Soldier wants his guns back


PDA






steelerdude99
May 18, 2012, 11:20 AM
Please see this thread for the case of a vet who was arrested and had his firearms taken by the Washington D.C Police. The charges were dropped, but his property was NOT returned. Political pressure is being applied by Congress.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/17/soldier-wants-his-guns-back/

Chuck

If you enjoyed reading about "Soldier wants his guns back" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ryanxia
May 18, 2012, 12:14 PM
Wow that's a shame. Glad to see there is some political pressure on the city/police department to return his collection. Hopefully he gets it back before he goes on his THIRD TOUR.

I wonder if this will be the spark we need to get a push to lift the D.C. ban?

mgkdrgn
May 18, 2012, 12:21 PM
I have just written a letter to Sen Graham offering my services as an FFL, gratis, to get these arms transferred back to their rightful owner.

I also noted that if DC doesn't have the money to ship them, I'd arrange for FedEx to pick them up.

If they can't be bothered to pack them ... I'll drive up and get them.

Brett Parks
Columbia Arms
Lexington, SC

dogmush
May 18, 2012, 12:23 PM
Sucks that this LT didn't fully understand FOPA. And I hope that he gets his property back, if that's really one of the terms of the plea bargain he made.

but:

The House this week is expected to take up a measure by Rep. Phil Gringrey, Georgia Republican, expressing the sense of Congress that the approximately 40,000 active-duty military personnel who live in or are stationed in Washington should be exempt from local firearms restrictions.

Sorry, no. Just because you're a Soldier shouldn't exempt you from any of the laws of this country. We need to repeal the Ban, not creat another special class of people. And I say that as a US Army Soldier. Absolutly not.

Also:
had his personal firearms collection seized by the city two years ago as he stopped for a doctor’s appointment while traveling in full compliance with federal law.

If he stopped for a Dr's appt in DC, then he wasn't traveling in compliance with the law. It's a crappy law, but it needs to be followed untill it's repealed.

Urban_Redneck
May 18, 2012, 12:31 PM
I lived in DC 1990-92.

At that time, in order to keep a rifle or shotgun in your home you had to register each gun with the DC Police. I spoke with some of the guys at the skeet club, they told me: "You don't need to bring the guns in for serial # 'verification', if you do, you will never see it again".

I turned in the paperwork, and was told "We need to verify serial #'s, please bring them in." I told them to forget it, I was moving.

Rotten to the core

Hypnogator
May 18, 2012, 12:32 PM
I have just written a letter to Sen Graham offering my services as an FFL, gratis, to get these arms transferred back to their rightful owner.

I also noted that if DC doesn't have the money to ship them, I'd arrange for FedEx to pick them up.

If they can't be bothered to pack them ... I'll drive up and get them.

Good on ya, mate! :D:D:D:cool:

Ryanxia
May 18, 2012, 02:35 PM
mgkdrgn - Now THAT'S the way to take initiative :)

oneounceload
May 18, 2012, 09:07 PM
Sorry, no. Just because you're a Soldier shouldn't exempt you from any of the laws of this country. We need to repeal the Ban, not creat another special class of people. And I say that as a US Army Soldier. Absolutly not.

exactly, because then we have special laws for LEOs, and then special laws for political folks, and then we have.............................

Chicago and NYC,

nope, no special deals for anyone, repeal the absurdity

Warp
May 18, 2012, 09:14 PM
Count me in the *fix the law, no special classes of citizens* group.

Use the big PR example of the soldier to fix what is an asinine law. Don't create more special classes to whom the law does not apply.

essayons21
May 18, 2012, 11:11 PM
I'm goingto have to play devil's advocate on this one. Not in favor of DC but in favor of servicemembers being exempt from DC's gun laws.

Now I am generally opposed to creating any special classes or priveledges, military included. However normal citizens have a choice whether or not to live and work in DC. If you don't like the laws you can move. Servicemembers on the other hand do not have that choice. They must go where Uncle Sam tells them, and simply quitting is not an option most of the time. Additionally, servicemembers, especially those working in the nations capital, are targets of attack, a criteria which is used nationwide to justify extra priveledges for certain jobs such as judges, commercial pilots, etc.

