TSA and Honeymoons

bartmc said:
http://m.redding.com/news/2014/apr/02/gun-arrests-rare-many-airports/
Click to expand...

If you look long enough on the internet you will find something to support whatever argument you choose to make.

Yes, the FBI might not do much. The Denver Police are a different story. They will arrest for carrying on public transport:

18-9-118. Firearms, explosives, or incendiary devices in facilities of public transportation A person commits a class 6 felony if, without legal authority, he has any loaded firearm or explosive or incendiary device, as defined in section 9-7-103, C.R.S., in his possession in, or carries, brings, or causes to be carried or brought any of such items into, any facility of public transportation, as defined in section 18-9-115 (4).HISTORY: Source:. L. 77: Entire section added, p. 976, § 7, effective June 29.L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 841, § 89, effective July 1.C.R.S. 18-9-118

Note that the law says nothing about intent, only the act.
 
Interestingly I've had to dig into that law here before.

The "without legal authority" phrase leaves a hole for exceptions, and allows for both concealed carry permit holders, and get this...

The real reason that's there, is because the lawmakers had someone point out that the way the original draft was written, armed police officers were banned from boarding public transit. ROFL.

Here's more fun. Some weenie used to claim he was a cop, board light rail open-carrying, and go about his business. He was a security guard and didn't feel like taking it off. He got away with it for a long time until real LE noticed.
 
denverpilot said:
Interestingly I've had to dig into that law here before.

The "without legal authority" phrase leaves a hole for exceptions, and allows for both concealed carry permit holders, and get this...
Click to expand...

Didn't DIA close that loophole by proscribing concealed carry anywhere on the facility?
 
Clark1961 said:
Didn't DIA close that loophole by proscribing concealed carry anywhere on the facility?
Click to expand...


I have not seen such. They can post signs that don't carry the weight of law, but the City and County hasn't passed any more laws that are in direct violation of the State Constitution that I've heard of yet. Federal law applies in "secured" areas, of course. I'll double check something hasn't changed, but I doubt it. Denver doesn't want to go to court again.

Our law here is that any public building that installs a security checkpoint that's *permanent*, and also offers safe (defined as locked by numerous lawyers) storage for firearms can disallow carry past the checkpoint.

If the building is private, that's different. The owner can post signs which carry no weight of law, but serve as a hint for respectful folk, and ask anyone to leave (standard trespass law) at any time.

This was actually entertaining up at the Republican Caucuses which they decided to hold on the CU campus in Boulder because of size. Public building. No permanent security checkpoint, and the school attempted to disarm folks, like they always do, illegally, with contacted security at non-permanent entry checkpoints.

Numerous DAs (some carrying) and lawyers walked over to the contracted security's manager had a few words with the security staff to call school officials and notify them that they were being asked to break the law. ;)

Boulder cops watching the whole thing just laughed and waved them in, after the school told the security guards to knock it off. The cops knew the law and didn't mind at all. The school had just given their usual "no weapons" orders to their contract security folks without a single brain cell turned on.

The Regents will probably get a clue and install permanent security. Whether or not they'll offer the required secured storage, remains to be seen. A number of small rural Counties also break that portion of the law, but they're slowly learning.

Fun to hear that the high powered lawyers who were also packing, were off to "go fix the problem". I wasn't there, just got to hear about it later from one of the Attorneys. Amazingly no media picked up on it, either.
 
It's a sad state of affairs when someone can get arrested and fined that amount of money for making what practically speaking is a pretty simple mistake.

Such are gun laws. The problem is we have a body of people who think anyone ought to be able to walk around anywhere you please with fully automatic assault weapons and another body of people who don't think anyone should own any guns at all.... and both groups push legislation.

The result is this body of confusing laws/regulations and ridiculous penalties that don't really make any sense. I knew how bad it was one day while listening to a radio show with a WI DNR representative fielding questions about the new state laws.... IIRC, if you're out hunting and you come in for lunch and lean your loaded gun against your truck that's ok(where previously that was a concealed weapon and off to jail you go) but it was still a concealed weapon if you lay it in the truck bed... and then off to jail you go unless you have a CCW in which case you're not an evil criminal.
 
cowman said:
Such are gun laws. The problem is we have a body of people who think anyone ought to be able to walk around anywhere you please with fully automatic assault weapons and another body of people who don't think anyone should own any guns at all.... and both groups push legislation.
Click to expand...

Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon? They were outlawed many years ago, but the anti-gunners want you to think you can buy a machine gun at Wally World.

Next, please define "assault weapon". That's the most abused term in the lexicon of the gun banners. I guess a hammer could be classed as such.
 
Brad Z said:
Speaking of smoke, that's the same argument as flying from Washington State to Colorado carrying weed. It may be no big deal to you, or anyone outside of either terminal, but it's a big deal to the feds in between. Ignorance of the law is no excuse...
Click to expand...

If the lawyers/judges have to look up the law all of the time, why should I be expected to know all of them in detail. Your statement is thoughtless and silly
 
Norman said:
Have you tried to buy a fully automatic weapon? They were outlawed many years ago, but the anti-gunners want you to think you can buy a machine gun at Wally World.

Next, please define "assault weapon". That's the most abused term in the lexicon of the gun banners. I guess a hammer could be classed as such.
Click to expand...


Huh. That's interesting because I can go shoot one any time I like at the range. Automatic firearms require a $200 tax stamp. They're not "outlawed" at all.

Assault is a dumb adjective unless you're actually assaulting something, agreed.
 
denverpilot said:
Huh. That's interesting because I can go shoot one any time I like at the range. Automatic firearms require a $200 tax stamp. They're not "outlawed" at all.

Assault is a dumb adjective unless you're actually assaulting something, agreed.
Click to expand...
Making new ones for civilians is outlawed. All the machine guns you can buy with that tax stamp were made over twenty years ago. They can be rebuilt but you can't get a new one.
 
To me, fully automatic is a prerequisite for something to be called an assault weapon. Bayonet mounts, muzzle breaks, collapsable stocks, and all the other crap the anti-gun people define them by are not.

I'd be for common sense gun control... if anyone ever proposed any. Haven't seen it yet.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Making new ones for civilians is outlawed. All the machine guns you can buy with that tax stamp were made over twenty years ago. They can be rebuilt but you can't get a new one.
Click to expand...

Which means no one can afford them. A decent Full Auto Lower is pretty expensive these days if you can find one, the $200 tax stamp is nothing.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Making new ones for civilians is outlawed. All the machine guns you can buy with that tax stamp were made over twenty years ago. They can be rebuilt but you can't get a new one.
Click to expand...
ja_user said:
Which means no one can afford them. A decent Full Auto Lower is pretty expensive these days if you can find one, the $200 tax stamp is nothing.
Click to expand...

Sounds like airplanes.
 
Morgan3820 said:
If the lawyers/judges have to look up the law all of the time, why should I be expected to know all of them in detail. Your statement is thoughtless and silly
Click to expand...

If you'd rather be lazy and lot familiarize yourself with the rules for transporting firearms on a commercial airline flight, that's your prerogative. The Feds have been sensitive about firearms are commercial aircraft for more than 40 years. If you're going to bother to take your gun with you on your first commercial plane ride, maybe it would be worth a few minutes to google the rules and regs.
 
Brad Z said:
If you'd rather be lazy and lot familiarize yourself with the rules for transporting firearms on a commercial airline flight, that's your prerogative. The Feds have been sensitive about firearms are commercial aircraft for more than 40 years. If you're going to bother to take your gun with you on your first commercial plane ride, maybe it would be worth a few minutes to google the rules and regs.
Click to expand...
A bit simplistic. There is a federal law that allows one to transport a firearm from one legal place to another through states where it is illegal to own said firearm. Provided the gun is cased. There was a fellow traveling with a checked gun through NJ, flight got canceled they made him collect his bags and arrested him when he checked a firearm(no NJ permit) the next day. Oh right I know the answer just give up guns...
 
ClimbnSink said:
A bit simplistic. There is a federal law that allows one to transport a firearm from one legal place to another through states where it is illegal to own said firearm. Provided the gun is cased. There was a fellow traveling with a checked gun through NJ, flight got canceled they made him collect his bags and arrested him when he checked a firearm(no NJ permit) the next day. Oh right I know the answer just give up guns...
Click to expand...

Still doesn't stop you from getting your face smashed into the pavement in some, NEW YORK!!, states. :mad2:

A good friend had that happen when got pulled over for some stupid reason. He politely gave the cop his AR concealed carry and told the him that he had a gun, in a LOCKED case, in the glove compartment. The cop dragged him out of the car and arrested him for "threatening an officer with a firearm".
 
bartmc said:
So, he did the same thing on the way back. Denver TSA wasn't as nice. They tossed him in jail and left him with an $11,000 fine with other charges pending and a terrified new bride.

She said he was scared and would just "pay the fine to get it over with". My advice was to take it to jury if the prosecutor wanted to take it that far.
Click to expand...

Two issues here:

If the fine is a TSA fine it won't be a matter of prosecution - it's an administrative fine that can only be appealed within the DHS. Only after the internal appeals process can the person who was fined take it to court. In an administrative penalty, the agency gets to be prosecutor, judge, and jury.

Throwing him in jail means there is a (separate) criminal charge. For that, he'll need a good lawyer expereienced with either Federal or local criminal law (depending on which charges they apply). If he is convicted (or pleads) to a criminal charge - and this one will likely be pushed as a felony - he will find the rest of his life to be affected in ways he'll not realize until 10, 15, or 20 years later. Perhaps a lawyer can get the charges reduced.

Sounds like they really threw the book at him. Which is a bit surprising given the way they handled the case of the Denver TSA screener who brought a gun to the airport.

Of course, they're under a lot of media pressure right now over the limited number of prosecutions of people who bring guns to the airport.
 
denverpilot said:
Takes a special kind of stupid to think a magazine inserted with rounds in it, is "loaded" too.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch. I grew up in the South and knew plenty of people with guns, although my family didn't have any so I am not intimately familiar with them. But until reading this I would have assumed that "loaded" meant "bullets in the gun."

I feel like I'm a pretty intelligent person but would never have considered a gun to be unloaded just because a round wasn't chambered. Is it universally accepted to call such a gun unloaded?
 
wsuffa said:
Two issues here:

If the fine is a TSA fine it won't be a matter of prosecution - it's an administrative fine that can only be appealed within the DHS. Only after the internal appeals process can the person who was fined take it to court. In an administrative penalty, the agency gets to be prosecutor, judge, and jury.

Throwing him in jail means there is a (separate) criminal charge. For that, he'll need a good lawyer expereienced with either Federal or local criminal law (depending on which charges they apply). If he is convicted (or pleads) to a criminal charge - and this one will likely be pushed as a felony - he will find the rest of his life to be affected in ways he'll not realize until 10, 15, or 20 years later. Perhaps a lawyer can get the charges reduced.

Sounds like they really threw the book at him. Which is a bit surprising given the way they handled the case of the Denver TSA screener who brought a gun to the airport.

Of course, they're under a lot of media pressure right now over the limited number of prosecutions of people who bring guns to the airport.
Click to expand...

As I've found out, the fine was administrative. It's my understanding that the local PD filed no charges on him. He was "detained" at the airport and released. He will be getting his gun back though he hasn't yet. $11,000 was the number they were told, but she doesn't know if that's "official" yet. They were allowed to board the flight but their next leg got cancelled and that's why they drove instead.

My guess is, nothing will come of it other than 2 scared 20 year olds..
 
Understand this people. TSA, and most of DHS is nothing but a jobs program. TSA has nothing to do with actual security. It's a sop to the people who need the hand of govt at every public place. The process is to maximize fees, fines, and taxes diverted from people's discretionary income.
 
docmirror said:
Understand this people. TSA, and most of DHS is nothing but a jobs program. TSA has nothing to do with actual security. It's a sop to the people who need the hand of govt at every public place. The process is to maximize fees, fines, and taxes diverted from people's discretionary income.
Click to expand...

plus, TSA and DHS funds wasted aren't available for actual security procedures.
 
dukeblue219 said:
Ok, I'm not anti-gun by any stretch. I grew up in the South and knew plenty of people with guns, although my family didn't have any so I am not intimately familiar with them. But until reading this I would have assumed that "loaded" meant "bullets in the gun."



I feel like I'm a pretty intelligent person but would never have considered a gun to be unloaded just because a round wasn't chambered. Is it universally accepted to call such a gun unloaded?
Click to expand...


Can it be fired with no round in the chamber?

Pretty simple really.

You can pull the trigger all day long, it isn't going to go bang until you...

Load it. By racking the slide.
 
denverpilot said:
Can it be fired with no round in the chamber?

Pretty simple really.

You can pull the trigger all day long, it isn't going to go bang until you...

Load it. By racking the slide.
Click to expand...


P.S. I haven't seen what kind of pistol he had. If it was a revolver, then he truly is a moron.
 
denverpilot said:
Can it be fired with no round in the chamber?

Pretty simple really.

You can pull the trigger all day long, it isn't going to go bang until you...

Load it. By racking the slide.
Click to expand...

Folks...who did your gun safety classes?

Cartridges in gun: loaded
No cartidges in gun: unloaded

Cartridge in barrel: chambered

Every gun show I've been to requires your gun to be unloaded. Do you think they're OK with a loaded magazine but just not chambered?

I'm surprised there is so much confusion. This is gun safety 101.
 
Brad Z said:
I'm surprised there is so much confusion. This is gun safety 101.
Click to expand...

Been to a public range lately? Gun safety 101 must be a graduate course these days...

I stopped going to public ranges - just can't stand having folks carelessly pointing guns any way they might happen to point them including at me! I really don't care if the other person thinks the gun is not loaded.
 
ron22 said:
They could have then "unloaded" it.
Click to expand...


Uh...no. Not their job and not safe. Kid is old enough for a CCW, he's old enough to wander to the internet to read the rules.

Stupid and lazy...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ggroves said:
Uh...no. Not their job and not safe. Kid is old enough for a CCW, he's old enough to wander to the internet to read the rules.

Stupid and lazy...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

What????

Point barrel of gun towards ground. Push magazine release button with thumb. Partially rack slide to see any rounds that may be in the chamber.

Oh yeah, so unsafe.
 
EdFred said:
What????

Oh yeah, so unsafe.
Click to expand...


So, you think the same crew who fondles your undies should unload a gun? Got it!

Idiot...

So when your poorly trained TSA agent mishandles your loaded gun, causes an AD, and hurts someone...what do you think they are going to charge you with then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
comanchepilot said:
I don't have any sympathy for people being stupid any more -

He is traveling by air with a gun - if he does not have the brains to find out what the actual rules are when he travels by air with a weapon he has no business doing so . . .

there are DHS/TSA regulations which state the weapon needs to be unloaded. . . . what does that mean for any particular weapon is the issue here.
Click to expand...
And I'm getting tired of "shall not be infringed" being ignored.
 
Clark1961 said:
Been to a public range lately? Gun safety 101 must be a graduate course these days...

I stopped going to public ranges - just can't stand having folks carelessly pointing guns any way they might happen to point them including at me! I really don't care if the other person thinks the gun is not loaded.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. I joined a private range after visiting a public range a few times and seeing all the bullet holes in the partitions, and watching some of the folks swinging their guns around like a classroom pointer. :eek:
 
Yet another situation of a gun at an airport where there is no risk to commercial aviation. If there was, they'd prosecute for attempted air piracy. I'm STILL, after almost 13 years, waiting for the first charge of attempted air piracy of a passenger inadvertently failing to comply with the gun rules having a 'loaded' [omg omg omg] a 'loaded' firearm at the airport. . . ..
 
ggroves said:
So when your poorly trained TSA agent mishandles your loaded gun, causes an AD, and hurts someone...what do you think they are going to charge you with then?
Click to expand...

Hopefully, he would shoot himself in the leg. Then he'd learn something about gun safety. :hairraise:
 
Ya know if we let Texans carry their guns onboard we wouldn't have a terrorist problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top