Should military personnel be automatically exempt from having to go thru the weapons permit process and be able to get it automatically?

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:36:48 -0400

This is geared more towards just owning a firearm, but your opinions on CCPs are welcome

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 9:39 AM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:39:08 -0400

In Virginia they are. All I have to do is bring my DD-214 and some money to the courthouse and I can get one.

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Jul 25 at 2017 9:41 AM

CPT Lawrence Cable — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:41:08 -0400

That's is already the case if you are combat arms or military police in a lot of states. Beyond that, I personally would just as soon see most of the others qualify before I handed them a weapon.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Jul 25 at 2017 9:42 AM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:42:59 -0400

No. In the State of Illinois, there is no training required to get what is called a Firearms Owner ID(FOID). However, there is a requirement for 16 hours of training to get a CCW Permit. Law Enforcement officers and current and former military are exempt from the 8 hours of range training. The rest is classroom training on the laws concerning the use of deadly force, when it is appropriate, situational awareness, so you don't have to use it, etc. This is the part that every state should require, and, no, military personnel should not be exempt.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 9:44 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:44:18 -0400

No. Just because someone is in the military doesn't mean they know how to shoot (c'mon think about times at the range and some soldiers) and not everyone is of good character. Some people get convicted of domestic violence. Some people get convicted of other crimes. Some people have mental health issues and maybe shouldn't be around weapons if they have attempted suicide.

Being in the military doesn't make someone better.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 9:46 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 09:46:52 -0400

Considering how some of the people I have seen handle weapons in the Army, I would have to say no.

Response by CWO3 Dennis M. made Jul 25 at 2017 10:01 AM

CWO3 Dennis M. — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:01:14 -0400

No. I don't see that happening. Any state that requires a permit would incur a huge liability for issuing a firearm permit based solely on active military service.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jul 25 at 2017 10:01 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:01:23 -0400

NO, for several reasons.
Character is not guaranteed due to military service.
Character, mental status, legal status can change over time..lawfully carrying a concealed weapon should be determined in the present moment, not past history.
Military service does not equal weapon proficiency ...I attended Drill Sergeant School with a SSG who had not touched a weapon since Basic and AIT other than to qualify annually, and miserably at that. She literately had held a weapon (M16) only a few times in 11 years and fired one 11 times. As a sigint geek sitting in a basement SCIF in the pentagon she had no need, (other then by regulation) and thus it was not a task performed. She had NEVER held, seen, fired a pistol until DS school..(not part of the course, but a few of us took it upon ourselves to get her up to speed and took some personal time to instruct and take her to the range locally)

EDIT SGT Private RallyPoint Member you said "weapons permit process" just to be clear..are you speaking about the right to carry concealed (or open) a weapon? (This is what i assumed and how I based my response)

Or were you speaking to purchase and maintain control? like is done in a few states that refuse to abide by the 2nd amendment as written?

Response by LTC Thomas Tennant made Jul 25 at 2017 10:08 AM

LTC Thomas Tennant — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:08:20 -0400

Exemption for military (active, reserve, & retired) is a two edge sword for the individual. And I am of two minds as to the whole "Constitutional Carry" issue in general. In states like Kentucky, that CCDW "military exemption exist", but only with documentation showing weapons qualification.

Trouble with both is the individual may have missed out in some importing gun law training and could be exposed to some risk of serious weapons violations. The same could be said for "Constitutional Carry" in that I would like everyone to get some training and gun law education before they go out into the general public with a gun.

Response by CPT Andrew Wright made Jul 25 at 2017 10:20 AM

CPT Andrew Wright — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:20:36 -0400

No. Just because you served in a branch of the military doesn't mean you know anything about the proper use of weapons. As a soldier with over twenty years experience I have familiarized and qualified with pistols, rifles, machine guns, and grenade launchers whereas my Brother-in-Law, a former Sailor, fired .22 rifles at his boot camp and never touched a gun after.

Response by PO2 Robert Aitchison made Jul 25 at 2017 10:26 AM

PO2 Robert Aitchison — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:26:32 -0400

Well the grand total of the firearms training I had in the Navy was an hour of instruction followed by firing 15 rounds from a .45 (chambered in .22) at a man sized target about 10M away. As I recall you needed to get 10 rounds _anywhere_ on the target to pass.

Response by SFC Jerry Humphries made Jul 25 at 2017 10:43 AM

SFC Jerry Humphries — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:43:02 -0400

That same aurgument has been made for our Under 21 soldiers to be able to drink, that being said do you think they really would allow military service members to get a weapon permit base on just their service in the military alone. As far as exemplary behavior goes that's not in the 2nd amendment , nor are weopens permits mentioned in it either.

Response by SSgt Holden M. made Jul 25 at 2017 10:45 AM

SSgt Holden M. — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:45:15 -0400

I would say yes and know. I remember when I lived out in Colorado if you had your form showing that you qualified on fire arms then you didn't have to go through a weapons safety/concealed carry class. Which was nice for a lot of people because most of the classes would charge people all kinds of money for a class which is understandable because most had class room time and range time. So if you have qualified on a weapon system in the military there isn't really much point having to pay money to go to a class to be taught stuff you already know. But on the other hand I think there should be a class on specific concealed carry laws in that specific state, and do some drills while you are concealed carrying to make sure that everybody has some training on the laws and to make sure they have some practice just in case they ever have to draw their weapon.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Jul 25 at 2017 11:32 AM

SMSgt Thor Merich — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:32:53 -0400

Absolutely not! There is no real background check the get in the military. There are just too many knuckleheads in the military to have a blanket rule like that.

Response by SFC Michael Spellman made Jul 25 at 2017 11:55 AM

SFC Michael Spellman — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 11:55:54 -0400

Everyone needs to do the same regardless if prior military or not. Lets face it, just because someone wore a uniform does not automatically mean they know what they're doing when it comes to handling weapons. The paperwork is a checks and balance for the system to show others that there is some kind of screening process. Just because someone served in the military doesn't mean they should be give a special waiver.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 25 at 2017 12:32 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:32:38 -0400

If you are talking about purchasing a weapon, yes. There should really be no restriction on anyone buying one as long as they pass the appropriate background checks.

For conceal or open carry I would say no. Too many in the military never handle weapons and consequently are very inexperienced. Perhaps if you allowed for certain MOS's or units an exception but not a carte blanche exception.

There are entire swaths of the Army, Navy and Air Force that might shoot in boot camp and never again touch a weapon. That is not enough experience, period. At least all Marines have to qualify every year which is two weeks of snapping in and shooting on the range.

Florida allows military veterans the ability to not take the class to get a conceal carry permit. I took the class anyway mostly for familiarity with the law, not range time. I have had plenty of range time , plus the range time was only to demonstrate you can shoot the weapon (pick it up, insert magazine/rounds if revolver and send rounds down range, clear weapon and leave).

Response by PO1 Chad Alcock made Jul 25 at 2017 1:14 PM

PO1 Chad Alcock — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:14:18 -0400

No, and I'm a proponent of gun ownership and have many myself, along with my concealed carry in many states. I think that background checks are a good thing. Military service does not guarantee "good character" (as someone below said). Certain people come to mind, such as Timothy McVeigh (he sticks in my head because his composite drawing looked just like me, and I was actually mistaken for him at the Austin Airport, thankfully he was already in prison). In my profession I see many veterans that have issues, such as mental health or legal, that should preclude them from ever owning firearms, if not legally, then morally.

Response by LT Brad McInnis made Jul 25 at 2017 1:17 PM

LT Brad McInnis — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:17:15 -0400

Do you remember some of the less than stellar personnel you worked with? We all did... Now do you really want someone who couldn't tell their left from their right have automatic access to weapons permits? No thanks. We are vets, and have training, but we can go through the process like any other citizen.

Response by SPC Casey Ashfield made Jul 25 at 2017 1:18 PM

SPC Casey Ashfield — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:18:21 -0400

Military service does not equal weapon proficiency. I have watched service members put magazines in backwards on rifles and handguns, not understanding why their firearm wasn't going bang. Unless there is something in the military record that demonstrates an innate knowledge and experience with firearms, the permitting should not be automatic.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Jul 25 at 2017 1:32 PM

SSG Robert Webster — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:32:41 -0400

Good question. And the answer is - That depends on the circumstances. That also begs the question, what about law enforcement officers?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 1:34 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:34:57 -0400

Absolutely not. There are nuts, felons, and crackpots everywhere, and the military is not exempt.
What I would support is some reductions on red tape regarding gun safety classes mandated in some states. I think that military members have had some OJT.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 1:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 13:58:42 -0400

Here in Florida you must still complete the necessary paper work but it is expedited.

Response by SGT Peter Hayes made Jul 25 at 2017 2:02 PM

SGT Peter Hayes — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:02:12 -0400

Response by SSG Stephan Pendarvis made Jul 25 at 2017 2:17 PM

SSG Stephan Pendarvis — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:17:28 -0400

Nope...but there should be a shorter way for us to get a permit since we are trained. background check still needs to be done because we are after all still human and we all have prejudices of sorts.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 2:58 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:58:34 -0400

I am ok with the current permitting. It is redundancy and it aids in protection. But, with a good record their should be a smooth process because of their training: if they have any /remember.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 25 at 2017 4:24 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:24:03 -0400

The only two questions that need to be asked;
* Are the military personnel/veterans US citizens in good standing?
* What part of "shall not be infringed" isn't understood?

IMHO, the only thing missing from your inquiry is "in good standing." Not everyone serves honorably.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Jul 25 at 2017 4:24 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:24:12 -0400

This is America (the country that was founded on Freedom). Everyone should be exempt from the permit process.

