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

C

ClydeFrog

Moderator
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
 
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.
 
Carry on base is up to the Command. It is neither legal, or illegal, it is what the post/base Commander says.
 
cow0man said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Not sure how many other states do, but Virginia does.
 
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!
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...

Exactly, sorry, FL is an easy place to get a CCW - everyone else has to go through the process, military can as well
 
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 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.
 
Don P said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Aguila Blanca said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Don H said:
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.
Click to expand...
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."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top