Previous Post
Next Post


“Law enforcement officers responded to the Centennial Bridge Saturday morning after a person was seen with a gun, a Leavenworth [Kansas]police spokesman said.” The reports that “Maj. Dan Nicodemus, deputy chief of the Leavenworth Police Department, said it turned out to be a soldier who was training. The soldier was walking across the bridge while carrying a non-firing rifle.” Whew! ‘Cause if it were a firing rifle, well, the mind recoils from the thought. Even though the Fort Leavenworth museum—celebrating the oldest active United States Army post west of Washington, D.C.—is less than two miles away. “Some people were alarmed,” Nicodemus said. And some people are alarmed that they were alarmed.

Previous Post
Next Post


    • why was this soldier training on a bridge, presumably all by himself. What was he training for?

    • All of Kansas is open carry legal with the exception of the capital Topeka and Wichita. I believe by letter of law, both those cities are *technically* open carry legal, but I wouldn’t chance it, at least not here in Wichita.

      I’m really not fond of dirty concrete sandwiches & jackboots on my neck.

      • I think it’s codified in Wichita. Open carry is the only local option firearms law left to goverment units below the state level.

  1. Yeah, well to their defense…who knew he was really a soldier? Any freak can get soldier garb. Could have been a psycho wearing internet purchased soldier garb with a gun…the fact that people freaked out shows the sad state of our country. I used to walk around with my .22 up in the state of WA, hunting around in the wood – lots of neighbors would see/hear me and of course they never had any issues. Nowadays, I would have been SWAT’ed!

  2. One of my friends is part of the Leavenworth PD SWAT team or has been in the past. He is also a gun person I bet he had a good laugh at this incident.

  3. I live in north central Kansas, a ways from that incident.
    During hunting season, no never mind. But this ain’t hunting season, and fars as I know most folk don’t hunt from bridges.

    If I was driving by he would attract my attention. Would I report it?

    I like reporting pochers.

  4. Shouldn’t we wait until someone does something with the rifle before SWATting them or is the mere possession of an object enough?

  5. I guess not many people on this site watch the news or read the news papers much. There have been many nutball shooters the last few years. Running around in soldier gear, by yourself, on a bridge of all places, is probably gonna get the attention of passersby and the po-po. Get real.

    • I don’t agree. In my neighborhood, if I see soldier or a cop walking around with a rifle, I am going to call the police. I am not going to go out and ask him if the rifle fires.

      After that, I let the police handle it. That’s what they get paid for. If everything is fine, then no harm done.

      But if you see someone walking around with a rifle (in a location where they can’t legally fire it) then failure to notify the police might be a mistake.

  6. Some vindictive twat who calls the cops on people because he sees them with a firearm wrote:

    “… After that, I let the police handle it. That’s what they get paid for. If everything is fine, then no harm done…”

    (1) Their job is to harass ostensibly innocent individuals? Of course the answer nowadays is “yes,” thanks to people like you.

    (2) No harm done? What a privileged armchair elitist proclamation, say’s the guy who is not the one being physically molested. You’re just the guy who is apparently proximate cause to the physical molesting, and don’t have to bear consequences of sicking the dogs on an innocent person.

    Maybe we need to have you SWAT’d with a series of nice anonymous tips. Then when you are the eceiving end, maybe your smug self won’t be so nonchalant in your declaration that it’s all “no harm no foul” to sick the dogs on a certain portion of people who may be innocent. Sadly, you may be the masochistic type that enjoys that type of abuse, so have no problem being a party to making it happen to others.

    • Ah, so you don’t believe I should call the police and report open carry of a firearm. Even when I am following the law? Even if the person is doing something suspicious? Even if the police have told me that is what to do?

      Yet you believe you should be able to call the police and lie about me? Even if it means you are breaking the law? That does not seem ironic to you at all?

      Your whole justification for this is that the police always hassle people? But what if they don’t? What if the police just show up, make sure the guy is within his rights, and tell me to mind my own business?

      Would that be OK with you?

      If so, then you are saying that the law should be different based on how qualified the police are. If not, then you are saying that no one should ever be able to call the police to report something suspicious.

      With all due respect, no.

      If you see something suspicious, call the police. They are trained not to over-react (in most places), and not to infringe on the rights of people who are innocent. If you can’t trust them to do that, then you can’t trust them to do anything.

      If the police in your area are incapable of responding to a call without harassing someone, then you might want to move to a different neighborhood. Because the average cop is better than that.

      And regardless of your second amendment rights, if you walk down our street carrying a rifle, you can safely assume that five or six people will call the cops. Not just me, so don’t go blaming me for the fact that you don’t understand the rules of polite society.

      If what you are doing turns out to be perfectly legal, then good for you. But just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

  7. I competely understand those who talk about what rights, laws, etc., that we ‘ought’ to have. And I agree…it’s just not reality. The more adamant those folks are, the more removed from reality they are. Of course that statement will launch a barrage of “my rights can’t be granted they are inherent”, ad infinitum.

    Keep reading the comic books….that just ain’t the way it is. And not one, not one, will take up arms against the state. Because, they’ll be shot down and forgotten in just short of a week. And they know it. And that’s why they won’t do it. And that’s why this forum is good because it lets them vent.

    What ought to be and what is, is usually two different things. Again…Get Real

  8. I don’t see anything suspicious about a Soldier near a military post doing a ruck march with a rifle (real or dummy) during or around PT hours. This country is turning into a nation of scared children who call the police for no good reason.

    • Certainly soldiers are allowed to practice their ruck march solo. In our area, they usually don’t. Even back before our local base closed, the “Army of one” was a rare sight.

      The article doesn’t say if he was carrying his full kit, but if several people were alarmed, I am guessing he was not in uniform.

Comments are closed.