Should Military Recognize State Concealed Carry Licenses

[carl]

Just a thought; but open carry might avoid some concealed carry problems.

That seems to work pretty well at gun stores and shooting ranges.

"In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

We used to do that and nobody ever minded.

[slapout9]

That seems to work pretty well at gun stores and shooting ranges.

"In certain circumstances, a law enforcement officer may take temporary possession of the weapon during interaction with the individual to ensure the safety of the officer and others. The police officer will return the pistol at the end of the stop unless the individual is being charged with a violation of the act or any other law that allows for the weapon to be seized."

We used to do that and nobody ever minded.

Yep, we used to take it and put it in the trunk of their vehicle and then continue the interview, traffic citation or what ever.

[jmm99]

Carrying weapons is a two-way street for the armed citizen; and LEOs deserve consideration in the mix.

Michigan law, if one has no CCW permit, is (from MSP FAQ):

1. If I do not have a CCW permit, may I transport my pistol in a motor vehicle?

MCL 750.231a A person is now permitted to transport a pistol for a lawful purpose if the owner or occupant of the vehicle is the registered owner of the firearm and the pistol is unloaded and in a closed case in the trunk of the vehicle. If the vehicle does not have a trunk, the pistol may be in the passenger compartment of the vehicle unloaded and inaccessible to the occupants of the vehicle.

A 'lawful purpose' includes:

While en route to or from a hunting or target shooting area.

While transporting a pistol to or from home or place of business and a place of repair.

While moving goods from one place of residence or business to another place of residence or business.

While transporting a licensed pistol to or from a law enforcement agency for the purpose of having a safety inspection performed (registering the pistol) or to have a law enforcement official take possession of the pistol.

While en route to or from home or place of business to a gun show or place of purchase or sale.

While en route to or from home to a public shooting facility or land where the discharge of firearms is permitted.

While en route to or from home to private property where the pistol is to be used as permitted by law, rule, regulation, or local ordinance.

If you live in a relatively safe area (as I do, where car jacking is not a real threat), carrying an accessible weapon in the passenger compartment (even with a CCW) may be more hastle than it's worth. If I'm going to carry anything in my vehicle, it would be a rifle or shotgun in the trunk. Home and office are a little different story.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

from Slap
Which raises the question of psychological fitness to have possession of any weapon concealed or open carry. 2nd Ammenment folks are howling by now.

and I'm about as Second Amendment as you will find. I'll see your NRA Life membership - that since the 1970s; and raise with involvement in such as the Second Amendment Foundation. Why I feel that way is laid out in Justice Thomas' opinion in McDonald v Chicago (his opinion starts at p.67 pdf).

The Second Amendment is more than a protection against the run of the mill criminal. As Tim Sandefer mentions in discussing Thomas' opinion:

Among the most vital of the rights that the post-Civil War Congress hoped (vainly, as it turned out) to protect was the right of the freedmen to defend themselves against violence at the hands of white supremacists, who were not only armed, but often served in positions of government authority. It was the sheriffs who carried out the Colfax Massacre that Thomas discusses on p. 53 of his opinion, and the local militia commander who led the Hamburg Massacre he mentions the same page. It was to protect the fundamental right of self-defense—along with other fundamental rights, such as the right to earn a living at a lawful occupation—that the Congress enacted the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts of the late nineteenth century.

And, of course, the Dred Scott case asserted (as one of its grounds against anyone of African ancestry having any rights as a citizen) that, if they were citizens, they would have the right to bear arms. That was a definite "No, no" to the Dred Scott majority shortly before the Civil War. To that "constitutional logic", we have this modern day poster:

Gun Control - Dred Scott.JPG

which correctly quotes from the majority opinion (60 US at 416-417).

So, as a general rule, citizens should be in a protected class so far as firearms go - where the right of self-defense against "terrorists" (whether state or non-state actors) is one of the factors that make us free and not slaves.

But, folks who exhibit psychological unfitness to possess firearms should not be in a protected class as far as firearms are concerned. The Constitution is not a mutual suicide pact. Felons present a similar, but somewhat different issue.

The question is how to set up an objective system that will reflect psychological unfitness to possess firearms. The howls will likely come from current ACLU folks (more likely than not gun-controllers), who will object to any kind of psychological treatment reporting system.

