FA discovered packing

gprellwitz said:
Except she supposedly didn't have a permit, either.:nono:
Click to expand...
That is true and we have no insight into her motive. I am not saying it was nefarious. but it could have been. Best to let the LEO sort it out. She goofed at the very least and if that is all then needs to be appropriately dealt with.
 
ScottM said:
That is true and we have no insight into her motive. I am not saying it was nefarious. but it could have been. Best to let the LEO sort it out. She goofed at the very least and if that is all then needs to be appropriately dealt with.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, if we ascribe this to forgetfulness as Dave's link text would appear to do, she not only forgot that she had a pistol on her at 6:00 AM, but she also forgot that she needed to obtain and carry a permit. Lack of sleep or the early hour wouldn't explain that! :no:
 
gprellwitz said:
Except she supposedly didn't have a permit, either.:nono:
Click to expand...

I am discovering there is a huge population out there that do not have permits. Some say it is already a federally protected right (now, there's a can o' worms, and sz material).

In fact, if I think about it, compared to 20 years ago, there are more and more folks willing to flaunt many laws (how many know someone flying without a medical etc.).

I bet the 'law-flaunting' curve closely parallels the 'too many damn new laws' curve! Hmmm might be a message there!
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I am discovering there is a huge population out there that do not have permits. Some say it is already a federally protected right (now, there's a can o' worms, and sz material).
Click to expand...
I wonder how many of those claiming to not have permits actually do but want to seem like a tough guy so they claim to be a rebel without a permit?

Protesting the government for redress of grievances is just as much a federally protected right as the right to bear arms. Infact it was written specifically in the 1st Amendment. But if they do not have a permit there are consequences for that protest. If one is willing to also accept those consequences are part of their protest no problem. But if they expect to break the law and have no consequences then that is a problem that leads to more problems. A better solution is to use the system to one's advantage. I do not see the system not listening to people who wish to carry weapons. The laws have been overwhelmingly turning in their favor for a great many years now.
 
ScottM said:
A better solution is to use the system to one's advantage. I do not see the system not listening to people who wish to carry weapons. The laws have been overwhelmingly turning in their favor for a great many years now.
Click to expand...

Except in certain jurisdictions.

::cough::
 
dmccormack said:
Yeah.

Starts with a "Shi" and ends with "cago"
Click to expand...
Really? What new laws have there been in the past 25 years in Chicago that have gone against gun owners?

The no handgun (other guns are allowed) law in Chicago has been on the books for 28 years. It is close to being removed, probably later this summer. Outside of Chicago there has been a general easing of gun laws. One of the most interesting is that publically elected town officials (mayors, alderman, city council, etc.) may apply for concealed carry permits. That was passed in the 1990's
 
ScottM said:
Really? What new laws have there been in the past 25 years in Chicago that have gone against gun owners?

The no handgun (other guns are allowed) law in Chicago has been on the books for 28 years. It is close to being removed, probably later this summer. Outside of Chicago there has been a general easing of gun laws. One of the most interesting is that publically elected town officials (mayors, alderman, city council, etc.) may apply for concealed carry permits. That was passed in the 1990's
Click to expand...


You're sooooo predictable, Scott.

:D

Maybe you've heard of these guys?

Don't be fooled by the "We're only against illegal' guns!" double-speak. See what happens if you try to own a handgun as a resident of New York City.
 
dmccormack said:
You're sooooo predictable, Scott.

:D

Maybe you've heard of these guys?

Don't be fooled by the "We're only against illegal' guns!" double-speak. See what happens if you try to own a handgun as a resident of New York City.
Click to expand...

The statement of mine that you took exception to was this:

ScottM said:
I do not see the system not listening to people who wish to carry weapons. The laws have been overwhelmingly turning in their favor for a great many years now.
Click to expand...
Can you point out where the statement is incorrect? Where have the laws been turning against gun owners and those that wish to carry? There may be a few. But overall those would be a minority.

