should veterans be granted carry privileges automatically

[jsheets1]

I think that veterans should be allowed to carry in all 50 states without restriction. After all they have far more training than most anybody. Plus its a nice little benefit for serving your country.

 

[shooter1054]

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

 

[John Galt]

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

 

[singlesix]

Why just vets? OP are you a vet? The comment about Vets having more training is not true. Having ran more than a few qualification ranges, I can tell that just because you are in the military doesn't make you a firearm expert.

 

[jsheets1]

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.

 

[jsheets1]

Actually, no I am not a vet. And I would say they do have more training than say 70% of gun owners. Those of us on here are only a small percentage and not very many of us attend training.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Another one for unrestricted carry for all US citizens and legal immigrants and visitors. Hell I think everyone should have a gun all the time.

 

[96firephoenix]

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

dang, someone beat me to it.

 

[ruger1800]

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

 

[eric001]

After having served this country, putting dedication to the good ol' US of A ahead of themselves for a number of years... it's only reasonable that vets be granted a federal right to carry. After all, how many rational people (read: "those NOT scared to death of 'evil' guns and their owners") would not like having an armed vet around if a SHTF moment arose??

 

[x10]

Vets are People and not all people end up on the good side of things,

Thanks you Vets who have served and continue to be good guys

 

[HICKMAN]

The Constitution says we ALL have the right.... it's just too bad folks decided to restrict these rights over the years.

 

[Expat]

shooter1054 got it right already. Shall not be infringed just doesn't seem that complicated to me.

 

[Pocketman]

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

I can support that idea.

Why just vets? OP are you a vet? The comment about Vets having more training is not true. Having ran more than a few qualification ranges, I can tell that just because you are in the military doesn't make you a firearm expert.

OP said more training than most, not that all veterans were experts. (although this one is. )

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.

I would support a veteran who is a "proper person" being allowed to carry in all states as a foot in the door.

 

[smitty12b]

Actually, no I am not a vet. And I would say they do have more training than say 70% of gun owners. Those of us on here are only a small percentage and not very many of us attend training.

Yes and no. It really depends on the mos and the branch. Some units only qualify once a year and that's the only time they handle their weapon. Every mos is important to the overall function of the military but not all have good,solid weapon training.

 

[subtlesixer03]

I said no for one simple reason. WE ALL SHOULD!!!! And to all vets and troops thanks for fighting for that right and all the others.

 

[markiemark]

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

_______________________________________________

I agree wholeheartedly. Or atleast set a standard if you get a license in your state that it is accepted in all 50 instead of the mess it is now.

 

[rugertoter]

Well, I'm mixed on this. I'm a vet and have my third award bar for my expert badge - and other shooting merits, but also know that some of those guys barely passed with a toilet seat. I feel it comes down to competency with your firearm and your training/instincts. JMHO. Strange thing I found though, most of the female shooters that I trained, were better than most of the men that were under my wing.

 

[Que]

Yeah, I could agree with such a proposal.

 

[MTC]

random thoughts

The poll question reminds me of the conversations and resultant debates, both private and public, over nationwide reciprocity for police officers. Although both sides raised good points, when it came to an actual vote in Congress I leaned toward and urged reps to vote for it. Not only as a show of faith, support, and respect for sworn officers, but also because it seemed at the time that was all we could get on that front. Not wishing to reopen a can of worms or cause unnecessary hard feelings between groups with mutual interests, only to pass along some views you've already heard, or are likely to hear.

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.

Regarding the foot in the door strategy in some of the more restrictive states: It is tempting to jump on it and say yes, since it would provide immediate short term benefit for me, as well as those residing in those states, should it ever come to pass. Since it's only a site poll, I voted no on philosophical and constitutional grounds, largely because of the same misgivings I had about the bill that eventually passed for LEOs. It fosters and furthers a type of elitism endemic in authoritarian regimes that is alien to the principles of this constitutional republic. Namely, an attitude and notion that,
"Only the police and military should ..."
"Only the police and military should ..."
"Only the police and military should ..."
"OMG! Gun! Oh, it's OK ... He's a cop." <phew>
"Oh, it's OK. He's a soldier."

Although it exists to a certain degree nearly everywhere, this attitude seems to be much more prevalent in these more restrictive states. Such an additional bill, if it were to become law, is likely to further legitimize this concept in the minds of the people.

Let us instead continue to encourage education and professional instruction through personal, individual initiative (not state-mandated) in all aspects of the use of arms by the populace at large, to strive for and arrive at something more resembling ...
(to paraphrase)
Who are the militia? They consist now - and always have - of the whole people, whether or not they neglected the means of their own defense. Since a well-trained, well-drilled body of armed people, comprising the whole of the citizenry, are necessary and essential for the maintenance and perpetuation of a free state designed as a constitutional republic, the Right of the people to buy, sell, own, keep and carry/bear arms on or about their person(s) or property shall not be infringed. (tampered with/messed with/curtailed or restricted in any manner)

As far as where one might be "allowed to" travel with them, we can start here:

Constitution for the United States of America

Article IV

Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.