The TSA announced a dubious record this week, reporting that it had seized 65 firearms at airport security checkpoints.
The seizures buried the previous mark of 50 guns, the TSA reported, and included 54 loaded weapons -- 19 of which at rounds chambered.
Among the seizures was a firearm strapped to the prosthetic leg of a male passenger at Salt Lake City International Airport. Authorities said the passenger received a pat-down after an anomaly was detected during advanced imaging technology screening.
During the pat-down, officers discovered a fully loaded .22 caliber firearm inside the passenger's boot and strapped to his prosthetic leg. The man was arrested by Salt Lake City Airport Police on a state charge of "carrying a concealed weapon in a secure area."
I'm sure the poor, persecuted gun owner just forgot the gun was there in his fake leg. The resultant arrest, at least according to the gun-tights fanatics, would be overly harsh, evil, some of them would say. The problem is it's impossible for the authorities to distinguish between the guys with bad intent and those who are just stupid and irresponsible. This is not unlike the poor, persecuted Texan who just needed to nap in NJ.
One thing for sure is, guys who illegally bring guns to the airport, or into New Jersey, for whatever reason, should lose their right to own guns.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteThis article is different than what we discussed previously in that before we were talking about people following federal regulations for storing their firearms legally in checked baggage. This article seems to be about people attempting to board a plane with a firearm either on their person or carryon.
I'm not seeing the similarity of a citizen driving through a state believing he was protected under safe passage provision in federal law, and someone who is attempting to bring a firearm through security checkpoints.
You don't see the similarity? Aren't all of them supposedly victimless crimes centering around possession of a gun?
DeleteYes, these people shouldn't be arrested either.
DeleteMike, I thought I was pretty clear in my description of what I was seeing as the differences between the two. You seem to be broadening the argument to where there being a gun involved is the only pertinent point.
DeleteIn the case where the guy was napping in his car, there is federal law covering safe passage through a state. The previous discussion we had about airlines pertained to guns in checked baggage. Something that airlines have a procedure for and except for the enlightened states of New York and New Jersey works just fine for all parties.
However I personally feel about it, the current standard since 9/11 is that weapons are a big no-no in the cabin of an airliner. Been that way for a long time and everybody has gotten the memo. And again, the penalties vary on this offence depending on the circumstances. For example, the democratic politician in Chicago who had a very rare carry permit, and forgot his pistol in his garment bag. He pled to a reduced sentence with a fine and community service, and it also cost him his run for federal office. He wasnt however convicted of a felony, and I'd be willing to bet you a soda that he still has his carry permit.
I see what you mean about the difference. I also see what you mean, at least I think I do, about the very light slap on the wrist that Chicago politician received. That sounds as bad to me in the opposite direction as what happened to the Texan in NJ.
DeleteMike, You are comparing apples to oranges. As I explained before, the guy in New Jersey had the legal right to drive through New Jersey with the guns, as codified and protected in Federal Law.
ReplyDeleteThe court in New Jersey allowed the conviction in spite of this law, because they determined that his taking a nap turned is trip into two trips--Texas to New Jersey and New Jersey to Maine.
Your support of That man's felony convition and loss of his right to own guns, all because he decided to pull off and nap rather than endanger lives by driving on through the state, is infuriating. Your mockery of the man is beyond the pale. Is he a poor persecuted gun owner? You bet your sweet ass. Had he napped a state sooner, he'd not be in jail. Had he endangered lives, driving while far too sleepy to do so safely, he'd not be in jail. However, he behaved responsibly and pulled over when he got tired, and for that he's in jail. Why, because he's a gun owner.
Mens rea: Owning guns. Actus Reus: Stopping for a nap in a place that hate's gun owners.
Wait a minute, I think somewhere around here I acquiesced to the idea that if that's truly all there is to the story the sentence was overly harsh. But we don't know all that went into the judge's decision, do we?
DeleteI know people get fucked over by the cops and courts on technicalities, but I also know there's often more to the story than the simple poor, persecuted gun owner that you keep presuming he is.
Let me repeat, if that's what he is, I agree he got a good screwing and should have received the slap on the wrist they usually get for this kind of thing.
Mikeb, why do you presume guilt when the person is a gun owner, but presume innocence when we're talking about home invaders and muggers?
DeleteAnd my point is that even a Slap on the wrist is TOO FUCKING MUCH! Especially since it would likely involve loss of gun rights.
DeleteWHY should an American Citizen be given even a slap on the wrist for doing what the guy in question did? He was legally traveling through the state with his guns and pulled over for a nap when he got tired. And you think that deserves a slap on the wrist?
Normal people think that deserves a commendation--"Good job being responsible, citizen."