Nurse: 3 soldiers unafraid facing Fort Hood gunman

Breitbart.com ^ | 10.19.10 | ANGELA K. BROWN

[IYAS9YAS]

Absolutely.

Allow guns, yes. Still do (on duty and duty specific). Allow off-duty or non-job specific carry on base? No (obvious exceptions being Afghanistan and Iraq). Unless you were on duty and armed as part of your job duties, there was never any type of carry (on your person) allowed when I was in (1987-1994). It was that way when I got in under Reagan, and out under Clinton. It certainly pre-dated Reagan. None of the bases I was on allowed it (both Army and USAF).

[B4Ranch]

If I worked with this guys food supply he would eat ham, unbeknownst to him, everyday of his life.

[Candor7]

Correct.I just think they are all jihadists. You think they are all Muslims.

But we are at war with all of them.

[ExGeeEye]

I don’’t know Fort Bragg’s policy in 1991-92; I didn’t think twice about throwing a rifle in the trunk in the morning at my off-post home so I could go to a civilian range on the way home in the evening.

When I got to Fort Hood in 1995 I was informed it was forbidden to keep and bear privately owned arms on post. So I left ‘em at home...

[Soothesayer9]

Not to mention in addition to M.L. King Day, we’d have Worship Obama day.

[Gabrial]

I say bury him waist deep and let the wounded survivors stone him to death. That should fit right in with his Islamic sensibilities.

[Brucifer]

Let’s just consider that after he gets his 72 virgins... they’ll all stay virgins.

[W. W. SMITH]

He doesn’t care. And he won’t ever care.

Just promise him a very well made burial shroud, made of pig skin. Now watch him care!

[X-FID]

Hundreds had converted and come to live with the settlers, cutting their hair, adopting Pilgrim ways.

Now that's just funny.

[Defiant]

Their ponytails were a big deal to them, apparently. The Pilgrims made them cut them off when they converted.

[OneWingedShark]

41 CFR, Sub part C § 102-74.440 (What is the policy concerning weapons on Federal property?) Federal law prohibits the possession of firearms or other dangerous weapons in Federal facilities and Federal court facilities by all persons not specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C. 930. Violators will be subject to fine and/or imprisonment for periods up to five (5) years.

Constitutional Law prohibits the infringement on the PERSONAL right to bear arms; furthermore, Conspiracy Against Rights, a federal law, is defined [in part] as "two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State [...] in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;" the punishment thereof may, under certain circumstances be a capital crime ("and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap [...] or an attempt to kill, they [...] may be sentenced to death."); given that one could well argue that 'false arrest' does indeed qualify as kidnap, then as this law makes no provision against "Law Enforcement Officers" who are 'in execution of their duties' then it stands to reason that any Law Enforcement type who enforces a law contrary to the Constitution may indeed be in danger of death.

[Kenny Bunk]

The Pilgrims, who were somewhat religiously and culturally different than the Puritans, with whom they are always confused, had a bit of "history" with the local Indians that explains a lot.

It seems that the local Indians, who were a tall, quite fair-skinned, and healthy, and good-looking, were quite insulted that that the Pilgrim would not intermarry with them. Pilgrim wise guys, of whom there were more than a few, found the Indian girls very attractive and enjoyed "dating" them. OTOH, the Pilgrim girls did not "date" the local Indian fellows.

This led to bad feelings. That, and the Pilgrims taking over the painstaking cleared Indian corn fields and fencing them, while allowing their livestock to graze in those remaining to the Indians, who didn't understand fences.

The Pilgrims were not at all those grim guys marching to services with their muskets and black clothes. Once they got the food thing under control and had some creature comforts going for them, they were actually a rather jolly bunch, unlike the Puritans up in Boston.

The exiling of the assimilated Indians to the islands and their subsequent death was probably an unecessary measure with tragic consequences. They could have just sent them out of town. Indians never had a problem fighting Indians, either.

[ASOC]

Look, all I know is that if you carry a piece on Federal property and get caught -
You go to jail
You do not pass GO and you do not collect $200.

“Constituional law” is one thing, but the guy with the gun pointed at you (the cops) is an all together different gig.

I follow the rules because I don’t want to get locked up.

I didn’t write the Code of Federal Regulations, I do point up the law (link or text) in case anyone on the board is interested.

If you wish to test the law in court - help yourself.

[OneWingedShark]

I'd prefer to start on a smaller scale; fortunately for me I've been presented such an opportunity.
My State constitution has a portion which reads as follows:

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Article II - Bill of Rights

Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]

All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

Now, there is also a State Stature which reads as follows:

NMSA 30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.

A. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
     (1) a peace officer;
     (2) university security personnel;
     (3) a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
     (4) a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
     (5) a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.

B. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.

C. As used in this section:
     (1) "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
     (2) "university premises" means:
          (a) the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
          (b) any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.

D. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

Now, it is obvious that by barring firearms from "the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted" the Citizens living in on-campus housing. Keep in mind that the existence of this law is completely separate from any policies/rules that the University may enact because it is a State Law. Furthermore, arguments that the University may have -- as condition for acceptance/admittance -- one sign-away the right to keep and bear arms let me point out that the quoted Sec 4 refers to such as "inherent and inalienable rights," and thusly they are not able to be signed away.

So, I could openly carry on my campus and if I should be arrested/charged thereby for violating NMSA 30-7-2.4 the worst case for me would be that I would have a misdemeanor on my record. However, should I prevail I can have this contra-Constitutional law stricken from existence... it may even be possible to raise a counter-suit against the arresting officers and the prosecution themselves for Conspiracy Against Rights.

[FlyingEagle]

Good info.

Trying to figure out how that squares with “shall not be infringed”.

[Still Thinking]

Dude, he’s talking about the FH shooter, “Hasan”, not Zero.

[Still Thinking]

Did military facilities allow guns when Bush was president?... Absolutely.

Huh? Not that I'm aware of. Not defending the policy, but it's not an Obama thing.

[This Just In]

First of all, I question ALL things PBS. Case and point: the new John Adams DVD.

Secondly, you can hardly site the Japanese internment camps. Not ALL Japanese Americans were interned. The camps were located on the WEST coast, and a couple in Hawaii(FYI, Japanese weren’t strictly required to be detained in HI due to the impact this would have on the economy, and they may have been less of a threat). Furthermore, no one is suggesting that all Muslims be interned or deported.

[This Just In]

Thank you

[Safetgiver]

The answer to the question was “Yes”... for on duty personnel. MP’s, range officers, etc.