Army Sergeant's hunting weapon confiscated by police in Ft. Hood

This kind of story I think helps illustrate the audacity of the anti-gun crowd. Even though the law is on his side, he was arrested and weapons confiscated because of perception. Now this fellow soldier is in a legal battle to affirm rights already protected by law both by the state of Texas and the Second Amendment.

Source

There's a video on the source site related to this story.

I can tell you right now there's very few people in the country as fervently pro-gun as those of us who swear to abide by and protect the Constitution.

The anti-gun crowd would do well to measure how much they want to push.

“‘In this day and age, [people] are alarmed when they see someone with what you have,” one of the officers tells Grisham in the video. ‘They don’t care what the law is.‘”

Edit to add quote.

Originally posted by projectvxn

I can tell you right now there's very few people in the country as fervently pro-gun as those of us who swear to abide by and protect the Constitution.

that comment makes me laugh every time

Well that is a fail seeing how much the constitution has been butchered since 2001

protecting the constitution one key stroke at a time on ats .truly freedom fighters the lot here

also what the hell did he expect , I thought fire arms were to be locked away out of view not on display for people walking by on the street

I sincerely hope he has the means and will to see this through to the Super Court level. At least the Texas State level where I think it will end without need to go higher. Some Texas communities have some real problem children in offices of authority. So far from the general ideals I've come to know people in Texas for, I wonder why these people even live there in the first place. (Imagine me moving to Albany, New York or back to California...yeah..kinda like that I think).

This sounds as clear cut a case as people could hope for in making a court precedent that the law *DOES* matter and those sworn to uphold it need a very serious attitude adjustment as only the guys in the black robes can deliver.

Once, I thought of the courts as going too far to meddle in law enforcement and nearly cripple it in some ways..(During the drug wars of the 80's in particular). Now?? The high courts are our last best chance at peace and freedom I think.

S/F on a great catch!

Originally posted by freedomSlave

Originally posted by projectvxn

I can tell you right now there's very few people in the country as fervently pro-gun as those of us who swear to abide by and protect the Constitution.

that comment makes me laugh every time

Well that is a fail seeing how much the constitution has been butchered since 2001

protecting the constitution one key stroke at a time on ats .truly freedom fighters the lot here

also what the hell did he expect , I thought fire arms were to be locked away out of view not on display for people walking by on the street

edit on 14/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

1. I'm active duty.
2. Texas has open carry as well as concealed carry laws on the books. This NCO was legally within his rights.
3. I didn't butcher the Constitution and neither did my fellow soldiers. The politicians people keep voting for to get free stuff did.

Sounds to me like it is more about hating on the military than just the gun issue. Makes me wonder what other trivial things military members have been harassed over in the area.

Having read the article and seen the video the following can be stated:

The video, while it shows only part of the story, is only showing part of the story. It shows where he was disarmed, yet does not show anything before that. We can not decide on what happened before that, and when the officers did approach him, or any conversations that was handled. How do we know what all happened, if that part is missing. Whose story are we suppose to believe, the person of instrest, the sergent or the police, as both appear to be confrontational in their actions and words.

While the video can provide some help on both sides, it does neither side justice or prove either case in either way.

IMO the prosecutor should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town. The two officers who "don't care what the law is" need to be immediately fired and charged with forcible kidnapping. We have to teach these people who the boss is. They think they are, but our Constitution says different. That is why obozo and his ilk hate the Constitution so much.

reply to post by projectvxn

With the mass of gun violence over that last few years it probably wasn't the smartest thing he could of done walking around with a rifle . How is anyone to know if he is of sound mind ,or some freak about to go on another rampage . people just see some dude walking around with a rifle who knows what his intentions are , this isn't the wild west anymore we do live in civilized communities , people don't feel safe with some goof walking around with his rifle what about that do you not understand?

ETA there really just any room for commonsense laws down there regarding fire arms

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I sincerely hope he has the means and will to see this through to the Super Court level. At least the Texas State level where I think it will end without need to go higher. Some Texas communities have some real problem children in offices of authority. So far from the general ideals I've come to know people in Texas for, I wonder why these people even live there in the first place. (Imagine me moving to Albany, New York or back to California...yeah..kinda like that I think).

This sounds as clear cut a case as people could hope for in making a court precedent that the law *DOES* matter and those sworn to uphold it need a very serious attitude adjustment as only the guys in the black robes can deliver.

Once, I thought of the courts as going too far to meddle in law enforcement and nearly cripple it in some ways..(During the drug wars of the 80's in particular). Now?? The high courts are our last best chance at peace and freedom I think.

S/F on a great catch!

This is going no where in court. The law says they can take your weapon while they are checking to see if your legal and legit. People call the cops, they have to respond and investigate. As a part of that they take your weapon because you could be anyone doing anything. If you resist or say no they arrest you. Although with this guy a quick google shows he has a history of clashing with the military, schools etc. as a public blogger. And his quick use of a public defense fund? Well lets just say I would not be suprised if he called the cops on himself to make a little cash and get a some attention.

reply to post by freedomSlave


What I do not understand is why you think its ok for the police to harass people who are legally within their rights and are not causing harm. Guns in Texas are a common sight. This was the result of politically motivated individuals harassing a law abiding citizen. Not some random goof, but a member of the Army with no criminal history.

reply to post by MrSpad


The prosecutor in question has a habit of going after soldiers and legal gun owners as a matter of politically motivated procedure. Kalafut has a history with other soldiers even going as far as attempting to falsly charge a soldier for intoxication when he couldnt make the gun charges stick.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

What I do not understand is why you think its ok for the police to harass people who are legally within their rights and are not causing harm. Guns in Texas are a common sight. This was the result of politically motivated individuals harassing a law abiding citizen. Not some random goof, but a member of the Army with no criminal history.

well do you really think people walking down down the way knows who he is regardless of being a member of the army. well the police were actually doing their job of serving and protecting imo , hell for all the cops could of known he was off to go on a rampage in some public gathering place .

it just blows my mind how one can think it is acceptable to walk down the street with a rifle because some law from centuries ago is somehow still applicable in today's world that we all live in . There are tons of stupid and irrelevant law still in effect all over the world . I think to be able to walk down a street with a rifle falls in this kind of category.

reply to post by freedomSlave


Well thats your opinion, but it is not the law, and it certainly isnt rooted in facts.
Most open carry and concealed carry laws were implemented in the late 20th century.

The rise and fall of a military blogger

The facts are clear. The Army does NOT want honest bloggers. They want sheep.

It took him 15 years to figure that out?

freedomslave

it just blows my mind how one can think it is acceptable to walk down the street with a rifle because some law from centuries ago is somehow still applicable in today's world that we all live in . There are tons of stupid and irrelevant law still in effect all over the world . I think to be able to walk down a street with a rifle falls in this kind of category.

Speaking of bizzare laws, there is this one:

In South Carolina it is legal to beat your wife on the court house steps on Sundays.

But I agree with you. Except it shouldn't matter if they knew he was an army man or not, someone is the army is just as capable of using that weapon in a violent scenario. With all the violent gun attacks as of late, I can see why the police responded in the way that they did. But somehow, this story gets viewed as another attack on the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, its fine if you want to own a rifle. But there is a time and place to brandish it, and walking down the street isn't it.

Originally posted by freedomSlave

it just blows my mind how one can think it is acceptable to walk down the street with a rifle because some law from centuries ago is somehow still applicable in today's world that we all live in . There are tons of stupid and irrelevant law still in effect all over the world . I think to be able to walk down a street with a rifle falls in this kind of category.

It just blows my mind that liberals like you think it is ok to steal our freedoms and tell free people what they can and cannot do with regard to God given, Constitutionally Guaranteed rights.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by freedomSlave

 

Well thats your opinion, but it is not the law, and it certainly isnt rooted in facts.
Most open carry and concealed carry laws were implemented in the late 20th century.

The reason they waited so long was that because before the rise of the progressives in the 20th century, no law was needed. Everybody knew open carry was a God given right. That is why you saw people with rifle scabbards on their horses even when they rode into town. That is why, in many states, people had rifle racks with rifles and shotguns hanging in the back window of their pick up trucks.

Originally posted by TheSparrowSings


Yes, its fine if you want to own a rifle. But there is a time and place to brandish it, and walking down the street isn't it.

So now we want second amendment zones as well as the first amendment zones they already are trying to enforce. How about 4th amendment zones where you are only protected from search and seizure when big brother ok's it. Just because you accept your enslavement and servitude doesn't mean the rest of us have to.

reply to post by freedomSlave


i don't think the issue is what people feel safe with, if they feel
all fuzzy inside because someone has a weapon, that is their
problem to sort out.

legally is what matters, was it legal for him to walk around with a rifle,
answer... YES. So irregardless of what people feel, he was within his
rights (if he didn't do anything that we didn't get to see on the tape to raise
suspicion).

Thinking like that is exactly what is causing the problems with the pro and
anti gun crowds.... they 'feel' threatened,so they cry and wine and pitch a
fit, never mind stop to see if it is totally legal to do, in which case, the problem is
theirs not the person with the weapon.

Personally i have no problems seeing anyone with any weapon as long as
they are responsible. I don't go cry because i am to immature to understand
that it is within their legal rights to do so.

what a clear example of authoritative abuse.

anyone else catch the question at the end ?
soldier - "so, anyone with a gun is a danger?"
cop - yes.


i do hope they realize that perception works both ways ... approach any situation with a gun and you ARE a threat and will be perceived as such.
i hope they're enjoying this environment that they created.