How to properly beat a horse. Please allot 16 hours. This is mandatory.

[Bullfrog]

And most of the folks sitting through these sometimes bogus and often proven wrong “Training sessions”… don’t have a clue either. But the paper says they do, once they’ve completed only 16 hours of time filled with BS.

That is a different question.

Nobody should have to sit through the BS and false information, even if they don't have a DD214.

If it were a one day course with fact based training on MD law and safe handling there would be far fewer complaints about it.

Other state training requirements seem to manage to do it. Few people complain about Utah training requirements, even though they are mandatory... and there isn't a number of legal issues being reported with Utah permit holders, even though the course is less than a day and doesn't cover all the wide variety of laws in all the states that recognize the permit.

 

[Bullfrog]

So in this thread we have:

DD214 holders - mostly thankful for getting a pass

"Grouches" - I had to do training so you should too

Instructors - vested interest in requiring as many people as possible get trained/ re-trained

Statists - "please may I have another"

Constitutionalists - nobody should have to get training (can include DD214 holders)

Anybody I'm missing?

Wafflers/Fence sitters - People who object to government mandated training anything but recognize there could be some added value to it if it weren't full of BS and contradictory info.


I probably fit in 1, 5, and 6.

 

[44Dan44]

So in this thread we have:

DD214 holders - thankful for getting a pass and feel that's sufficient based on their experience

DD214 Holders who still want the training at a later date but why wait to get my permit

"Grouches" - I had to do training so you should too and are also mad because they probably had the training from another state in their past and also found the training they received in Maryland lacking

Instructors - vested interest in requiring as many people as possible get trained/ re-trained

Statists - "please may I have another" Whatever the government tells me is fine

Constitutionalists - nobody should have to get training (can include DD214 holders)

See thread on What did you learn you didn't already know Spoiler alert: Not a lot of content there

Wafflers/Fence sitters - People who object to government mandated training anything but recognize there could be some added value to it if it weren't full of BS and contradictory info.

People who like to play devil's advocate and are just making conversation

People who object to the price of training

 

[OldBrokenGrunt]

You’re misinformed.

Modern military servicemen over the past 20+ years have received hundreds of hours of training in the extremely restrictive rules of engagement used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody facing the military in the past two decades was in uniform- the hostile forces were civilians carrying various firearms and explosives.

The veterans who fought in Vietnam for 20+ years fought against enemy forces that rarely wore a uniform- guerillas and insurgents looked like everyone else in the neighborhood.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, many of our people were shot and killed by local nationals wearing “friendly” police and army uniforms.

Exactly.

 

[Fox123]

I used my DD214.

I have no reservations about it, it is something there available for me to utilize.

It does not mean I think any other law abiding citizen should be required to go through any type of mandatory training.

I think any government mandated training, or any permitting scheme as a whole is an infringement.

 

[OldBrokenGrunt]

Hundreds of thousands of people in this country with a DD214 that literally NEVER handled or were trained on a pistol while in the military. That’s a fact. So how does a DD214 reflect any competence or qualification for the person to carry a handgun in adherence or compliance with MD law?

As for the ROE commentary earlier in the thread from others not RD, ROE in a combat zone has just about zero to do with a self defense decision logic to shoot or escape. Even if it did, what percentage of the military actually experiences combat? Maybe 10%?

If that’s the reasoning. What percent of LEO’s have to pull their firearm for anything other than cleaning, mandatory range time, or when they get home? Then how many LEO’s have fired their weapon in the LOD? I can make an argument for either side.
Why can’t everyone just accept it and be happy?

 

[antco]

If that’s the reasoning. What percent of LEO’s have to pull their firearm for anything other than cleaning, mandatory range time, or when they get home? Then how many LEO’s have fired their weapon in the LOD? I can make an argument for either side.
Why can’t everyone just accept it and be happy?

What percentage of LEO have gone through a police academy and have annual qualification shoots and legal refresher training? 100% of them. Even the retired ones carrying under LEOSA have annual requals.

