HB 4332 reduce CPL age requirement for certain military

[Tallbear]

HB 4332 of 2013 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-HB-4332)
Weapons; licensing; age requirement for obtaining concealed pistol license; reduce for certain military personnel. Amends sec. 5b of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425b).
Last Action: 2/27/2013 referred to Committee on Judiciary

[MP Miller]

This will help national guard recruiting

[45/70fan]

Also going to allow high school students to legally open carry in schools. Unintended consequences.

I do not agree with this being used as a recruiting incentive for military service, active or guard.

I am not opposed to 18 yr olds being licensed to carry concealed as a general rule.

[MP Miller]

I do not agree with this being used as a recruiting incentive for military service, active or guard.

It is what it is.

If you are between 18 and 21 and want a CPL, it may make you think twice about joining the military in a positive way.

[xmanhockey7]

I'm against this one. If they want to make it legal for all law abiding 18-20 year olds to get a permit I think that'd be great but not for another "class" of people. Although I also think if we do allow 18-20 year olds to get CPLs they should create a different class permit like North Dakota has and Indiana is purposing.

[Leader]

Also going to allow high school students to legally open carry in schools. Unintended consequences.

I do not agree with this being used as a recruiting incentive for military service, active or guard.

I am not opposed to 18 yr olds being licensed to carry concealed as a general rule.

How many high school students are active members of the military?
How many people open carry in schools now?
How many people have been shot or killed by them in MI in the last 15 years?
Again, you are inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

[Roundballer]

I like the concept.....

If you want to add another layer of protection to keep the guns out of the schools, add a requirement for a High School Diploma.

This would open another can of worms. The person would still only be able to buy the gun in a private sale, and would have the same issues buying ammo.

[MP Miller]

How many high school students are active members of the military?
How many people open carry in schools now?
How many people have been shot or killed by them in MI in the last 15 years?
Again, you are inventing a problem that doesn't exist.

maybe 2 or 3 in a school.

I joined the Iowa National Guard the week of my 17th birthday and was a member of the Guard for half of my Jr year and all of my Sr year.

I don't think you would have students OC in school. You can get kicked out for having a gun on your Tshirt but not on your belt???

[Walther]

Just asking, but...

This doesn't appear to make it legal for an 18yo to buy from a dealer. So, we're to assume that in order for an 18yo to get a gun, he has to buy used from a private individual, or someone has to do a straw purchase.

Seems to me if they're going to let 18yo's carry, then they should be able to buy one from a dealer.

[LibertyComrade]

One set of rules and laws for the mundanes, and another for the elites and their enforcers.

We should remove any arbitrary age restriction on CPL issuance, not make a small exception for a tiny subset of the population.

[MP Miller]

This doesn't appear to make it legal for an 18yo to buy from a dealer. So, we're to assume that in order for an 18yo to get a gun, he has to buy used from a private individual, or someone has to do a straw purchase.

Seems to me if they're going to let 18yo's carry, then they should be able to buy one from a dealer.


He could buy in a private sale or he could carry someone elses gun, no big deal.


One set of rules and laws for the mundanes, and another for the elites and their enforcers.

We should remove any arbitrary age restriction on CPL issuance, not make a small exception for a tiny subset of the population.

I agree, we should all have = treatment under the law

[xmanhockey7]

Just asking, but...

This doesn't appear to make it legal for an 18yo to buy from a dealer. So, we're to assume that in order for an 18yo to get a gun, he has to buy used from a private individual, or someone has to do a straw purchase.

Seems to me if they're going to let 18yo's carry, then they should be able to buy one from a dealer.
I have three handguns and I'm only 20. The first one I received as a gift which was purchased from an FFL (legal because it was a gift). The next I bought on MGO's firearms for sale page. The last one was again a gift. Not really that hard granted I don't see there being an issue of high school students OCing in school.

[ltdave]

active duty Air Force, Army, Marine Corp and Navy...
RESERVE component of these branches of military...
ARMY National Guard...

what about the Air National Guard?


there is no Navy or Marine Corp Guard...

[libertarian623]

Xman good comments, I am with liberty , no special treatment, make it a right to CC for everyone with no age restrictions. Pie in the sky.

[MP Miller]

active duty Air Force, Army, Marine Corp and Navy...
RESERVE component of these branches of military...
ARMY National Guard...

what about the Air National Guard?


there is no Navy or Marine Corp Guard...

