Luke Sanderlin (courtesy concealednation.com)

“Luke Sanderlin, 34, called police early this week to say that he had been carjacked by the person he believed to be the man who murdered six people earlier in the day that police were searching for,” concealednation.com reports. “His story was that he was out for a walk near his home with his dog, when a man with a knife approached him and asked for his keys. Sanderlin told police that a scuffle ensued and that he drew his firearm in self defense and fired shots at the attacker.” Nope . . .

Sanderlin was arrested and faces charges of risking a catastrophe, recklessly endangering another person, and making false reports to law enforcement.

I wish someone had arrested me before my first and second marriages and charged me with risking a catastrophe. Sorry. Had to get that in there before Ralph. OK, so . . .

Not only did he lie about the encounter, but he wasted numerous police resources during an active manhunt and could have endangered other lives. Luckily, no one else was hurt or killed by the offender. To make the scenario seem real, Sanderlin did in fact fire three shots into the woods near the residential area where he lived.

Brandon at concealednation.com reckons Mr. Sanderlin’s concealed carry license should be permanently revoked. He acknowledges but dismisses those of us who consider gun rights a right – rather than a privilege.

Be that as it is, Sanderlin’s actions play straight into the hands of gun control advocates who insist that Americans who carry a concealed weapon are wanna-be Dirty Harrys. They label us all proto-vigilantes itching for a gunfight – to the point where we’ll invent one.

It’s not true, of course. In general, Americans exercising their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to bear arms do so hoping they’ll never have to clear leather. In specific, well . . . For giving the antis ammo, dinging the cause of firearms freedom, Sanderlin earns TTAG’s Irresponsible Gun Owner of the Day.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

31 COMMENTS

  1. Damn. I saw that on the news and really hoped he’d got him a piece of that killer, demonstrating that citizen carry is a good idea. What a POS.

  3. Poor Luke surrendered to the Dark Side of the Force. Hey, Luke, who’s your daddy now?

    Luke’s little fib isn’t on par with “if you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance,” “ISIL is a JV team,” “I support the Second Amendment, but . . . ,” or “I was sexually assaulted by the University of Virginia field hockey team after I was drugged by Bill Cosby,” but it’ll do.

    Three Pinocchios, dude.

  6. Criminal…same as crying “fire” in crowded theatre – free speech, yes, but there are limits. I believe his right to possess guns should be revoked (“rights” are not absolute, regardless of any/all actions, no matter how grievous …we need more personal responsibility for actions being delegated in this wonderful country)

    • I’ll support the “needing more responsibility” part, but yelling “fire” in a theatre is not a crime. Insighting panic and hurting people however, is where the crime begins. If I’m the only one in the theatre, does anyone care what I say?

      • Sort of representative of a crime which, using a “right” (free speech) can cause panic/hurt others (“theatre” is assumed crowded, unless of course the fat little guy from North Korea tells us to stay home). Have a wonderful, safe holiday in this (still) awesome country!

    • Unless of course there is an actual fire in the theater in which case I would like to know. It’s all dependent on the circumstances.

  9. I see a lot of negative comments, which might seem deserved, but isnt this putting the cart before the horse? How do the police know that there wasn’t a guy he was firing at? Just because he missed? Do they have eyewitnesses or video of it? It doesn’t say, but the last I heard a person was innocent until proven guilty. Or is it only the 2A we’re interested in here? Is it possible that this might be more antis in uniform just out to give the 2A a bad name? I’ll not make a judgement until I know a lot more than this…

  10. >I wish someone had arrested me before my first and second marriages and charged me with risking a catastrophe.

    And all the boys at the bar slowly nod…

  11. classic non hacker Rambo wannabe. Never been anywhere or done anything but he fantasizes about being a warrior. Finally goes overboard and claims valor that doesn’t belong.Putz.

  13. So…..he just popped off some rounds into the woods in a thin attempt at some action? Is that like the firemen who start fires, then “discovers” the fire and is a hero, until the investigators figure it out?
    The number of CWP holders in the U.S. is around 11 million. Considering permit holders are many many more times LESS LIKELY to commit a crime, one guy exercising his douche bag gene is nothing for us to get in a twist over.

  15. “He acknowledges but dismisses those of us who consider gun rights a right – rather than a privilege.” do you have any freaking idea how crazy you sound? in this statement you are insinuating that someone should NEVER have their gun rights removed. even if they abuse those rights or demonstrate they can not exercise that right properly. that is insanity. by your accord, mentally deficient people should be able to own firearms. by your accord convicted murderers should still get to own firearms. this is the kind of talk that anti gunners use to vilify us into gun fanatics.

    • No, your entire post is in error. You show that you haven’t a clue about what a “right” even IS.
      FYI: a right is something that everyone has, and is not to be restricted UNTIL such time as that right HAS BEEN(note: PAST TENSE. not might be, as in future tense) misused to restrict the rights of another.
      Thus we see that society can restrict your right to freedom, by locking you up, can restrict your “right”(I realize it is NOT one) to drive a car by removing your drivers license, and can even remove your right to be alive, by the availability of the death penalty. But only AFTER that one has shown that he is willing and able to remove the rights of another to exist, by committing such an act as a murder. That definitely restricts severely the right of the other to exist. Thus, that murderer has voluntarily given up his rights, by removing(again: note the past tense) those of another.
      The point is that no ones rights are to be removed UNTIL such time as that one has SHOWN(by actions ALREADY committed, past tense remember) that it is necessary.
      Thus to remove someone’s right to possess a firearm because he MIGHT misuse it in future, is the same as taking away everyone’s car, simply because they MIGHT cause a car accident at some future time.
      Quite a different thing than removing someone’s “right” to drive AFTER they drove into oncoming traffic while drunk and stupid, killing an entire carload of innocents, don’t you think?

Comments are closed.