General Categories > Carry Issues

Military training and Nebraska CHP?

(1/2) > >>

Jay:
Those of you with a military background should check out this thread over at ccwne before sending in your Nebraska CHP application.

http://ccwnebraska.yuku.com/topic/1857

1hickey:
I was planning on taking the course even if they did accept my military training.  For those on the outside, common sense might dictate that miltary service and training should be enough for our civilian government to accept, but one cannot assume that level of reciprocity (or respect).  Civilian and military worlds (at least legally, politically, and philosopically) are becoming increasingly separated as the number of people that actually serve in the military decreases annually.  We are currently at approximately 0.9%--yes, less than one percent of our population--is in uniform.  (Thank-you Klintonista government)  That number includes all services, including Guard and Reserves!

As far as the statements on that particular forum, I would have to say that military handling training is certainly sufficient, but it is different.  A civilian carry permit is more concerned with the legal aspects of using and carrying the weapon than response and accuracy.  We are also trained differently in the military on where and how to shoot because if we use a weapon, it will be in a combat situation.  MPs are an exception and have both military and civilian liability style weapons handling training.  It would be important for military personnel to understand the ramifications of using thier weapon in a civilian context.  Much of what we train for is split-second escalation of force decision making.  It is just different.

I would agree, however, that the wording should not indicate that military personnel may be exempt if that decision is going to be so subjective and open to whomever shuffles the paperwork.  There should be some definition.  However, we all know that our current law has flaws because it was a compromise.  We have to work with it and any legislation.  This government is still "for the people and by the people".  Doing nothing is the worst response.

jp:
I have recently received conflicting information on this issue.  I recently separated from the military and moved back to Nebraska.  I have wanted to get a ccw permit for a few years now but just never got around to it.  New Mexico required a civilian training course and didn't feel that military training was sufficient.  I stayed quite busy while stationed there and had a hard time finding the time to take a course.  After moving back here and doing some research on the NSP website it appeared that my military training was sufficient to meet that requirement.  I gathered all the required documents and drove to the nearest state patrol office.  Once there I was told that the military training does not count and that the regulation and website were wrong.  I went home and looked at the website and regulation again and still felt that according to my interpretation of these documents I should be granted a ccw permit (assuming I meet all other requirements).  I sent an email to my senator and submitted comments to the state patrol and the attorney general's office via their respective websites.  I received a very prompt reply from the state patrol's legal counsel stating that this was a common misperception and that military training is insufficient.  I didn't hear anything else for a couple weeks so I went ahead and took the course.  A couple weeks after I took the course I received a reply from the attorney general's office stating that military training IS sufficient.  I have yet to hear anything from my senator. 

Here's my opinion on this situation.  I really don't care what the requirement is, I can see both sides of the argument.  States where military training is good enough don't seem to be having any problems yet I can understand that a state would want permit holders to know that state's specific laws.  What I do have a problem with is that the information is presented in a way that I feel would lead a reasonable person to believe that military training is sufficient when in fact it isn't. 

Well, that's the end of my rant.  Thanks for listening.

ranger04:
I would like to see all of these entities get on the same page. The Attorney General is the states highest ranking Law Enforcement Officer. But the NSP issues the permit. Have you brought this information to the NSP and the A.G. The laws and requirements get so convoluted that NOBODY knows what the heck we should be doing. Governmental effectiveness.

jp:
The AG gave me the name and number of THE ccw guru at the state patrol but I have not contacted him yet.  It doesn't make any difference to my case now since I have already taken an approved course.  But I would like to do what I can to help get this issue resolved for future applicants, the fewer frustrations in the process the better.  The way I see it, the more permit holders we have the better we'll be for a lot of reasons.  I'd be willing to bet that problems like this are keeping all but the most dedicated from obtaining their ccw permit.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page