Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Passenger goes postal in baggage claim with conveniently checked firearm

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
    i have a concealed carry permit though i almost never carry the damn thing and have traveled with my gun a few times. i am quite happy to travel without it.
    Funny thing, you need a concealed gun permit to carry a concealed gun, but you don't need any permit to carry one in plain view.
    Almost anybody can buy an AR-15 and carry it hanging from the shoulder in the playground of a public park (or into a restaurant unless the owner of the restaurant has published a policy against that), at least in many states. And in those states that passed laws against that, there is a discussion whether those restrictive law are unconstitutional.

    Even more, if someone calls 911 about it, the correct response would be "Are they aiming it at persons? Are they actively threatening persons with it? No? Then we can't do anything. It is their right to carry this rifle and we cannot detain (let alone arrest) somebody, even to ask them their name or ask them if the gun is registered in their name, without reasonable suspicion, and executing a constitutional right doesn't qualify as reasonable suspicion".

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      ...you don't need any permit to carry one in plain view.
      Something you are not allowed to do (permit or not) with an open can of beer. Because an open can of beer is apparently dangerous.
      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

      Eric Law

      Comment


      • #33
        Your second amendment was intended to allow Americans to own a musket and use it in the event of an armed insurrection. It was never intended to allow those with a small penis or no tits to pretend to be Rambo and wave assault rifles in public.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #34
          Yup, the same constitution that in a few days will have us inaugurating the guy who finished second in the presidential election...
          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

          Eric Law

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by elaw View Post
            Yup, the same constitution that in a few days will have us inaugurating the guy who finished second in the presidential election...
            Don't forget that his predecessor probably did more to increase individual gun ownership than any other president in recent history. Telling law-abiding citizens what they can NOT do is definitely a hot button for us...

            ...and in a related way, this same sort of tactic definitely helped El Presidente Electo
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by elaw View Post
              Something you are not allowed to do (permit or not) with an open can of beer. Because an open can of beer is apparently dangerous.
              Right. To fly recreationally my 0.55 lb (that's not a typo: barely more than half a pound) drone in a public park I was required by federal regulations to register with the FAA, pay 5 dollars, sign a declaration swearing that I will obey to some rules (including for example not flying it close to people not involved in my recreational activity), get a registration number from the FAA and put that registration number in the drone. Because, you know, a 1/2 pound drone designed to be a recreational toy is a dangerous thing. Not like an AR-15 rifle that was designed to kill. The difference? The constitution doesn't say that the people has right to use drones, so it is still a privilege rather than a right.

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Funny thing, you need a concealed gun permit to carry a concealed gun, but you don't need any permit to carry one in plain view.
                It gets even funnier, absurd even. To explain how absurd requires a post of some Gabrielesque length. But I will try to keep it short...

                There is almost no gun control in the US on the Federal level. Most gun laws are created by the individual states and vary can wildly from one state to another. Now, the intellect would tell us that in a nation comprised of states with no border controls, that simply won't work, but Americans have historically had little use for the intellect. America is a false democracy perpetuated upon a largely unaware population through jingoism and dogma, and gun-slinging, once necessary during the frontier days, is now an entrenched part of that. It's simply American but nobody can tell you exactly why. Unless they develop an intellect, something that is simply not American (though no one can tell you why it isn't).

                So, in this example we have a man coming from Alaska, a state where there is no state law requiring a permit to own a gun and no state law requiring waiting periods or background checks, who arrives in in Florida, a state where there is at least a state law requiring a waiting period for handguns and a gun registration requirement. A lot of good that does though when the shooter is coming from Alaska. Most states with stricter gun control have neighboring states with little or no restrictions. Chaos!

                However, as I mentioned above, the 1993 Brady Act created a Federal requirement (enforceable in all states) for background checks and a five-day waiting period. The waiting period was removed in 1998 when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) became available. Now these checks usually require only a matter of minutes. The NICS only flags a US citizen as ineligible to purchase a gun if that person is a convicted criminal or adjudicated as mentally defective or legally committed to a mental institution. And... haha... it only applies to licensed gun dealers. Individuals can sell and transfer guns without any checks at all!

                Now here's the really funny part. "Adjudicated as mental defective or legally committed to a mental institution" means someone who has been formally judged through an official judicial process to be mentally unfit and/or has been committed to an institution against their will. A person who has voluntarilly entered an institution or sought help for serious mental illness will not appear in the database—even if that person has been deemed mentally ill and dangerous by medical experts or law enforcement—nor will any mentally ill or defective person who has not yet been adjudicated as such. Furthermore, no state is actually required to provide this information to the NICS database. Submissions to the NICS are entirely voluntary!! Does Alaska diligently abide? I doubt it.

                In this case the man was clearly not in his right mind. The FBI authorities were so concerned by his interview that they confiscated his gun. Enough said, you would think. However, state law required them to give it back, and Federal law is too weak to contravene. So they gave him back his gun and he boarded a flight with it, along with ammo, intending mass murder on the unsuspecting people of a different state with different gun laws and probably a different level of compliance to the NICS.

                Insane!

                Only consistent FEDERAL gun control can prevent this from happening. REQUIRING all states to provide mental health assessments to the NCIS for BOTH adjudicated and non-adjudicated (but clearly present) cases of mental illness is NOT a violation of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. it IS a violation of common sense and civic sanity to oppose this. And yet..............................

                But hey, this is an aviation safety forum, so let me just keep it to the domain of aviation security. Sane proposals:

                1) At check-in, there is currently no database of non-adjudicated yet clearly mentally disturbed individuals. That needs to change. The aviation industry should work with the FBI to provide airlines and the TSA with a database of persons considered an observable risk (mentally unstable or potentially radicalized). Even if state and Federal constitutional laws allow that individual to carry a gun, the airline should have the right to refuse conveying him or at least his firearm. The Constitution does not prevent them from doing that. Presently, the airline can refuse to convey any person they deem a hazard to the flight, regardless of gun control legislation (or lack thereof). As can the TSA.

                2) Ammunition should be banned entirely. Provisions should be made to ensure the gun is unloaded (magazine and chamber) when the gun is checked and again when it is retrieved (redundancy). Checked and carry-on bags should be checked by x-ray for ammunition.

                3) The baggage claim area on all airports really should be a secure area but I'm willing to forgo that if the previous two conditions were met.

                That would have prevented this tragedy and the ones that will otherwise certainly follow.

                This can be done, starting tomorrow, without a Constitutional amendment. And we'd have to be crazy not to.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Wasn't there a typo in the US constitution? I'm sure it was meant to read '...the right to arm bears...' :P

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Right. To fly recreationally my 0.55 lb (that's not a typo: barely more than half a pound) drone in a public park I was required by federal regulations to register with the FAA, pay 5 dollars, sign a declaration swearing that I will obey to some rules (including for example not flying it close to people not involved in my recreational activity), get a registration number from the FAA and put that registration number in the drone. Because, you know, a 1/2 pound drone designed to be a recreational toy is a dangerous thing. Not like an AR-15 rifle that was designed to kill. The difference? The constitution doesn't say that the people has right to use drones, so it is still a privilege rather than a right.
                    I was actually discussing the subject of drones with my wife a while back, and she was wondering if there was a way you could add a small gun to one, which would make it a weapon and thus more or less immune to regulation.
                    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                    Eric Law

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X