Petition for Concealed Carry for Veterans

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BrewDoc_MD

    Piss off, ghost!
    Apr 25, 2012
    633
    Myersville, MD
    I wish you luck, but can't sign that petition. 2A either applies to all Americans or none.

    :thumbsup: agreed. Everyone starts off with the rights enumerated in the Constitution and BOR.... some folks choose to give up those rights by committing crimes (and getting caught & convicted), but the rest of us should be treated equally.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    :thumbsup:

    Minuteman, you are a good guy and entitled to your opinion - and so is everyone else -that's what makes it a discussion.

    Yes this is just a discussion. This specific issue is a much lower priority than many other aspects of the larger discussion. I've listed some examples of much more important things we should be discussing, see my previous posts. Im trying to offer context and reasoning to an issue that otherwise would boil down to things staying as they are now.

    I'm simply encouraging we all work together to help other law abiding citizens get some immediate relief, add them to the list of those people that already have an easier time getting permits - while we are working on the larger issue of making Maryland a "shall issue" state.

    That's the basis of my entire argument.


    There is no such thing as "all or none". I think we can all agree the threashhold for who is allowed is way to far to one side.

    This issue is about the degree to which you are willing to allow people to carry. I'm saying we all agree who definitely should not be allowed, but as you start splitting hairs at some point moving toward who should be allowed to get a permit is different for each of us until we arrive at the other end of the spectrum and all agree again that "those people" obviously should be permitted to have carry permits". I'm asking anyone trying to discuss this to answer my question, where do you draw that line?

    Our sense of this issue nationally has been changing, this graphic (although is stops at 2011 makes my point).

    concealed-gun-laws-revealed_2.jpg.pagespeed.ce.m7wsRvCWMV.jpg


    If you oppose a law abiding veteran being added to the list that already exists, then we are pretty far apart on this issue.

    People who already have the legal right to carry (off duty concealed), if anyone is suggesting (and I don't believe anyone is) that veterans, or any other group of law abiding citizens should not also be able to carry are actively working against the very principle of liberty for all.
     
    Last edited:

    Blaster229

    God loves you, I don't.
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2010
    46,409
    Glen Burnie
    I don't think doing it incrementally "by groups" is the answer. The govt may think there are enough groups and stop approving more groups.
    How about gays? I mean with hate crimes and all that. They need to protect themselves too.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    I'm enjoying this important discussion, and I know some of you are starting to see the light. So let me just add one more analogy, speaking to the spectrum of people that are currently allowed to legally carry in Maryland.

    Most states in America have found their way through the dark and now see the world in vivid, visible color. Let's call the vast majority of states that have good/reasonable gun laws being in the range of 'visible light'. A very few states have terrible, grossly restrictive gun laws, let's say they are living in the radio range of the spectrum. Now Maryland laws and policies are not the worst, let's say we are currently living in the Microwave portion of the spectrum.

    I'm just suggesting we move a little more to the right... Move toward the light. :)

    spectrum.png
     

    Blaster229

    God loves you, I don't.
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2010
    46,409
    Glen Burnie
    People who already have the legal right to carry (off duty concealed), that are saying that veterans, or any other group of law abiding citizens should not also be able to carry are actively working against the very principle of liberty for all.

    I don't see anyone who is saying this.
    Maybe they don't agree with how you think shall issue should happen, but that in no way means they think that there shouldn't be one.
    Veterans are citizens. Citizens deserve it just as much. So the fight should be for all citizens. I think small sub fights within the larger fight take away from the energy for the fight for all.

    I said it earlier.
    What would you say to a vet and non vet both standing in front of you? Hey guys, right now we are going to work on getting the vet approved first and non vet, well we are working to get you approved first too.

    That's what all this sounds like to me.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    I don't think doing it incrementally "by groups" is the answer. The govt may think there are enough groups and stop approving more groups.
    How about gays? I mean with hate crimes and all that. They need to protect themselves too.

    Funny you should say this while I'm working on a 'rainbow' analogy. LOL

    Yes, everyone included; as long as they are not on the current "prohibited" list. Let me look at the list real quick... felons, habitual drunkards, drug users, spouse abusers, illegals, severely mentially ill... Nope I don't see sexual orientation or hair color on the list. Good to go! :)
     

    Blaster229

    God loves you, I don't.
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2010
    46,409
    Glen Burnie
    Funny you should say this while I'm working on a 'rainbow' analogy. LOL

    Yes, everyone included; as long as they are not on the current "prohibited" list. Let me look at the list real quick... felons, habitual drunkards, drug users, spouse abusers, illegals, severely mentially ill... Nope I don't see sexual orientation or hair color on the list. Good to go! :)

    I think it's assumed when people say "everyone" and "for all", they mean non prohibited citizens and not literally.
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    I don't see anyone who is saying this.
    Maybe they don't agree with how you think shall issue should happen, but that in no way means they think that there shouldn't be one.
    Veterans are citizens. Citizens deserve it just as much. So the fight should be for all citizens. I think small sub fights within the larger fight take away from the energy for the fight for all.

    I said it earlier.
    What would you say to a vet and non vet both standing in front of you? Hey guys, right now we are going to work on getting the vet approved first and non vet, well we are working to get you approved first too.

    That's what all this sounds like to me.



    Yes, I get it, and I think your analogy does represent what you and some others are saying. I just don't think its an accurate reflection of the strategy I'm proposing. I already responded, I'm not suggesting we tell one group they are not worthy (right now or ever), on the contrary, I'm saying we should support anyone and everyone (not prohibited persons) that gets in line.