Response by MSgt Roger Settlemyer made Jul 25 at 2017 4:44 PM

MSgt Roger Settlemyer — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:44:30 -0400

No A Marine Master Sargent Admin Type, could bot hit a broad side of a Barn with a M1911. We kidded him saying if we go to war we going to put one round to put into his shirt pocket. Like Barney Fifi in the Andy Griffin show.Not everyone is the same.

Response by CPO Glenn Moss made Jul 25 at 2017 4:56 PM

CPO Glenn Moss — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:56:53 -0400

Here's a question...

When is a "right" not a "right"?

Answer: When it doesn't apply equally to all or when you must have a permit or license from the government in order to exercise it. When this happens, it is known as a "privilege", and not a "right".

I think too many people have forgotten this fundamental aspect of what a "right" is and is not. And that's very important.

We, as citizens of the United States, have acknowledged the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. Note the wording here...we ACKNOWLEDGED its existence, we didn't create it by making a law. It matters not whether we've served in the military, are a cook at the local fast food restaurant, a mother of three, or what have you.

I'm sorry if I obliquely answered your question. But it is my belief that ALL citizens have the RKBA. It's just that many have become confused over this "permit" thing...which is about control and privilege, not a right.

Response by SFC Christopher Taggart made Jul 25 at 2017 4:58 PM

SFC Christopher Taggart — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 16:58:24 -0400

Not too much else to say, except I agree with the other...NO!

Response by SPC Johnney Abbott made Jul 25 at 2017 6:52 PM

SPC Johnney Abbott — Tue, 25 Jul 2017 18:52:57 -0400

They should be from some of the sections. Here in Illinois my 214 serves as part one of my ccl. I sat in the second part, 8 hours class and range time.

Response by SGT Matthew S. made Jul 26 at 2017 1:24 PM

SGT Matthew S. — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:24:11 -0400

I initially thought we should, but after going through the required class for the state I live in, I was glad I did for the legal information I learned

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jul 26 at 2017 3:56 PM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 15:56:25 -0400

In Mississippi you still have to do a full background check like everyone else to get the basic concealed carry license but you don't have to take the course. However, for the enhanced carry (able to carry in more places restricted by basic) all you have to show is your active duty, reserve, or retired id card and it is automatic.
Just to give one out because you were military I don't think should happen. Everyone should go through the background check at a minimum. Lots of things happen after military and to just assume that anyone is eligible is ludicrous in my mind.

Response by Sarah Zayas made Jul 26 at 2017 4:42 PM

Sarah Zayas — Wed, 26 Jul 2017 16:42:34 -0400

Response by SSgt Jerrol Olson made Jul 27 at 2017 7:45 AM

SSgt Jerrol Olson — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 07:45:42 -0400

Our CO shot himself in his foot riding in a hummmer. Post deployment.... He wasn't around much longer. LtCol.

Response by SrA Randy Dixon made Jul 27 at 2017 2:07 PM

SrA Randy Dixon — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:07:24 -0400

Duh ..and .. The #2A NEVER EVER required the government's permission or approval.. that would be counter intuitive STOP capitulating an unalienable Human RIGHT. LL #2A - #OATH 1st

Response by SPC Rick Norris made Jul 27 at 2017 2:23 PM

SPC Rick Norris — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:23:55 -0400

Absolutely. The permit process is a vetting process. Who is more vetted than SM's?

Response by SSG Tom Pike made Jul 27 at 2017 2:26 PM

SSG Tom Pike — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 14:26:27 -0400

Well first, there shouldn't be any weapons permit process. That is a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights.

Second I don't like making classes of citizens where some have privileges others don't. If there was a valid reason for a weapons permit then it is valid for every American Citizen.

Response by SSG Jimmy Cernich made Jul 27 at 2017 4:05 PM

SSG Jimmy Cernich — Thu, 27 Jul 2017 16:05:18 -0400

Hard question,these days I think you have the right to protect yourself.In my day we didnt have all the shootings on base.In my state you do not have to take the hunter course after you served in a campaign.With that said I believe if you go to enough qaulfication courses with weapons they should waive the permit process.Keep in mind the shootings and the coo coo birds.It is my understanding you cannot carry a personal weapon on base.true?

Response by MSgt Wayne Morris made Aug 3 at 2017 9:10 AM

MSgt Wayne Morris — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 09:10:10 -0400

Knowing the laws involved with carrying and using a personal firearm is just as important as knowing how to physically use one. Take the class and avoid potential legal problems down the road if you ever decide you must use it.

Response by PFC Eric Parrish made Aug 3 at 2017 10:02 AM

PFC Eric Parrish — Thu, 03 Aug 2017 10:02:00 -0400

Yes, for Marines and Navy Corpsmen!