Thread: D.C. grabs guns from soldier

Those who **** on rights described in the constitution should be locked up for several years and then exiled to the worst country on the planet. There is no excuse for denying a man his right to keep and bear arms,especially when it is a right that specifically says shall not infringe at the end of it.

EDITORIAL: D.C. grabs guns from soldier - Washington Times
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.

He broke the law. Interjecting emotional appeal and faux patriotism because he is a veteran doesn't make violating the law alright.

Take it up with the policy that they have on guns, but under the law he should be punished.

Originally Posted by digsbe

He broke the law. Interjecting emotional appeal and faux patriotism because he is a veteran doesn't make violating the law alright.

Take it up with the policy that they have on guns, but under the law he should be punished.

The law is blatantly unconstitutional and therefore illegal.The constitution is the supreme law of the law of the land.

Originally Posted by jamesrage

The law is blatantly unconstitutional and therefore illegal.The constitution is the supreme law of the law of the land.

That's your opinion. However, until the SCOTUS rules on this (which I doubt they will take up as a case) it is still within the legal realms of being Constitutional. I believe that the Constitution allows for states to regulate firearms so long as they don't outright deny your right to bear them. They can make a bazooka, AK47, or other weapon illegal and still be within the Constitution. The right to bear arms doesn't encompass all weapons at all times in all places for any weapon.

Originally Posted by digsbe

That's your opinion. However, until the SCOTUS rules on this (which I doubt they will take up as a case) it is still within the legal realms of being Constitutional.

It not an opinion is it fact,read the second amendment.The constitution is the supreme law of the land.Therefore no government has the right to infringe on those rights nor do they right to regulate that rights.Any law that violates the constitution is illegal and therefore it is the duty of all Americans to not obey that unconstitutional law.

I believe that the Constitution allows for states to regulate firearms so long as they don't outright deny your right to bear them.

The constitution says the opposite.What part of "shall not infringe" do you fail to understand? If states were allowed to regulate rights then what would be the point of having the expressly written in the constitution i the first place?

They can make a bazooka, AK47, or other weapon illegal and still be within the Constitution. The right to bear arms doesn't encompass all weapons at all times in all places for any weapon.

The right to keep and arms encompasses all arms.

Originally Posted by digsbe

He broke the law. Interjecting emotional appeal and faux patriotism because he is a veteran doesn't make violating the law alright.

Take it up with the policy that they have on guns, but under the law he should be punished.

the law was in violation of a higher law first.

This happens all the time: property is confiscated - and even when charges are dropped it's not returned. It's really just a crap judicial system - anything from firearms to necklaces and money.

The problem with the 2nd A is it is poorly written.

For all the super patriots decry ANY infringement on the right to bear arms-

Are you ok with the mentally ill and violent felons having any weapon they can afford?

The 2nd A makes no attempt to define who gets to bear arms.

So from the git-go even the most rapid of 2nd A supporters have to back off their rant about no infringements allowed.

I get the point though, what has always bothered me is the lack of any real meaningful action behind the empty words.

Why isn't there a wave of super patriots willing to sacrifice more than spittle to push back on this outrage? Where is the damn NRA, this should have been contested waaaaay before healthcare or social security! Where is the million gunowner drive through DC to show the bastards?

For all the outrage over a nanny state and citizens unwilling to do what needs to be done, oh wait I think I understand, this would involve doing for more than oneself, it would be doing something for the greater good and that smells of liberal. Perhaps it is the only way this will move forward. A soldier used to sacrifice and doing so others don't have to move off the couch. He sees the greater good and hopefully will go the distance so others can declare victory.

I do hope this gets tried and the laws get pushed back on this. It is a stupid peeling of the onion for transients through DC. Not use what all transpired between the soldier and the cop. I do know wearing the uniform doesn't muffle attitude so perhaps the soldier did a bit more than ask for directions? it is difficult to see a soldier explaining he is lost going to from Walter Reed for war wounds getting searched.

But it would be a good case to run up the system. I support this soldier on once again going where many others fear to tread...

Originally Posted by notquiteright

The problem with the 2nd A is it is poorly written.

It is actually clearly written. The right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed. That means the government has absolutely no business infringing on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. The bill of rights exist as an infringement on the government not the people. If you want infringements then petition the government to create a constitutional amendment to include infringements.

For all the super patriots decry ANY infringement on the right to bear arms-

Are you ok with the mentally ill and violent felons having any weapon they can afford

?
I am okay with any American exercising their constitutional rights. Violent criminals are already locked up.If a criminal can be trusted to exercise their constitutional rights then they shouldn't be released in the first place.Once a man finishes serving his time behind bars his constitutional rights should be restored. Mentally ill does not equal a danger to society.If some mentally ill person is a danger to society then they should be locked up in a loony bin and relased once they are no longer a threat to others.

The 2nd A makes no attempt to define who gets to bear arms.

It does define who gets to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. It says "the right of the people "

So from the git-go even the most rapid of 2nd A supporters have to back off their rant about no infringements allowed.

Suggesting that the 2nd amendment should be followed does not make one a rapid 2nd amendment supporter. Now if someone was suggesting that the government IE the tax payers should purchase the firearm for every single person who couldn't afford one(kind of the way die hard abortionist want the government to pay for abortions) then that individual would be a rapid 2nd amendment supporter.

Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker

This happens all the time: property is confiscated - and even when charges are dropped it's not returned. It's really just a crap judicial system - anything from firearms to necklaces and money.

This is why assets seizure and forfeiture should require a guilty conviction of the accused in a criminal trial(proven beyond a reasonable doubt). And there should be a trial to actually determine what percentage of the property in question was gotten from illegal means or used for illegal means. From what I understand the way current assets seizure and forfeiture works the government can sue the items in question and not the individual and in a civil trial(the preponderance of the evidence,which essentially means that it was more likely than not that something occurred in a certain way).),this should be illegal.