You tried to say something about Chicago, but as I showed you that there has been no new laws there restricting gun ownership. Now you shout "New York". What new law there are you referring to?

Of course there are anti-gun rights people out there. What did you think there would be unanimity of opinion?

Where is there any evidence that the voices of pro-gun right people are not being listened to and that it has been getting easier for sometime to own and carry guns?

While there are many rolls of tin foil being sold to scare people into the thinking that the guns are about to be taken away there simply is no evidence whatsoever that it is the case. All evidence is the opposite. But the gun lobby sure does know how to manipulate its customers into spending money.

When it comes to gun laws we cannot even get common sense ones passed like keeping suspected terrorists from getting their hands on one. Sure stop grandma from flying with 3.5oz of water, but NOoooooo please do not stop 'Osama bin Shooting Infidels' from buying a carton of AK47's. That would be unAmerican. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Ron Levy said:
why should they go any easier on a Flight Attendent carrying a firearm into airport security than anyone else doing the same? Should she also get a pass on being forgetful early in the morning if she screws up an emergency egress if the jet goes off the runway on takeoff?:nono:
Click to expand...

Apparently you've forgotten about TSA screener Crabtree at DEN who brought a gun to work and received only a 30 day suspension. He kept his job. Link to article

Some animals are more equal than others.
 
why should they go any easier on a Flight Attendent carrying a firearm into airport security
Click to expand...

I realized I would bring out the rule-mongers among us when I posted that! To each, their own (opinion).
I think it was an unintentional act without harmful consequences.
 
ScottM said:
When it comes to gun laws we cannot even get common sense ones passed like keeping suspected terrorists from getting their hands on one. Sure stop grandma from flying with 3.5oz of water, but NOoooooo please do not stop 'Osama bin Shooting Infidels' from buying a carton of AK47's. That would be unAmerican. :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Click to expand...

We have plenty of "gun laws" that don't seem to be doing much -- apparently criminals don't read up on laws.

"Common sense gun laws" = code for "We'll decide who gets what." :rolleyes:

I'm happy to be a resident of Pennsylvania, a "Shall Issue" state with gun ownership enshrined in the State Constitution.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I realized I would bring out the rule-mongers among us when I posted that! To each, their own (opinion).
I think it was an unintentional act without harmful consequences.
Click to expand...
She probably did forget she had it in her purse when she went to the airport. But considering she appears to not have a carry permit in the first place one has to ask the question what it was doing in her purse? Furthermore, people who do flaunt the gun laws and then show themselves to act irresponsibly such as bringing a weapon into airport, call into question the general competence of gun owners.

Gun owners who obey the rules, act responsibly should be annoyed when people do less than smart things. While this is far from the stupidest thing that has ever been done with a gun it is not a behavior that should be rewarded either. I mentioned early that an appropriate punishment should be leveled. I do not think she should lose her job, but perhaps a fine maybe a revocation of legal ownership of weapons for a period of time, training, etc. Basically the stuff we do when people get a moving violation but geared toward guns instead of driving.
 
Last edited:
Still evading answering the question and supporting your original ascertain I see. I guess you will continue to do that as it is an intellectually dishonest attempt to refute my arguement

dmccormack said:
We have plenty of "gun laws" that don't seem to be doing much -- apparently criminals don't read up on laws.

.
Click to expand...
Your stated premise is that criminals will not obey laws and that they are infective in stopping crime. Then one must ask why have any laws about anything then?

Lets get rid of that speed limit, speeders don't follow the law anyways.

Murder. Why is that illegal. People intent on killing will not stop just because there is a law against it.

etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We have laws to punish those that break the rules of society. Having the law makes it more difficult for those intent on breaking the rules to obtain or do something. It also enables us to punish them when they break that law. Remember we never did prosecute Al Capone for murder, robbery, etc. we got him for tax evasion. Luckily we had that law huh?
 