I fully agree that the law should be changed to allow all residents and visitors to excercise their 2A right, and it is past time that Congress excercised its right to govern the District in this matter. I dont see this bill causing any harm towards that goal, if anything it is the first step down that path.

Warp
May 18, 2012, 11:17 PM
I fully agree that the law should be changed to allow all residents and visitors to excercise their 2A right, and it is past time that Congress excercised its right to govern the District in this matter. I dont see this bill causing any harm towards that goal, if anything it is the first step down that path.

Any time you create a special, privileged class you harm your chances of fixing the underlying problem because you decrease the number of people that the underlying problem negative affects and thus decrease the number of people who will have a reason to worry about fixing it.

wickedsprint
May 18, 2012, 11:21 PM
Sorry, no. Just because you're a Soldier shouldn't exempt you from any of the laws of this country. We need to repeal the Ban, not creat another special class of people. And I say that as a US Army Soldier. Absolutly not.



Do you feel you should have been paying state income taxes in every state you've been assigned? :)

dogmush
May 19, 2012, 10:41 AM
Do you feel you should have been paying state income taxes in every state you've been assigned?

Probably.* Wasn't I using the social services (police, fire, streets, schools, libraries and the like) those pay for. I guess if you lived on post, never left, shopped at the PX and Commissary, and used school and daycare on base the case could be made that you shouldn't pay local taxes. but not many actually do that.

I'm actually in a little bit of a family scuffle right now because one of my inlaws (works for dep. of state) wants to use my home address in FL as their home of record, even though they never lived here. They're doing it to duck VA taxes, and I won't let them.

As a soldier (speaking for myself, not officially) I appreciate when the community gives me things in thanks for my service. (from cheaper movie tickets to just a handshake) But I feel pretty strongly that legislating in special breaks for soldiers (or LEO's, or legislators, or firefighters, ad nauseum) is a bad way to govern.

*Without going all political, suffice to say that I have real issues with the US tax code as written.

wickedsprint
May 19, 2012, 11:45 AM
I was playing devils advocate. I think it should be re written as well.

loose noose
May 19, 2012, 12:17 PM
Just look what we have in Washington DC for politicians, not to mention "citizens" that keep electing the criminal element into office. I say to heck with protocol, give the soldier his rightfully owned firearms back, as he had no course but to go to that God forsaken district. Amen:mad:

jbrown50
May 19, 2012, 01:11 PM
The majority of laws that DC passes still can be repealed directly by Congress, and that includes gun laws. Congress allowed DC's original gun ban to become law.

I'm all for overturning DC's gun laws and agree that the Mayor, City Council, and government are among the most corrupt in the country. We should understand though that our Congress has allowed this foolishness to go on unchecked for quite some time. There's evidence to show that Congress in general has used DC's anti-gun officials by deliberately allowing them to implement the same type of draconian gun restrictions that exist on federal property.

B!ngo
May 19, 2012, 06:04 PM
I'm goingto have to play devil's advocate on this one. Not in favor of DC but in favor of servicemembers being exempt from DC's gun laws.

Now I am generally opposed to creating any special classes or priveledges, military included. However normal citizens have a choice whether or not to live and work in DC. If you don't like the laws you can move. Servicemembers on the other hand do not have that choice. They must go where Uncle Sam tells them, and simply quitting is not an option most of the time. Additionally, servicemembers, especially those working in the nations capital, are targets of attack, a criteria which is used nationwide to justify extra priveledges for certain jobs such as judges, commercial pilots, etc.