Regards

Mike

[Pete]

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44, § 930

§ 930. Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities

(a) Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b) Whoever, with intent that a firearm or other dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such firearm or dangerous weapon in a Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c) A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a Federal facility involving the use of a firearm or other dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
(1) the lawful performance of official duties by an officer, agent, or employee of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision thereof, who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of any violation of law;
(2) the possession of a firearm or other dangerous weapon by a Federal official or a member of the Armed Forces if such possession is authorized by law; or
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
(e)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal court facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to conduct which is described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (d).
(f) Nothing in this section limits the power of a court of the United States to punish for contempt or to promulgate rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting the possession of weapons within any building housing such court or any of its proceedings, or upon any grounds appurtenant to such building.
(g) As used in this section:
(1) The term “Federal facility” means a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 21/2 inches in length.
(3) The term “Federal court facility” means the courtroom, judges’ chambers, witness rooms, jury deliberation rooms, attorney conference rooms, prisoner holding cells, offices of the court clerks, the United States attorney, and the United States marshal, probation and parole offices, and adjoining corridors of any court of the United States.
(h) Notice of the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal facility, and notice of subsection (e) shall be posted conspicuously at each public entrance to each Federal court facility, and no person shall be convicted of an offense under subsection (a) or (e) with respect to a Federal facility if such notice is not so posted at such facility, unless such person had actual notice of subsection (a) or (e), as the case may be.

[82redleg]

I know that the military is not strictly held to the Constitution, but explain how ANY fed.gov gun control is justifiable in light of the 2nd Amendment- and I'm not talking about judicial interpretations since then, just the plain meaning of the words in the Amendment itself. To me, it just doesn't pass muster, and any amount of judicial "logic" to justify it is judicial activism at its worst.

Also, explain why the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to state CCW/CCL/whatever, but does apply to everything else- marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.

Now state/local gov't, on the other hand, AIUI, has the ability, under the US Constitution, to regulate gun ownership/carry. This may have changed under the recent supreme court ruling "incorporating" the 2nd Amendment, but in my mind, that whole process is questionable, at best.

[slapout9]

"Dont take your guns to town, leave your guns at home."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raXKeQ5qFwo

[stanleywinthrop]

I know that the military is not strictly held to the Constitution, but explain how ANY fed.gov gun control is justifiable in light of the 2nd Amendment- and I'm not talking about judicial interpretations since then, just the plain meaning of the words in the Amendment itself. To me, it just doesn't pass muster, and any amount of judicial "logic" to justify it is judicial activism at its worst.

Also, explain why the full faith and credit clause doesn't apply to state CCW/CCL/whatever, but does apply to everything else- marriage licenses, drivers licenses, etc.

Now state/local gov't, on the other hand, AIUI, has the ability, under the US Constitution, to regulate gun ownership/carry. This may have changed under the recent supreme court ruling "incorporating" the 2nd Amendment, but in my mind, that whole process is questionable, at best.

You can whine about judicial activisim all you want but won't change the fact that ALL federal gun control laws are enacted by CONGRESS. Judges wouldn't be gettin "active" and all about gun control if CONGRESS didn't pass the laws in the first place.

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Does anybody remember when the custom of commissioned officers providing their own side arms fell out of fashion?

Not much discussion on this thread about Force Protection, or how increasing the numbers of habitually armed troops in CONUS garrisons improves the installation's Force Protection posture. Do CONUS garrisons face threats of similar magnitude as OIF/OEF FOB's? No, they don't. Having all the CONUS garrison troops armed as if they were deployed reeks of fear and makes Hassan's propaganda of the deed wildly successful.

Active-duty enlisted personnel should draw their government issue weapon from the arms room and carry it whenever performing duties the chain of command has determined are best accomplished while armed. Can't very well have the Other Ranks deciding for themselves which duties they will perform armed with their own private purchase concealed carry pieces and which duties they will perform unarmed.

[DVC]

Does anybody remember when the custom of commissioned officers providing their own side arms fell out of fashion?

Not much discussion on this thread about Force Protection, or how increasing the numbers of habitually armed troops in CONUS garrisons improves the installation's Force Protection posture. Do CONUS garrisons face threats of similar magnitude as OIF/OEF FOB's? No, they don't. Having all the CONUS garrison troops armed as if they were deployed reeks of fear and makes Hassan's propaganda of the deed wildly successful.

Active-duty enlisted personnel should draw their government issue weapon from the arms room and carry it whenever performing duties the chain of command has determined are best accomplished while armed. Can't very well have the Other Ranks deciding for themselves which duties they will perform armed with their own private purchase concealed carry pieces and which duties they will perform unarmed.

Canoneer #4 - a few questions for you:

1. Would honoring state CCWs on military installation reduce the FP posture of those installations?

2. Does the fact that American police are generally armed mean criminals in the U.S. are "wildly successful"?

3. Doesn't the average American expect his armed forces to be armed? Would that average American have preferred an outcome to the Hassan attack of a enlisted soldier drawing his CCW handgun and stopping Hassan to the 13 dead and 40 wounded of the actual event?

4. If you'd been at the Soldier Readiness Center at Fort Hood in the room in which Hassan initiated the attack, would you have preferred to be armed or unarmed?

5. Do you think we've seen the last of "lone wolf shooter" attacks on military installations?