Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: D.C. grabs guns from soldier
The Washington Times ^ | 14 May, 2012 | NA

Posted on 05/14/2012 6:31:13 PM PDT by marktwain

The District grabbed the guns belonging to 1st Lt. Augustine Kim and won’t give them back. Two years ago, the South Carolina Army national guardsman had been injured on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. Now he’s fighting to restore his constitutional rights.

Before deploying overseas, the soldier drove his collection - which included an AR-15, a Beretta 9mm and several .45 caliber pistols - to his parents’ house in New Jersey for safe storage. Upon his return to the states and recovery, Lt. Kim wanted to bring his weapons back to his home in Charleston. On the way, he stopped at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Northwest Washington for a doctor’s appointment. That’s when his troubles started.

Lt. Kim became lost in the city and was pulled over. The cops asked Lt. Kim if they could search his vehicle. The lieutenant agreed because his guns were cased and stored in full compliance with federal firearm-transport laws. “I told them I had been under the impression that as long as the guns were locked in the back, with the ammunition separate, that I was allowed to transport them,” Lt. Kim told The Washington Times. “They said, ‘That may be true, however, since you stopped at Walter Reed, that makes you in violation of the registration laws.’ ” It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in the District other than the home. He was handcuffed and brought back to police headquarters, and his guns were confiscated as evidence.

The tank platoon leader was booked on four felony counts of carrying outside the home, which threatened a maximum penalty of a $20,000 fine and 20 years imprisonment. “I knew if I got one felony, my military career would be over,” Lt. Kim recalled.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2012; banglist; bloodoftyrants; dc; democrats; govtabuse; gun; liberalfascism; military; policestate; rapeofliberty; soldier; tyranny; waronliberty
The legislature should take back control of DC. Allowing this federal enclave self rule has been an unmitigated disaster.
1 posted on 05/14/2012 6:31:26 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Where are the guns now? Guess!


2 posted on 05/14/2012 6:34:58 PM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

His mistake was allowing the police to search his vehicle...what reason did they have to do so? Probably none. As the article suggests, he thought there would be no harm in doing so.

Also, what about his right to travel?


3 posted on 05/14/2012 6:39:57 PM PDT by rangerwife (Proud wife of a Purple Heart Recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rangerwife

Exactamundo - Never ever ever let cops where they are not constitutionally allowed.

Not in your house without a warrant.

Not in your car without a warrant.

They are NOT “your friends” “to protect and serve”


4 posted on 05/14/2012 6:50:14 PM PDT by onona (RIP Levon, another good man gone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rangerwife

I do not agree with it, but once he made the stop , he was no longer traveling, he was conducting local business.

DC is the jurisdiction that can and will convict you of DUI with ANY measurable alcohol in your system, no lower legal limit. Any out of towner stopped for traffic offense is a fishing expedition for those gun grabbers. A great place to avoid at all costs.


5 posted on 05/14/2012 6:55:19 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

Facist Nazi Govt Thugs....

Eric Holders GOONS.


6 posted on 05/14/2012 7:06:19 PM PDT by LtKerst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in the District other than the home”.

OK, how do you LEGALLY get it there?


7 posted on 05/14/2012 7:06:40 PM PDT by Captain7seas (FIRE JANE LUBCHENCO FROM NOAA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas

Good question!


8 posted on 05/14/2012 7:09:12 PM PDT by rangerwife (Proud wife of a Purple Heart Recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: rangerwife
If he had a doctor's appointment at Walter Reed, then he was under military orders to stop there. I don't believe the DC cops have jurisdiction over such matters.

He will, in the end, win his case. His lawyers should also bring personal lawsuits against each of the officers who failed to recognize his status. They are simply too dangerous to be cops in DC where this is a common event.

9 posted on 05/14/2012 7:12:33 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wrench

That makes sense, but this situation is still BS.


10 posted on 05/14/2012 7:12:50 PM PDT by rangerwife (Proud wife of a Purple Heart Recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wrench

He saw a doctor at Walter Reed ~ military business. The cops had no jurisdiction.


11 posted on 05/14/2012 7:14:01 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wrench

This reminds me of that case in New Jersey not too long ago.


