8/01/2011: Fort Wainwright soldier pulls gun on cop, ends up getting shot

http://www.adn.com/2011/08/01/1995427/trooper-shoots-armed-man-at-delta.html  I am glad that our well-regulated militia has access to firearms–it prevented a crime in this case.  Too bad that just about any Tom, Dick and Harry can get their hands on a gun, and then create problems for the rest of us.

One Response

  1. Do you realize that this soldier was likely subject to all the gun control you could want?

    As a junior enlisted member, he probably lived on base. Therefore any weapons he owned must be registered by serial number. He would be required to obtain permission — essentially a license — from his commander to register them. The weapon would be required to be safely stored in the armory. I’m not sure about Ft Wainwright’s exact procedures, but many army units require the soldier to have written permission from their CO to take out the weapon; almost all allow the NCO at the armory to subjectively deny the request to check out the weapon for basically any reason.

    USARAK continues to ban concealed carry for all soldiers in Alaska even when off-post, despite the DoD reauthorization bill that would seem to make such an order unlawful. Obviously, carrying personal weapons on base is strictly prohibited except under limited circumstances (such as taking them to the armory).

    So how exactly did any of that gun control prevent him from doing something stupid?

    Additionally, the guy was part of the group you consider to be the “well regulated militia,” i.e., the professional full time military, who should be the “only ones” permitted to bear arms. You trust him to be armed in order to do counterinsurgency, protecting the civilian populations of foreign lands, doing this work with little supervision (the US delegates more autonomy and initiative to jr enlisted members than almost any other army in the history of the world). So even if we had complete citizen disarmament as you advocate, this individual would be among the elite few with permission to bear arms. He certainly wasn’t any “Tom, Dick or Harry” as you suggest.

    Finally, if you look him up in CourtView, you’ll find that he’s subject to a restraining order. He may indeed be a prohibited person, i.e., it may be a felony for him to touch a gun. This is especially disturbing as the military checks on “Lautenberg Amendment” status relatively frequently and requires regular sworn statements on the issue so as to avoid violating federal law. Even far more stringent checks then would ever be practicable to institute on the civilian population (based solely on expense–run the math and see how expensive a basic background check is, then multiply by 300 million… we’re not even touching the civil liberties issue associated with running background checks on every single adult in the country…) failed to pick that up apparently.

    So why exactly should this any rational person consider this story to be an example of why we need to restrict bearing arms to solely the uniformed military, and why we should impose strict army-style gun control which didn’t work on the entire civil population?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: