Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.3
Site Design by Sekimori

« Getting squishy.... | Main | Brian Terry Memorial Act »

D.C. holding onto serviceman's guns

Posted by David Hardy · 15 May 2012 12:07 PM

The Washington Times has the story. While transporting his guns interstate (and thus likely within the protections of the Firearm Owners' Protection Act), he stopped at Walter Reed, inside DC. The story says he plead to a misdemeanor that was later dismissed, which sounds like pretrial diversion. But DC refuses to return his guns.

· arms law victims

7 Comments | Leave a comment

5thofNov | May 15, 2012 5:42 PM | Reply

Total B.S., Dam this pisses me off. What happened the last time there was a story of...somebody...trying to confiscation arms?

james N. Gibson | May 15, 2012 8:45 PM | Reply

Isn't it against Federal law for local authorities to seize federal weapons from Federal troops, particularly when said troops are in transit.

James | May 15, 2012 11:28 PM | Reply

They're not Federal weapons, they're personally owned weapons the officer was lawfully transporting from one state where he could own them to another state where he could own them in the course of a military permanent change of station move after having been wounded in action.

skidmark | May 16, 2012 4:56 AM | Reply

The problem is that by stopping at Walter Reed for a doctor's appointment he lost the protection of FOPA - that was not an "incidental" stop like getting gas or a meal or even an overnight rest.

That being said, I do not see what legislation they are using to confiscate all his firearms. Having worked the original multiple felony charges down to one misdemeanor, they should be limited to the penalty(ies) permitted for that level of offense.

stay safe.

Sarah | May 16, 2012 5:16 AM | Reply

Playing devil’s advocate here for a moment, serviceman or not, he was transporting unregistered, and, therefore, weapons illegal to possess in DC.

jetfxr69 | May 16, 2012 7:46 AM | Reply

Ummm. If he was on active-duty, and had an appointment at a Military Medical Treatment Facility, then it could be argued that he was ordered to appear, enroute on his permanent change of station (which necessarily means with his personal possessions, the military specifically discourages shipment of firearms in household goods). I think that might be a case where FOPA would still protect, or if not FOPA then something in Title X.

Anonymous | May 17, 2012 2:17 PM | Reply

The problem is that by stopping at Walter Reed for a doctor's appointment he lost the protection of FOPA - that was not an "incidental" stop like getting gas or a meal or even an overnight rest.

I don't think that's correct: He was actually in transit when he was stopped, not at Walter Reed. FOPA wouldn't have protected him while he was at Walter Reed, because it wasn't incidental to the trip, but once he continued on his journey, he would be protected by it because he was once again actually traveling.

Leave a comment