12 posted on 05/14/2012 7:18:36 PM PDT by rangerwife (Proud wife of a Purple Heart Recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The fed law only covers you while traveling through, not conducting local business. He was not on military orders, he was traveling on his own. Also, having the guns on Walter Reed’s property is a huge nono, he knew better.

Like I said, I do not agree with it, but the gun laws, especially in that part of the country, are intended to trap people.


13 posted on 05/14/2012 7:19:14 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I sure hope so!


14 posted on 05/14/2012 7:19:36 PM PDT by rangerwife (Proud wife of a Purple Heart Recipient)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

I know I am an extremist, but I think it is time to make it a Federal capital crime for police officers and department heads to deny the constitution rights of citizens.

The second amendment that protects the right to posess weapons which includes guns shall not be infringed. If liberals chose to do that they are treasonous, and the death penality is due. That would take care of that.


15 posted on 05/14/2012 7:24:17 PM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SaraJohnson

With rights come responsibility. If you are going to exercise your 2nd A rights, you had better know the laws in the jurisdiction you wil be in.

For instance, you CAN NOT carry a firearm into a secure area in a transportation facility (not just airports).

Most gov’t facilities and property are off limits as well, military property is especially limited. Loaded firearms in hunting areas during closed hunting season is verboten in some states. In my state, “gatherings of people, sporting events, and rallies” are areas where you can not exercise your 2nd A right.

It is a PITA, but we do not need to give the anti gun crowd any rope to hang us. We need to follow ALL the rules to the letter until we get those rules rescinded. And it is no accident that many of the gun infractions are felonies, that way you lose your gun rights for life.


16 posted on 05/14/2012 7:34:53 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wrench
Walter Reed is simply not under the jurisdiction of the DC cops. The military police deal with it as they do all the other military reservations located inside DC.

A fellow at one of the newspapers here once identified all the various police agencies in DC and defined all the spaces they had jurisdiction over.

Sometimes the jurisdictions conflicted ~ one such place was the Carillon near the Capitol. There were something more than a dozen types of cops had some sort of jurisdiction there and yet muggings were frequent!

Whatever goes on at Walter Reed is between the traveler on the property and provost marshall. You leave that place you are traveling interstate again.

We have this situation down here where you go to the town of Quantico VA to the gunstore THROUGH Quantico marine base ~ you actually have to stop at a couple of stop signs to make this trip.

I've done it several times and each time I had firearms in my vehicle. The Constitution protects my right to travel on that road which is actually part of the base ~ and hundreds of people each week do the same. The SPs could stop me or anybody and do whatever they wanted, but properly packed away and stored they really can't do anything about the firearms. And think about it, in this case we are not actually involved in INTERSTATE TRAVEL since these trips start and stop in Virginia.

The FBI and CIA agents who go there for training carry their own personal weapons on and off the base, and may actually go to restaurants in Quantico VA ~ whether they are on duty, off duty, or whathave you, the rules on the base are one thing, and the rules in Virginia are another, and the situation the soldier faced in DC never arises because the Virginia cops and the DOD cops know the rules.

17 posted on 05/14/2012 7:47:02 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

I thought Walter Reed was closed and moved to the Naval Hospital grounds in Bethesda, Maryland.


18 posted on 05/14/2012 7:55:04 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wrench
DC says ANY stop for ANY reason is enough to be booked for illegal possession. If you are in an accident, run out of gas, stop to buy gas, get a flat, etc., that's enough for the DC cops.

Another good reason to not say nothin' except "no."

19 posted on 05/14/2012 8:18:46 PM PDT by VanShuyten ("a shadow...draped nobly in the folds of a gorgeous eloquence.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

He was not arrested on federal property, he was arrested by DC cops within their jurisdiction. Walter Reed is way the heck off the interstate, and isn’t exactly a sprawling institution.

It is good you have not been stopped while carrying contraband on federal property, but if you continue, you just might get that chance.

I have driven all over several military bases with loaded weapons, guns, ammo, etc. I had reason to be in some areas, but not all. Had I been stopped and searched (consent to search is automatic on military property) I would have been arrested, even though I meant no harm.

