Man guarding recruitment center accidentally fires shot

[GMDino]

http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/story/news/local/2015/07/23/armed-volunteer-fires-shot/30574117/

Quote:No one was injured in an accidental shooting near a U.S. Armed Forces Recruiting Center on Thursday.

An armed volunteer guarding the U.S. Army Recruiting Center accidentally fired a shot just after noon, according to Lancaster police.

Christopher Reed, 28, of Lancaster, is one of the volunteers who have been guarding the Lancaster recruiting site following the shooting and killing of five service members at an unguarded recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, last week.

The volunteers were a group of citizens who are guarding recruiting centers across the country. Their goal is to not stop guarding the recruiting centers until members of the military at recruiting centers were able to arm themselves for protection.

According to a Lancaster police report, the shooting occurred between 11:30 a.m. and 12:01 p.m. outside the recruiting office, 1534 River Valley Circle.

"I was out here and was talking to a guy who wanted to look at my AR-15," said Reed in an interview with the Eagle-Gazette. "I was trying to clear the weapon and hand it over to him when it went off. I thought it was empty and must have missed it."

Reed said he had the gun pointed down at the time and the bullet hit the pavement.

"Listen, it was a mistake. No one was injured and I owned up to it immediately with the police," Reed said. "I'm glad no one was hurt. I am willing to take the punishment."

The Lancaster police report said the "only damage done was a hole in the pavement."

The police report also said that Reed had said several people "were standing in the area, but they left prior to (the police officer's) arrival and he doesn't know who they were."

Volunteers, including Reed, were back in front of the Lancaster recruiting center after the incident, many carrying sidearms and some with rifles.

Reed, carrying a sidearm Thursday afternoon, said they intended to stay in front of the recruiting station until the military could carry weapons to protect themselves.

The police confiscated the AR-15 and issued Reed a citation for discharging a firearm in the city limits, which is a fourth-degree misdemeanor. He is scheduled to appear in Fairfield County Municipal Court on July 28.

The police report indicated the police would keep his gun until he appears in municipal court.

[*bfine32*]

Looks like we better get the Professionals armed pronto.

At least these guys are trying to help. it's just unfortunate that they feel this is something they must do to protect those that protect us.

[BmorePat87]

I haven't kept up with this, but are they not allowed to be armed in the center? How backwards would it be if they can't be armed but some dork in crocs can open carry outside their recruitment center. They're professional soldiers.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 03:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I haven't kept up with this, but are they not allowed to be armed in the center? How backwards would it be if they can't be armed but some dork in crocs can open carry outside their recruitment center. They're professional soldiers.

They are not allowed. That is why this civilians felt compelled to do so. To me they should be armed; it is simply a question of open carry versus concealed carry. 

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 03:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Looks like we better get the Professionals armed pronto.

At least these guys are trying to help. it's just unfortunate that they feel this is something they must do to protect those that protect us.

(07-26-2015, 03:35 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I haven't kept up with this, but are they not allowed to be armed in the center? How backwards would it be if they can't be armed but some dork in crocs can open carry outside their recruitment center. They're professional soldiers.

I'm not sure about the resoning for them not being armed, but the Pentagon asked this wannabes to please stop.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33662891

Quote:The Pentagon has urged US citizens not to carry out armed patrols outside military recruitment centres.


Civilians acting as unofficial guards have appeared outside some centres since five service personnel were shot dead last week in Tennessee.
Military personnel are generally barred from carrying firearms at recruitment centres and bases.

The Pentagon says it appreciates the support but armed civilians could pose an unintended security risk.

"While we greatly appreciate the outpouring of support for our recruiters from the American public, we ask that individuals not stand guard at recruiting offices as it could adversely impact our mission, and potentially create unintended security risks," said spokesman Peter Cook in a statement.

"We continue to partner with and rely on first responders for the safety of the communities where our service members live and work."

]US authorities say 24-year-old gunman Muhammed Youssef Abdulazeez acted alone when he attacked two military facilities in Chattanooga, Tennessee, killing five US service members.

Abdulazeez was shot and killed by police during the attack. His motive was unclear.
Since then, armed civilians - some of them members of private militias - have turned up outside recruitment centres saying they are supporting those inside.
One group appeared in Cleburne, Texas, armed with assault rifles and calling themselves Operation Hero Guard.

In Lancaster, Ohio, armed civilians were ordered off the property after one accidentally discharged his rifle into the pavement.

US officials say there is no indication of further danger to recruitment centres and the government does not intend to change the way they are staffed.

From what I gather its pretty common for military personnel to be unarmed unless there is a perceived threat.
I've seen several links to this from 2011.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/521056p.pdf
And then this article:
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/us-general-some-recruiting-station-soldiers-should-be-armed-1.359015

Quote:The ban is largely due to legal issues, such as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which prohibits the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. U.S. forces don't routinely carry guns when they are not in combat or on military bases. And Pentagon officials are sensitive to any appearance of armed troops within the United States.


The U.S. military has outlined security upgrades for recruiting stations, reserve centers and other facilities.
Military officials said security at recruiting and reserve centers will be reviewed, but Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army's current chief of staff, has said it's too early to say whether the facilities should have security guards or other increased protection. He said there are concerns about accidental discharges and other security issues related to carrying loaded weapons.

Which also contained this nugget:

Quote:Just outside Atlanta, a recruiter accidently shot himself in the leg with his personal .45-caliber pistol while discussing the Tennessee shootings with one of his recruits. Officials said he showed the sailor the unloaded gun, then reloaded it and inadvertently discharged it as he was putting it back in his holster.

[*Nately120*]

Wait, aren't these people supposed to be wandering around schools with their assault rifles? Is that no longer a popular issue?

[Belsnickel]

That's my thing, we have seen a lot of concern about a militarized police force, but military personnel being armed in a domestic capacity is in that same direction.

[*Nately120*]

(07-26-2015, 04:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's my thing, we have seen a lot of concern about a militarized police force, but military personnel being armed in a domestic capacity is in that same direction.

It's all in the name of freedom and safety...er, that is unless black guys start patrolling towns and school with assault rifles.  That might not go well.

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 04:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's all in the name of freedom and safety...er, that is unless black guys start patrolling towns and school with assault rifles.  That might not go well.

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/

Quote:In November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President John F. Kennedy with an Italian military surplus rifle that Owsald bought from a mail-order ad in the NRA’s American Rifleman magazine. In congressional hearings that soon followed, NRA Executive Vice-President Frankin Orth supported a ban in mail-order sales, saying, “We do think that any sane American, who calls himself an American, can object to placing into this bill the instrument which killed the president of the United States.”


But no new federal gun control laws came until 1968. The assassinations of civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were the tipping point, coming after several summers of race-related riots in American cities. The nation’s white political elite feared that violence was too prevalent and there were too many people—especially urban Black nationalists—with access to guns. In May 1967, two dozen Black Panther Party members walked into the California Statehouse carrying rifles to protest a gun-control bill, prompting then-Gov. Ronald Reagan to comment, “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”


The Gun Control Act of 1968 reauthorized and deepened the FDR-era gun control laws. It added a minimum age for gun buyers, required guns have serial numbers and expanded people barred from owning guns from felons to include the mentally ill and drug addicts. Only federally licensed dealers and collectors could ship guns over state lines. People buying certain kinds of bullets had to show I.D. But the most stringent proposals—a national registry of all guns (which some states had in colonial times) and mandatory licenses for all gun carriers—were not in it. The NRA blocked these measures. Orth told America Riflemen magazine that while part of the law “appears unduly restrictive, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”


...


in the mid-1960s, the Black Panthers were better-known than the NRA for expressing that view of the Second Amendment. By 1968, however, Burbick notes that the NRA’s magazine’s most assertive editorials began saying the problem was fighting crime and not guns—which we hear today. The 1968 law ordered the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the new gun laws. In 1971, ATF raided a lifetime NRA member’s house who was suspected of having a large illegal arms cache and shot and killed him. That prompted “the ardent reactionary William Leob,” then editor of New Hampshire’s  influential Manchester Union Leader newspaper, to call the federal agents “Treasury Gestapo,” Burbick noted, even though later evidence confirmed the weapons cache. Loeb and other white libertarians with podiums started to assert that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to guns—like the Black Panthers. But, of course, they were seeking to keep America’s white gun owners fully armed.

A split started to widen inside the NRA. Gun dealers thought they were being harassed. Rural states felt they were being unduly punished for urban America’s problems. In 1975, the NRA created a new lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, under Harlon B. Carter, a tough-minded former chief of the U.S. Border Patrol who shared the libertarian goal of expanding gun owners’ rights. Burdick writes that “by 1976, the political rhetoric had gained momentum and the bicentennial year brought out a new NRA campaign, ‘designed to enroll defenders of the right to keep and bear arms’ in numbers equal to ‘the ranks of the patriots who fought in the American Revolution.’”

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 04:04 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's all in the name of freedom and safety...er, that is unless black guys start patrolling towns and school with assault rifles.  That might not go well.

If a terrorist organization stated that their intention is to target schools stateside and kill the students; then a "lone wolf" did that exact thing I would absolutely applaud anyone that volunteered to stand watch; especially, if the Government refused to allow those specifically trained to do so do it.

How about you? 

[*Nately120*]

(07-26-2015, 04:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If a terrorist organization stated that their intention is to target schools stateside and kill the students I would absolutely applaud anyone that volunteered to stand watch; especially, if the Government refused to allow those specifically trained to do so do it.

How about you? 

Ida know, I'm not sure how quick I am to applaud heavily armed and possibly untrained strangers wandering around children brandishing assault rifles.  Would you feel better if I showed up with an assault rifle and watched your kids all day?  You know, in case a terrorist comes by?  My record is clean, but I do look kinda shady, I'll admit.

Don't talk to strangers kids! But if one shows up with an assault rifle you should thank him for protecting you from terrorists.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 04:16 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Ida know, I'm not sure how quick I am to applaud heavily armed and possibly untrained strangers wandering around children brandishing assault rifles.  Would you feel better if I showed up with an assault rifle and watched your kids all day?  You know, in case a terrorist comes by?  My record is clean, but I do look kinda shady, I'll admit.

Don't talk to strangers kids!  But if one shows up with an assault rifle you should thank him for protecting you from terrorists.

They remain outside of the facility; they do not "wander around"; however, making that up makes it sound worse.

So I take it that your answer is no; you would not want folks volunteering to protect these children. 

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 04:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They remain outside of the facility; they do not "wander around"; however, making that up makes it sound worse.

So I take it that your answer is no; you would not want folks volunteering to protect these children. 

Well thank goodness they have magical bullets that wouldn't go through a window in the facility if accidentally discharged!

Serious question though...how many time have terrorist attacked a school on US soil?

Is this such a huge problem?

I mean its nice that they care about other people's kids and all, but did we really even need it?

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 04:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well thank goodness they have magical bullets that wouldn't go through a window in the facility if accidentally discharged!

Serious question though...how many time have terrorist attacked a school on US soil?

Is this such a huge problem?

I mean its nice that they care about other people's kids and all, but did we really even need it?

It was used as a response to Nately bringing schools (and for some really strange reason race) into the equation. Perhaps the largest terrorist group in the world stated that they would attack and kill Service members on American soil, now it has started happening. Imerely asked would he be against the process if this same organization stated we are now going to target and kill schools and the children  

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 04:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It was used as a response to Nately bringing schools (and for some really strange reason race) into the equation. Perhaps the largest terrorist group in the world stated that they would attack and kill Service members on American soil, now it has started happening. Imerely asked would he be against the process if this same organization stated we are now going to target and kill schools and the children  

Yes, I read that.  I found your response...lacking.

And one center has been attacked...by a US citizen.

So I ask again:  Is this a big enough problem to require random citizens patrolling public areas?

[BonnieBengal]

No, I don't think private citizens patrolling is a good idea. But our troops need to be armed. Disarming our troops on our soil is dangerous these days. It's saying we will never be attacked or need to defend ourselves on our own soil. We already know that's not true.

[*bfine32*]

(07-26-2015, 04:44 PM)GMDino Wrote: And one center has been attacked..

How many do you suggest it take?

[GMDino]

(07-26-2015, 04:50 PM)bfine32 Wrote: How many do you suggest it take?

Before we overreact?

[Belsnickel]

Our founding fathers were against a standing army overall for this country, they feared it. This is why the 2nd is for militias and why the Congress cannot appropriate funds for a period of longer than two years for raising armies. I can't fathom that people are wanting to arm a standing army on our own soil. The militarization of police is bad enough.

[*Nately120*]

(07-26-2015, 04:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They remain outside of the facility; they do not "wander around"; however, making that up makes it sound worse.

So I take it that your answer is no; you would not want folks volunteering to protect these children. 

In all fairness, this topic is about someone accidentally firing a round from an assault rifle while guarding a recruiting station from terrorists.  So to answer your question, no, I don't want that guy standing in front of a school.