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.
The tank platoon leader was booked on four felony counts of carrying outside the home, which threatened a maximum penalty of a $20,000 fine and 20 years imprisonment. “I knew if I got one felony, my military career would be over,” Lt. Kim recalled.
The next day, he hired firearms attorney Richard Gardiner to represent him. After several months of negotiations, Mr. Gardiner persuaded the U.S. attorney to offer a deal in which Lt. Kim would plead guilty to one misdemeanor charge of one unregistered gun which would then be dismissed if he avoided violating the law for nine months. Though all charges were dropped a year ago, Lt. Kim’s record has not yet been expunged.
In June, the U.S. attorney’s office had certified Mr. Kim’s $10,000 worth of guns were no longer needed for evidence, but the city wouldn’t release them. The District also ignored Mr. Gardiner’s letter from December asking for their return. “This is legalized theft,” said Mr. Gardiner. “The charges were dropped, and they don’t give you your property back?”
If they don’t make an example of Mr. Gardiner, they might have all sorts of military veterans keeping disabled firearms cased and stored out of their reach. Even regular people might do it. Oh, the horror.
This is why you don’t play with gun laws. Transportation exceptions only allow straight travel from one location to another with basic stops (such as to buy gas or sleep) in between. Some jurisdictions only grudgingly allow the federal requirement and will nicely apologize while imprisoning you for insane periods of time no matter your veteran or legal status.
“It is illegal to possess a firearm anywhere in the District other than the home.”
So how in heck are you supposed to GET it home?
Clearly this illegal seizure (no warrant!) is a violation of his rights under both the 2nd and 4th amendments.
The tyrants are getting bolder. When will we cease to tolerate such abuse?
Tad, weapons laws have a transport provision that allow you to carry a weapon between two authorized locations, such as your home and the gun range. However, the exception allows only for transport and to cover immediate needs. For example, stopping for gas or if you are going very long distances, at a motel. Of course, different states interpret this differently.
If you are doing anything vaguely transport-related, a Texas Ranger would ask to see the weapon while chatting you up about Revolvers vs Semi-Automatics and recommend the best motel in the next town.
However, I wouldn’t even stop at the McDonald’s drivethrough in DC.
First, tending to his medical situation qualifies as an “immediate need,” as anyone who’s ever dealt with military medicine (or Walter Reed specifically) can tell you. Fine. As a soldier, he may or may not have violated military ordinances by having them in his trunk while at Walter Reed. If he did, he’s most definitely subject to military authority and punishment, but that’s not up to the civilian authorities
Second, “…the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed,” says the Constitution. Therefore, ANY law restricting an individual’s right to bear ANY arms is at least theoretically unconstitutional, pending an applicable Amendment…. nope, still none yet. Even if we pretend this rule is only about hand-held firearms, in light of the legal deal made, the CIVILIAN authorities are now also guilty of illegal search and siezure; those weapons are his, and he committed no other crimes beyond possessing them in an area ruled by socialists bent on perpetuating an unarmed government-dependent populace. The refusal to hand over his property is a gross violation of his Constitutional rights, and I hope he obtains the fullest extent of any judgement possible in all future proceedings, in court or otherwise.
When he pulled into Walter Reed, he was no longer in transit through the city. Local ordinances then applied. Federal protections ended. He broke the law.
DC cops were asses to enforce this, but it is the law.
The courts allow local governments to place restrictions on ownership. Don’t look for relief from the courts.
Don’t look for the Congress to guarantee certain basic possession rights.
The solution in this case is through the ballot, replacing the people in charge of D.C.
Ain’t going to happen, is it?
He did break their laws and in this case, the law is indeed an ass.