This guy screwed up and needs to do what his lawyer tells him to do. If he wanted to do business in DC, he needed to pick up his weapons after he was done with his appointments. Traveling “through” does not include local stops, case law abounds on this.


20 posted on 05/14/2012 8:27:48 PM PDT by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wrench
With rights come responsibility. If you are going to exercise your 2nd A rights, you had better know the laws in the jurisdiction you wil be in.

I think you missed the point of the previous poster. You've accepted as fact the premise that local jurisdictions can infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, and thus one should know the local laws. The point was made that the local jurisdictions do NOT have that right (if we view the 2nd Amendment with the same eye that the 1st is so often used and abused) and therefore all of these limitations should be considered invalid.

For example, I think we can all agree that if any local jurisdiction were to attempt to make a law making it illegal for someone to voice support for Republicans in public (or any other group), it would be struck down by the court as in violation of the 1st Amendment. Why then do we allow local jurisdiction to infringe on the 2nd Amendment when the 2nd Amendment clearly says that the right to keep and bear arm shall NOT be infringed? Is the 2nd Amendment less of an amendment than the 1st? By accepting the premise that local jurisdictions cannot violate the 1st Amendment but they can violate the 2nd, you are already surrendering your 2nd Amendment rights.
21 posted on 05/14/2012 8:28:47 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
DC says ANY stop for ANY reason is enough to be booked for illegal possession. If you are in an accident, run out of gas, stop to buy gas, get a flat, etc., that's enough for the DC cops.

Sounds like one of these days they may try stopping at a stop light. Course if you run the light and they see you, they'll pull you over, and that's stopping too, so....

22 posted on 05/14/2012 9:05:52 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak; wrench

Indeed, if local jurisdictions and/or states can trump a fundamental Right in the Constitution, in this case the 2nd Amendment, then we’re back to the days of Jim Crow.


23 posted on 05/14/2012 9:40:02 PM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: wrench
I do not agree with it, but once he made the stop , he was no longer traveling, he was conducting local business.

By that logic, stopping for fuel, or even to answer the call of nature would place the man at risk.

24 posted on 05/14/2012 11:14:52 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wrench
we do not need to give the anti gun crowd any rope to hang us

The firearms were unloaded, in cases, locked in the trunk. Most jurisdictions consider that "secured" for transport purposes.

Would stopping for fuel, to urinate, to eat, have constituted "local business"? If so, then there is virtually no way to travel with Arms on the upper East Coast.

If the rules do not permit compliance, then what? How far do we retreat?

What happened to the RKBA and "...shall not be infringed."?

This goes beyond infringement to complete denial.

25 posted on 05/14/2012 11:22:37 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: wrench

Yet oddly enough, no matter what they are doing or where they are, Congressmen are immune from arrest due to their traveling to and fro from Congress, per the Constitution. Just kind of ironic considering how DC is to everyone but pols. /rhetorical


26 posted on 05/14/2012 11:28:39 PM PDT by PghBaldy (First MADD and "drunk" checkpoints, now TSA and "terrorist" checkpoints, what next?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
I thought Walter Reed was closed and moved to the Naval Hospital grounds in Bethesda, Maryland.

They've transitioned to two locations. Bethesda (as you mentioned) and Fort Belvoir. The new location at Belvoir is quite impressive.

My son used to volunteer at the old hospital on Belvoir, (DeWitt) which has since been closed and moved to the new "Walter Reed Community Hospital."

27 posted on 05/15/2012 3:18:20 AM PDT by Toadman (To piss off a conservative, tell a lie. To piss off a liberal, tell the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Would stopping for fuel, to urinate, to eat, have constituted "local business"?

Yup. And you could be arrested. Living in Virginia, it's a pain in the posterior living next to DC and Maryland.

Here's irony; of the three, guess which has the least gun related crime?

28 posted on 05/15/2012 3:28:01 AM PDT by Toadman (To piss off a conservative, tell a lie. To piss off a liberal, tell the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wrench
The fed law only covers you while traveling through, not conducting local business. He was not on military orders, he was traveling on his own. Also, having the guns on Walter Reed’s property is a huge nono, he knew better.

