Quote of the Day
At lunch, discussing how some places exempt military personnel from firearms training for carry permits, Tam (paraphrased):
There’s a different set of rules for shooting someone at West Town Mall than there is for shooting someone in Fallujah
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:35 pm
True.
But my favorite instructor, Greg Hamilton from Insights, who teaches military, law enforcement, and civilians, says that the “rules of engagement” don’t seem to make much difference. Most people won’t shoot even if the rules say they can. And if someone needs to be shot they will do it even if the rules say they aren’t supposed to. People generally behave according to their own internal ethical standards regardless of the external rules they will be judged by.
This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t teach the rules by which people will be judged or be careless in making those rules but rather to not be surprised when they aren’t followed.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:38 pm
Oh, and at least in Idaho the impression I get is all they require people to know is to keep your finger off the trigger and keep the gun pointed in a safe direction before you can carry in public. All training enviroments are going to have that covered.
August 23rd, 2010 at 5:47 pm
I’m personally against mandatory training laws, but if the expressed purpose of the training course is to familiarize permit holders with the legalities of packing heat in East Dakota or wherever, then an exemption for military service doesn’t make much sense.
In most states it’s illegal to pitch a cooked-off grenade through the door before rolling in behind a burst of full-auto fire. 😉
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:00 pm
But it should be legal, Tam. It should be.
August 23rd, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Tam,
Can you show me the legal reference on that for Idaho or Oregon? Washington state has your back on that one because of the full-auto. But not for the grenade (provided the grenade was grandfathered when they outlawed DDs).
But if a rightous shooting does happen with the full-auto CCRKBA and SAF think they have a “secret weapon” which might pull someone’s ass out of the fire for the state of Washington.
August 23rd, 2010 at 7:48 pm
I tend to agree with Joe Huffman. In the Korean War, fifty thousand rounds of small arms ammunition were expended for each enemy casualty. The Army conducted a study and found that one-third of our soldiers did not fire their guns at all and one-third fired to miss.
Can you turn somebody into a killer? Likely, but it has to be something you start in the cradle. The knights, the Vikings ….
In any case, I am more inclined to trust a soldier — who has been trained to shoot at somebody wearing different clothes just because his sergeant told him to — with a firearm than some would-be Clint Eastwood.
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:36 pm
nk, if the “study” you are refering to was the one by S.L.A. Marshall; frankly, a lot of people question its methodology. Some going to so far as to assert that Marshall made the numbers up.
August 23rd, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Joe,
Obviously I was being a wiseass. 😉
(But I will, for the record, make my usual statement that the world is not a free-fire zone. Depending on the circumstances, it might be tough to convince a jury that someone in the next room was enough of an imminent threat to require a grenade pitched blindly through the doorway.)
nk,
It has been my experience that those would-be Clint Eastwoods are far more plentiful in editorial writers’ imaginations than they are in real life, as witnessed by the paucity of unrighteous shootings over stolen candy bars and the much-ballyhooed-but-almost-entirely-mythical parking lot arguments.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Tam,
And, obviously, you are quite talented at being a wise-ass. And, of course, you know that we like you that way.
I agree with you on the unlikelihood of the circumstance sufficient to convincing a jury that was the proper course of action. But that is completely separate from the legality of the action.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:32 pm
Former military should not be exempt from carry permit laws. They took an oath to preserve protect and defend the Constitution. Why should “the equal protection of the laws” of that Constitution be set aside?
Actually gun carry permit laws are UNLAWFUL in that it is requiring a permit to exercise a RIGHT. Here in Tennessee, citizens have a clear enumerated right to carry arms for self-defense (Article I, Section 26, Tennessee Declaration of Rights) That would be the way that citizens whether they be former military or not, woould be treated in accordance with the 14th Amendment mandate for ” the equal protection of the laws”.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:37 pm
Ron W., former military are not “exempt” from carry permit laws. They merely are exempt in some “shall issue” states from having to show training certificates from civilian training courses.
Note that they are also exempt from some similar requirements when purchasing from the CMP.
August 23rd, 2010 at 9:41 pm
So, for example, a member of the military should be REQUIRED to sit through a class that teaches a FRACTION of the firearms safety knowledge that he is already very aware of. He should be REQUIRED to pay for this “training”. And he should be REQUIRED to shoot a few rounds at a target, regardless of shot placement. And at the end, receive a pamphlet that summarizes the state laws, to review on his own time. *That summarizes my FL and SC training.* I was exempt in FL, but chose to see what I was “missing”, and I did SC before there was reciprocity with FL. I can say from 6 years of continuing PROFESSIONAL MILITARY FIREARMS TRAINING (qualifying with a pistol quarterly, and rifle annually out to 500 yards) and suffering through 2 separate state CCW “training” classes, that I STRONGLY feel military members should be exempt from attending a CCW “training” class.
August 23rd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Lesane,
Again, I’m opposed to mandatory training to exercise a constitutional right, since it’s usually just a sop to the nervous class anyway. I’ve lived in a state that required it (TN) and two that don’t (GA and IN) and I can’t see where it has any real effect.
HOWEVER, if the rationale (or even partial rationale) behind the requirement is making CCW permit holders aware of the laws surrounding carry and use of a firearm, then exempting someone simply because they have a DD-214 just makes no sense. I am unaware of an MOS (other than perhaps MP/SP) that includes training on state-level use of force laws and where and when you may legally carry a gun.
As you pointed out, though, those subjects seem to be given short shrift in some state-mandated programs. (TN has a movie they make prospective toters watch.)
August 23rd, 2010 at 11:01 pm
Here in Virginia the requirement for concealed handgun permit is proof of safety training. All military including retired are considered to be safety trained, as is anyone who has taken any NRA firearms course, a hunter education course or online firearms safety class. We keep the bar low here and of course no permit at all is required to open carry. Freedom is a wonderful thing.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:36 am
If the purpose of the “firearms” training is to see if the prospective CHL carrier can get most rounds onto a human sized target at up to 15 yards (which is what the Texas requirement is), then it does not make sense to require military, cops, NRA-certified whatevers, and those who hold the Boy Scout shooting merit badge go through the course of fire.
(So in fact, Texas lets military and others with prior firearms training skip the course of fire. I don’t think the merit badge qualifies, but it should.
Training on the laws is not “firearms training.” In Texas, at least, it is a separate part of the course.
If all a state requires is the firearms portion and hands out a pamphlet, as is apparently the case in other states, then yes it makes sense to exempt the military and others who already have firearms training.
Frankly, I see no logical reason for the course of fire that Texas uses — it is such a trivial test, it is probably counter-productive for self-defense purposes.
August 24th, 2010 at 3:57 am
I’m rarely impressed with the firearms skills of LEOs and Soldiers.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:33 am
Well Robert, that was a valuable opinion, and very relevant to the topic of discussion. Thanks for that.
Tam, I can see what you are saying, IF the intent is to teach the law. I can agree with the fact that it is unfair. Personally though, having my experience with FL/SC CCW classes, I’ll have to admit I’m very happy with the fact FL doesn’t require AD Military to attend them.
August 24th, 2010 at 6:52 am
Lesane,
Oh, I’m not saying it’s “unfair”. I’m not the type to whine about “fairness”. Life’s unfair.
I’m just saying that it doesn’t jibe with the lawmaker’s stated intentions for requiring a training course.
“We can’t let people who don’t know safe gun-handling and are uneducated in state self-defense laws carry loaded guns on the street!” and then they give a pass to every wing-wiper and intel weenie who hasn’t handled a heater since basic except for annual quals and wouldn’t know use-of-force law from a hole in the ground? Yeah, that makes sense. They should fix their course and requirements to bring it in line with their stated intentions or scrap it altogether.
August 24th, 2010 at 7:04 am
In GA, all current members of the military (federal or state) are completely exempt from our license requirement and are also allowed to carry anywhere that police officers are allowed to carry. (OCGA 16-11-130)
Former military service does not exempt one from any of the licensing requirements or geographical restrictions.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:03 am
If a state needed to throw sops to both the “nervous classes” and to the devotion of the military, it might require the training and waive its license fee. I just can’t see any veteran complaining about that.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:41 am
From reading all the comments they seem to break down into two groups. Those in a jurisdiction that the stated intent of training is both the physical training of handling a gun safely and the training of the applicable laws for that jurisdiction. Then those, like Colorado, where there is absolutely no intent in the law to teach deadly force laws/rules, just safe gun handling. The two groups seem to be talking past each other. Although the comments about soldiers not being trained in what is a lawful shoot and what is not would not be true in my case. I remember clearly from boot camp (waaaaay back in the day) that we were quite clearly taught under what circumstances we could should anybody, enemy or not and the definitions and description of the lawful use of deadly force were made quite clear. Maybe that’s changed in the intervening decades, but in The Corps back then we were taught deadly force rules as part of the responsibility of standing post, guarding military personnel and property.
August 24th, 2010 at 8:44 am
I will add that in my county (El Paso) in Colorado we have had the great good fortune to have several really good sheriffs in a row that have built a good CCW program. It is a state permit now but was a county permit when I first started carrying in the early ’90s. In the very beginning one of the things the sheriff provided was a comprehensive explanation of the use of deadly force, including the applicable state laws. It wasn’t training, but if you could read and comprehend the english language you were covered.
August 24th, 2010 at 12:01 pm
Just to illustrate that point, the certificate from the Minnesota hunter’s safety course I took 20 years ago when I was (I think) 12 years old counted for my CHP. The requirement has nothing to do with the laws or an individual’s ability, it’s just for firearms safety.
And, of course, in Virginia no training or permit whatsoever is required for open carry.
For which state? Some states have a duty to retreat, some don’t, some depend on the circumstances (i.e., you have a duty to retreat in public but not in your home, etc.). What justifies deadly force varies from state to state, too. Unless the military teaches the laws for all 50 states, it makes no sense to exempt military personnel from the legal aspects of the required training (where it is required).
August 24th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
I can see dropping the qualification portion were you waste ammo at a close range target but the LEGAL ASPECTS part of the training is still needed.
August 24th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Jake, yes there are details and nuances that vary from locale to locale. My point really was that the folks that were talking about the legalities were probably in jurisdictions where that kind of training was required vs jurisdictions like mine that is simply a safety course and nothing else. That plus the idea that folks in the military don’t get lethal force training is not accurate. Does it fit every locale, nope, but if you are standing post at the front gate of a base it does 🙂
I know that when I teach the Basic Pistol Shooting course I stick strictly to the material and don’t talk laws at all. But as soon as I hand the student their certificate I point them at the county sheriffs web site that covers all the applicable laws quite well.
August 24th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
As former military AND former LEO, I have no problem taking training and qualifications. In fact, I do so every year, to stay current on the LEOSA-04 system.
I consider it a fine opportunity to not only compare my skills against others, but to see what the current state of training doctrine is all about, and catch up on legal precedent.
Even if we all had the skill of Miculek, and the writing ability of Ayoob, it behooves us gunnies to follow what the industry (or hobby) is doing.
August 24th, 2010 at 6:48 pm
As far as rules and such, it appears the ROE in the sandy and hilly places is more restrictive now, than in most places in the US!
August 24th, 2010 at 8:54 pm
Actually I thought being a soldier and engaging a hostile are alike. Both ways you have to do it in order to avoid bad press….