(DC) N.C. Man Caught With Gun

Oatka

New member
N.C. Man Caught With Gun

Arrest Shows Disparity in Capitol Firearms Policy

By Lauren W. Whittington and Ben Pershing

A North Carolina man was arrested last week after he entered a House office building with a suitcase that contained a firearm.

There is no evidence that the man, Harold Watkins Jr., had intent to harm anyone. But it is a felony for a civilian to carry a handgun in the District of Columbia.

Watkins, a 46-year-old businessman from Wilson, N.C., was taken into police custody just after 8 a.m. Tuesday morning after he informed Capitol Police officers at the main entrance to the Longworth Building that the locked suitcase he was carrying contained a gun.

Watkins, who was in Washington for a Chamber of Commerce event, said he was unaware of "where D.C. began and Virginia ended" and that his permit to carry a concealed weapon is valid in Virginia.

Watkins' arrest highlights a quirk in Capitol Police guidelines that effectively grants lawmakers and their staffs a right to bear arms that no other civilian on the Hill - or anywhere in the District of Columbia - has.

Under Capitol Police guidelines, Members and their aides may bring unloaded, securely wrapped guns into the Capitol complex. Tourists and other Hill workers can't.

Watkins was on his way to a breakfast sponsored by his Congressman, Rep. Bob Etheridge (D), and several other members of the North Carolina delegation. Watkins had had dinner with Etheridge the night before and said he was unaware that he would be going to one of the Congressional office buildings that morning.

"The Longworth Building - that didn't register to me as a federal building," Watkins explained when reached Friday at his home in North Carolina. "If they'd have said the Capitol, of course I would have never even considered even coming close to the building with a weapon at all."

Upon entering the building and seeing the armed police officers and metal detectors, Watkins said he immediately went up to one of the officers, showed him his North Carolina-issued concealed weapon permit and told him that he had a gun in his suitcase.

"I knew then that I was in a situation that was improper," Watkins said.

At first, Watkins said the officers took the Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and five rounds of ammunition, locked it away and told him: "When you leave, Mr. Watkins, we will return your property." He then returned to the breakfast, but only briefly.

"I was escorted back to the Congressman's breakfast. ... I had one bite of eggs, I was taped on the shoulder - it was another officer," Watkins recalled.

It was at that point he was arrested and charged with "attempting to carry an unregistered concealed weapon." He appeared in D.C. court later that day and was released on his own recognizance.

Watkins said the reason he was carrying a gun was that he and his wife had been mugged while staying in Alexandria, Va., a year ago and that he felt that carrying the gun saved his life in that instance.

"I am a supporter and a very strong advocate of the Second Amendment," Watkins said. "I believe it allows us to have and hold the rest of the constitutional rights and the other parts of the Bill of Rights. That's my belief."

Lt. Dan Nichols, spokesman for the Capitol Police, said Watkins' situation is not uncommon, and that other visitors to the Capitol find themselves in similar situations because they are unfamiliar with the District's gun laws.

"Often times they have permits to carry guns in their home states and they're under the impression that their permits are valid here when in fact they're not," Nichols said, "and that leads to an arrestable offense."

But it would not have been an arrestable offense if Watkins had been a Member or staffer.

In August, the Capitol Police issued an operational directive that reiterated the department's longstanding gun policy, which states that "Members of Congress or, after verification, any agent or employee of a member of Congress that is carrying a firearm will be admitted to the Capitol Complex provided the firearm is unloaded and securely wrapped."

That policy contradicts D.C. law, which says, "No person shall carry within the District of Columbia either openly or concealed on or about their person, a pistol, without a license issued pursuant to District of Columbia law."

It is a felony for civilians to possess a handgun in the District. Residents may own a shotgun or a rifle if it is properly licensed.

But while Members and aides would technically have to violate District law just to transport a handgun to the Hill, Capitol Police are not under any obligation to report the offense to D.C. authorities.

"The regulations are promulgated for use on the Capitol grounds," said Nichols.

If a Member or aide brings a gun to the Capitol, Nichols said that Capitol Police officers do not have to inform the D.C. Metropolitan Police because "it's not our jurisdiction."

While this Capitol firearms policy has been in effect since 1967, many people on the Hill are unaware that it exists. Several aides and one top Congressional official were shocked when they were informed of the policy.

Part of the reason why the policy is not widely known is that there have been instances in recent years where aides have been arrested for trying to bring guns into the Capitol. In those cases, however, the aides did not follow the guidelines in the policy.

In April 1999, an aide to Rep. Bob Ney (R-Ohio) was arrested at an entrance to Longworth after a handgun he had stashed in a laundry bag set off a metal detector. He was charged with a misdemeanor.

And in 1997, a top aide to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) was arrested and charged with two misdemeanors after a Capitol Police officer noticed a shotgun in the aide's car. The shotgun was in violation of Capitol Police guidelines because it was loaded.

Copyright 2000 © Roll Call Inc.
 
No kidding Dennis, it would really break my heart if one of those poor dear sweet fellows got hurt. I especially like this quote:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
It is a felony for civilians to possess a handgun in the District. Residents may own a shotgun or a rifle if it is properly licensed. [/quote]

Guess us civilians just arn't as special as those .gov types.
 
Where is the outcry of damnation of this man for disobeying the law?

Hmmm???

next we'll find out that this guy Watkins recently discharged his weapon while showing it to a friend in a convienence store 6 months ago... :rolleyes:



------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
And who was that govmint type who was trying to board an airplane several months back, that had a handgun in his breifcase? He was allowed to go about business as useal, if I recall.
Yep, the 'ol double standards game at work again. This is fur us, not fur U.
 
The actus reas and mens reas must be in conjunction with one another. Watkins was unaware, had no notice, and voluntarily gave custody of his firearm prior to entry. That would suggest no criminal intent on his part. However, he'll go through h*ll before he gets off the hook and they'll persecute him like Bernard Getz.
 
Wasn't there something on one of the threads a while back, where the Congress critters and Senate critters were made "reserve deputy U.S. marshall's" so that they could "legally" carry concealed anywhere in the U.S.? Seems like I read this someplace. It was something that got pushed through very quietely, if memory serves.
Paul B.
 
Federal law allows the director of the Marshall service to appoint "special deputy marshals" who have the same authority as sheriffs in the area, and are considered federal law enforcement officers, though they have no duties or pay. I posted the relevant statutes a while back.
 
It's a sad day in the Republic when the Constitution doesn't apply to the capital.

------------------
"Get yourself a Lorcin and lose that nickel plated sissy pistol."
 
Back
Top