ScottM said:
Still evading answering the question and supporting your original ascertain I see. I guess you will continue to do that as it is an intellectually dishonest attempt to refute my arguement

Your stated premise is that criminals will not obey laws and that they are infective in stopping crime. Then one must ask why have any laws about anything then?

Lets get rid of that speed limit, speeders don't follow the law anyways.

Murder. Why is that illegal. People intent on killing will not stop just because there is a law against it.

etc, etc, etc. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We have laws to punish those that break the rules of society. Having the law makes it more difficult for those intent on breaking the rules to obtain or do something. It also enables us to punish them when they break that law. Remember we never did prosecute Al Capone for murder, robbery, etc. we got him for tax evasion. Luckily we had that law huh?
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to bait this into SZ. :rolleyes:

My position? More guns equals less crime. That is all. :D
 
dmccormack said:
No, you're trying to bait this into SZ. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Hardly. It would have been nice if you had not just threw out an intellectually dishonest statement as your first post in this thread and then refuse to substantiate it. Only to follow it up with more nonsense one liners that are nothing but sound bites without thought nor reasoning to support such sentiments. I am simply responding to you.

My position? More guns equals less crime. That is all. :D[/quote]You really are all over the road in your statements. I hope you are able to hold a truer course when flying.

So now you are revising you latest attempt to state that terrorist need not be prohibited form getting weapons not because criminals do not follow laws but that now by getting more guns, including one would presume the terrorists hands, that would result in less crime?

:skeptical::skeptical:

Should we let know felons, crazy people, etc also have guns as that would also equal less crime?

But overall then you should be happy as most of the gun laws that have been made in the US for the past several years to decades have been more favorable to gun owners than people who would wish to restrict guns.
 
Last edited:
ScottM said:
Really? What new laws have there been in the past 25 years in Chicago that have gone against gun owners?

The no handgun (other guns are allowed) law in Chicago has been on the books for 28 years. It is close to being removed, probably later this summer. Outside of Chicago there has been a general easing of gun laws. One of the most interesting is that publically elected town officials (mayors, alderman, city council, etc.) may apply for concealed carry permits. That was passed in the 1990's
Click to expand...

It's worth noting that it might be removed judicially. There's an opinion due from the USSC sometime in the immediate future - my guess would actually be that we'll see something in that case on Monday....
 
dmccormack said:
We have plenty of "gun laws" that don't seem to be doing much -- apparently criminals don't read up on laws.

"Common sense gun laws" = code for "We'll decide who gets what." :rolleyes:

I'm happy to be a resident of Pennsylvania, a "Shall Issue" state with gun ownership enshrined in the State Constitution.
Click to expand...

Again, keep your eye out for an opinion from the USSC in the immediate future - whatever the result, it's going to significantly change the legal landscape.

For those that might not know, the issue is whether the 2nd Amdmt. is binding on the states. If it is, the states have to abide by Heller (and their own constitutions, if more protective than the Federal is - such as in PA). If not, the states are bound only by their own constitutions, and perhaps something like the takings clause.

Beyond that, I'm not going to say, for fear of getting this kicked to SZ. :eek:
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I realized I would bring out the rule-mongers among us when I posted that! To each, their own (opinion).
I think it was an unintentional act without harmful consequences.
Click to expand...
So, is it your contention the law should "go easy" on anyone who claims their attempt to carry a handgun through airport security was "unintentional"? Or is it that one's status as a flight crewmember should obtain special lenience? Personally, I think we should expect better from those entrusted with the safety of others, but maybe you don't share that opinion.
 
gprellwitz said:
If you know Illinois, that idea is just hilarious! :)
Click to expand...

Does the 'felony' restriction get waived for this permit ? If not, this 'conservator' license has a very narrow scope.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It's worth noting that it might be removed judicially. There's an opinion due from the USSC sometime in the immediate future - my guess would actually be that we'll see something in that case on Monday....
Click to expand...

I was going to say, Daley sure isn't going to be easing up any gun restrictions in Chitcago. I just heard him on the radio the other day, spouting about how guns are bad because criminals have them. :rolleyes:
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It's worth noting that it might be removed judicially. There's an opinion due from the USSC sometime in the immediate future - my guess would actually be that we'll see something in that case on Monday....
Click to expand...
That is what I was referring to when I mentioned that it might be gone. Interesting to note though is the Daley is has been shooting his mouth off about replacing it right away with another law. No hint yet what he thinks that law would be.
 
My only comment on this is to Scott's comment about suspected terrorists... suspected is Not the same as convicted.

sent from my android
 
Too bad we don't have details yet. Does she sound like a terrorist to you? It sounds to me that this gal, in all likelihood, was just a working stiff like the rest of us - busting it every day to make a living. Probably in a constant state of exhaustion like many flight crewmembers thanks to the schedules, had to get up at 4 am again, rush to catch the shuttle before facing another day in the cattlecars, and yes - carrying, so that she would have some prayer of saving her skin from an ugly crime in one of the many dangerous cites she must travel to. Simply forgot to move it to the correct place before hitting security. A mistake which in all likelihood would never would have resulted in danger to the public.

The problem with taking a hardline on the interpretation of our laws is that - besides being devoid of reasonableness and compassion - it sure could bite when that law then is applied to you or someone you know. If you can claim perfection, go for it. But I don't think Amber deserves 18mo in the state pen for this.
 
Last edited:
Let'sgoflying! said:
Too bad we don't have details yet. Does she sound like a terrorist to you? It sounds to me that this gal, in all likelihood, was just a working stiff like the rest of us - busting it every day to make a living. Probably in a constant state of exhaustion like many flight crewmembers thanks to the schedules, had to get up at 4 am again, rush to catch the shuttle before facing another day in the cattlecars, and yes - carrying, so that she would have some prayer of saving her skin from an ugly crime in one of the many dangerous cites she must travel to. Simply forgot to move it to the correct place before hitting security. A mistake which in all likelihood would never would have resulted in danger to the public.

The problem with taking a hardline on the interpretation of our laws is that - besides being devoid of reasonableness and compassion - it sure could bite when that law then is applied to you or someone you know. If you can claim perfection, go for it. But I don't think Amber deserves 18mo in the state pen for this.
Click to expand...

Agree--probably not a terrorist; however, your fanciful scenario would only hold up in "speaking-to-the-choir" pro-gun forum. FAs live out of carry-ons; they don't check luggage. How would she take a gun to protect "her skin from an ugly crime in one of the many dangerous cites she must travel to"?
 
I carry quite often and I can't say I forget when I have a gun. It's kind of one of those things you just can't and shouldn't forget. I always carry on my person though which makes it more obvious to my mind.
 
dmccormack said:
No, you're trying to bait this into SZ. :rolleyes:

My position? More guns equals less crime. That is all. :D
Click to expand...
Never mind that more people are killed in their own homes by their own guns than by criminals. Or that you're 22 times more likely to shoot one of your family members or friends than a criminal with a gun.

But hey, as long as we have fewer crimes as a result (which we don't have either) :mad2:
 
sba55 said:
Never mind that more people are killed in their own homes by their own guns than by criminals. Or that you're 22 times more likely to shoot one of your family members or friends than a criminal with a gun.

But hey, as long as we have fewer crimes as a result (which we don't have either) :mad2:
Click to expand...


That is total BS. Sorce of those stats?
 
Anthony said:
That is total BS. Sorce of those stats?
Click to expand...
There are so many misleading statistics out there thanks to folks like the Brady campaign.

The only way you can sometimes make that stat works as Felix indicated is by including suicides in the number. Considering how those that kill themselves will just find a different way it's rather misleading to include it. There are plenty of countries with WAY stricter gun control laws that have way more suicides then we do. There is little correlation between firearm availability and suicide rates.

The actual percentage of accidental/negligent firearm discharges resulting in a fatality is pretty damn low. Way lower than the homicide or suicide number.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top