Most bases won't let you carry weapons, but they do allow you to bring an unloaded weapon and the ammo and drop them off at the armory until it's time to leave.

29 posted on 05/15/2012 4:00:11 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wrench

You really don’t understand the Quantico situation at all. Here are the rules as followed by the Quantico Shooting Club. http://www.quanticoshootingclub.com/rules-firearms-transport.php and there are some references in there you should look up.


30 posted on 05/15/2012 4:03:55 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Toadman
I believe Reed was still open at the time this happened. That meant it had a provost marshall ~ someone to clear or refuse transport of properly stored firearms.

There are OPEN FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS and CLOSED FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS ~ and some installations are partly open and partly closed.

There are rules for buildings and rules for "outdoors". NONE OF THEM ARE "LOCAL".

Note, even though Backlick Road, Springfield Bypass and US 1 enter and travel though Fort Belvoir, you will rarely encounter an MP, but the Fairfax cops can stop you. And then there's DC down the way. They are all mentally ill.

31 posted on 05/15/2012 4:11:53 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wrench
NOTE: If you are ever arrested in DC note exactly where that happened. Then have someone on the outside look up which police force(s) have jurisdiction on that spot. When you are arraigned challenge the arrest on the basis that the cop had no jurisdiction.

They'll look it up for you at that time ~ if your friends couldn't find out.

That ploy works for all sorts of demonstrators. Also, not all public side walks are actually "Public' ~ nor are streets. There are "easements" on private property, and in some cases on "Federal installations", so if you get arrested there in that sort of spot you can actually win damages. The reverse is true as well as the Planned Parenthood folks found out ~ they had an easement on a public street, but only for passage ~ so the demonstrators could demonstrate right up against their front door. The demonstrators won in court.

32 posted on 05/15/2012 4:18:17 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The wording that should be used in answering this unwarranted requestions should be:

“I DO NOT consent to a search of my vehicle, or person, am I free to go?”

In addition since the Lt. was under orders to report to a military facility, and gthat he was in transit to his duty station, the D.C. cops and legal system have wrongfully detained and charged this member of the armed forces who IS under orders to conduct business in that area...

I wonder if the Army’s legal folks are looking at this and providing counsel, much less a thorough thrashing of the D.C. idiots commissioned to enforce such un-Constitutional, and SCOTUS reviewed right to keep and bear arms in that district...

By the way the statement at the lead in to this post was given to me by a lawyer friend who is familiar with the methods used to coerce people into submitting to these un-warranted searches...

Never in your statement there should you utter the words “yes” or “no”, I know it is hard to contemplate, but that is exactly what they are fishing for...

Everything is being recorded, both audio and video in some cases...

Once you utter the word “yes”, they can stop the tape when you say “Yes, I do mind...”, or “No, I do not want you to search the vehicle...”

It can and has been used in courts around the country that when you say “yes”, that is permission alone, and when you say “no”, you are saying “No, I do not mind...”

It is a play on words, and in jurisdictions where the right to keep and bear arms, in this case, is severely restricted, you will see these tactics utilized by their commissioned law enforcement officiers...

It is an unfortunate case, and it is hard to fight...It all depends upon what you are prepared to do about it, and what you are willing to sacrifice for it...

You may beat the rap, but you will take the ride for your standing up for your rights...


33 posted on 05/15/2012 4:19:51 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I Occupy the Gun Range!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toadman
Here's irony; of the three, guess which has the least gun related crime?

No guess needed (VA). I understand the dynamic, I'm from North Dakota.

34 posted on 05/15/2012 4:33:25 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah; All

I’m not an Army guy, so I am only going on what I’ve learned from in the past...

I am glad you brought up the “Provost Marshall” issue...That is key to what I understand about the Army community...If you are under orders, and you have complied and are transporting under Federal Interstate requirements regarding firearms, and make the notification before you get to the post, to the Provost Marshall, I have heard it is no big deal...

I stand to be corrected by my Army friends...And anyone else who has gone through this issue...

Just seems to me the more that these law enforcement agencies (anywhere in this country) bust our chops about this issue, the more people educate themselves and do what is required if they have to attempt to transport firearms...

