Fort Bragg soldier arrested for having assault rifle in mall. What is up with this?

MSgt Manuel Diaz, yes, he does have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, unless otherwise expressly prohibited by local or state ordinance as is clearly the case in this instance. Part of being a responsible gun owner is knowing the local laws and obeying them. Blatantly disregarding local firearms ordinances, particularly in a densely-populated location at a time when the FBI, DHS, and the news media is cautioning extra vigilance due to an increased potential for terrorist attacks demonstrates both irresponsibility and a sense of indifference on the part of this Soldier. He needlessly alarmed the public and disrupted business for over an hour as a direct result of his carelessness. You attempt to fault the police, saying they over-reacted. No MSgt, the police were doing their due diligence, sweeping the mall and ensuring that another shooter was in fact not on the premises. It is not the duty of the police to escort an armed idiot to and from his photo shoot. As for whatever he is or is not charged with, that is not up to the police, that's the prosecutor's call. Whatever he's charged with, he only has himself to blame; he's the one who chose to knowingly break the law.

MAJ (Join to see) - Situations or Circumstances Where Carrying a Gun is Illegal

The following rules govern when you may not carry a gun in North Carolina. They do not apply to law enforcement or retired law enforcement officers.

Unless you are on your own premises, you may not carry a concealed firearm without a concealed carry permit. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-269.)
You may not carry a weapon onto a campus or other educational property. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-269.2.)
You may not carry a weapon into establishments where alcoholic beverages are sold. This does not apply to owners of such an establishment, when in their own establishment; or people participating in an event, when the weapon is carried with the permission of the establishment’s owner or the organizer of the event. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-269.3.)
You may not carry a weapon on certain state property or courthouses. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-269.4.)
You may not carry a weapon at a parade, funeral procession, picket line, or other demonstration, except for guns carried on a rack in a pickup truck. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-277.2.)
You may not carry a weapon during civil disorder, riot, or other disturbance involving three or more people. (N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-288.20.) No mention of shopping mall Maj

could the police done that yes. Could they of done something else and resolved this without and arrest yes. but that is a valid charge and it is illegal to scare people with a firearm in North Carolina and that is what he was charged with.

Sgt Matthew Howell to intentionally scare someone and for someone to be afraid of anything anytime is the same as those idiots always being offended at everything that seems to follow their mood of the day. Common sense should prevail with both parties. Making someone a young man a felon for the rest of his life for bad judgment isn't the answer, he was only wanting to have a photograph of himself with his weapon. Think about all the dumb ass things you did growingup and were not convicted of by luck or Devine guidance. Today's rules and regulations are without a doubt taken away many freedoms. Do not allow the government to make life following a dotted line that if strayed from you are arrested and made a felon.

Does it really make any difference? Poor judgement is poor judgement. Especially during these times!

I agree Sgt David G Duchesneau, he was an idiot who used extremely poor judgement. However, the media calling an AR-15 an assault rifle is part of an agenda designed to garner support for an anti-second amendment movement.

MSG Ramon Hidalgo-Acosta trust, me when i tell you I knew also. I mentioned it so that people might stop perpetuating the media's agenda.

LTC Yinon Weiss - This breaks it down pretty good. The mall did have a sign saying so firearms. Which might to it being unusual. The pic is of his gear. But keep in mind as law enforcement we will charge a person with something like this often. If it is a misdemeanor you will base your arrest on witness statements. They may have had even to charge him. They may have not have had a choice but to charge him. This is the same with Domestic Violence in NC. If I see a scratch on the victim or if they just say they hit them I have to arrest them. Now when he goes to count they will decide if he is guilty or not. I don't think he will be but I do think they had enough to charge him.

CPT (Join to see) - There is no doubt that the police should have responded and investigated. However, this specific law says that it's for a subject that "arms himself with an unusual and dangerous weapon for the purpose of terrifying others and goes about on public highways in a manner to cause terror to the people." In this situation, 1) it was not an unusual weapon (the most popular rifle in the country), 2) the purpose was not to terrify others, and 3) he was not doing it in a manner to cause terror (note this requires *intent*). To clarify, I'm by no means saying that he was doing was appropriate, but just reacting to the law as it is written.

The problem with curtailing rights based purely on the response of others is that other citizens can take away you rights. For example, let's say you go out in public and begin reading Dr. Seuss, and the police get 20-30 calls that you are inciting violence because they actually just don't like you. When the police arrive, everybody agrees that the person was only reading from Dr. Seuss. Should you be arrested because 20-30 people made those statements, only to let the court figure it out later? Can anyone's first amendment rights be curtailed because others simply feel that it is inciting violence, or does some common sense need to be applied before arresting? Similarly, let's say 30 people who are very fearful of guns and anti-gun in general find somebody who is peacefully carrying in a public place that he is allowed to, and those 30 people call the police. Should he automatically be arrested because those 30 people decided that they were offended and scared by the sight of a holstered gun? Should people's gun rights be curtailed because others decide they are afraid, despite the fact that the original person was not acting in a threatening way except for simply being? This is the risk we run. Again, I'm not saying that what this guy did was smart or ok, but I don't see how the stated law matches up with the actual arrest. Even the assistant police chief said he wasn't threatening anyone. Combined with our military canceling the celebration of our nation's birth, I just feel like people are living and acting more and more out fear. It's not the right direction.

A prosecuter can legally charge someone of a crime IF the action was done either: 1. Recklessly 2. Intentionally 3. Knowingly. That action was reckless no matter how you look at it.

LTC Yinon Weiss - But you have to see the totality of the situation. The mention of the unusual and dangerous weapon is not just about the weapon itself. Would you say it is an unusual and dangerous weapon to take into a mall? It is unusually to see such a weapon in the mall and it is dangerous. Now the issue with the intent is that the police can't assess that. It would see old to do such a thing. But in the same way when you charge someone with murder you don't know if that was their intent or if it was a crime of circumstance.

Now what usually happens you take them to the magistrate that will asses if the crime met the elements. The magistrate will make the final call. The police are bound to bring them to the suspect there. The magistrate will some times say he is an idiot and drop it there, set an unsecure bond with a courted, or set a bail. I will say if you kill a person you will be charged period with something. If it was in self defense you will usually being given an unsecure bond and be allowed to leave but this way it will enter the court and the DA can make their assessment with case.

What if he wasn't just going to take a picture? What if he wasn't going to do something else? What if MAJ Hussan in Fort Hood got arrested for bringing a gun onto the base even before coming to work that day? Would we have seen various groups complain that it was only an accident and that he was a soldier? It just doesn't seem right. To me. Why would you bring a kit with you to mall load with loaded mags? Couldn't he have gone to another studio not in the mall? Didn't he see the signs saying no guns in the mall? He lived there and I am sure he went there often. There are too many issues that raise up. I think he got what he had coming. I don't like defending gun rights in cases like this. He was wrong or stupid. Either way he wasn't trying to exercise his rights.

Common sense is so rare, it's a frakkin' SUPERPOWER!