should veterans be granted carry privileges automatically

[kludge]

I voted no, because I'm tired of special classes of citizens having more "rights" or "privileges" than others.

+1 to what Prometheus said.

 

[gunowner930]

What is this issue with "training?" Its not a requirement to carry in Indiana and it shouldn't be a requirement anywhere else. As far as quality of training in the military, it depends on what branch, what unit, and MOS. Grunts in the Marine Corps and Army train constantly, Some POGs will just qualify on the range annually, other POGs in ground units will train nearly as often as grunts. But, most younger Marines and Soldiers aren't issued sidearms.

The momentum on the 2A has been swinging in our direction. I would oppose creating another "special class" but National Reciprocity for all handgun licensees is what we should shoot for.

 

[jgreiner]

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

I agree COMPLETELY. Everyone should have the right, until they do something to LOSE that right.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I will say now, as the Constitution is currently interpreted, the "right to bear arms," should extend across the nation. However, you'd be hard pressed to illustrate that this was what the founders intended.

 

[jeremy]

My .02...

Americans should be allowed to carry PERIOD!
Unrestricted...
Unfettered...

As far as Servicemembers and Veterans...
In my humble Opinion;
ALL Servicememebers should be armed at all time When inside of the US.
Veterans, as they are no longer Active Members of the Military it is their option as they are no longer ACTIVE....

P.S. I did not vote. Due to the Fact I think there should be no Special Exceptions...

 

[jsheets1]

It seems that opinions are split pretty closely down the middle on here. I still believe they should be allowed to carry everywhere, I believe everyone should be allowed to. I think the more armed citizens we have the safer we will be. Imagine how many carriers there would be if the vets were allowed. I don't think we would be creating another class per se as much as we are opening the door to make the uneducated see guns as a safe thing for everyone.

 

[Streck-Fu]

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

This.

.....shall not be infringed.


But considering the reality that we live in, I do not think that veterans should automatically be assumed to be any more knowledgeable than the average armed citizen. Remember that the vast majority of those that serve in the military only receive basic weapon familiarization if any training at all. If you post the question assuming that they are better trained, you will be wrong.

 

[sparkyfender]

No. Same rights should apply to EVERYONE.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I will say now, as the Constitution is currently interpreted, the "right to bear arms," should extend across the nation. However, you'd be hard pressed to illustrate that this was what the founders intended.

The founders wrote it and I am pretty sure they wrote Shall Not Be Infringed. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that cover all the states then?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The founders wrote it and I am pretty sure they wrote Shall Not Be Infringed. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that cover all the states then?

No, not originally (unlike how it is viewed now). The original interpretation of the Constitution was that it only limited the power of the federal govt. The federal govt could not infringe on the "right" to bear arms, but the states certainly could. In Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore (1833), this idea (not specific to firearms) is exactly what the US Supreme Court ruled. However, following the Civil War (which was essentially a war over states rights). The Federal Govt moved to consolidate it's power via the 14th Amendment (1868). After which, the Supreme Courts began ruling that the 14th Amendment made for the "incorporation" of the rest of the Bill of Rights, to each individual state. Henceforth, starting in the last decade of the 19th Century, the States were held to the same standard, under the Constitution, as the federal govt. It's actually fascinating stuff. One one hand it's very good concerning some things, but very bad concerning others.

 

[3gunshooter]

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.

Kind of like some police officers

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kind of like some police officers

point is what? Veteran police officers (unsure about retired), are not automatically granted carry privileges after leaving their respective departments.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

Gotta ask: Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that being convicted of any crime abrogates ones basic right to self defense ("keep and bear arms"). I can understand circumstances under which firearms possession should be TEMPORARILY restricted. But the Constitution doesn't make exceptions concerning "shall not be infringed".

On the other hand, violent felons should be fair game if caught in the commission of a violent crime; they shouldn't live to be tried a second time.

 

[japartridge]

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

RIGHT ON!!!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Gotta ask: Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that being convicted of any crime abrogates ones basic right to self defense ("keep and bear arms"). I can understand circumstances under which firearms possession should be TEMPORARILY restricted. But the Constitution doesn't make exceptions concerning "shall not be infringed".

On the other hand, violent felons should be fair game if caught in the commission of a violent crime; they shouldn't live to be tried a second time.

It doesn't. Technically, as the Constitution is interpreted now, that should never be the case.

 

[3gunshooter]

Gotta ask: Where in the Bill of Rights does it say that being convicted of any crime abrogates ones basic right to self defense ("keep and bear arms"). I can understand circumstances under which firearms possession should be TEMPORARILY restricted. But the Constitution doesn't make exceptions concerning "shall not be infringed".

On the other hand, violent felons should be fair game if caught in the commission of a violent crime; they shouldn't live to be tried a second time.

I have always wondered that myself on the first point and on the second point if someone is shooting up a school yard or some other mass shooting there should be no trail what excuse could they have

 

[J_Wales]

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.

It is a right; not a privledge.

All law abiding citizens should be able to carry in the republic without restriction.

See the Second Amendment.

 

[jsheets1]

Yes Mr Wales that has already been established. Yes I do agree it is a right. But if it is something they were to be given what would you call it? Permission maybe? If that the case you would be arguing semantics. This is just a for lack of a better term a "benefit" to serving your country. I know also that not every soldier would be considered mentally competent to own a firearm in civilian life. But unless they are a criminal then that would have to be proven I guess. Which leads us to the other issue the 2A doesn't take away the right for criminals. So I guess it is just a huge circle jerk. I highly doubt convicted felons would ever just be executed, unless of course everyone owned a gun and took care of it during the commission of a crime against them. Then it would be natural selection lol. If you are gonna interpret the 2A as it reads then you cant have your cake and eat it to, by restricting anyone for anything. I guess you can blame it on our founding fathers for not having a crystal ball, when they drafted it they were thinking more long the lines of being able to protect ourselves from occupieng forces.

 

[TomCollins]

As a veteran, yes absolutely. But I think anyone who isn't a raving lunatic should be able to carry a machine gun... oh wait, that makes me a raving lunatic...

 

[theoko]

As much as veterans should be allowed this right, so do ordinary citizens. But let's say they chose to experiment with veterans first and allowed them the national carry first, I would be just fine with that, because I think the majority of them would do the right thing. After this, they would allow citizens to do the same, and everyone would be happy I think. Everyone except extremist liberals, because even the regular liberals would see the improvements over the negatives over time.