Veterans Issues: Louisiana Leads the Pack in Eliminating Concealed Carry Fees for Veterans

I personally think that Veterans Nationwide, in all 50 States, should be exempt from all Concealed Carry State Fees. Email your Governor and State Senator, let’s make this thing Nationwide! -SF


Louisiana legislators want to create a statewide exemption on concealed carry permit payments for veterans.

Louisiana lawmakers recently passed a bill through the state legislature that eliminates the fees for veterans seeking licenses to carry concealed weapons.

Sponsored by Rep. Tanner Magee, a Republican, the proposed legislation would entirely do away with concealed carry permit fees for veterans entirely.

The bill is now awaiting gubernatorial approval after passing through the state senate with a 37 to one vote on May 3.

Currently, a five-year concealed carry permit costs $125 and a lifetime permit costs $500, but veterans only pay half for both.

Some states like Florida have taken to shortening the wait time to issue concealed carry licenses to veterans, while others just offer veterans the option to opt out of further firearms training.

There are also several ongoing petitions to allow active-duty service members to carry concealed weapons for security, in the wake of the Fort Hood and Chattanooga shootings.

The current policy to qualify for concealed carry requires service members to be actively serving in law enforcement or have 10 or more years’ experience in law enforcement.

Read the Original Article at Task and Purpose

Time for Hospital Staff to Be Armed


The controversy surrounding firearms being allowed in hospitals rages on.

Those who believe that guns shouldn’t be allowed in a hospital, or anywhere else for that matter, continue to point to incidents in which the use of a weapon is controversial.

As Elizabeth Rosenthal points out in her recent article When the Hospital Fires the Bullet most hospitals are arming their security teams in one way or another, and in a few cases harm has come to a patient.

Becoming a patient in a hospital or other healthcare facility doesn’t automatically transform the patient into a saint.

When a patient is brought to a hospital due to street-gang related activity the street violence often spills over into the Emergency Department (ED).

Staff, patients and others in the ED and hospital are in danger and have the right to be able to defend themselves.

In Rosenthal’s example, a violent psychiatric patient, the situation is less clear.  The staff have a right to remain safe.  The patient doesn’t always know right from wrong or even have a grip on reality.  Those with the responsibility of keeping order and protecting other staff have the right to do so without putting themselves in excessive danger.

I have learned through my many years of ED and hospital work that we shouldn’t be quick to judge another’s use of defensive force, especially if we did not witness the event itself.  We can second guess the situation that the security officers walked into all we want, but without all the information we cannot make the call on who was at fault or what should have been done.

As a proponent of allowing responsible citizens to carry firearms in hospitals and other health care facilities, I do realize that carrying a gun is not a cure-all.  Just as chemotherapy for cancer carries a risk of side effects, the alternative is worse. We do everything we can to avoid the side effects, even while trying to kill the cancer.

If we as healthcare professionals are entrusted with our patients’ lives every day, why would we not be trusted to defend our patients’ lives with a firearm if a violent situation requires it?

As Rosenthal notes, violence in health care centers has been on the rise lately, with a 40 percent increase in violent crime from 2012-2014. Most of that violence is directed at employees.  Let us not forget the murder of Dr. Michael Davidson at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, MA, little more than a year ago.  Without a weapon for defense Dr. Davidson had little chance against the armed attacker and consequently lost his life.  The “gun-free zone” signs did nothing to stop the homicidal man, who was on a mission to take revenge on a physician.

Contrast that to another incident in July 2014. Dr. Lee Silverman was armed despite rules against weapons on the premises.  Despite not being able to save the caseworker accompanying the patient, and despite being wounded by the attacker, Dr. Silverman was able to stop the attacker before any more people were harmed or killed.

Health care professionals, staff, and even visitors, have a right to defend themselves and those around them from a violent attacker.  Taking away this right does not make anyone safer.  So-called gun-free zones do nothing to stop a homicidal attacker determined to inflict harm upon innocent people.  Famed self-defense guruMassad Ayoob has referred to “gun free zones” as “hunting preserves for psychopathic murderers”. This simple but profound truth has been proven time after time.

The Obama administration does nothing to make this situation any better, with Obama constantly trying to remove our constitutional rights through pressure and executive actions.   The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are following in his footsteps and trying to push gun control in any way they can.

Rosenthal states “the Medicare agency faulted St. Joseph [Hospital] for the shooting, saying it had created ‘immediate jeopardy to the health and safety of its patients.’ Threatening to withdraw federal money, the agency demanded restrictions on the use of weapons.”

Once again, a major government agency stomps on our constitutional rights with no regard to the damage they wreak.

We should all agree that the safety of patients is our first priority.  The carrying of a self-defense weapon by security detail or by staff should in no way interfere with the care of our patients.

The right to keep and bear arms carries with it a strict duty to do so in a responsible manner. The hospital environment has its own tactical considerations, but healthcare workers do not give up their right of self-defense on the job.

Sometimes caring for others means keeping them safe from a violent attacker, whether the attacker is armed or not.  Even though no shooting has a perfect outcome, the best outcome possible is when a defender has saved innocent people from injury or death.
— Dr. Sean Brodale is a family practitioner in Iowa. He is pursuing the right to carry in hospitals for eligible medical personnel. At DRGO he is involved in membership and public engagement projects.

Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land

Texas News: Campus Carry to be allowed at UT Austin

Another Reason to be Armed: Man Fights off Armed Robbers Outside his Home


Somewhere, everyday in the USA, 2100+ people use a gun for self defense, to stop a crime or save the lives of themselves or their family.

“We believe that the American public deserve to understand that on the average, guns save 2,191 lives and are used to thwart crimes every day,” says Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation

Most times you won’t see these tales on the news as it does not fit the main stream media’s story line of “Guns and Gun Owners are Bad“.

This is just one of those stories;

Luis Enrique Alonso was unloading groceries outside his home in Temple Terrace, Fla. when two men approached, at least one of whom was armed.

The robbers grabbed Alonso and threatened him with a gun. Alonso responded by grabbing the criminal’s firearm and drawing his own gun. Shots were exchanged before the armed robbers fled the scene. (WFLA, Tampa, Fla. 02/01/16)

Read the Original Article and Watch the Video Clip at Ammo-Land


Knowing your 2A Rights: The Current Firearm Background Check System is a MESS

This is a vastly under-reported issue in the 2A Community. Get the Word Out. -SF


The Crime Prevention Research Center has pointed out for years that the current background check system is a real mess.

Now that President Obama has taken measures to force expanded background checks for person to person sales of firearms, it is important the public understand that the majority of denials are false positives.

They are people who were denied by mistake.

The problem is, if you are denied, you have to hire an attorney and try to get it cleared up in court.

Thousands of dollars must be spent by the person trying to get their name cleared. This causes a real problem for people who are financially strapped.

There is also the huge issue of the Obama Administration making it even more difficult to have mistakes checked and cleared because they have pulled the personnel who would be devoted to handling the appeals.

It’s just one way the Obama administration prevents people from owning guns. This disproportionately impacts the law-abiding poor and prevents them from being able to defend themselves.

The last couple of weeks have seen legislation introduced around the country to ban semi-automatic guns.  A recent piece that the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) had at National Review Online discusses the claims being made in those debates and what implications they might have for the future.  We also had an op-ed at the New York Post.

For more information about the costs of the current background check system and other issues, please review the work we have done over the past week below.

Read the Original Article at Ammo-Land

%d bloggers like this: