New Florida concealed firearm/gun law; veterans...

[ClydeFrog]

ATTN; honorable discharge US military veterans in Florida....
I saw a media item; www.myfoxorlando.com , that a new state bill is being developed that will allow US military veterans with honorable discharges(who meet all the legal-mental health requirements) to carry loaded, concealed weapons in Florida WITHOUT a formal W/concealed license.
As a US military veteran, I can support this new state law & see it's merits.
I'm also sure some groups & powerful lobbys will actively go against it.
Florida's state Gov, Rick Scott is a US Navy veteran with a A grade from the NRA.
For details & updates please see; www.Mylicensesite.com www.Myfloridalegal.com www.Myflorida.com www.NRA.org .

ClydeFrog

[cow0man]

It should be that way for all 50 states and US territories. (we are trusted to carry 24/7 in a warzone) But it is easy enough for veterans to get a ccw in most states without even taking a ccw course. I wish the law would allow us to carry on base.

[hermannr]

Carry on base is up to the Command. It is neither legal, or illegal, it is what the post/base Commander says.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cow0man

It should be that way for all 50 states and US territories. (we are trusted to carry 24/7 in a warzone) But it is easy enough for veterans to get a ccw in most states without even taking a ccw course.

The original post was about veterans. If you are currently in one of the military services, you are not a "veteran" in the legal sense and in the context of this discussion.

I believe you are mistaken regarding veterans and carry licenses/permits. Of those states that require training as a prerequisite, I think those that accept a DD214 as proof (such as Florida) are very much in a minority. My state doesn't make any concession for veterans. Texas doesn't make any concession for veterans. In fact, I am not aware of ANY state other than Florida that accepts a DD214 as proof of the required firearms safety training.

[MTT TL]

As current active duty I see it as a good start towards no permit carry for everyone.

The original post was about veterans. If you are currently in one of the military services, you are not a "veteran" in the legal sense and in the context of this discussion.

Not quite. There are a broad range of legal definitions for "veterans" due to types of benefits for each. The vast majority of people serving on active duty ARE veterans in the strictest sense of the word. The simple majority are as well. They have an honorable discharge as well so they would be well within the requirements.

BWoE: In order to reenlist in the military you need to be discharged when the new contract formed. Everyone who has been in for more than one enlistment and all prior service officers have been honorably discharged with a DD214.

There are a few states that do not require active military to have a lic already. It would be nice to see that expanded.

[wally626]

In fact, I am not aware of ANY state other than Florida that accepts a DD214 as proof of the required firearms safety training.

Not sure how many other states do, but Virginia does.

[Romeo 33 Delta]

Wisconsin was smart enough to recognize the DD214 and DD256 (whatever that is) as meeting the training requirements. I think this should be in every state's CC requirements, even if it means they have to hold a special session to just drop the wording into the law. Just get it done, I will not accept any delays or excuses. Just DO IT!

[Don H]

Does every person in every branch of the military receive firearms training? If not, then why should a military member who has not been trained with firearms, especially handguns, receive a pass when getting a CCW?

A lot of the mandated training involves the legal use of firearms in a state. What aspect of military firearms training address that issue?

[oneounceload]

Does every person in every branch of the military receive firearms training? If not, then why should a military member who has not been trained with firearms, especially handguns, receive a pass when getting a CCW?

A lot of the mandated training involves the legal use of firearms in a state. What aspect of military firearms training address that issue?

Exactly, sorry, FL is an easy place to get a CCW - everyone else has to go through the process, military can as well

[Crazy88Fingers]

My thoughts exactly Don H. Without the CCW course how many veterans are going to be carrying without knowing the laws that regulate it?

[Don P]

I don't know about this. I know a few vets that shouldn't be allowed to have a water gun let alone a firearm. Just my thought on this.

[Doyle]

Does every person in every branch of the military receive firearms training?

They do now. Even the Air Force techies receive M-16 training.

[Alaska444]

I was just a doc in the Army, but we had to not only undergo weapon training, but we had to qualify periodically throughout my entire period of service. Combatant and noncombatant personnel all have to have weapons qualifications.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Don P

Does every person in every branch of the military receive firearms training? If not, then why should a military member who has not been trained with firearms, especially handguns, receive a pass when getting a CCW?

A lot of the mandated training involves the legal use of firearms in a state. What aspect of military firearms training address that issue?

You are extrapolating. Don't forget, we have fifty states, and fifty sets of rules. You live in Utah, which has a fairly extensive set of criteria for the required training. Florida's law does not require training in its laws, they require only firearms safety training. And they have decided that the amount of firearms training conveyed by the military is sufficient, so they accept a DD-214 as proof of having received firearms safety training.

[MTT TL]

Does every person in every branch of the military receive firearms training? If not, then why should a military member who has not been trained with firearms, especially handguns, receive a pass when getting a CCW?

Firearms training is not really relevant in any case. All members of the military do have a minimum background check however. This is generally more than the background check that is often used for gun sales, if less current.

My thoughts exactly Don H. Without the CCW course how many veterans are going to be carrying without knowing the laws that regulate it?

I believe his handle is Don P.

In any case many states do not require classes on rules of carry in the state. In my mind this is giving enough rope to hang and well within the expectations of the citizens of a free state. Classes on carry laws were just a way to sell CCLs to fence sitting law makers. They are not really needed if a person knows how to read.

I don't know about this. I know a few vets that shouldn't be allowed to have a water gun let alone a firearm. Just my thought on this.

I wonder. Do you believe that the vets that in your estimation should not be allowed to carry firearms will NOT carry them if the law says they can't?

If you think they will follow the law then your estimation is likely wrong. If they won't follow the law then what difference does it make?

[IZZY]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_urWSSZgwU

[Don H]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

You are extrapolating. Don't forget, we have fifty states, and fifty sets of rules. You live in Utah, which has a fairly extensive set of criteria for the required training.

To a degree I am. As several of the previous posters wrote, the military exemption should apply to ALL states. Thus my response. I am certainly more well-versed on Utah's laws than, say, North Carolina's. Utah's training focuses primarily on Utah's laws and only very briefly diverges into handgun safety and doesn't require any range qualification. But as I recall from my military training several decades ago, next to nothing in that training would be comparative or applicable to the training class required for the Utah CFP.

Since the Utah class's focus is on the legalities of CCW rather than an exhibition of skill, than a military veteran (in the broadest sense) has received no training in those laws and should be required to meet the same standard a non-veteran is required to meet. If the preponderance of Utah training consisted of meeting a handgun proficiency standard and a veteran's DD-214 indicated military training with a handgun, then I would most likely be more amenable to a military exemption. But that's not the way it is. The competancy argument is only valid if the competancy attained in military training is comparable to the standard required to gain the CFP.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Don H

Since the Utah class's focus is on the legalities of CCW rather than an exhibition of skill, than a military veteran (in the broadest sense) has received no training in those laws and should be required to meet the same standard a non-veteran is required to meet.

Well, up to now Florida has also treated veterans and non-veterans the same. Everyone had to demonstrate that they had received training in firearms safety. Non-veterans (and veterans) could do it with an NRA Basic handgun class, a hunters' safety class, or a few other options that I don't recall. Veterans were offered the additional option of showing a copy of a DD-214. It wasn't to give veterans a break compared to non-veterans, it was simply recognizing one more path to having received the firearms safety training that Florida's laws required.

Since the emphasis in Florida is safety rather than teaching the laws, and since Florida has already decided that military training satisfies the requirement, it's really not a huge leap to go from "Show me your DD-214" to "You're a veteran? Don't bother with the permission slip."

[rwilson452]

I think it would be interesting to look at the difference that training makes. I'm not good at the statistic thing. Does training make a difference from a legal point of view? Compare states with training component vs those states that don't. I suspect there will be little difference. Here in PA we have no training requirement and are " shall issue". Rarely do I hear of someone getting into trouble over breaking the law or bad shoots. Then again there is Philly. The Philly PD will pull your ticket for almost anything.

[cow0man]

Aguila Blanca

I am currently active duty and also a veteran. If your requirement for being a veteran is having a DD214, then I have 2 already and will be receiving a 3rd upon retirement.

