus. As Mama Gump always said "Stupid is as stupid does."

Sergeant, here is the problem with your comment as I see it. If you are the local police in that community, you ARE allowed to carry your weapon in the course of your duty. But the school does have the right to restrict weapons on people. Calling other people stupid kind of tells people that you are already loosing the fight. The non state colleges in Texas have done the same thing, and that is in TEXAS, which is by far the furthest thing from Liberal as you can find

First off, 85% of America falls in the middle an not to the extreme left or right. Making this a topic based upon either sides political lies is just a tragedy. You have claimed to want to stop acting like children yet you resort to school yard tactics and misguided information. Your 'facts' do nothing but wag your finger back in the other direction. TO better address your 'Facts':
1. Not a fact. It's just a statement. Your opinion is that weapons at a college make it unsafe. Yet the shootings that have occurred at colleges were in fact a gun free campus. How many weapons incidents have there been in Texas colleges??? Non State Universities are bucking against it due to lack of perceived safety, not an actual threat. Can you show ANY actual evidence that violence or weapon use has gone up on Texas colleges...
2. Why are you assuming that people will call the police? (again, not a fact) Your only fact here is that there are good people that are afraid of guns. There are also people that are afraid of everything else in this world. Fact: studies have shown that most people's fears are countered by education not avoidance.
3. This statement is as close as you got to a fact. Military members are citizens and are not above the law. We do not get additional privileges, we get our privileges restricted. We have volunteered to fall under additional laws and do not have the same rights and privileges of a normal citizen.
4. I'm not going to take this to a political side, but check your own facts on this one. It was a Democratically controlled government that actually went around to collect the legally owned weapons of every day citizens in the wake of hurricane Katrina by force. I say by force because they sent tactical teams in to homes and asked homeowners where their registered weapons were at gun point.

Everyone wants the violence to stop but adding more gun laws is not the answer. Better mental health care is a good start. So is educating people on weapon safety.
Pointing fingers and calling names on either side won't solve anything.

Thank you for your service.

MSGT, maybe you need to read the papers, especially about the Universities in Texas. It is documented that MOST of the Universities that are NOT state schools have actually given the state notice that they are NOT going to be permitting weapons in their school grounds and buildings. You might want to check that since I got it from a couple of sources that actually LIVE there. But you missed the point about what I was saying. I was stating that they did not want guns on their campus, whether it is perceived or actual safety has nothing to do with it. You thinking that people having guns will add to safety is a claim ALSO without merit, because you can not prove a negative with a negative. All I was saying is that concealed carry or even open carry was actually chosen, NOT by the school regents or board or whatever organization runs the campus but ALSO by the students.
As for "ASSUMING" that people are going to call the police, it HAPPENS! Why, because of just what you said, fear. And I agree that education and avoidance are quite truthfully two separate things. HOWEVER, the arm that USED to educate people is that organization called the National Rifle Association. But they have become so bloody political because of the idiots who keep spreading the lies about Liberals trying to take guns away (and it would not surprise me if they had a hand in it, but that is opinion and assumption on my part, I admit) that the fear is what is advanced and NOT education.
Now, as for during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, let me see if I have this straight. Yes, the LOCAL government, because they were dealing with such things as wide spread panic and fear and other issues did not want to have weapons out there. It was a mistake, but it was NOT as wide spread as it was ORIGINALLY reported. And those people DID, in fact, receive their weapons back. So tell me this sergeant, what was the REASON for those seizures? Tell me what YOU would have done differently at a time when tensions, fears, lack of federal support or any myriad of other issues were happening, including riots and looting. Yes, to many it was a mistake but again, fear and such tends to make people do things that they think is right at the time. But of course, no matter what is said, you are of the opinion because it was a time of high stress and such they should have been making all the right decisions... Sergeant, human nature doesn't work that way.
Lastly, you stated that gun laws don't help. However, how about actually doing such things as the following:
1. Require federal background checks for ALL weapons. There are states where people go in and fill out a form and then can walk out of the store with the weapon. Hello, pistols, rifles and shotguns are ALL weapons and can kill a person just as dead but we only seem to think pistols are the ones that people use.
2. REQUIRE classes on weapons and weapon safety, not only at the time of applying for the permit but REQUIRE periodic refresher courses
3. REQUIRE people to RENEW their permit. We do it for drivers, why not for gun owners?
4. REQUIRE all weapons to be registered, just like a car. That means that if the owner of a gun sells a gun, that has to be done with forms filled out and everything else. And this is where the problem lies, since how is an individual supposed to run a background check on someone buying a personal, previously owned weapon?
Oh, I know, this is an unreasonable restriction on everyone's 2nd Amendment right, right? But right now, the system that we HAVE is NOT doing what it should be doing, and gun manufacturers and such don't want any kind of restrictions at all. And gun owners think that their rights are being infringed upon because there is too much regulation. But there has to be, by actually TALKING about it instead of political wrangling, a way to make it work. But thinking that more people being able to carry concealed or open is not the answer.

There are many studies that refute Stanford's finding - including one from Harvard, and even the FBI's own files. Here are a few articles that point out the error in believing the first thing you read that fits your worldview (as opposed to those that you ignore because they don't):
http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2015/03/review_strongest_research_shows_no_link_between_gun_ownership_rates_and_higher_crime.html

http://www.hngn.com/articles/141814/20151020/harvard-gun-study-the-more-guns-the-less-criminal-activity.htm

https://mises.org/blog/theres-no-correlation-between-gun-ownership-mass-shootings-and-murder-rates

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/

The one thing that goes up when there are more guns is violence committed with guns... but, not the total of violent crimes (in fact, the total violent crimes usually decreases). But, if you banned hammers, the number of murders (or violent crimes) involving hammers would decrease, as well.

There is NO such thing as a "gun crime" - unless someone steals your gun. There is crime. There is violence. There is suicide. Those things occur with or without firearms.

Hmm interesting perspective. What poster do you refer?

Roger that sir. Hope isn't a plan though. And I've had the misfortune of being at the mall when it happened. I was glad that I forbid my little girl from going to the mall for that very reason hours before the shots were fired.
Major, I think it's not for the sunshine or the thunder in the distance that we carry a rain jacket.