I fully agree that the law should be changed to allow all residents and visitors to excercise their 2A right, and it is past time that Congress excercised its right to govern the District in this matter. I dont see this bill causing any harm towards that goal, if anything it is the first step down that path.
I know you are playing devils advocate here, but I could not disagree with that sentiment more strongly:
1. Layering band-aids on bad law is just bad. Greater complexity, precedent for more special classes, and reduces the chance that the fundamental problem will be addressed;
2. I am an ex-mil guy and am a huge supporter of our military men and women. Nonetheless, making the military a 'special class' and in particular, giving them special access to weapons on our shores just smacks of bad policy and a dangerous precedent that plays out badly in many (lesser and poorly governed) nations across the globe. Are we close to realizing any dangers associated with that precedent in our country? Nope, but I would never step near such a line.
Fix the law. And thanks to the FFL for contributing his/her time and money to help out this soldier. And if you seek any cost-offsetting contribution, let me know.
B

jbrown50
May 21, 2012, 10:41 AM
MILLER: Soldier gets his guns

Congress needs to reform District’s property seizure laws

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/21/miller-soldier-gets-his-guns/

The Washington Times, Monday, May 21, 2012.

The active duty soldier who had his guns confiscated by the District of Columbia two years ago will have his property returned by Memorial Day. It took the help of a high-powered lawyer, two U.S. Senators, a member of Congress and national publicity to force the obstinate District to show some respect for the Constitution. It should never happen again.

On Friday, D.C. property clerk Derek Gray determined the city would finally return 1st Lt. Augustine Kim’s “dangerous articles” because the Army national guardsman fulfilled the plea agreement arranged with the U.S. attorney’s office a year earlier. The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) arrested Lt. Kim on four felony charges of carrying firearms in the District after he was pulled over with the items securely stored in his trunk, as is allowed under federal law.

Lt. Kim pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor count of possessing an unregistered gun, and that charge was dismissed in May 2011. Since then, Lt. Kim’s lawyer, Richard Gadiner, had failed to get the attention of Mr. Gray, who refused to respond to his repeated requests for a hearing.

That changed after The Washington Times published a story about the case last Monday. The long-time firearms lawyer had never known the city to set up a hearing within a matter of days. Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, spoke with Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier on Thursday. Fellow Palmetto State Republican Sen. Jim DeMint and Rep. Tim Scott have also been engaged. “When you get two senior U.S. senators and a member of Congress calling the chief of police, it makes a difference,” Mr. Gardiner explained.

It's sad that he had to go through all of this in the first place.

627PCFan
May 21, 2012, 03:48 PM
Ill probably get flamed for this one, but am I the only one who thinks pertaining the the original arrest and detention was justified. Now that its been handled he should have his firearms returned however hes back to citizen status and all rules should apply, not to mention of lack of knowledge about transportation of guns. I would think someone from NJ of all places would be more aware.

comus3
May 21, 2012, 04:03 PM
I registered my shotguns in DC when I lived there (briefly thank Jeebus!) back in 2001-2002. It was a pretty easy process. brought them in to the station in a case, told the front door officer I wanted to register my guns, the guy at the metal detector pointed out the office. I think the officer inside was asleep when I knocked on the door. Took a really absurd 20 question test, they looked at the guns. Came back and picked up the registration about a week later. Supposedly it got harder after the supreme court win.

Off topic at hand, but my experience

steelerdude99
May 21, 2012, 06:16 PM
Please see this thread for the case of a vet who was arrested and had his firearms taken by the Washington D.C Police. The charges were dropped, but his property was NOT returned. Political pressure is being applied by Congress.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/17/soldier-wants-his-guns-back/

Chuck

Update on this story:Soldier gets his guns (see link).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/21/miller-soldier-gets-his-guns/

essayons21
May 21, 2012, 07:02 PM
I know you are playing devils advocate here, but I could not disagree with that sentiment more strongly:
1. Layering band-aids on bad law is just bad. Greater complexity, precedent for more special classes, and reduces the chance that the fundamental problem will be addressed;
2. I am an ex-mil guy and am a huge supporter of our military men and women. Nonetheless, making the military a 'special class' and in particular, giving them special access to weapons on our shores just smacks of bad policy and a dangerous precedent that plays out badly in many (lesser and poorly governed) nations across the globe. Are we close to realizing any dangers associated with that precedent in our country? Nope, but I would never step near such a line.
Fix the law. And thanks to the FFL for contributing his/her time and money to help out this soldier. And if you seek any cost-offsetting contribution, let me know.
B

We create special classes of people with more (or less) privileges and rights all the time in our society. They usually are tied to some level of training, and also some level of public trust.

Only doctors can write prescriptions for certain medicines, only police can deprive you of your rights under certain circumstances, only certified pilots are allowed to fly airplanes, only CDL holders can drive vehicles over 10,000 pounds or carry hazardous materials. The examples go on and on.

Military members are already given a number of special privileges due to their service. Servicemembers are exempt from a number of Virginia gun laws regarding proof of residency and an exemption from the now repealed 1-gun a month law. National Guardsman are even immune to arrest by local law enforcement when conducting their duty. The repeal of one gun a month was a hard fought battle in the state legislature, but not once did the special classes (to include CCW holders) which were exempt from the law hurt the effort to have it repealed.

To keep it on the topic of guns, we give commercial pilots the right to carry in the cockpit, judges the right to carry in courthouses, sworn law enforcement the right to carry just about anywhere, and yes, CCW holders are also a special class given special rights to carry a firearm.

The reverse is also true. Felons and those convicted of domestic violence are completely denied their 2A rights. That is also a special class.

I agree that sometimes these classes are overstretched. I my state any prosecutor can now carry concealed with no training required. What makes them more or less responsible than your average citizen? There are numerous other exceptions that have been carved out in the CCW code that are blatant political favors.

The point is that special privileges and rights exist everywhere in our society, and they usually come with corresponding responsibility. And that is a good thing if we wish to live in a somewhat ordered society. Absolute equality sounds good in theory, but I think that very few even on this forum would like the idea of violent felons legally carrying concealed weapons. Fortunately we have laws for that which do not prevent the act, but at least remove that individual from society for a longer period of time if they are caught.

Back to the original proposal, soldiers have all received some level of basic firearms safety instruction, in many states at least enough to where proof of basic military training is enough to obtain a CCW without any further training. They bear a heavy social responsibility, especially post 9/11. They also sacrifice greatly to society by giving up large amounts of personal freedom to defend this country. A full repeal of DCs gun laws for the immediate future is a pipe dream, so the proposal to allow them to possess guns in the districts is reasonable and does nothing to harm the overall 2A movement.

Warp
May 21, 2012, 07:19 PM
Only doctors can write prescriptions for certain medicines, only police can deprive you of your rights under certain circumstances, only certified pilots are allowed to fly airplanes, only CDL holders can drive vehicles over 10,000 pounds or carry hazardous materials. The examples go on and on.

Those are not Rights. Those are not protected by the Constitution. Those are NOT apt comparisons to the RKBA.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I do not see anything of the sort protecting our right (not granting, protecting) to drive a vehicle over 10,000 pounds, or write a prescription for a controlled substance, or fly an airplane .

essayons21
May 21, 2012, 07:33 PM
So because DC won't overturn its unconstitutional gun restrictions (and for that matter Congress won't repeal GCA or NFA) 2A supporters should oppose any relaxation of those laws in favor of hoping that some day they will magically be eliminated?

Alaska-Vermont-Arizona-Wyoming style carry was unheard of 10-20 years ago. Every state but Illinois has some sort of permitted concealed carry. That didn't happen overnight. It happened by supporting every measure, however small, that relaxed 2A laws and widened the pool of citizens allowed to carry. The more voters and politicians see that relaxing gun laws equals lower crime rates, the better the laws get.

Warp
May 21, 2012, 07:41 PM
So because DC won't overturn its unconstitutional gun restrictions (and for that matter Congress won't repeal GCA or NFA) 2A supporters should oppose any relaxation of those laws in favor of hoping that some day they will magically be eliminated?

2A supporters should oppose creating special classes of citizens to whom the laws do not apply, as doing so further erodes any chance at future elimination.


Alaska-Vermont-Arizona-Wyoming style carry was unheard of 10-20 years ago. Every state but Illinois has some sort of permitted concealed carry. That didn't happen overnight. It happened by supporting every measure, however small, that relaxed 2A laws and widened the pool of citizens allowed to carry. The more voters and politicians see that relaxing gun laws equals lower crime rates, the better the laws get.