The Guard is a reserve component

[Roundballer]

The Guard is a reserve component

(a) The applicant is 21 years of age or older, or is 18 years of age or older and is a member of the armed forces of the United States, or the army national guard of this state or another state. As used in this subdivision, "armed forces of the United States" means the United States army, air force, navy, coast guard, and marine corps, including their reserve components.
Just to clarify, the "Air National Guard" is a "Reserve Component" of the Air Force?

As I tried to review this, the relations appear to be the same:

Army... with "reserve components" being both the Army National Guard, and Army Reserve, combined.
Air Force... holding the same relationships with the Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserves.

The Coast Guard is also separately included, and recognized as being independent of any other "Naval" group.

Therefore, it is either an error in the bill, or they intended to exclude the ANG. The Army equivalent component is specifically included, the ANG is not.

[DP425]

Just to clarify, the "Air National Guard" is a "Reserve Component" of the Air Force?

As I tried to review this, the relations appear to be the same:

Army... with "reserve components" being both the Army National Guard, and Army Reserve, combined.
Air Force... holding the same relationships with the Air National Guard, and the Air Force Reserves.

The Coast Guard is also separately included, and recognized as being independent of any other "Naval" group.

Therefore, it is either an error in the bill, or they intended to exclude the ANG. The Army equivalent component is specifically included, the ANG is not.

I think you're reading too far into this. NG and reserves are both "reserve component". Listing the army national guard is nothing more than redundancy. Remember, these people are not widely versed in things they write bills on (yeah, that makes sense right?). ANG isn't widely known to even exist. I didn't know it existed until I left the regular army and joined the NG... then I only found out because I had to drive onto Selfridge Air National Guard Base to report to my unit. Safe bet it wasn't even realized that the ANG exists... and even so, as NG is a reserve component, it really isn't relevant anyway. To exclude the NG, they would have had to specifically list "Army Reserve" or "Federal Reserve" and make no mention of the NG.

[Roundballer]

I think you're reading too far into this. NG and reserves are both "reserve component". Listing the army national guard is nothing more than redundancy. Remember, these people are not widely versed in things they write bills on (yeah, that makes sense right?). ANG isn't widely known to even exist. I didn't know it existed until I left the regular army and joined the NG... then I only found out because I had to drive onto Selfridge Air National Guard Base to report to my unit. Safe bet it wasn't even realized that the ANG exists... and even so, as NG is a reserve component, it really isn't relevant anyway. To exclude the NG, they would have had to specifically list "Army Reserve" or "Federal Reserve" and make no mention of the NG.
No... That is the problem, I am not reading anything into it. I am not making any assumptions. It specifically says the ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THIS STATE OR ANY OTHER STATE. If they had just said "National Guard of this State or any other State", then I could see where it would be inclusive of the ANG. Because it doesn't, and they limited by "Army", then they have either made an error, or they intended to exclude it. I think that it is an error of ignorance. I sent off a note to that effect, I doubt that I will hear anything back soon.

[DP425]

No... That is the problem, I am not reading anything into it. I am not making any assumptions. It specifically says the ARMY NATIONAL GUARD OF THIS STATE OR ANY OTHER STATE. If they had just said "National Guard of this State or any other State", then I could see where it would be inclusive of the ANG. Because it doesn't, and they limited by "Army", then they have either made an error, or they intended to exclude it. I think that it is an error of ignorance. I sent off a note to that effect, I doubt that I will hear anything back soon.


ANG is covered under "reserve component". But I understand what your point is- if you're going to specify ARNG, you want to see ANG as well; regardless of it being covered as a reserve component.

[Josh_Putman]

I spent 10 years in the Michigan Army National Guard. It has been my understanding that Army National Guard is a state funded entity, while Army Reserve is a federally funded entity.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me on this.

[Leader]

I spent 10 years in the Michigan Army National Guard. It has been my understanding that Army National Guard is a state funded entity, while Army Reserve is a federally funded entity.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me on this.


NG's served right along with the AR's for summer camp back in the day.

[langenc]

One set of rules and laws for the mundanes, and another for the elites and their enforcers.

We should remove any arbitrary age restriction on CPL issuance, not make a small exception for a tiny subset of the population.


I agree. This would just be another privileged group that is trying to sneak in. All or none...

[jgillmanjr]

I think you're reading too far into this. NG and reserves are both "reserve component". Listing the army national guard is nothing more than redundancy. Remember, these people are not widely versed in things they write bills on (yeah, that makes sense right?). ANG isn't widely known to even exist. I didn't know it existed until I left the regular army and joined the NG... then I only found out because I had to drive onto Selfridge Air National Guard Base to report to my unit. Safe bet it wasn't even realized that the ANG exists... and even so, as NG is a reserve component, it really isn't relevant anyway. To exclude the NG, they would have had to specifically list "Army Reserve" or "Federal Reserve" and make no mention of the NG.

<offtopic>
3/238th AVN?
</offtopic>

You are correct though, as well as others, in stating that Air Guard == Reserve Component.

[Freetime]

I'm not sure lowering the cpl age is good idea. It sure wasn't a good idea when the drinking age was lowered to 18!! The 18-20 age group really messed that up for themselves! That's why it has been changed back to 21. Most of that age are still VERY immature and don't need to be put in that situation. Some could be trusted but a whole lot more couldn't. Too many at that age just want to impress and think they're "bad azzes". I don't think letting 18 yr old kids get a cpl is a good thing to do. Also I definitely would not want to create a special group for that age either. Just my opinion. I was in the military many years ago and even the military didn't allow 18-20 yr olds to drink so that argument isn't really an issue. So just because you can join the military doesn't mean you should be able to get a cpl. No special cpl !!

[jgillmanjr]

I'm not sure lowering the cpl age is good idea. It sure wasn't a good idea when the drinking age was lowered to 18!! The 18-20 age group really messed that up for themselves! That's why it has been changed back to 21. Most of that age are still VERY immature and don't need to be put in that situation. Some could be trusted but a whole lot more couldn't. Too many at that age just want to impress and think they're "bad azzes". I don't think letting 18 yr old kids get a cpl is a good thing to do. Also I definitely would not want to create a special group for that age either. Just my opinion. I was in the military many years ago and even the military didn't allow 18-20 yr olds to drink so that argument isn't really an issue. So just because you can join the military doesn't mean you should be able to get a cpl. No special cpl !!

So then you would advocate prohibition of those under 21 from being able to own a firearm then?

[SADAacp]

I'm not sure lowering the cpl age is good idea. It sure wasn't a good idea when the drinking age was lowered to 18!! The 18-20 age group really messed that up for themselves! That's why it has been changed back to 21. Most of that age are still VERY immature and don't need to be put in that situation. Some could be trusted but a whole lot more couldn't. Too many at that age just want to impress and think they're "bad azzes". I don't think letting 18 yr old kids get a cpl is a good thing to do. Also I definitely would not want to create a special group for that age either. Just my opinion. I was in the military many years ago and even the military didn't allow 18-20 yr olds to drink so that argument isn't really an issue. So just because you can join the military doesn't mean you should be able to get a cpl. No special cpl !!

The minimum age requirement for a LTCH in Indiana is 18 and the ConCarry states; Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. Those five states don't seem to have a problem with 18 to 20-year-olds carrying.

[Freetime]

So then you would advocate prohibition of those under 21 from being able to own a firearm then?

No never said that.

[Roundballer]

And there wasn't a statistically significant change in alcohol related problems when the drinking age was 18. The insurance co's didn't like it and started a campaign to get it put back to 21, they succeeded.

[Freetime]

The minimum age requirement for a LTCH in Indiana is 18 and the ConCarry states; Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming. Those five states don't seem to have a problem with 18 to 20-year-olds carrying.

I'm not sure what LTCH is. If that is the same as a cpl and they're happy with it then that's great for them. The states you mention are nothing like this state as far as crime and gang related problems, etc. To me that makes a difference, especially in that age group. I don't think it would be a good thing for our area. That's just my opinion and if you don't agree that's fine with me. I didn't post my opinion to start a pissing match. I would not want it to happen here but if the majority voted for it and it passed, I wouln't rant and whine about it either. JMHO

[Freetime]

And there wasn't a statistically significant change in alcohol related problems when the drinking age was 18. The insurance co's didn't like it and started a campaign to get it put back to 21, they succeeded.

I think you're wrong but maybe where you lived at that time it was different. I had two son's in high school (downriver)at that time and there were a whole lot of problems. Especially older students buying for under age buddies, coming back after lunch buzzed, throwing their empties all over streets and property, fights, etc. I don't know about your statistics or where you acquired them but it was different in my area. Their immaturity was the reason they lost the right to drink at that age. That is just my feeling about it

[Roundballer]

State wide statistics, traffic, reports and police interactions showed no significant change. Of course because this is a view of the totals, there will have been localized anomalies. Those experiences, combined with the campaign convinced voters to change the law back.

