Poll Position: Carry permits for soldiers under 21?
While the T-SPLOST vote rightly gets most of the attention, the July 31 primaries will also feature a number of ballot questions for both Republican voters and Democrats. We’ve covered a few of them in previous Poll Positions, and today we’re going to resume that series with a bang. No, really.
The third question on GOP primary ballots will read:
Should active duty military personnel who are under the age of 21 be allowed to obtain a Georgia weapons carry license?
Should active duty military personnel who are under the age of 21 be allowed to obtain a Georgia weapons carry license?
- Yes (547 Votes)
- No (57 Votes)
- I don't know (10 Votes)
Total Voters: 614
Loading ...The question dovetails with a Senate bill (SB 493) sponsored by Bartow County’s Barry Loudermilk in this year’s session. That bill passed the Senate with a broader impact, lowering the carry license from 21 to 18 for anyone who passed a firearms training course within three months of applying. A substitute version proposed in the House limited the impact to under-21s who had completed basic training in any branch of the armed services, mirroring the ballot question, but the bill never came up for a vote in the House. (Note: This paragraph has been edited to correct the versions of the bill and the timeline in which they appeared.)
As with most of the other ballot questions next month, this one anticipates the introduction (or in this case, re-introduction) of actual legislation, and almost certainly will be used to justify said legislation. And it will almost certainly be approved by GOP primary votes.
But does it pass muster with blog readers? It’s this week’s Poll Position question, and you can sound off in the nearby poll and the comments thread below.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
198 comments Add your comment
GD
June 22nd, 2012
4:24 pm
Did anybody point out yet that active duty military personnel of any age are already allowed to carry firearms in Georgia without a permit, and they don’t even have the off-limits locations that permit holders have? This bill would change absolutely nothing about who can carry a gun.
Uh Oh
June 22nd, 2012
4:26 pm
“Except I’ve accomplished far more in my lifetime than he ever dreamed of doing.”
He isn’t anything great by any means, but you are not the leader of the most powerful nation in the world or anything close…..
but nice try…… you fed right into what the joke was about
bwhahahhhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Michael H. Smith
June 22nd, 2012
4:29 pm
Anyone old enough to operate a motorized vehicle on the roads of Georgia is old enough to carry a gun WITHOUT this “military non-sense” that has been attached to the question.
If can trust someone to be responsible with a “lethal automobile” WITHOUT a military background then you can certainly trust them with a gun which presents no more of a deadly threat to the public at large.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
June 22nd, 2012
4:38 pm
Uh oh
He may be the president of this USA, but a leader, give me a break. He couldn’t lead school bus children to misbehave.
John Galt
June 22nd, 2012
4:40 pm
You can keep repeating the BS below all you want. The truth is not one of those victims told themselves right before they were shot “Thank God I do not have a gun”.
Not one.
“No, it’s the lack of guns in the hands of victims that have been the issue.
Ask any successful thug.
Wrong again. This always comes up when there is a school shooting.
The NRA idiots say ” Well if all the teachers had guns this wouldn’t have happened ” etc etc
Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard.
Again
More guns = More Gun violence.”
Cosby
June 22nd, 2012
4:43 pm
They have it anyway..see the amendment II of The US constitution..The conceal permit is illegal!!
In God We Trust
In Government We Fear
Lock and load
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 22nd, 2012
4:58 pm
“Why do they need this privilege?”
kelly, you’re mistaken. According the the 2nd amendment, this is a right, not a privilege.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 22nd, 2012
5:05 pm
Uh Oh, YOU may consider what you posted a joke, but I do not.
I’ve served in the U.S. military – he has not.
I’ve created hundreds, if not thousands of jobs in my lifetime with my own money and my customer’s money – he has not.
I’ve reduced the size of government at the local level – he has not.
I made my way through college without anybody’s financial help – he has not.
I’ve gone through life without taking a dime of government money except that which I earned in salary – he has not.
So yeah, I’ve accomplished more in my lifetime than he could ever hope to do.
Michael H. Smith
June 22nd, 2012
5:13 pm
How about the latest Supreme Court decision Kyle: Knox v SEIU ?
Does it cast a dark shadow on obumerCare as some have accessed?
Ed Whelan at Bench Memos notes:
“[W]e do not revisit today whether the Court’s former cases have given adequate recognition to the critical First Amendment rights at stake.” The free-rider arguments that those cases have relied on (i.e., preventing nonmembers from free-riding on the union’s collective-bargaining activities) “are generally insufficient to overcome First Amendment objections” and are “something of an anomaly.” “Similarly, requiring objecting nonmembers to opt out of paying the nonchargeable portion of union dues—as opposed to exempting them from making such payments unless they opt in—represents a remarkable boon for unions.” It’s difficult to see the justification for an opt-out rule. Indeed, the Court seems to have accepted the opt-out approach “more as a historical accident than through the careful application of First Amendment principles.” (Slip op. at 10-13.)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/21/an-obamacare-hint.html
PS. The corrupt democrat-union alliance took another heavy hit.
Uh Oh
June 22nd, 2012
5:18 pm
Ok Ti
OK
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 22nd, 2012
5:18 pm
This is Obama’s first bona fide, full-scale scandal. The president, with his assertion of executive privilege, has now placed himself at the center of the storm. And he’s done so with less than 140 days before the election. One can only imagine what the administration has to hide in order for Obama to have done what he did.
oboz will end his presidency in a cage.
Where he belongs.
Uh Oh
June 22nd, 2012
5:20 pm
All pat Ti on the back
I’m doing it now
All have a great weekend
Michael H. Smith
June 22nd, 2012
5:25 pm
I’ll be back… “Fast and Furious”… when Kyle’s turns the page.
Pleasant evening to all
md
June 22nd, 2012
5:39 pm
Gun laws are only for those that follow the law……..and they aren’t the problem.
ld
June 22nd, 2012
5:40 pm
Who better to have a weapon in any emergency than someone trained to use it?
Yes, active duty and honorably discharged military personnel should have carry permits — if not state by state then as a NATIONAL right — they have, after, served to defend the right of all of us to bear arms.
Lil' Barry Bailout (Revised Downward)
June 22nd, 2012
5:43 pm
Anyone who’s had a job in the private sector has worked harder than Obozo ever has.
Obozo: Lazy and unproductive.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm! Just sayin...
June 22nd, 2012
5:48 pm
blah, blah, blah, dummycrats-
Under Romney, Bain Invested in Companies That Sent Jobs Abroad
You mean like Government Motors?
duh
kayaker 71
June 22nd, 2012
5:49 pm
Maturity is a strange thing. You might think that a person who has served in the military in one of the combat branches is some kind of expert in gun control and cool but that is not always the case. Each state should levy the legislation that they feel is necessary for their citizens to protect themselves but you cannot legislate maturity and good judgement. Carrying a weapon is a huge responsibility with more hidden consequences than you can imagine and most 18yr olds that I have met have neither the maturity nor the necessary experience to take on this responsibility. Just an opinion from an old soldier.
ODD OWL
June 22nd, 2012
6:06 pm
The 2nd. and 14th. amendments to the Constitution are crystal clear… They forbid anyone (especially elected officials) to pass any law or ordnance that IMPINGE on the RIGHT of any American of any age to carry a gun at any time or anywhere… We the People will decide whether or not to ban guns and the only way we can do that is with a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the ownership of guns by Americans… Case closed…
ODD OWL
June 22nd, 2012
6:13 pm
Mittens “soft” Romney will take away our guns and export our jobs overseas and he will import Bush/Cheney on steroids misery… Herbert Hoover ===> Great Depression… Bush/Cheney/Romney ===> Great Recession… Romney has scary eyes… He can’t be trusted…
md
June 22nd, 2012
6:32 pm
“Mittens “soft” Romney will take away our guns and export our jobs overseas”
You mean like selling Chrysler to the Italians?? I’m sure the Italian people are quite appreciative of us bailing out a company so they can now spend any profits in their economy……
Lil' Barry Bailout (Unexpectedly Revised Downward--Again)
June 22nd, 2012
7:28 pm
Supporting Obozo is a form of mental retardation, obviously.
ODD OWL
June 22nd, 2012
10:39 pm
@ Bailout 7:28… There are about 50.000 words in the English language… Its Obvious that your limited vocabulary contains only about two hundred of them…
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 22nd, 2012
11:25 pm
“Mittens “soft” Romney will take away our guns and export our jobs overseas”
There’s certainly a reason why you’re called “Odd Owl”.
CJ
June 23rd, 2012
12:33 am
Are you kidding me? Our service members are better trained than 99% of those with guns that have never served. We understand proper breathing, trigger squeeze, and all the fundamentals of how guns operate. We’re trained on the proper and safe handling. You can bet that if we have to defend ourselves with force we’ll save the American taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars since the criminal will be deceased, thus sparing a costly court battle.
Oh, and I’m sorry but the ignorant comment of more guns=more violence is idiotic. See Chicago’s murder rate and that city has the most strict gun control laws in the country. I was safer in Afghanistan than I would be in there.
ODD OWL
June 23rd, 2012
12:46 am
Guns don’t kill… Killers kill…
Don
June 23rd, 2012
10:04 am
What problem does this solve? We have real problems and this is what our government spends its time on?
You Know It
June 24th, 2012
12:49 am
Criberuis
Romney will lose in November. I will be back to remind you. No Obama isn’t any thing worth mentioning, so save that card and calling me a liberal or whatever names you love to call on this blog which might help your weak self esteem but have no true basis will do nothing for Romney
A crappy economy, domestically and internationally, and Obama will still express his dominance as the debates get under way.
Romney is no doubt a great business man, however is sales jobs will not win over the electorate.
Obama is WEAK, but will still have the last laugh on election day. The @@s, Lil Barry’, Criberius, Rafes, Dusty’s, Brunos, and Dels will only makes excuses come November as to why Romney lost. Keep preaching to the choir and doing your duty, but the outcome will not change.
You Know It
June 24th, 2012
12:54 am
3.25 to 4% points
25 to 40 electoral vote difference
You Know It
June 24th, 2012
12:59 am
Cri
Just think of this election as 2004.
No matter how weak Bush was and was proven to be, the liberals couldn’t see that Kerry wasn’t the answer……….
Instapundit » Blog Archive » CARRY PERMITS for soldiers under 21?…
June 24th, 2012
8:21 am
[...] CARRY PERMITS for soldiers under 21? [...]
plumber dan
June 24th, 2012
8:54 am
It sounds like some Chicago people have negative comments here on this. I say take your Anti-Gun non sense back to Chicago, the place where Skunks are from. If a person has served OUR Nation, they damn well have the Right to Defend themselves when they get back Home. I would feel more secure sitting next to person that has served in our military, carrying a gun, than anybody from Chicago! Let our current/former military personnel carry a gun in our community and we will have less crime and greater security as a whole.
Brass
June 24th, 2012
9:15 am
For those of you who are doubting the “more guns=less crime” here is a handy-dandy chart showing that, yes, it is indeed true. He’s nice enough to even include where all that statistics come from so, if you are intellectually honest enough, you can check for yourself.
http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2012/06/graphics-matter-year-the-fourth.html
Pi Guy
June 24th, 2012
9:27 am
“More guns = More Gun violence
Less Guns = Less Gun Violence
Class Dismissed.”
More Spoons = More Fat People
Less Spoons = Less Fat People
NOW, Class is Dismissed.
Putz
Sapper
June 24th, 2012
9:38 am
Actually you are wrong.
More legal gun owners = less crime
From your very own lefty paper
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/
Mike Mahoney
June 24th, 2012
10:03 am
Not going to the merits of extending the right to an otherwise fully functioning American citizen adult, I will keep my comment anchored to the logic that having a fun in the military is a xo-equal responsibility to owning one as a civilian. So let’s do the comparison. After basic, does the new Private carry at indiscriminate times and places on the base? Does the new private go traipsing through the PX, traversing field and swamp, visiting the CO’s daughter armed w/o an NCO up his rear? Is he registered, tagged, stamped, DNA ID’d along with the weapon he is issued? Does somebody make him account for every bullet?
The justification totally fails at this level of logic. Stick with a libert/rights argument and you can’t go wrong.
Mark L
June 24th, 2012
10:36 am
Old enough to fight . . .
FormerHostage
June 24th, 2012
11:40 am
> More guns = More Gun violence
> Less Guns = Less Gun Violence
> Class Dismissed.
Before you leave class you should probably do more research. Recent FBI statistics show that even though firearm ownership in the US has increased by 10% the past 3 years the violent crime rate has dropped.
As for the commenter who wondered why they would need to have guns? 2nd Amendment does not state that citizens may possess firearms only if they can prove a need.
FInally, for the commenter who stated that “…this reminds [them] of the movie Super Bad” Seriously? You’re basing your opposition to a servicemenber legally possessing a firearm on a B rated comedy lampooning police?
John C.
June 24th, 2012
11:47 am
Something that everyone is overlooking, which pretty much makes the whole issue moot: according to the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, no one below the age of 21 may legally own a handgun.
18 USC § 922 – Unlawful Acts
…
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(1) any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age
And Federal law takes precedence over state law, even state Constitutional law. This of course does not apply to issued military weapons, which are not owned by the person to whom they are issued, but rather to the government. Since it could only apply to privately-owned weapons, and even a soldier may not legally buy a handgun below the age of 21 (just TRY to carry a rifle or shotgun concealed…), this issue can only be election-year politicking on the part of its sponsors. That said, I favor treating everyone of the age of 18 as adult for everything, or moving the adult age for everything to 21; I figure you are either an adult or you are not, not adult for some things and not for others.
Incidentally, in reference to Japan being low-gun and low-crime, Japan actually loses a higher percentage of its people to violence than the U.S.; the difference is that it is seldom gun-related, and is far more likely to be inwardly-directed (as in suicides; the U.S has a higher suicide rate than murder rate) than outwardly-directed. The same is true in Switzerland, for different reasons, but not due to the lack of guns; shooting is the national sport, up to and including with privately-owned artillery, and each household with a man of military age has in it a full soldier’s kit, including a select-fire assault rifle and ammunition. The two countries are actually similar in many significant ways, due to the cultural aspect of putting the individual as less important than the group. In Japan it is due to religious and Confucian principles; in Switzerland it is due to the entire population being, essentially, an army. But both countries have low murder rates, seldom gun-related, and high suicide rates. More guns=less crime is overly simplistic; cultural factors are far more important.
Paul C
June 24th, 2012
12:13 pm
What other rights are limited by age? The 2nd is for violent overthrow of the state. Young males are very well fit for that, as opposed to long acustomed and weak, if not profiting olders.
Lee Reynolds
June 24th, 2012
1:33 pm
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right.
The notion that someone old enough to vote should even need a permit in the first place is insulting.
Ken Mitchell
June 24th, 2012
2:01 pm
Badly-named commenter “I demand to see Cheesy Grits Birth Certificate- Long Form Please” writes: “More guns = More Gun violence”.
Actually, this claim is entirely false, and you’re an idiot (or a troll) for making such an easily refuted allegation. Logic like that is entirely equivalent to ” I can see that the Earth is flat!”
Synova
June 24th, 2012
3:48 pm
Make the age the same for everyone. Everyone has to take the same training classes. Or, if it makes it easier to take, make everyone between 18 and 21 take extra classes, even those in the military. But make the age to get a permit 18.
There is something inescapably twisted in pushing the age of majority to 21 in order to drink or carry a weapon, when it’s 18 for voting or serving in the military.
A person has to wonder… Are we pushing the age of majority to 21 because young people are children so much longer than before, or if the lack of maturity is because we treat them like children when they ought to be considered adults. Which is the cart, and which is the horse?
Synova
June 24th, 2012
4:01 pm
Ah… Yes, military training.
Dear Mr. Liberty: Military discipline is about one thing, and one thing only. It’s about *stopping* when ordered to stop. Humans do not need to be trained to kill. They need to be trained to stop killing, to force human nature into submission, in situations where such control is *historically* near impossible.
This is the difference between barbarian hordes raping and pillaging and modern armies and was developed and won, bit by bit, over a long history, to the extent that we expect our soldiers, as a matter of course, to maintain cool rationality while their brothers die next to them, and think that this is *normal*.
Military order is about being where you’re supposed to be and doing what you’re supposed to be doing.
I would say that believing the military is about training people to kill is so quaint as to be downright adorable, except it’s not adorable at all.
PavePusher
June 24th, 2012
4:01 pm
May I please see everyone’s First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits?
And for anyone claiming “More guns=More crime”, or any version of that, please show your stats. Thanks in advance.
PavePusher
June 24th, 2012
4:04 pm
John C.: That is incorrect. Someone under 21 may be gifted a handgun, or buy one in a private-party sale, depending on the laws of the state they reside in. In many states, 18, 19 and 20-year-olds may even carry in public, openly. In a very few states they can get a concealment permit.
http://www.handgunlaw.us
MPDave
June 25th, 2012
9:16 am
Basic trainees to not receive anything like the kind of firearms training required to qualify for a concealed-carry permit. Most enlisted personnel, with the exception of military police and special operations forces, never have the opportunity or obligation to carry a sidearm or practice using one. Service in the armed forces should earn those 18 – 21 year olds some respect and gratitude, but not a pass on concealed carry requirements.
richard40
June 25th, 2012
2:09 pm
Instead of making the under 21 exemption it for anybody who completed basic training,which could include people with questionable discharges, restrict it to active duty military. In that case, they will still be covered by military discipline, and should be pretty safe.