Not true. Wisconsin just went shall issue, what, last November? Maybe 6-7 months ago? Prior to that they were no issue just the same as Illinois.

Take a look at this. Look at how many states are red well into the 2000s.

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g105/austin3161324/bb352103.gif

essayons21
May 21, 2012, 07:44 PM
Huh? Illinois is currently the only state without concealed carry. How is that not true? Am I missing the point?

The map proves my point. The nation didn't go from red and yellow to blue and green overnight. It took many years and was effected by support of every relaxation of gun restrictions leading to Right to Carry. Hopefully in 10 more years that whole map will be green. But it won't get there if, for example, we oppose a May or Shall Issue CCW law in Illinois, instead demanding they go to unrestricted carry.

And what special class to the laws not apply? The special rights ARE the law.

Flopsweat
May 22, 2012, 08:19 AM
Huh? Illinois is currently the only state without concealed carry. How is that not true? Am I missing the point?

The map proves my point. The nation didn't go from red and yellow to blue and green overnight. It took many years and was effected by support of every relaxation of gun restrictions leading to Right to Carry. Hopefully in 10 more years that whole map will be green. But it won't get there if, for example, we oppose a May or Shall Issue CCW law in Illinois, instead demanding they go to unrestricted carry.

And what special class to the laws not apply? The special rights ARE the law.
No offense, but yes, I think you're missing the point. The map proves the point that we should continue to fix bad laws. I does not prove your point that soldiers should be given special treatment. They should, and no proof of that is needed. It would, however, not help the cause of changing the unconstitutional laws in D.C. Worse, it will probably pacify some folks, making it easier for D.C. leaders to continue their stonewalling and conniving.

essayons21
May 22, 2012, 07:02 PM
So you would oppose a Shall-Issue CCW permitting system for the citizens of Illinois?

Warp
May 22, 2012, 08:46 PM
So you would oppose a Shall-Issue CCW permitting system for the citizens of Illinois?

What on Earth are you talking about?

I'm not sure what your point will be, but just in case...Illinois, or any other state, de-criminalizing something while it remains illegal in a different state (or D.C.) does not create a special class of citizen and it does not inhibit another state from changing its legislation. This scenario is in no way comparable to creating special classes of citizens, within the same jurisdiction, to whom the laws do not apply, or differently apply.

essayons21
May 22, 2012, 09:22 PM
This scenario is in no way comparable to creating special classes of citizens, within the same jurisdiction, to whom the laws do not apply, or differently apply.

CCW legislation does just that! For example the section of the Code of Virginia which allows for concealed carry (18.2-308 (http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308)) lays out the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, the penalties, then lists the "special classes" which are exempt from that law, which includes concealed carry permit holders.

The law creates special classes of citizens, within the same jurisdiction, to whom the law does not apply. The laws of most states with shall-issue CCW are written in a similar fashion.

Soldiers and CCW holders have to meet many of the same requirements. They must not be felons or convicted of domestic assault, they both are fingerprinted (in some states), they both receive some level of firearms training.

I fail to understand how you can make the argument that creating a special class under the law for soldiers is somehow damaging to expanding 2A rights, while creating the same special class for CCW holders under the law is a positive step.

Warp
May 22, 2012, 11:03 PM
CCW legislation does just that! For example the section of the Code of Virginia which allows for concealed carry (18.2-308) lays out the crime of carrying a concealed weapon, the penalties, then lists the "special classes" which are exempt from that law, which includes concealed carry permit holders.

The law creates special classes of citizens, within the same jurisdiction, to whom the law does not apply. The laws of most states with shall-issue CCW are written in a similar fashion.

Any citizen who has not committed a crime and, via due process, had rights stripped away is eligible.

Not the same.

Soldiers and CCW holders have to meet many of the same requirements. They must not be felons or convicted of domestic assault, they both are fingerprinted (in some states), they both receive some level of firearms training.

You got me there. Member of the United States Armed Forces...concealed carry permit holder...tomato tomato. :rolleyes:

If you enjoyed reading about "Soldier wants his guns back" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!