thirdeagle
Member
back on track. . .
I had a similar experience in college. Unbeknownst to me, my college had a great ROTC program, yet they made little to no presence on campus. I was out running one day on a wooded trail that skirted campus (on campus) and was confronted by a plain-clothes guy about my age with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. Our confrontation was brief as my pace quickened considerable when we noticed each other. Nothing bad came of the event but I did immediately contact campus security. I was reassured that what I saw was most likely a member of the ROTC and that the firearm was most likely a dummy, used for non-shooting training exercises.
At that point I raised a few questions which included: 1) why was the fella' not uniformed or at least in fatigues to indicate his affiliation, and 2) why was the firearm not marked in some fashion as to indicate that it was "non-firing."
WHAT REALLY BOTHERED ME was that the person what "most likely" in ROTC and that the firearm was "most likely" a dummy. "Most likely" is not good enough for me - a little more diligence from the campus officer would have been nice.
I am no anti but do advocate firearm carry according to the law (even if I disagree with some laws) and using good judgement. Chances are, the fella I encountered was doing nothing "illegal" but was certainly not displaying his best judgement in the situation (considering his "most likely" affiliation).
I had a similar experience in college. Unbeknownst to me, my college had a great ROTC program, yet they made little to no presence on campus. I was out running one day on a wooded trail that skirted campus (on campus) and was confronted by a plain-clothes guy about my age with an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. Our confrontation was brief as my pace quickened considerable when we noticed each other. Nothing bad came of the event but I did immediately contact campus security. I was reassured that what I saw was most likely a member of the ROTC and that the firearm was most likely a dummy, used for non-shooting training exercises.
At that point I raised a few questions which included: 1) why was the fella' not uniformed or at least in fatigues to indicate his affiliation, and 2) why was the firearm not marked in some fashion as to indicate that it was "non-firing."
WHAT REALLY BOTHERED ME was that the person what "most likely" in ROTC and that the firearm was "most likely" a dummy. "Most likely" is not good enough for me - a little more diligence from the campus officer would have been nice.
I am no anti but do advocate firearm carry according to the law (even if I disagree with some laws) and using good judgement. Chances are, the fella I encountered was doing nothing "illegal" but was certainly not displaying his best judgement in the situation (considering his "most likely" affiliation).