Washington State distrusts Veterans with guns

[pappy42]

Seems as if Washington State folks not only distrust Federal Law Enforcement folks; but also have a problem with Veterans Second Amendment rights.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2013/4/wa-attorney-general-takes-action-against-florida-gun-owners.aspx

Really? A 20 year old combat veteran can't ccw legally in wawa?

[deadeye]

This Ferguson clown is obviously one of those baby boys who stayed on his momma's lap through college. Mommy and daddy bought him a diploma and now he is a big boy who can make decisions for all of us. Never been in the real world. When in hell is the American voter going to wake up! I am so glad I live in a gun friendly state.

[Glock23]

I disagree with his choice to remove reciprocity with Florida entirely... should've just added a clause that reenforced the state's law that a ccw permit holder be at least 21.

As for him being against veterans, that's just the media/NRA's spin on it. We don't change the laws or make exceptions for the drinking age for veterans... why should ccw be any different?

[deadeye]

Let's see now. A person who has received the best firearms training in the world, has put their life on the line to protect us and our constitution isn't trustworthy enough to get a ccw when he comes home. I'VE GOT IT!!

[HarleyJack]

Let's see now. A person who has received the best firearms training in the world, has put their life on the line to protect us and our constitution isn't trustworthy enough to get a ccw when he comes home. I'VE GOT IT!!

And they don't get to drink alcohol or gamble in a casino either. Age has a lot to do with maturity and under 21 is not a suitable age to conceal carry. And being a vet doesn't mean beans with respect to maturity. Washington state had rules for their CC. When Florida made that rule, they deviated from being of the same mind as Washington. You need to be angry with Florida, not Washington.

Why do some people make mountains out of mole hills.

[pappy42]

And they don't get to drink alcohol or gamble in a casino either. Age has a lot to do with maturity and under 21 is not a suitable age to conceal carry. And being a vet doesn't mean beans with respect to maturity. Washington state had rules for their CC. When Florida made that rule, they deviated from being of the same mind as Washington. You need to be angry with Florida, not Washington.

Why do some people make mountains out of mole hills.

Just painting with a broad brush; like residents of wawa are prone to do.

[wyntrout]

After serving honorably in our armed forces and having put their lives on the line, they DO DESERVE our utmost respect and the same RIGHTS granted PROTECTION by THE U.S. Constitution. Our forefathers certainly didn't restrict Constitutional protection of RIGHTS to ONLY citizens of 21 years or older!

I doubt very much the OP ever put his life on the line in defense of our country and its national policies. A few years in the combat arms of our country can mature young people very quickly. They are trained in weapons and combat and should NOT lose their BASIC right of self defense when they take off the uniform and return to civilian life... NOR should they denied those basic rights when serving honorably in our armed forces.

Wynn

[Glock23]

After serving honorably in our armed forces and having put their lives on the line, they DO DESERVE our utmost respect and the same RIGHTS granted PROTECTION by THE U.S. Constitution. Our forefathers certainly didn't restrict Constitutional protection of RIGHTS to ONLY citizens of 21 years or older!

I doubt very much the OP ever put his life on the line in defense of our country and its national policies. A few years in the combat arms of our country can mature young people very quickly. They are trained in weapons and combat and should NOT lose their BASIC right of self defense when they take off the uniform and return to civilian life... NOR should they denied those basic rights when serving honorably in our armed forces.

Wynn

On the flip side, why should they not also be expected to follow the same laws? No drinking / carrying concealed weapons until 21. Why should I, or any other vet, expect to be treated better, or given more privilege over someone who did not serve?

All men are created equal. Fighting for one's country should not raise them above any other, aside from their own felt pride and honor in serving.

[Bawanna]

I know people 51 that shouldn't be allowed to carry guns. I also know people 15 that would do just fine.

I agree that Florida while making a fine gesture of respect to veterans muddied the waters all over by doing so.

I'd say stay the same as everyone. Hit 21, drink, party on and carry your piece maybe not in that exact order.

We have a very good attorney general in Wa, he ran for governor and should have won, (think the national election). I don't now the new guys track record and I wish McKenna had just stayed AG.

Our new governor who I didn't think had a snow ball chance of winning, again think national election) but he did. Remains to be seen what damage he can cause or repair.

[deadeye]

If we just move the age to serve in the military to 21 everything would be fine. Well, maybe create a few sundry problems, but, hey we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. (I'm in training to become a Democrat). My next course of study will be the common sense of constantly raising taxes.

[wyntrout]

On the flip side, why should they not also be expected to follow the same laws? No drinking / carrying concealed weapons until 21. Why should I, or any other vet, expect to be treated better, or given more privilege over someone who did not serve?

All men are created equal. Fighting for one's country should not raise them above any other, aside from their own felt pride and honor in serving.

I feel just the opposite... THEY... the VETS... HAVE earned more rights than some of the people who DON'T appreciate our freedoms and what it costs some OTHER people to keep those intact... the ones who would never lift a finger to help anyone else and want everything given to them by the government... freeloaders!

Wynn:Amflag2:

[jlottmc]

I feel just the opposite... THEY... the VETS... HAVE earned more rights than some of the people who DON'T appreciate our freedoms and what it costs some OTHER people to keep those intact... the ones who would never lift a finger to help anyone else and want everything given to them by the government... freeloaders!

Wynn:Amflag2:

Wynn, you know I agree with you. There is a big but coming though. What you are talking about creates a privileged class of people. That goes against everything we stand for as well as what we fought for. If it were not creating that, then yes, serve your country and reap the benefits. Then again, don't do it just for the benefits, or we may well end up looking like Robert Heinlin's Starship Troopers.

[wyntrout]

IF it were up to me... voting, public office... AND FULL citizenship WOULD be limited to those have have served HONORABLY in our armed forces. I believe that the people who DO protect our country should have more "privileges" and, indeed, RIGHTS than those who contribute nothing, especially those who do nothing but suck up the resources taken by force from the PRODUCERS by the ever-growing CANCER that is our BIG BROTHER government that wants to control all of the money and every aspect of our life.

Heinlein, Norton, and especially 82nd Airborne Veteran Michael Z. Williamson(http://www.michaelzwilliamson.com/index.php and author of the Freehold Series, http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/38234.Michael_Z_Williamson) have it right. You SHOULD have to EARN full CITIZENSHIP.

Unfortunately, the very parasites that are sucking the lifeblood out of our country also can vote... for more goodies taken from the dwindling population of productive people.
JMHO.

:amflag:

Wynn:)

[deadeye]

I am still a youngster and trying to understand all of this. 18 year olds are not mature enough to get ccw. They are old enough to wield the most powerful tool there is - the vote. So I understand that maturity has little to do with experience. It comes with age.
Age = maturity. Maturity = wisdom. OK. Obama,Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Frank, et al. By golly, I'm think I'm getting it!

[pappy42]

You folks in wawa like your anarchist better than your vets. The anarchist get to exercise their first amendment rights without being 21

[pappy42]

Wynn, you know I agree with you. There is a big but coming though. What you are talking about creates a privileged class of people. That goes against everything we stand for as well as what we fought for. If it were not creating that, then yes, serve your country and reap the benefits. Then again, don't do it just for the benefits, or we may well end up looking like Robert Heinlin's Starship Troopers.

Not trying to dis you here; but I do believe that I would rather have a 20 year old vet with a ccw than a 21 year old with no previous experience.

[wyntrout]

I think most vets would be at least 20... unless medically retired... especially for combat injuries which can be pretty gruesome.

I just restarted my monthly contributions to the Wounded Warriors after an unintentional lapse due to possible credit card compromise and getting a new card. There are a lot of charities, but this is one that's dear to my heart. We can't do enough for our wounded veterans... and the government doesn't do enough for too many of our severely wounded veterans.

Wynn:)

[yqtszhj]

I'm pro military, pro them being able to have ccw, but not all vets feel like we do about freedom, limited government, and the RKBA. John Kerry for example. Also quite a few of the guy's my sons serve with now (mostly from the left coast, NE, and inner city) are for big government, more government control, and obummer. I have a guy who works for me that is retired Air Force and would be for gun control. Constitution or not. We have a whole mentality that's forming in this country that's affecting us all.

Veterans shouldn't have more rights, but I have one better. Everyone that is physically capable of serving in the armed forces should have to do a 2 years. A lot of maturity can come from service.

And for the leaches that you mention? My signature line has a solution for that.

[mr surveyor]

wow... I guess I'm a parasite. Two bum knees and a heart murmur (from childhood) kept me from passing "the physical" in 1971....and again in 1972..... I suppose I should turn in my citizenship papers :confused:

[ltxi]

Just what we need...a bunch of underage, combat crazed vets with no respect for enemy life carrying concealed weapons on our streets. :spider:

[deadeye]

Just what we need...a bunch of underage, combat crazed vets with no respect for enemy life carrying concealed weapons on our streets. :spider:
Combat crazed Vietnam vet here. Somehow I've squelched the mad killer in me. Went a boy and came back a man. You have nothing to worry about as long as you have Spider Man to protect you.

[ltxi]

Oh, cool. You're one of us..... I never did manage to squelch that mad killer thing. Just took a job that allowed me to legally express it.

[wyntrout]

I guess that's why the current regime put them on the top of the terrorist watch list!:rolleyes:

Isn't it just great that people who have been on welfare all of their life... or LOW INFORMATION voters can make decisions to give up OUR freedoms for a little security??

Freedom isn't about free stuff. It's being able to do what you want as long as it doesn't impinge on anyone else's rights or freedoms.

There is no RIGHT to vote in the U.S. Constitution. Many people, especially the LEFT, would have you believe that there is a RIGHT TO VOTE in the U.S. Constitution. It's up to the STATE who gets to vote in their state.

Wynn:)

[deadeye]

Oh, cool. You're one of us..... I never did manage to squelch that mad killer thing. Just took a job that allowed me to legally express it.

You are apparently a police officer. If so you have all my admiration. You guys have a very tough job to do and I for one thank you. I don't believe I could do it.

[pappy42]

Yep. Thanks to all that serve and protect and to all that served and protected in the past.

A special thanks to those that bear the scars ,inside or out, for that service.

[tv_racin_fan]

Personally since you can not drink until 21 I think you should also not be able to serve or vote or carry a "weapon" or drive until that same age. That or we could lower the age for all of those to 18 or 16 or 12.

[yqtszhj]

Isn't it just great that people who have been on welfare all of their life... or LOW INFORMATION voters can make decisions to give up OUR freedoms for a little security??



Or for an Obamaphone. I better stop now or I'll get banned. :banplease:

[ltxi]

You are apparently a police officer. If so you have all my admiration. You guys have a very tough job to do and I for one thank you. I don't believe I could do it.

To avoid misrepresentation.....I do have LE in my checkered background. But haven't done that for years.

[muggsy]

I disagree with his choice to remove reciprocity with Florida entirely... should've just added a clause that reenforced the state's law that a ccw permit holder be at least 21.

As for him being against veterans, that's just the media/NRA's spin on it. We don't change the laws or make exceptions for the drinking age for veterans... why should ccw be any different?

Because the right to keep and bears arm is a constitutional right. Drinking alcohol isn't.

[Glock23]

Because the right to keep and bears arm is a constitutional right. Drinking alcohol isn't.

A right, yes, but with reasonable limitations.

Do we want our children carrying concealed on the playground? Do we want convicted violent felons heading straight from the prison gates to the nearest gun shop to arm up again?

Personally, I simply dislike laws that place anyone above another. The Illinois General Assembly just recently passed a bill that increased the penalty for an attack against a nurse. Yes, doctors and nurses save lives... elected officials represent the people, police officers protect, serve, enforce, etc... but in the end, we're all just people, and an attack on one person should be the same as an attack on another.

All things being equal, a person's job should not elevate them above another. The more we add to one side, the more is taken from the other.

[tv_racin_fan]

A right, yes, but with reasonable limitations.

Do we want our children carrying concealed on the playground?

You have something against my son, who by the way is legally allowed to carry a firearm, carrying a firearm on the playground?

Does this mean you also have something against me carrying on the playground or my wife or my mother perhaps?

Perhaps only you or some govt official is "safe" enough to carry on the playground.. We are talking about people who our govt trusts to carry firearms when they want them to but somehow for some reason doesn't trust them enough to carry whenever they don't wish them to

Do we want convicted violent felons heading straight from the prison gates to the nearest gun shop to arm up again?

Yes actually I do. IF the person is safe enough to be out on the street he or she is safe enough to trust with a firearm since in point of fact no matter the law you can not prevent them from aquiring one.

Personally, I simply dislike laws that place anyone above another. The Illinois General Assembly just recently passed a bill that increased the penalty for an attack against a nurse. Yes, doctors and nurses save lives... elected officials represent the people, police officers protect, serve, enforce, etc... but in the end, we're all just people, and an attack on one person should be the same as an attack on another.

All things being equal, a person's job should not elevate them above another. The more we add to one side, the more is taken from the other.

I would agree with not placing one citizen above another. As I said I support either allowing them to carry at 18 or not allowing them to serve until 21. IF a person is old enough to serve he/she is in my opinion old enough to make all of the other choices as well. THAT or we wait until they are 21 for all of those choices.

[John222]

Unfortunately doctors and nurses have to treat violent criminals when the police drag them into hospitals. They don't have a choice. Because of that, penalties for assaulting a doctor or nurse should be tougher, just as it is for attacking a police officer while he is performing his duty. If there isn't already, there should also be extra penalties for interfering with a fireman while he is risking his life for others.

[Glock23]

I would agree with not placing one citizen above another. As I said I support either allowing them to carry at 18 or not allowing them to serve until 21. IF a person is old enough to serve he/she is in my opinion old enough to make all of the other choices as well. THAT or we wait until they are 21 for all of those choices.

Tapatalk won't let me quote what I want, as it's in another quote...

Anyway, the playground reference was intended to imply small children, aka minors... hence the reasonable limitations, as there is no age limit specified in the 2nd amendment.

[ltxi]

A right, yes, but with reasonable limitations.

Do we want our children carrying concealed on the playground?..........

aka college?

[tv_racin_fan]

Tapatalk won't let me quote what I want, as it's in another quote...

Anyway, the playground reference was intended to imply small children, aka minors... hence the reasonable limitations, as there is no age limit specified in the 2nd amendment.

Has someone advocated that small children be allowed to carry on the playground sir?

NO?

See that was supposed to be left up to the PARENTS not to the nanny state which somehow can not figure out that a 16 year old can drive and 18 year old can fight and sometomes own a firearm but one must be 21 to drink and to purchase a firearm in a gun shop. The fact is the govt can not make up it's ever lovin mind. Funny how they advocate one size fits all rules in some areas then try to have different rules in another.

Reasonable limitations sir? The issue there is WHO gets to decide those "reasonable limitations"? Do I get to decide them? Or do the people who advocate that YOU are only allowed to own single shot weapons get to decide them? How do YOU feel about them limiting your magazine size or the type of firearm you can own?

I have heard some say that well the citizen should not own military style weapons. Do they not understand that in point of fact ALL weapons could easily be construed as military style? I mean the Military used flintlock muskets and then rifles and then cap lock weapons so ergo they are all military style. The military used lever and bolt action weapons so ergo they are all military style. They used revolvers and so on and so forth. Thus EVERY WEAPON could easily be deemed a "military style" weapon.