    It's two ways of looking at the same side of a coin. Not two sides of the same coin.

    You have the unique perspective of having been on both sides, if I can't explain my intent to only include more people and not oppose, or exclude any law-abiding citizen; then this is a moot point. Did I use the right word? Moot not mute, right? :)
     

    Minuteman

    Member
    BANNED!!!
    I think it's assumed when people say "everyone" and "for all", they mean non prohibited citizens and not literally.

    Yep. But earlier when I was trying to ask where people draw the line, it became relevant to differentiate. So excluding only those prohibited persons; Vets, cops, astronauts, lipricons, teachers, tuba players, everyone else, should be Permitted to get a permit unless specifically disqualified (=shall issue). Regardless of whether we support them (I.e sign the petition), we should not oppose them. Please say you understand this. Agree or disagree, I care more that you get my point than being right.
     

    Blaster229

    God loves you, I don't.
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 14, 2010
    46,409
    Glen Burnie
    I don't oppose carry for anyone.
    I was lucky that out of default because of my career I can carry in Maryland since forever. I don't know the up hill battle, but I see it.
    I'm a vet too. If I weren't a cop, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't tout I'm a vet and fight for only vets right to carry. That's pretty pompous. How could I say I deserve it before a non vet does? That's what this petition does. It separates people when people should be united in the cause.

    I just don't see a non vet cheering on a vet to get their permit before he gets his. Hell, you have people who can't carry who think cops shouldn't be allowed to carry off duty.
    I don't think your finger is on the pulse of the feelings of non vets fighting for vets first, then themselves. Pretty sure they would offended at that thought actually. But I may be wrong.
     

    15carbine15

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Nov 5, 2014
    514
    Prince George's County
    I don't oppose carry for anyone.
    I was lucky that out of default because of my career I can carry in Maryland since forever. I don't know the up hill battle, but I see it.
    I'm a vet too. If I weren't a cop, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't tout I'm a vet and fight for only vets right to carry. That's pretty pompous. How could I say I deserve it before a non vet does? That's what this petition does. It separates people when people should be united in the cause.

    I just don't see a non vet cheering on a vet to get their permit before he gets his. Hell, you have people who can't carry who think cops shouldn't be allowed to carry off duty.
    I don't think your finger is on the pulse of the feelings of non vets fighting for vets first, then themselves. Pretty sure they would offended at that thought actually. But I may be wrong.

    I think your right.
     
    Dec 31, 2012
    6,704
    .
    I don't oppose carry for anyone.
    I was lucky that out of default because of my career I can carry in Maryland since forever. I don't know the up hill battle, but I see it.
    I'm a vet too. If I weren't a cop, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't tout I'm a vet and fight for only vets right to carry. That's pretty pompous. How could I say I deserve it before a non vet does? That's what this petition does. It separates people when people should be united in the cause.

    I just don't see a non vet cheering on a vet to get their permit before he gets his. Hell, you have people who can't carry who think cops shouldn't be allowed to carry off duty.
    I don't think your finger is on the pulse of the feelings of non vets fighting for vets first, then themselves. Pretty sure they would offended at that thought actually. But I may be wrong.

    I think your right.

    I'll second that.
     

    HeatSeeker

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2012
    3,058
    Maryland
    A 22 year old veteran that served after attending basic training and receiving weapons instruction and qualification. I'd venture to say that he/she has more training and experience than *most* folks who have a permit.

    As far as G&S for vets, it's easy. There are many "hate groups" out there that despise the military, military members and military vets. I'd say they are just as much of a target as a retired LE officer and more of a target than the average Joe that figured out how to work the system to get their permit.
    You're retired Navy...have you been a target of any of these "hate groups"? Your comment, "hate groups" that despise the military should = G&S, is reaching, but why not apply and state this as your G&S if you are seriously convinced you and most veterans are just as much a target as retired LE. They can only say no. When I applied with my G&S I was very skeptical that I would get a permit, but I took the chance knowing I might get denied. Your comment about us "average Joe's that have figured out how to work the system to get their permit" kind of shows that you have contempt for those of us that have done what was required by MD to get our permits. We didn't work the system, we just read the instructions and then followed them.
     

    HeatSeeker

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2012
    3,058
    Maryland
    I really don't know why he's stuck on needing people to define (for all) when common sense says for the law abiding citizens, not mentally Ill and criminals.
    People start doing this kind of thing when they're argument is floundering. It's like when you are debating someone and making a lot of sense so they start to pick on your punctuation and spelling.
     

    HeatSeeker

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 18, 2012
    3,058
    Maryland
    I don't see anyone who is saying this.
    Maybe they don't agree with how you think shall issue should happen, but that in no way means they think that there shouldn't be one.
    Veterans are citizens. Citizens deserve it just as much. So the fight should be for all citizens. I think small sub fights within the larger fight take away from the energy for the fight for all.

    I said it earlier.
    What would you say to a vet and non vet both standing in front of you? Hey guys, right now we are going to work on getting the vet approved first and non vet, well we are working to get you approved first too.

    That's what all this sounds like to me.
    No one is or has said that. The problem is that Minuteman is not really making an argument for Shall Issue. He is arguing to create more G&S for May Issue. Sure that would help more people get permits, but once the Gov't starts conceding to broaden May Issue that could just push Maryland further from ever becoming a Shall Issue state.

    I don't know, is that the way to go? Maybe if some feel MD will never become a Shall Issue state then just fight to expand G&S so more people can obtain permits under the current format ? :shrug:
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,258,963
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom