The Brett Kimberlin Saga:

Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Let’s Do This: End Military Gun-Free Zones

Some of you might be reading this as regular readers of my blog.  And some of you might be reading this because I posted a petition on the White House website.  Either way, let me share my thoughts on the issue.

About an hour ago, I spoke with a friend of mine who was very happy to get his/her car back.  You see this person, who will remain anonymous, worked at the Washington Navy Yard that was attacked Monday and up until today this person couldn’t get back his/her car.  So I asked, “I had heard that most military bases are basically gun free zones—only the guards are allowed to carry.”

This person verified that this was the case and indeed people on base wondered why this was the case.  This person pointed out that military personnel were allowed to have their guns in airports if they were in uniform, so the natural question was why they couldn’t have it on base?

It all comes from back in 1993 when these rules were instituted under Bill Clinton:

Among President Clinton’s first acts upon taking office in 1993 was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases. In March 1993, the Army imposed regulations forbidding military personnel from carrying their personal firearms and making it almost impossible for commanders to issue firearms to soldiers in the U.S. for personal protection. For the most part, only military police regularly carry firearms on base, and their presence is stretched thin by high demand for MPs in war zones.

Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood, home of the heavily armed and feared 1st Cavalry Division. That’s why a civilian policewoman from off base was the one whose marksmanship ended Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan’s rampage.

I equally noted the complete insanity of this when discussing the following testimony in the Hasan trial:

Amid the carnage described Friday were moments of heroism. Spc. Logan Burnett said he saw Capt. John Gaffaney try to attack Hasan with a chair before he was shot and killed. Burnett said he also tried to throw a folding table at Hasan, but was shot in the hip before he could throw it. Burnett was shot another two times as he crawled to safety.

CW2 Christopher Royal testified that he saw Hasan chase another soldier, Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, out of the building and shoot him before going back inside. Royal said that Hasan left the building again shortly after and began shooting at him, hitting him in the back. Royal said he saw Hasan move toward a crowded theater hosting a graduation ceremony.

“I ran to try to get there before he got there,” he said. Royal was able to tell soldiers at the theater to lock up the building.

As I wrote at the time:

But the depressing thing in reading all of that is it also makes it clear how unnecessary these deaths were.  Reading of these soldiers having to hide behind locked doors, having to resort to throwing chairs in the hope of stopping him, it reminds you of an absolutely insane fact: this military base was a gun-free zone.  It illustrates exactly how easily this whole thing would have been stopped if only everyone was allowed to carry a gun....

From the missed warning signs to this gun-free idiocy, it is clear that our military bureaucracy failed those soldiers in Ft. Hood, not only failing to protect them but positively impairing their ability to protect themselves.  Their heroism is an indictment on that bureaucracy.

(Citations omitted.)

This is an issue that should bring conservatives and liberals together.  This is because all of the usual liberal arguments against the widespread bearing of arms simply don’t apply when talking about military professionals.

For instance, many of the pro-gun-control theories are predicated on the idea that ordinary people can’t be trusted with guns.

One common thread in this reasoning is the belief that that if lots of ordinary people were armed that if they got angry for any reason they would just start getting all “murdery” and start shooting people.  Small arguments would erupt into gunfire.  This is fed in significant part by Hollywood which seems to believe that people were killing each other all the time in the Wild West (this was not true), and that if society should crumble (such as with a nuclear apocalypse) that people would suddenly become all “murder” and “rapey” (see, e.g., The Road Warrior).

Whatever application that has to regular citizens, it has no application to the military.  If you can’t trust an enlisted man or woman to have a gun without just murdering the first person who is rude to them, then they don’t belong in the military at all.

Another common belief among the gun-control left is that ordinary people, however well intentioned, will present a greater danger to others and potentially themselves just because they don’t know what they are doing with a gun.  For instance, I have argued that if the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, had a gun owner in it, the massacre might have been significantly reduced and I have had liberals actually argue that they were afraid that such a person might hit an innocent bystander.  This is true even though the suspect, Holmes, stood in the front of the theater, which means that it wasn’t like there were people behind him or next to him who might be shot by accident.  Still, they insist, even in the midst of a massacre, it is better to leave the guns to the professionals.

Except that the military are the professionals.  They are trained in the use of guns.  They are taught how to hit what they aim for and to avoid innocent—i.e. civilian—casualties.  Indeed anyone who is familiar with the military’s rules of engagement knows that they have to be solicitous to the danger of harming innocents to the point that they endanger their own lives—foolishly, in my opinion.

So in every sense of the word, these are the people whom you can trust with guns.  You can trust them not to harm innocents, intentionally or otherwise.  So why exactly should we continue to disarm them?

This is not to say that this will prevent every potential massacre.  Carrying a gun doesn’t prevent a bad guy from getting the drop on you.  Indeed, at this point we cannot be sure that this would have even mitigated the massacre last Monday.  As I often say, a gun is not a magic force-field that prevents others from being able to shoot you.  It just means that you might have a fighting chance at defending yourself and others.

So let’s do this, people.  Right and left should be able to come together on this.  Convince the President if we can, pass a law if we must.  But we permit our enlisted men and women to carry a gun to defend this country: they should be allowed to carry a gun to defend themselves.

To that end I have submitted a petition to the White House’s petition website seeking a change in policy.  Please take a look at it, here, and if you are inclined, sign it.  If we get enough signatures, the White House will be obligated to respond.  Let them explain to us exactly why it is they don’t trust our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with guns.  Because there is nothing, except a irrational hatred of gun ownership, that can justify this ban any longer.



I have accused some people, particularly Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible conduct.  In some cases, the conduct is even criminal.  In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system.  I do not want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such violence.  This kind of conduct is not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him.  Do not call him.  Do not write him a letter.  Do not write him an email.  Do not text-message him.  Do not engage in any kind of directed communication.  I say this in part because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on his property.  Don’t sneak around and try to photograph him.  Frankly try not to even be within his field of vision.  Your behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his organizations, either.  And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might report.  And even then if he tells you to stop contacting him, obey that request.  That this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else.  In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above.  But if any of you have, stop it, and if you haven’t don’t start.


  1. I have been hacking at this issue for some time. I am a retired Army Officer, still working as a federal employee on an Army base.

    A couple years ago I presented a proposition to the chain of command on my installation that CCW holders be allowed to carry on-post, with the possibility of some training/demonstration of skills/certification/etc. It was poorly received, at best. One officer even went so far as to opine that it would put him in danger should he correct a subordinate's shortcomings if he or she were armed. The officer was wearing a combat patch, and obviously a veteran of Iraq or Afghanistan. I asked him if he didn't do any counselling for the entire year he was "downrange" and everyone was armed. His answer: "...."

    Army Regulation 190-11, paragraph 4-5 is the problem. It was changed in Jun of 2011 to prohibit the commanding general of an installation (who once had the option) from allowing even off-duty law enforcement officers, let alone holders of concealed carry permits from their state, to carry on post.

    Oddly, however, paragraph 4-9 allows generals to do as they please with their weapons. (/sarc)

  2. Hell, the TPTB don't even trust our soldiers with forks when the president visits a military base.

  3. Trained and qualified Officers should immediately be armed.