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.