Or...

D.C. becomes another deteriorating social blight on the south end of an extinct northbound wooly mammoth...

Which I am absolutely ok with...

Not even the SCOTUS and the Heller Case, seems to lessen the grip these local government socialists have on our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as WE see fit...

A truely sad situation, and one those that live in D.C. voted for...I have very little sympathy...


35 posted on 05/15/2012 5:03:42 AM PDT by stevie_d_64 (I Occupy the Gun Range!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: wrench
I do not agree with it, but once he made the stop , he was no longer traveling, he was conducting local business.

I disagree; the same logic could be applied to anyone stopping to buy fuel in a cross-country trip -- thus rendering the travel-law null and void.

36 posted on 05/15/2012 5:44:52 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

>>Here’s irony; of the three, guess which has the least gun related crime?
>
>No guess needed (VA). I understand the dynamic, I’m from North Dakota.

Hm, I remember reading an article about a ND law (or proposal for one) restricting the right to keep and bear arms (I think it was with respect to concealed, and in certain places, like hospitals, IIRC). Do you know if it got passed (or is still in effect)?


37 posted on 05/15/2012 6:04:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

38 posted on 05/15/2012 6:12:51 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: trebb

My read on the fed law is that an active duty commissioned officer in effect has a license to carry pretty much as he pleases.


39 posted on 05/15/2012 6:43:22 AM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Maybe the horse will learn to sing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

He probably would have gotten in trouble in NJ if they had found him.


40 posted on 05/15/2012 8:18:35 AM PDT by USMCPOP (Father of LCpl. Karl Linn, KIA 1/26/2005 Al Haqlaniyah, Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Hmm, it’s this kind of blind obedience to the law, without any kind of rational thinking, that makes me a bit unsure of how dear leader’s potential dictatorship will be taken.

One thing that has me hopeful is the fact he doesn’t have any force to back up his claim if he grabbed power...but now it appears he won’t have any police force try to stop it either.


41 posted on 05/15/2012 9:10:22 AM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Captain7seas

What? You expect reason from the gun grabbers?


42 posted on 05/15/2012 9:16:06 AM PDT by RWB Patriot ("My ability is a value that must be purchased and I don't recognize anyone's need as a claim on me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

But hey...Officer Friendly is our FRIEND!!! He’s there “to protect and serve”.

What a joke.


43 posted on 05/15/2012 10:00:39 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Bases are pretty anal about weapons. The local base store sells weapons but they have signs up that you have to register them if you live on base within days or leave immediately if you don’t. I’m guessing that right after you buy one you can’t do any more shopping or stay on base.

They have signs up at the gates about no concealed weapons. Does that mean that they have to be in the open then?


44 posted on 05/15/2012 10:39:21 AM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
They have signs up at the gates about no concealed weapons. Does that mean that they have to be in the open then?

Only SFS folks and LEOs can carry on bases. They don't want anyone else in the mix if anything goes down - Security folks will follow war-time conventions in taking out anyone who isn't them, that shows a weapon.

Active Shooter instructions are a hoot - try to hide (but you aren't allowed to move out of your building because they call for a complete lockdown. If the shooter finds you, they tell you to throw things at him. I guess they feel that giving you a stapler against a shooter is a fair trade for insuring that only they and the bad guys have weapons.

45 posted on 05/16/2012 4:59:24 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wrench; muawiyah

What part of “shall not be infringed” is unclear?

A right only carries restraints against infringinging on equal or superior rights of other individuals. That’s life, liberty, property.


46 posted on 05/16/2012 5:08:49 AM PDT by hocndoc (WingRight.org Have mustard seed, not afraid to use it. Hold Rs to promises, don't watch O keep his.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: trebb
Active Shooter instructions are a hoot

You ain't lying. Just imagine if the Ft Hood troops were allowed to carry. Hasan would have been martyred instead of the bogus show trial. Most bad guys by now have an idea about the active shooter response and would just pick a large building and slaughter everyone inside.

I think everyone ignores the carrying on base rules. They do random vehicle checks but I have never seen them patting down anyone and that is where most would have their weapons.

47 posted on 05/16/2012 10:58:54 AM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson