EDITORIAL: D.C. grabs guns from soldier

The Washington Times ^ | 14 May, 2012 | NA

[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.

[fr_freak]

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.

[Still Thinking]

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....

[DTogo]

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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[Smokin' Joe]

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.

[PghBaldy]

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

[Toadman]

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."

[Toadman]

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?

[trebb]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.

[muawiyah]

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.

[stevie_d_64]

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...

[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.

[stevie_d_64]

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...

[OneWingedShark]

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.

[OneWingedShark]

>>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)?

[OneWingedShark]

[W. W. SMITH]

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.

[USMCPOP]

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