A CCW legal challenge for the pro-carry crusaders

[uyoga]

We're going to be releasing some additional application-related information which you may find useful. I expect either me or Gene to post within the next week or... two. (but really, I mean it).

Now . . . . this . . . . . will be worth waiting for.

[SgtDinosaur]

What about the fact that I had a higher-than-TS clearance 35 years ago? Would I still be eligible? I didn't think so. BTW I sat through those same briefings.

[Lost.monkey]

I've always found those local security briefings a little disturbing; if there are so many threats as they say in the local area, I SHOULD be packing, regardless of my CCW status. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Perhaps the intent is to inspire a touch of "positive paranoia" just to drive the point of keeping one's mouth shut home.

I've always wondered how much of the local report was actually factual.

[Uriah02]

I would vote no for several reasons.
1) I have known plenty of window lickers that I wouldn't trust with a potato gun (or the clearance they recieved for that matter) that would very easily mess it up, this is mostly from the Armed Forces side.
2) As others have mentioned, this would only further encourage the concept that a CCW is a privelege and not a right.
3) For the active duty military that has a clearance and a CCW it is not helpful as one cannot CCW on a military post/base unless in official capacity. Yes I realize people live off post and whatnot, but being able to have personally owned firearms on post/base might be a good national fight (circa de Maj Hasan's shooting spree).
4) Until CA is Shall Issue, one can always maintain OPSEC but still describe the sensitive nature of their knowledge on the CCW.

Does anyone remember what happened to the bill that wanted to make CCW shall issue for Honorably Discharged members?

[OleCuss]

.
.
.
I've always wondered how much of the local report was actually factual.

I've developed the opinion that a lot of people issuing Intel reports (especially assessments) are either ill-informed or non-too-bright.

Remember that high-level assessment a while back that Iran had given up nuclear weapons development? Anyone who had any knowledge of that regime or what had been happening believed that load of rot.

I'd be in briefings and realizing that through my normal news gathering I sometimes knew more about what was happening than did the briefer. It was sometimes disconcerting. And plenty of the reports you'd hear and immediately know that the assessment was wrong because the involved entities were almost incapable of the described behavior/action.

Don't get me wrong, there are brilliant people with perspective doing Intel, but I've increasingly thought they were the minority. . .

[OleCuss]

.
.
.
Does anyone remember what happened to the bill that wanted to make CCW shall issue for Honorably Discharged members?

I don't remember the particulars - just that it died (I think in some committee).

But it was kinda weird being in the California Army National Guard where the State of California would order you to carry a firearm all weekend (M4 or M9 and I was in a light infantry battalion) or for a couple of weeks of AT and when you took off the uniform you were pretty much prohibited from carrying. Just kinda schizophrenic.

[Funtimes]

Service Members Protection Act of 2011 and the Thune Amendment will greatly affect military members bearing of arms while in the service.

[OleCuss]

Service Members Protection Act of 2011 and the Thune Amendment will greatly affect military members bearing of arms while in the service.

Could you help me with the "Service Members Protection Act of 2011"?

I can't find it in a quick search and I suspect it has not yet been introduced as legislation?

[Librarian]

Could you help me with the "Service Members Protection Act of 2011"?

I can't find it in a quick search and I suspect it has not yet been introduced as legislation?

I think maybe that's supposed to be 'of 2002'.

That act does have a section 2011. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/3070701 and https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...bf5b095eed7fa3

On July 1, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court ("ICC") entered into force, establishing the first permanent international criminal tribunal. 1 Although seventy-six countries had ratified the Rome Statute by that date, the United States was not among them. 2 Instead, Congress responded to the creation of the ICC by passing a bill sponsored by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) that Republican legislators had been trying to get through the House and Senate for several years. 3 On August 2, 2002, the American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 ("ASPA") became law. 4 The Act was designed to prevent United States participation in the ICC and to discourage other members of the international community from participating in the Court or assisting it in any way. 5

The act came in by way of "2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States "

Title II: American Servicemembers' Protection Act - American Servicemembers' Protection Act of 2002 - Prohibits U.S. cooperation with the International Criminal Court. Specifies restrictions on: (1) participation by covered U.S. persons in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations; (2) transfer to the Court of U.S. classified national security and law enforcement information; and (3) the provision of U.S. military assistance, with specified exceptions, to the government of a country that is a party to the Court.

(Sec. 2003) Prescribes conditions for a presidential waiver of the prohibitions and requirements of this Act.

(Sec. 2004) Declares that the requirements of this Act shall not prohibit: (1) any action authorized by the President to bring about the release from captivity of any U.S. military personnel (covered U.S. persons) and certain other persons (covered allied persons) who are being detained or imprisoned against their will by or on behalf of the Court; or (2) communication by the United States of its policy with respect to a matter.

(Sec. 2008) Authorizes the President to use all means necessary (including the provision of legal assistance) to bring about the release of covered U.S. persons and covered allied persons held captive by, on behalf, or at the request of the Court.

(Sec. 2009) Urges the President to report to appropriate congressional committees on the degree to which: (1) each military alliance to which the United States is a party may place U.S. armed forces under foreign control subject to the Court's jurisdiction; and (2) U.S. armed forces engaged in military operations pursuant to such alliance may be exposed to greater risks as a result of being placed under such foreign control.

(Sec. 2010) Authorizes funds withheld from the U.S. share of assessments to the UN or other international organizations pursuant to the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 to be transferred to the Embassy Security, Construction and Maintenance Account of the Department of State.

(Sec. 2011) Sets forth the relationship between the President's exercise of his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, this Act, and actions taken with respect to a specific matter involving the Court, requiring congressional notification as specified.

(Sec. 2014) Amends the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 to repeal the limitation on use of division A funds to provide assistance to the International Criminal Court or its prosecutorial activity.

(Sec. 2015) Permits the United States to continue rendering assistance to international efforts to bring to justice Saddam Hussein, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, other members of Al Qaeda, leaders of Islamic Jihad, and other foreign nationals accused of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity.

[armygunsmith]

Oh, for Pete's sake. I was a CAARNG officer with a security clearance. That didn't give me any particular privileges in that area, either. Not even when I also had a combat badge which sorta means that I know how to follow Rules of Engagement. . .

We all have a right to armed self-defense. We should stop trying to differentiate our rights based on our job description unless that clearly advances the rights of us all.

If you seriously try to pursue special rights based on TS employment/knowledge you're highly likely to lose. Not worth pursuing.

Well said sir.

[OleCuss]

I think maybe that's supposed to be 'of 2002'.

That act does have a section 2011. See http://www.jstor.org/pss/3070701 and https://litigation-essentials.lexisn...bf5b095eed7fa3

Thank you for the info.

I'd actually found the act from 2002.

In this case, though, I really think the poster was referring to legislation due to be introduced in the next congress and that he really did mean "of 2011".

This interpretation would be bolstered by his reference to the "Thune Amendment". Now, there are several "Thune Amendments" but he is likely referring to the one which failed to achieve the requisite 60 votes and thus was defeated 58(Ayes)-39(Noes) in 2009. So I suggest that since the "Thune Amendment" to which he likely refers did not pass and thus has no legal status - he is anticipating the re-introduction of similar language and that he expects it to pass.

Net effect is that I think he is referring to future legislation slated for the next congress.

But I could be wrong.

[N6ATF]

Seems like a useless treaty. It's not like the Third Reich would have signed it right as they were starting WWII so they could be brought to Nuremberg in the end.