It is up to the base commander about setting policy for allowing firearms onto base. Normally, most base CDRs allow in housing if you live on base and that they are registered on base. Therefore, I am not allowed to carry onto base unless I am going to the range, provided we are allowed to use personal firearms at the range. However, I have never been to a base where I can carry concealed or while wearing a uniform unless it is line with duty being performed.

Fl, Va are two states off the top of my head that allow for military training, letter from CDR, or a DD214 to be used in lieu of CCW class. There are more states as well, just do not remember which ones. Just checked Utah, military members with handgun training in lie of CCW training is also permissible. There are others, but I am not going to look them all up.

To some of the other post, there are some CCW holders that should not have firearm either. But we are supposed to be advocates of gun rights, and you advocating in the incorrect direction. Firearm training is continuous, not just a one time deal to meet a requirement to get your CCW.

[jgcoastie]

Originally Posted by Don H

A lot of the mandated training involves the legal use of firearms in a state. What aspect of military firearms training address that issue?

Well, I guess we shouldn't talk about the states where there is no training requirement... And let's not even begin to discuss the 4 states where a permit is not required for concealed-carry... Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona...

How do you know not to beat your annoying neighbor to death with a ball-peen hammer? Morality issues aside, we know that it's illegal.

How do you know you're not supposed to just walk out of a store with items without paying? Morality issues aside, we know that it's illegal.

How do we know we're not supposed to shoot people at random? Pull our weapon out when we're walking through the produce section? Brandish and wave our weapon around when we see someone who looks the slightest bit "shady"? Um, I think it's because we know it's illegal.



I think our society is long overdue for a time where we stop waiting for people to spell things out for us step-by-step, use the common sense that God gave a jackrabbit, and figure out stuff for ourselves. Why should we have to be told what we're supposed to do? Can't we all read? My line of thought is this: if you're going to take on the responsibility of carrying a weapon, you are also responsible enough to determine lawful use of said weapon.

And all of that aside, my military handgun training has included years of basic, practical, and judgemental pistol courses, use of force, weapons retention, and non-lethal compliance/defense techniques.

I think I'm qualified, so does my CO, who just renewed my carry qual.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by cow0man

To some of the other post, there are some CCW holders that should not have firearm either. But we are supposed to be advocates of gun rights, and you advocating in the incorrect direction. Firearm training is continuous, not just a one time deal to meet a requirement to get your CCW.

How am I advocating in the wrong direction? In this discussion, I have not advocated in ANY direction, I have only addressed what I felt were factually incorrect statements. When I don my advocacy hat, as you can verify by searching on my screen name and reading my other posts, I am strongly in favor of interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean exactly what it says. Which means that, IMHO, ALL requirements for CCWs, mandatory training, and anything related thereto are unconstitutional infringements on a fundamental right that states in its own text "shall not be infringed."

[BlueTrain]

I believe a few service people go directly into the service without even taking basic training but some musicians are about all I can think of. Perhaps chaplains, who generally do not ever carry weapons.

[MTT TL]

I believe a few service people go directly into the service without even taking basic training but some musicians are about all I can think of. Perhaps chaplains, who generally do not ever carry weapons.

I can't speak for all the services but in the Army all enlisted soldiers go to basic, even the band (They have to learn how to march you know).

Officers go a variety of different paths. Chaplains are not allowed firearms generally and have an assistant who functions as a guard (although I have known a few who were avid shooters and hunters). Therefore they have no firearms training.

Everyone else gets firearms training at some point. In the old days certain objectors who went into certain medical jobs did not get firearms training. This is no longer true. The military no longer drafts/ accepts objectors and has not for many years. Even the cook has to go to the range and qualify.

Until recently the band had the responsibility for providing security to the headquarters. Someone figured however that infantry do a better job than trombonists at security as a general rule.

[WyMark]

Wyoming accepted my DD214 from 1979 for my CCW permit, but it does state that I qualified "expert". (Don't remember now if there were separate qualifications listed for rifle and handgun. I think there was one for grenades, though.)