Georgia CHP Military exemtion

[GunDawg]

Was on another thread and this came up.

I am not a resident in Ga anymore, so i would not be eligable for a resident CHP.

If you are active duty military you do not need a CHL to carry in GA anyway:


Quote:
Title 16, Chapter 11, Section 130 (16-11-130)

(a) Code Sections 16-11-126 through 16-11-128 shall not apply to or affect any of the following persons if such persons are employed in the offices listed below or when authorized by federal or state law, regulations, or order:

(1) Peace officers, as such term is defined in paragraph (11) of Code Section 16-1-3, and retired peace officers so long as they remain certified whether employed by the state or a political subdivision of the state or another state or a political subdivision of another state but only if such other state provides a similar privilege for the peace officers of this state;

(2) Wardens, superintendents, and keepers of correctional institutions, jails, or other institutions for the detention of persons accused or convicted of an offense;

(3) Persons in the military service of the state or of the United States;

Ive done some reading and this appears to be correct. Orignally thought that it pertains to military members on oficial bussiness. It seems GA trust those that serve, i just wish more states would follow suit. Take note Massachetus.

1. (47-1-11) Title 47, Chapter 1, Section 11
(2) "Military service" means service in the armed forces of the United States or in a reserve component of the armed forces of the United States, including the National Guard.

Do any TFL members exercise this right in GA?
If so, do you carry any paperwork refrenceing this law?
Any experiences with LEOs?

Would love to hear opinions from GA LEOs.

 

[Tom Servo]

Officially, you are correct.

Unofficially, I'd keep a copy of the law on hand should you get stopped. Though I've never heard of anyone being wrongfully arrested, it never hurts to cover your bases.

i just wish more states would follow suit. Take note Massachetus.

I wonder if a nationwide reciprocity bill along these lines could grow legs. Think along the lines of the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act, but as applies to those serving in the military.

It could be an easy sell, and it could lead to a lessening of civilian restrictions in the future.

 

[blume357]

Actually,

and not to put our Military members down.... 'trusting in those that are in the Military' goes exactly opposite of what the founding fathers were doing by putting in the 2nd amendment. All these state exemptions of letting those in the military carry while regular citizens can't, at least with out government approval, just enforces these 'fears'.

 

[Tom Servo]

All these state exemptions of letting those in the military carry while regular citizens can't, at least with out government approval, just enforces these 'fears'.

It's a means to an end. The end would be nationwide acceptance of the right to carry for everyone. This would be another foot in that door.

 

[MTT TL]

Well I do.

My out of state permit is no good here anyway. Before I started carrying I contacted the local police office. They really did want to say yes, but they did. They suggested I get one anyway but I will only be here for about six months before we deploy anyway so I did not see the point.

It's a means to an end. The end would be nationwide acceptance of the right to carry for everyone. This would be another foot in that door.

I am not so convinced because most people think that it is ok for the military to carry already. I am fine with the exemption and wish it were 50 state wide though.

 

[blume357]

I recently had a heated debate with my church board over something akin to this:

they did not want members carrying guns and one person suggested just making a statement banning all guns... I pointed out this would mean Law Enforcement too and they thought I was crazy and I pointed out they were being hypocrites ..... didn't really in the end help much.

Some folks are stuck and can't think out of the box they have put themselves in.

In the end I think all states should have an exemption for visiting military to be able to carry concealed or open as the state deems, with out having to get a permit or license... because they are transient this is more practical... and why should their rights be denied anyway?

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I disagree that such an exemption would help civilian carry progress in the end.
I think it would lend more weight to the "only trained professionals" should be allowed to carry firearms argument. I don't have a clear logical argument as to why, but my gut instinct is that is where it would end up being taken.

I will also point out that people in the military are often under great deals of stress, feel alienated from the general population, etc., etc. Some members of the military, in my experience, are not all that well trained in the use of firearms, just like some police officers.

I really see absolutely no reason members of the military should get a special exemption. I almost feel like this is the same as trap shooters selling me down the river when they say no on needs and AR.

 

[NavyLT]

In the end I think all states should have an exemption for visiting military to be able to carry concealed or open as the state deems, with out having to get a permit or license... because they are transient this is more practical... and why should their rights be denied anyway?

As a 26 year military member, I think that a military member's home state's permit should be good for any state, regardless of whether that state has reciprocity or not. I also think that should be true for our driver's license and car registrations.

Do I think military members should just have a blanket exception to carry without a permit? NO. But I don't think carrying should require a permit by anyone.

I disagree that such an exemption would help civilian carry progress in the end. I think it would lend more weight to the "only trained professionals" should be allowed to carry firearms argument. I don't have a clear logical argument as to why, but my gut instinct is that is where it would end up being taken.

I will also point out that people in the military are often under great deals of stress, feel alienated from the general population, etc., etc. Some members of the military, in my experience, are not all that well trained in the use of firearms, just like some police officers.

I really see absolutely no reason members of the military should get a special exemption. I almost feel like this is the same as trap shooters selling me down the river when they say no on needs and AR.

I absolutely agree with the first paragraph above.

In my humble and personal opinion, paragraph 2 has absolutely no bearing on gun ownership or carrying, regardless of who we make that statement about. When we mention statements like paragraph 2 in association with a gun ownership/carry discussion, I think the anti-s are going to snatch onto that and use it against us.

I absolutely agree with paragraph number 3, except that, like I said, if a military member has a permit, or is from Vermont or Alaska, from their home state, it should be valid in the state they are stationed in as well, regardless of reciprocity.

 

[MTT TL]

I disagree that such an exemption would help civilian carry progress in the end. I think it would lend more weight to the "only trained professionals" should be allowed to carry firearms argument. I don't have a clear logical argument as to why, but my gut instinct is that is where it would end up being taken.

This is more than gut instinct here. It is a path to allow more government workers access without expanding it to the people directly. The Georgia laws are interesting because unlike other states they have dozens of exemptions for all kinds of government and security workers.

I really see absolutely no reason members of the military should get a special exemption.

Actually I do see why. Members of the military exceed all standards in nearly every state for the requirements for state permits. The only exception being in some states where there is a requirement for training on the laws of the particular state.

I almost feel like this is the same as trap shooters selling me down the river when they say no on needs and AR.

If you feel betrayed by the military you are looking the wrong direction. If the Army had it's way no state would allow this.

 

[Tom Servo]

I really see absolutely no reason members of the military should get a special exemption. I almost feel like this is the same as trap shooters selling me down the river when they say no on needs and AR.

Wow, guys. It was just a suggestion. I don't remember this kind of rhetoric when the LEOSA was proposed.

And please tell us how trap shooters sold us down the river. Maybe I'm getting old, but I can remember 1993. Nobody had to "sell out." The support from the common populace was enough.

 

[NavyLT]

Actually I do see why. Members of the military exceed all standards in nearly every state for the requirements for state permits. The only exception being in some states where there is a requirement for training on the laws of the particular state.

Actually that isn't true, MTT TL. Thanks to Launtenberg, some military members are not legal to even possess firearms even though they still meet all requirements for military service - and we can't issue them a firearm!

Also, the vast majority of Air Force and Navy military only receive familiarity training in boot camp - "point the gun that way because that is the direction the bullets come out".

 

[MTT TL]

Actually that isn't true, MTT TL. Thanks to Launtenberg, some military members are not legal to even possess firearms even though they still meet all requirements for military service - and we can't issue them a firearm!

They can not enter service legally if they fall under Launtenberg. But they can lose their rights under Launtenburg later and still be in the service albeit briefly. However they have to get out when their tour is up (except for doctors and Chaplains). The same is true of CHL holders in every state in the country. Some states take measures to rescind the license after conviction, incarceration, psychiatric confinement etc. others do not. There are lots of unqualified CHL holders out there, the last big shooter in Virgina had CHL that he should not have had.

Also, the vast majority of Air Force and Navy military only receive familiarity training in boot camp - "point the gun that way because that is the direction the bullets come out".

Again the same is true of CHL classes in most states. Many states don't require a class at all and accept for example hunter education training in lieu of it. You know how much firearms training I got in hunter safety course? Zero, that is how much. How much did the wife get when she went? Less than that.

What I was mostly talking about was the background check, fingerprinting etc, military standards are generally higher.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

Actually I do see why. Members of the military exceed all standards in nearly every state for the requirements for state permits. The only exception being in some states where there is a requirement for training on the laws of the particular state.

I am pretty sure that around 2006 1/5th of Army enlisted recruits received felony waivers. I think they were for non-violent or violent with a period of time passing in between, but felonies nonetheless.

I felt like I was being sold down the river by "members of the military" when several here agreed with OP that they should be given special rights to self defense not afforded civilians. I definitely know trap shooters who could care less about 2A as long as they keep their single shot break shotguns.

The training for many is not that great and during peace times tends to fall to absolute crap. I lie very close to a large military base where most of the personnel never hae and never will see any sort of combat. They receive very little weapons training. I know of one officer who was issued an M9 shortly after 9/11 and ordered to keep it on his persons for safety. He carried it around w/o ammo b/c he was not comfortable with it. A smart move on his part considering he never left the base most days and it was relatively secure. I don't think there is a great argument to be made that members of the military are more stable or predictable than people in the general populace.

Why shouldn't a businessman be allowed to carry in other states when he is there for short periods?
I really see no reason a veteran should receive special treatment in this area.

Police are a little different b/c they build up a good number of people who may not like them that they may run into at any moment anywhere in the country. Police officers should not be forced to move out of state when they retire b/c there is a crackhead they have arrested 30 times.
There are obviously people in the military who might run into a familiar face inside the US that poses a problem for them, but not nearly the percentage as police officers.

 

[NavyLT]

I know of one officer who was issued an M9 shortly after 9/11 and ordered to keep it on his persons for safety. He carried it around w/o ammo b/c he was not comfortable with it.

Oh man, that would be sweet! I love it when I have to qualify before deployment and at 3 and 7 yards I make one hole in the middle of target. It pisses the scorers off though! I am getting ready to qualify again in a couple of months, I'll buy lunch or dinner for whoever scores higher than me, in my group.

But I know what you mean. I arrived in Iraq after combat training. We got issued ammo for our M-9's that we brought with us from training. Chief Petty Officer, excuse me - he was an E-7 - not a "Chief", could not figure out how to load the magazine, after being through combat training - TWICE! He was even trying to put the rounds in backwards! I loaded his magazines and told him to put these in your pocket, and please don't ever put one of them in the gun....

He was in Iraq two months and got sent home after getting fired from two different jobs.

 

[MTT TL]

I am pretty sure that around 2006 1/5th of Army enlisted recruits received felony waivers.

I am 100% certain you are wrong. In 2006 there were about 1100 felony waivers on a total of enlistment of 125,000 for the US Army, NG and USAR combined. That number is misleading. Things that some states consider a felony (Littering, shoplifting, etc) are not actually considered felonies by the military. However 2006 was the peak year for waivers since the Vietnam era, so you did pick the right year.

Also just because someone has a felony conviction does not mean that can never get a CHL or buy a weapon either. There are processes that vary by state where you can get your rights restored. Things that you can not get rights restored for are pretty much the same things that will keep you out of the military.

I felt like I was being sold down the river by "members of the military" when several here agreed with OP that they should be given special rights to self defense not afforded civilians.

As far as I can tell no one in the military said that.

I know of one officer who was issued an M9 shortly after 9/11 and ordered to keep it on his persons for safety.

I have never heard of such a thing. Not saying it did not happen but it seems very unlikely unless he was a responsible banking officer or some other odd duty position that required him to carry. I hear of stories like this but have never seen one to be true. Certainly it would violate a plethora of Army and USMC regulations, possibly other services as well.

I don't think there is a great argument to be made that members of the military are more stable or predictable than people in the general populace.

Actually there is depending upon your POV. Members of the military commit crimes at much less of rate than the general population and have already had background checks, fingerprinting, DNA on file etc. They also tend to move on and become more productive members of society after service as well. Education levels are also much higher, which tends to be the biggest discriminator in violent criminal activity. Service members are routinely tested for drugs and any arrests that do occur are immediately reported through the chain of command to the soldier's supervisor.

Why shouldn't a businessman be allowed to carry in other states when he is there for short periods?

I don't know. Why shouldn't they?

Police are a little different b/c they build up a good number of people who may not like them that they may run into at any moment anywhere in the country.

You might do some more research on terrorist acts committed against military members in the last 8 years. You could also look into some of the hate groups that are here in the US that hate the military and conduct weird grave side protests to disturb the family of the deceased. Also some of the Islamic groups like the one that the Ft. Hood shooter became a member of and various other groups that target military members for killing. I am guessing from your post that you will be surprised.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Do any TFL members exercise this right in GA?

I will be as soon as I am 1.) Actually IN the military and 2.) 21


I can see where some people have a problem with this but I doubt the actual intention of the law is to imply that service members are more qualified to be CCW holders.

Part of it could be that to actually BE in the military you have to have a fairly clean record and have to have waivers for EVERYTHING on your record including traffic violations. The state could just be assuming that most folks in the military already have a clean enough record to be issued a CWP and that making them jump through the hoops would just be a redundancy.

 

[Tom Servo]

I can see where some people have a problem with this but I doubt the actual intention of the law is to imply that service members are more qualified to be CCW holders.

It likely had something to do with the militia aspect of the issue. A member of the military would be considered "well regulated" in the original sense. They've been trained in arms and know how to act when a threat to the populace arises. At the time, organized police forces were very rare.

I really see no reason a veteran should receive special treatment in this area.

Volunteering to fight and bleed for one's country would spring to mind as good reason. And this comes from a civilian who distrusts his government in general.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

According to the U.S. Army, 15 percent of recruits needed waivers in the 12-month period ending in September 30, 2006; 18 percent of the recruits needed them in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2007.

The above is from Wikipedia, but I have read it from other sources previously. I am not chasing down a three year old news article tonight. Maybe they bent the statistic, but a number very close to 20% was widely distributed around that time by a great number of different news venues.

I meant to say active duty not veteran, although it makes little difference in the posts that followed. I think giving active duty or veterans any civil rights over otherwise qualified civilians are denied is a slippery slope I don't want any part of. Maybe their votes should count double. There are lots of things that sound good when you say them that aren't good when you think about it for a little bit longer. The process for expunging your record is, in most states, simple, easy, and EXPENSIVE. Lots of lawyer time.

I can see where some people have a problem with this but I doubt the actual intention of the law is to imply that service members are more qualified to be CCW holders.

Irrespective of what the intent is, there is one effect that almost everyone will agree to. A significant sub-population of the CCW group is granted the right, making them to varying degrees complacent and weakening the communities strength, while what is left of the group is out in the dark.

As far as I can tell no one in the military said that.

As a 26 year military member, I think that a military member's home state's permit should be good for any state,

I won't go through the rest of the posts since this quote refutes your claim.

 

[MTT TL]

Quote:
As a 26 year military member, I think that a military member's home state's permit should be good for any state,

I won't go through the rest of the posts since this quote refutes your claim.

That is your claim? LOL no wonder you took it out of context. He said he doesn't think anyone should need a permit

As a 26 year military member, I think that a military member's home state's permit should be good for any state, regardless of whether that state has reciprocity or not. I also think that should be true for our driver's license and car registrations.

Do I think military members should just have a blanket exception to carry without a permit? NO. But I don't think carrying should require a permit by anyone.

The above is from Wikipedia, but I have read it from other sources previously. I am not chasing down a three year old news article tonight. Maybe they bent the statistic, but a number very close to 20% was widely distributed around that time by a great number of different news venues.

Dude you have to post the whole thing.

Data released by the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform showed the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records doubled from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007.

Ok, that is 249 out of 85,000 active duty service members recruited in '06 and 511 out of about 100K active in '07. The waivers percentage has to do with ANY type waiver for a soldier to come on active duty, not just felonies. Most of these waivers are for medical reasons. Having knee surgery as a child for example might result in the need for a waiver. I don't have my calculator on me but I think 511 out of 100,000 is around 0.51%

Irrespective of what the intent is, there is one effect that almost everyone will agree to. A significant sub-population of the CCW group is granted the right, making them to varying degrees complacent and weakening the communities strength, while what is left of the group is out in the dark.

That is simply crazy talk. Most of the people in the Army are pro gun. The ones that are not don't carry and would not care if the state did grant them the right. In fact they would likely be opposed to it.

 

[Tucker 1371]

Ok, that is 249 out of 85,000 active duty service members recruited in '06 and 511 out of about 100K active in '07. The waivers percentage has to do with ANY type waiver for a soldier to come on active duty, not just felonies. Most of these waivers are for medical reasons. Having knee surgery as a child for example might result in the need for a waiver. I don't have my calculator on me but I think 511 out of 100,000 is around 0.51%

+1, I practically had to get waivers just for having a mean thought about someone (exaggeration) to join the Marines. I'm surprised it's not more like 99.9%. Must have some little angels in the Army .