Arguments, like statistics can be used to prove any desired point. But anyone arguing that a DD214 qualifies a person in pistol-craft (or W&C in MD terms), is arguing from a faulty position.

Hundreds of thousands of honorably discharged service men and women never trained on, qualified on, or even touched a pistol during their time in the military. And no military pistol training covers the specifics of Maryland law.

I accept that the DD214 is exempt from MD law. I’m a constitutional carry mindset. But I’ll argue forever that a DD214 doesn’t always equate to any form of pistol training or familiarization of MD law.

 

[Swashpl8]

So in this thread we have:

DD214 holders - mostly thankful for getting a pass

"Grouches" - I had to do training so you should too

Instructors - vested interest in requiring as many people as possible get trained/ re-trained

Statists - "please may I have another"

Constitutionalists - nobody should have to get training (can include DD214 holders)

Anybody I'm missing?

Don't forget the DD-214 holders who want his thread to go away so politicians don't get any bright ideas when reading this! This thread has run its course and is almost offensive, lol!

 

[teratos]

I used my DD214.

I have no reservations about it, it is something there available for me to utilize.

It does not mean I think any other law abiding citizen should be required to go through any type of mandatory training.

I think any government mandated training, or any permitting scheme as a whole is an infringement.

I would do the same. I don’t blame anyone for going that route.

I agree that training/permitting are infringements.

 

[JohnnyE]

You’re misinformed.

Modern military servicemen over the past 20+ years have received hundreds of hours of training in the extremely restrictive rules of engagement used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Nobody facing the military in the past two decades was in uniform- the hostile forces were civilians carrying various firearms and explosives.

The veterans who fought in Vietnam for 20+ years fought against enemy forces that rarely wore a uniform- guerillas and insurgents looked like everyone else in the neighborhood.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, many of our people were shot and killed by local nationals wearing “friendly” police and army uniforms.

I ask questions in an effort to become informed.

I accept what you report regarding boots on the ground in SE Asia and the middle east who were in positions to encounter the enemy in all guises.

There is a large number of service men and women serving aboard ships, at stateside bases and the like who were in no way anticipated to have the same encounters with the enemy as those mentioned earlier. Did these service men and women receive any training of the type we're discussing? Unless I am told otherwise by those with actual knowledge (for instance folks who served in those capacities), I suspect that training is provided on an as-needed basis. Can you address this? Will others?

You're right of course, but forget about it. Those who are so inclined to dismiss the reality of what you speak, appear for the most part, butt hurt they don't qualify...

I don't assume reality, nor am I "butt hurt.' I ask questions that I hope, maybe naively so, will be answered straight up.

 

[OldBrokenGrunt]

What percentage of LEO have gone through a police academy and have annual qualification shoots and legal refresher training? 100% of them. Even the retired ones carrying under LEOSA have annual requals.

Arguments, like statistics can be used to prove any desired point. But anyone arguing that a DD214 qualifies a person in pistol-craft (or W&C in MD terms), is arguing from a faulty position.

Hundreds of thousands of honorably discharged service men and women never trained on, qualified on, or even touched a pistol during their time in the military. And no military pistol training covers the specifics of Maryland law.

I accept that the DD214 is exempt from MD law. I’m a constitutional carry mindset. But I’ll argue forever that a DD214 doesn’t always equate to any form of pistol training or familiarization of MD law.

What is the main worry on here about the DD214 waiver?

MD law? I find it hard to believe that 16 hours can begin to cover everything concerning MD law.

Shoot/ don’t shoot situations? Sandbox has that covered.

Jealously at veterans for not being required to pay the $300 plus for the training? Join the military and serve your time.

What should we all do at this point? Congratulate everyone for getting their CWP for MD.

Personally I am glad for everyone who gets their CWP. Jealous of those who have already gotten theirs but still glad.

 

[CMSGT]

I ask questions in an effort to become informed.

I accept what you report regarding boots on the ground in SE Asia and the middle east who were in positions to encounter the enemy in all guises.

There is a large number of service men and women serving aboard ships, at stateside bases and the like who were in no way anticipated to have the same encounters with the enemy as those mentioned earlier. Did these service men and women receive any training of the type we're discussing? Unless I am told otherwise by those with actual knowledge (for instance folks who served in those capacities), I suspect that training is provided on an as-needed basis. Can you address this? Will others?

I don't assume reality, nor am I "butt hurt.' I ask I questions that hope, maybe naively so, will be answered straight up.

A general statement made in jest.. Notice the . Did not mean to offend.

 

[Swashpl8]

I ask questions in an effort to become informed.

I accept what you report regarding boots on the ground in SE Asia and the middle east who were in positions to encounter the enemy in all guises.

There is a large number of service men and women serving aboard ships, at stateside bases and the like who were in no way anticipated to have the same encounters with the enemy as those mentioned earlier. Did these service men and women receive any training of the type we're discussing? Unless I am told otherwise by those with actual knowledge (for instance folks who served in those capacities), I suspect that training is provided on an as-needed basis. Can you address this? Will others?

I don't assume reality, nor am I "butt hurt.' I ask questions that I hope, maybe naively so, will be answered straight up.

The fact that folks with a DD-214 who performed in a support function still needing training because they didn’t fire a pistol is moot, at best..All veterans were apart of a Profession of Arms. At the end of the day, it’s their business to kill people. While firearm training associated with support functions might not consist of handguns, every single person who has served has qualified with some sort of weapon. Years of military training/discipline, combined with some sort of weapons qualification, makes them infinitely more qualified than someone who takes a 16 hour course.

 

[teratos]

The fact that folks with a DD-214 who performed in a support function still needing training because they didn’t fire a pistol is moot, at best..All veterans were apart of a Profession of Arms. At the end of the day, it’s their business to kill people. While firearm training associated with support functions might not consist of handguns, every single person who has served has qualified with some sort of weapon. Years of military training/discipline, combined with some sort of weapons qualification, makes them infinitely more qualified than someone who takes a 16 hour course.

No.

 

[Blaster229]

View attachment 375469

The fact that folks with a DD-214 who performed in a support function still needing training because they didn’t fire a pistol is moot, at best..All veterans were apart of a Profession of Arms. At the end of the day, it’s their business to kill people. While firearm training associated with support functions might not consist of handguns, every single person who has served has qualified with some sort of weapon. Years of military training/discipline, combined with some sort of weapons qualification, makes them infinitely more qualified than someone who takes a 16 hour course.

LOL Spend 1 week working at a gun shop near Ft. Meade. Then let's see how proud you are.

 

[Bullfrog]

The fact that folks with a DD-214 who performed in a support function still needing training because they didn’t fire a pistol is moot, at best..All veterans were apart of a Profession of Arms. At the end of the day, it’s their business to kill people. While firearm training associated with support functions might not consist of handguns, every single person who has served has qualified with some sort of weapon. Years of military training/discipline, combined with some sort of weapons qualification, makes them infinitely more qualified than someone who takes a 16 hour course.

False.

 

[Swashpl8]

No.

No what? Lol, you really think a 16 hour course for someone who has never held a weapon makes them more qualified than someone who spent years in the military? Thats insane bro. There are tons of states in the country who don’t require training and guess what, they aren’t out there ever day shooting there toes off. Hell, Elisjsha Diken was a constitutional carry holder that required no training and handled business! You put too much faith in 16 hours of training.

 

[teratos]

No what? Lol, you really think a 16 hour course for someone who has never held a weapon makes them more qualified than someone who spent years in the military? Thats insane bro. There are tons of states in the country who don’t require training and guess what, they aren’t out there ever day shooting there toes off. Hell, Elisjsha Diken was a constitutional carry holder that required no training and handled business! You put too much faith in 16 hours of training.

Not what I said. I’m not your “bro”

 

[BurkeM]

Ditto. Also a veteran with a DD214. I wondered the same thing. Any thoughts?

Renewal with the same Dd214 makes you exempt from training- for life (or until the MGA changes the law)

 

[Swashpl8]

Not what I said. I’m not your “bro”

My bad, bro