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 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« Woollard case takes on a certain reality | Main | "How to Ban Guns: A step by step, long term process" »

Washington Naval Yard shooter

Posted by David Hardy · 17 September 2013 04:55 PM

What we know:

First, he didn't have an AR-15, doubtless to the great disappointment of certain legislators. Looks like he had a Remington 870, and two handguns he took off security personnel that he shot. The media are making gallant tries to explain why they were all claiming the AR-15. I suspect someone, somewhere, got that idea and everyone else repeated it.

Second, in 2004, he was in Seattle arrested after shooting out a parked car's tires, and nothing was done beyond the arrest.

Third, in 2010, he shot a bullet up into the apartment of a neighbor with whom he'd argued. He claimed he was cleaning the gun while cooking (?) and accidentally fired it. He was arrested but prosecutors declined to proceed.

Fourth, he was reportedly being treated for paranoid psychosis, which poses quite a risk of danger.

UPDATE:

A couple of links that ask the right questions:

How many must die in gun free zones before we learn?

EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban

7 Comments | Leave a comment

Dave D. | September 17, 2013 7:08 PM | Reply

...Had this fellow survived he most likely would have gotten the same treatment as Reagans shooter. He heard voices and sought treatment. He called the cops a month ago because he heard voices. The guy was a loon. He would have got off.

Mark-1 | September 18, 2013 8:11 AM | Reply

Not surprised gov't & Media paint this guy as an administrative problem, but things don't add, in spite of the "gallant efforts". The guy did a full four-year active tour and made promotions, no demotions listed. ...Not the history of a problem military child. Not certain at this point if the guy was honorably discharged, but I don't see a *general discharge* being given after four-years service without it becoming honorable after a certain time passing for a NCO....with FoxNews reporting outstanding military performance reviews with reco's for additional promotion. That means USN wanted to retain him. ...All unusual for someone written up for eight-incidents of discipline.

What's more, he did NOT shoot the security people; he fired at other officers inside. Sooooo how did he get in a major command HQ? Sounds like terrorism to me. DC Mayor says no although media reports his city is being shutdown.

Ever think that it was just a probe to determine how easy the security could be compromised? JMO, There is much more to this than meets the eye.

Rich | September 18, 2013 8:32 AM | Reply

Mark: Interesting because somewhere else I read that he had a history of insubordination and other problems but it was easier to get him out with the general then go the full route. The Shooting stuff that to me smacks of prosecutor not willing to spend time on small potatoes and just passing it off.
He would have failed background check for the security pass and firearm if "they" did their job. So of course we need more laws. /scar off

Mman | September 18, 2013 11:15 AM | Reply

Perhaps our "armed forces" should actually be, uhm... "armed". It is ridiculous to think that the police have to respond to an active shooter inside a navy base. Aren't there officers and enlisted sailors there who have guns and ammunition and know how to use it? Apparently not. Don't they teach sailors to shoot, and issue sidearms, anymore? It seems that our own military installations are nowadays "gun free zones" which is so preposterous that it has got to be true in this day and age. Maybe we need to start a movement to "Arm the Armed Forces".

Mman | September 18, 2013 11:17 AM | Reply

In other words, we can send a missile through a window halfway around the world, but we can't deliver a 9mm slug when and where it is needed right in our own navy base in our own capital? It is nuts.

Chris (Mainsail) | September 18, 2013 11:33 AM | Reply

Here are a couple of interesting editorials asking the key question:

How many must die in gun free zones before we learn?
http://communities.washingtontimes.c...will-we-learn/

EDITORIAL: End Clinton-era military base gun ban
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-base-gun-ban/
__________________

Harold | September 19, 2013 10:35 AM | Reply

Don't they teach sailors to shoot....

Not really, it turns out. When my father was in boot camp in the early '50 in Great Lakes prior to getting tapped for OCS he did the usual, including real range time with an M1 Garand (which he of course excelled at).

Now from what I was able to find (and read in times past) they only teach the M9 (Beretta 92) handgun and the Mossberg shotgun; since 2001 it's been 5 live rounds and less than 100 simulated rounds, now its reported to be 40 rounds. Only 5 live shotgun rounds. I can't get details without more searching than I care to do right now, but it appears that for as long as half a century there was no live fire training at all, they had to demolish their firing ranges to protect the environment, you see.

On the other hand there are these guys known as Marines, and some of them, if they'd been able to access ammo, could have intervened, there are some articles about this.

Leave a comment