By Dave Workman | Senior Editor
The revelation that “no guns” signs were posted in the glass doors of two military offices in Chattanooga where shots were fired ignited a firestorm because four Marines gunned down at one of the sites were not allowed to have weapons on duty.
Gun control groups were silent about the “gun-free zone” designation and its connection with other mass shootings, but the anti-gun Brady Center attempted to exploit the crime by asserting, “As the details continue to unfold in Tennessee, it is already clear that this is another reminder of the work that needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. We owe it to the men and women at our military installations, our communities and the 89 people killed every day by guns to take action now.”
At the time the statement was issued, there was no indication from the authorities about the source of the firearms used by quadruple killer Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez, a native of Kuwait and naturalized U.S. citizen. Since he had only a minor criminal record, he would have been legally able to purchase firearms.
Until the shooting at two different locations, Abdulazeez apparently did not appear as a blip on anyone’s radar screen. It appears he may have become radicalized in the weeks leading up to the shooting, and authorities were looking into possible terrorist links. Reuters reported that authorities were also investigating trips Abdulazeez took to the Middle East.
The 24-year-old gunman was fatally shot by Chattanooga police after a chase and what some reported was an extended gun battle.
While much of the reporting has focused on the dead suspect, some reports and media pundits have also looked hard at the “gun-free zone” angle because the Marines were not armed, so they could not possibly return fire.
Federal government offices and facilities are off-limits to firearms, even for active duty military unless approved, according to one FBI agent speaking to reporters in the hours after the shooting. But Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump quickly gained traction when he told reporters that this policy has to change, and will change if he is elected as the next president.
But many in the Second Amendment community say Trump didn’t go far enough. Such “gun-free zones” should be eliminated so that private citizens caught in the middle of an incident would have the ability to defend themselves as well, many contend.
Trump, who is running strong in the polls, told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that the fact military personnel are not allowed to carry firearms “is absolutely ridiculous” and “absolutely disgraceful.” This policy apparently began back in the Bush 41 administration and was maintained by Bill Clinton and through successive administrations, and Trump says it is time to change things.
It is not clear why the policy was ever adopted. The subject came up following both Fort Hood shootings in Texas.
It is not clear where the notion came from that convinces people designating an area as a “gun-free zone” will prevent a criminal attack. Recent history going back to Columbine High School says otherwise, with most of the worst mass shootings occurring in such designated areas. Virginia Tech, Clackamas Mall, Thurston High School and Sandy Hook elementary were all gun-free zones.
In Seattle, for example, scores of businesses posted themselves off-limits to firearms under an anti-gun project started by former mayor Mike McGinn in cooperation with Washington Ceasefire.