The funny part was that if ALL of the "kids" 18-20 had voted NOT to change the law, they would have won. There were enough that either didn't vote, or voted for reverting back, it passed.

None of that has any real bearing on the maturity level of the majority of people in that age group. It is another case of a correlation, with out a link to causation. There are many, many responsible young men and women in that age group in the armed services.

[pustulio]

wasn't there something about road funding as well? If states didn't change the age to 21 they wouldn't get any of the beautiful delicious federal monnies for the roads.

I know we're looking at the same thing w/ the .08 vs .10 PBT right now.

[Leader]

I'm not sure what LTCH is. If that is the same as a cpl and they're happy with it then that's great for them. The states you mention are nothing like this state as far as crime and gang related problems, etc. To me that makes a difference, especially in that age group. I don't think it would be a good thing for our area. That's just my opinion and if you don't agree that's fine with me. I didn't post my opinion to start a pissing match. I would not want it to happen here but if the majority voted for it and it passed, I wouln't rant and whine about it either. JMHO

I think you're right, the citizens of Michigan as a whole aren't as smart or responsible or as law abiding as citizens of other states. That's why they can't be trusted.
That's why we require tighter gun laws here and why we seem to still have as much or more gun problems as states with much laxer laws.
We really need to lock up more of our citizens.

[Freetime]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to turn this thread into a drinking age post. I was just trying to show how that age group handled an adult situation they had and caused themselves to lose it. Just trying to show what could happen with the cpl responsibility at that age. Admittedly, there are some much older that also have that problem. lol

[Freetime]

I think you're right, the citizens of Michigan as a whole aren't as smart or responsible or as law abiding as citizens of other states. That's why they can't be trusted.
That's why we require tighter gun laws here and why we seem to still have as much or more gun problems as states with much laxer laws.
We really need to lock up more of our citizens.

Give me a break-your BS doesn't justify a response, get a life

[Roundballer]

Give me a break-your BS doesn't justify a response, get a life
You really have to look at who is posting.

He just got you, hook, line and sinker.

[Leader]

Give me a break-your BS doesn't justify a response, get a life

All I did was agree with you.

[MP Miller]

All I did was agree with you.

I think his point was other states don't have as many ----- people in Flint and Detroit who he doesn't think should be trusted with the right to own a fire arm without additional regulations.

[Leader]

I think his point was other states don't have as many ----- people in Flint and Detroit who he doesn't think should be trusted with the right to own a fire arm without additional regulations.

I don't think so... I believe I was right, he doesn't think MI citizens are trustworthy or responsible enough to own guns.
Not like the citizens of other states.

[jgillmanjr]

No never said that.

Really? You don't say?

Oh, maybe that's why I ASKED you.

After all, if someone can't be trusted to carry a firearm, why should they be trusted with owning one?

[MP Miller]

I don't think so... I believe I was right, he doesn't think MI citizens are trustworthy or responsible enough to own guns.
Not like the citizens of other states.

But that's true, anyone who has ever lived in another state could tell you that.

[Freetime]

Really? You don't say?
After all, if someone can't be trusted to carry a firearm, why should they be trusted with owning one?

If that's your opinion that's fine, it's not mine! My opinion was about 18 yr old getting a cpl. Some of you want to read more into an opinion that's posted here than was stated, most likely to start a confrontation. Like I stated, I didn't post on this thread to start a pissing contest. I just stated my opinion about the subject. If you don't agree, I don't really care. That's your right and I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion. Unlike some of the posters here I don't try to reword a statement made, to make BS allegations. So do what you gotta do to to amuse yourself!

[jgillmanjr]

If that's your opinion that's fine, it's not mine! My opinion was about 18 yr old getting a cpl. Some of you want to read more into an opinion that's posted here than was stated, most likely to start a confrontation. Like I stated, I didn't post on this thread to start a pissing contest. I just stated my opinion about the subject. If you don't agree, I don't really care. That's your right and I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion. Unlike some of the posters here I don't try to reword a statement made, to make BS allegations. So do what you gotta do to to amuse yourself!

It's not my opinion, as I'm of the belief that if you're 18 or older, you should be able to obtain, and subsequently, carry a firearm - concealed or not. As an aside, I would further argue that no additional licensing should be required to carry concealed.

