“The Army reservist who killed five Dallas police officers had kept an unauthorized grenade in his room on an Afghanistan base in 2014, according to a report by Army officials investigating a sexual harassment complaint against him.” The Blaze story chronicles Mr. Johnson’s ejection from the U.S. Army, including stealing panties from a fellow soldier. It’s headlined ‘Should Have Been a Red Flag’.
The Army gave Mr. Johnson an honorable discharge. What should the Army have done? What did they consider doing, but didn’t? For some reason, it appears we’ll never know.
The Army has blacked out the recommendations of the investigating officer who wrote the report.
Soldiers are not allowed to have grenades in their barracks, according to several military experts. Johnson’s superiors could have recommended punishment for stealing government property or mishandling ammunition, said Geoffrey Corn, a former military judge who teaches at the South Texas College of Law. But they may have chosen to pursue the sexual harassment case since it was so strong, he said.
The U.S. Army could have subjected Mr. Johnson to a court martial and, presumably, given him a dishonorable discharge. According to 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n), 27 CFR 478.32 (as reported by the ATF), someone who “has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions . . . cannot lawfully receive, possess, ship, or transport a firearm.”
And? Are we to believe that a law prohibiting Mr. Johnson from owning a firearm would have prevented his attack on the Dallas police? There’s only way to stop a homicidal maniac from doing what homicidal maniacs do: lock ’em up. Where they may still murder, but it’s not as signifiant a problem.
Anyway, it’s interesting that the same government that wants to restrict your gun rights failed to restrict the gun rights of a U.S. solider, despite clear evidence that he was a threat to innocent life.