should veterans be granted carry privileges automatically

[Blackhawk2001]

I voted "YES" because I agree with everyone here who has said "It's a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE". That being said, I've recounted the story on INGO several times about the new WO1 in my unit in Iraq who went to clear her pistol and had 3 accidental discharges before her companions could stop her. Granted military folks qualify with firearms, but, at least in the Guard, not everyone has experience with carrying a firearm on a daily basis, nor does civilian life provide the kind of very clear Rules of Engagement that govern weapons use in military operations.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

I was listening to a local radio host yesterday who was talking about the recent rash of firearms-related deaths/injuries to children throughout the state. This former prosecutor went to the hammer he knows best ("When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail") and talked about how Indiana doesn't have a law holding parents responsible for the unlawful use of firearms by their dependents. I was screaming at the radio. We don't need any more "gun laws"; in fact, we need fewer gun laws. Since we're teaching sex education in schools, so our kids know how to have safe sexual relations, and since we're teaching Drivers' Education in school so our kids will know how to drive safely, why aren't we teaching Firearms Safety in schools so our kids will know how to safely be around firearms? In my opinion, we should damn well be teaching Firearms Safety to kids earlier than Sex Education and Drivers' Education. But why be logical?

 

[jbombelli]

Its a right, not a privilege. EVERYONE should be allowed to carry in all 50 states without restriction.

+1.

I voted no for this reason.

 

[irishfan]

It should be unrestricted to everyone in all 50 states. I see no reason to give someone a right that you don't give to all citizens just because they are a veteran.

 

[451_Detonics]

I served in the military and I have to say there are some I served with that I really would rather couldn't carry. Most states require some form of training before issuing a permit. And while most military personnel do qualify in basic with a rifle many, depending on MOS, never touch a gun again. And many never receive any handgun training at all!

I would like to see the permits just like a driver's license, recognized in every state but at the same time I would want to make sure the person who was carrying knew at least the basics.

 

[Mike Elzinga]

Lets review "rights" real quick....

A right cannot be taken away, just as it cannot be granted. It is enabled at birth and rescinded at death.

The Bill of Rights doesnt grant us rights, it is our declaration of the rights we owned upon birth. No solider ever gave us these rights because they were owned at birth, not granted to us by another.

I am split on this issue because while it is a nice idea, and would be a good "foot in the door" it creates another "us vs. them" line in the sand. Creating different classes of citizens based on occuption and "granting" them different rights (remember that rights are NOT granted) is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

One could argue that any truely patriot solider would not want special treatment, as he/she fought so that we might all be free and equal.

 

[TopDog]

This is not a good idea.

It sounds good on the surface but it does create a us vs them kind of mentality. Everyone should be able to carry in all 50 states. If it was a requirement to have passed certain training standards and you would accept military training as passing such a requirement then that would work but only for that specific situation. And before anyone jumps on the crazy platform I'm not advocating that there should be a training requirement, just if it existed.

 

[Hooker]

Does this include vets who have committed a felony or come back from
serving with mental/psychological issues?

I am the first one to shake hands with and thank vets when I see them
out in public, but should they not be subjected to the process which
deems us as "proper persons?"

 

[mrjarrell]

Great. Create yet another privileged class of people.

 

[Expat]

Does this include vets who have committed a felony or come back from
serving with mental/psychological issues?

I am the first one to shake hands with and thank vets when I see them
out in public, but should they not be subjected to the process which
deems us as "proper persons?"

There have been cases of our soldiers committing atrocities during war time. Even cases where other soldiers helped cover it up or at a minimum, defended them and tried to excuse the behavior. Therefore it seems clear that no veteran should be trusted.

 

[Dogman]

As others have said, it's a right. Unless someone has been convicted of a violent felony, they should be abe to carry unrestricted in all 50 states.
As a vet who can carry in all 50 states, I would vote yes. It sure makes things easier when traveling.

 

[serpicostraight]

There have been cases of our soldiers committing atrocities during war time. Even cases where other soldiers helped cover it up or at a minimum, defended them and tried to excuse the behavior. Therefore it seems clear that no veteran should be trusted.

you been watching rambo again?

 

[1911 mike]

I am a Vet and I would say "NO", "NO", "NO"!!!

 

[pirate]

I will have to say no as well. Citizens like eveyone else when they are back here. I would agree that most of them have had much more training, but the constitution says nothing about training in the 2nd.

 

[Destro]

I could go for expanding HR 218 to retired military...but not simply veteran status. There are many a vet who shouldnt have been around firearms when they were IN, much less out

 

[Prometheus]

Yes we all agree it is a right, but not one honored by all 50 states. Privileges in this case is more like a written permission. And yea it should be unrestricted, but we are working on that. This would pertain to veterans and could be used as a "foot in the door" in some of the more restrictive states.

Problem there is.... it's a lie.

Back when LEO's wanted nationwide carry 'rights' the mere 'civilians' were told to support it as it was a foot in the door...

Decade later and there hasn't been any movement on it. LEO's got what they wanted and f' the little guy.

We shouldn't have capitulated then and I said so.

It's a retarded idea, just like nation wide LEO carry was and still it.

Either we (everyone) have a Right to defend ourselves or we (everyone) does NOT have it.

F' the elitist bull^&*(.

I'm sick and tired of it.

 

[mrjarrell]

Problem there is.... it's a lie.

Back when LEO's wanted nationwide carry 'rights' the mere 'civilians' were told to support it as it was a foot in the door...

Decade later and there hasn't been any movement on it. LEO's got what they wanted and f' the little guy.

We shouldn't have capitulated then and I said so.

It's a retarded idea, just like nation wide LEO carry was and still it.

Either we (everyone) have a Right to defend ourselves or we (everyone) does NOT have it.

F' the elitist bull^&*(.

I'm sick and tired of it.

^^^This. Some of us have long memories. Where's the support for everyone to carry, from those special privileged few?

 

[rhart]

People who haven't been in the military assume that the military offers a lot of firearms training. Not true as a general rule. I honestly dont recal ANY firearms safety and sidearms training is very miinimal for 90%. Yes, you eat sleep ans s**t with your weapon 24/7(unloaded) in basic training but thats pretty much it.
99% of the time soldiers are running around with no bullets for a reason.

 

[JoshuaW]

EVERYONE should be. However, do I feel that vets should automatically get the privilege? No. I come from a military family, and I know and have met more than my share of vets over the years. Just because someone is a vet does not mean they have more training. Just because someone is a vet does not mean they are not also now a felon.

 

[BE Mike]

Vets earn the benefits granted to them by law for honorable service. This is a contract between them and Uncle Sam before they enter service. These benefits include certain education, health, housing loans and burial, as well as, a "veteran's preference" when applying for government jobs. Veterans should not be granted special privileges not afforded other law-abiding citizens.