What I bring up is a critique of your position. A logical extension of your argument that those under 21 shouldn't be able to have a CPL is that the same age demographic shouldn't be able to even posses a firearm.

After all, if you consider those under 21 incapable of carrying a firearm, concealed, in a safe manner, then why would you consider them capable of being able to posses a firearm in a safe manner?

Oh yeah, no statements were reworded.

So, care to offer a logical explanation why those under 21 can't safely carry concealed, yet can safely possess the firearm?

[LibertyComrade]

If that's your opinion that's fine, it's not mine! My opinion was about 18 yr old getting a cpl. Some of you want to read more into an opinion that's posted here than was stated, most likely to start a confrontation. Like I stated, I didn't post on this thread to start a pissing contest. I just stated my opinion about the subject. If you don't agree, I don't really care. That's your right and I'm not trying to get you to change your opinion. Unlike some of the posters here I don't try to reword a statement made, to make BS allegations. So do what you gotta do to to amuse yourself!

The problem is that your opinion oppresses the inherent rights of other people. The opinion of those that disagree with you do not. That's why I would think the necessity to provide rationale explanations for your opinions--as compared to those that disagree with you--has the greater impetus.

The "well I just think so because of my limited personal experience" is not adequate to justify the oppression of peoples' rights.

[DP425]

I spent 10 years in the Michigan Army National Guard. It has been my understanding that Army National Guard is a state funded entity, while Army Reserve is a federally funded entity.

If I am wrong, someone please correct me on this.


You are wrong... partially...

The NG is federally funded for the most part- those funds are handed out to the states, who then use it to some extent how they see fit, to some extent, how congress tells them to use it.

The difference is authority, not funding.

[DP425]

And since this came up, while I do believe a lot of 18, 19 and 20 year olds in the military are more mature than their civilian counterparts... there are a whole lot more who are on 100% level ground with their college partying peers.

It comes down to capability to make sound judgement in the most serious of situations- in this respect, I don't see much of a difference between military teens/20 and non-military teens/20. I don't believe an 18 yr old college kid having qualified for a CPL is any more likely to commit a serious violation of that entrustment than an 18yr old military kid.

On those grounds alone, there stands reason why this should be shot down- Allow all 18+ or don't do it at all. Same opinion I have about legal drinking age- "old enough to fight and die for your country, not old enough to drink" technically applies to those not in the military too... And I do agree with it- if you are old enough to go to war, you are old enough to legally drink. And I don't really remember too many people ever saying "no, I can't drink... I'm not old enough"... But anyway, that is a different topic...

No, this should not pass

[Freetime]

The problem is that your opinion oppresses the inherent rights of other people. The opinion of those that disagree with you do not. That's why I would think the necessity to provide rationale explanations for your opinions--as compared to those that disagree with you--has the greater impetus.

The "well I just think so because of my limited personal experience" is not adequate to justify the oppression of peoples' rights.

I just want to respond to your post to see if I understand you correctly. If someone gives their opinion on a 2nd Amendment subject that differs from your own, you feel they are oppressing your rights? You also seem to feel they have to justify their opinion to you or someone else or they're Anti 2nd. Why? Doesn't it appear that you're oppressing their Right of Free Speech? Why should they have to explain(justify) all their reasons to you or anyone else? You know nothing about me or my so-called "limited personal experience" leading to my opinion. As far as oppressing someones rights, if it were put up for a vote and I voted not to your liking, I might understand your thinking. Since that isn't the case, my opinion is, you're wrong.
I don't think I need to say anymore about this subject. Enough is enough!

[pustulio]

I'll be honest, I think the stance of "can own handgun at 18 but can't conceal until 21" is a little strange.

[LibertyComrade]

I just want to respond to your post to see if I understand you correctly.

You don't.


If someone gives their opinion on a 2nd Amendment subject that differs from your own, you feel they are oppressing your rights?

The difference of opinion is irrelevant on whether one opinion or the other would lead to the oppression of someone's rights. It's the opinion itself that you expressed that does so, or rather would lead to the oppression of peoples' rights if it was enforced.

As an example I could say that the color red is the greatest color, but you disagree and think it's blue. Because we have a difference of opinion doesn't inherently mean anyone is oppressing anyone else, as you implied with your question.

However, I could say that women shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions in public, and you could disagree. Our disagreement doesn't cause oppression, however if my hypothetical view was enforced then women would be oppressed.

Big difference.



You also seem to feel they have to justify their opinion to you or someone else or they're Anti 2nd. Why?

I don't think you need to justify your opinion or else you're opposed to the inherent right to self-defense possessed by all. Your opinion on it's own, justified or not, shows that you are.


Doesn't it appear that you're oppressing their Right of Free Speech?

Don't be absurd. You seem to significantly misunderstand what oppression is and is not. I'm stating that I think you should provide justification for your opinion, because it's an oppressive opinion. That's not oppressing your free speech because I'm not advocating you be forced to no longer speak nor am I advocating you be forced to give justification. I simply think that you should.

You on the other hand have seemingly expressed your desire to have the rights to self-defense diminished for an arbitrary subset of Americans, and the only way that could logically be achieved is through state violence (i.e. police). That's oppression. See the difference?


Why should they have to explain(justify) all their reasons to you or anyone else?

Because that's how intelligent discussions progress. Opinions are offered and then their merits are discussed. If we just want to throw around opinions all day without any discourse I suggest we just talk to walls instead of posting on an internet forum whose obvious reason for existence is conversation.

You don't *have* to justify anything, but an unjustified opinion is worth about as much as a warm bucket of spit.


As far as oppressing someones rights, if it were put up for a vote and I voted not to your liking, I might understand your thinking. Since that isn't the case, my opinion is, you're wrong.

You don't need to enforce an oppressive idea for the idea to be oppressive and wrong. I could be of the opinion that police should arrest people that don't "look like they belong" in a neighborhood based on their clothing or skin color. I don't have to actually vote on a ballot proposal to that effect for my hypothetical opinion to be immoral and repugnant.

[jgillmanjr]

You don't need to enforce an oppressive idea for the idea to be oppressive and wrong.

And this is exactly why I've always disagreed with people saying "You might not agree with an opinion, but you should respect it".

Why should an opinion which is jacked up be respected? It shouldn't.

[pustulio]

And this is exactly why I've always disagreed with people saying "You might not agree with an opinion, but you should respect it".

Why should an opinion which is jacked up be respected? It shouldn't.

Thats s silly thing to say anyway. I respect your RIGHT to HAVE an opinion, but I don't have to respect the opinion itself. lulz

[Josh_Putman]

You are wrong... partially...

The NG is federally funded for the most part- those funds are handed out to the states, who then use it to some extent how they see fit, to some extent, how congress tells them to use it.

The difference is authority, not funding.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the correction.

On another note, when I was in the Guard, I was allowed to drink when I was eighteen. It was on post at the EM club. I didn't order the drink, though. An NCO in my platoon did, but I never got carded at the door. So, on that note, I suppose I could drink at eighteen in the Military.

[jgillmanjr]

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks for the correction.

On another note, when I was in the Guard, I was allowed to drink when I was eighteen. It was on post at the EM club. I didn't order the drink, though. An NCO in my platoon did, but I never got carded at the door. So, on that note, I suppose I could drink at eighteen in the Military.

Well.. I would imagine technically it's not allowed. With that said, I've generally looked the other way when I'm with my troops at an on post club, unless I know the soldier isn't responsible. But then again, I've seen other officers who can't handle their libations.

[Leader]

Well.. I would imagine technically it's not allowed. With that said, I've generally looked the other way when I'm with my troops at an on post club, unless I know the soldier isn't responsible. But then again, I've seen other officers who can't handle their libations.

When I was in, all were allowed to drink in the EM or Officers clubs.
As I recall, it was 3-2 beer but you could drink all you wanted .
Don't remember mixed drinks.

[jgillmanjr]

When I was in, all were allowed to drink in the EM or Officers clubs.
As I recall, it was 3-2 beer but you could drink all you wanted .
Don't remember mixed drinks.

Couple months ago, the XO and I went in on a Keg for our promotion party. The company (keep in mind, our company is small - 35 people or so) killed the keg. It was a good night after a day at the range.

[Quaamik]

One set of rules and laws for the mundanes, and another for the elites and their enforcers.

We should remove any arbitrary age restriction on CPL issuance, not make a small exception for a tiny subset of the population.

:yeahthat:

[Jared1981]

If they don't make it a Class 1 or Class 2 license like North Dakota, we WILL lose reciprocity with Washington and we will lose recognition with Nevada.