I really don't know which part of this story gets my goat more - the fact that the local NBC station is going into PSH over it or the guy thought he could bring a loaded weapon (even if the weapon itself was not loaded, his magazines were, ergo...) in his carry-on luggage. Note - I wanted to include the TSA in that little rant, but it appears that the TSA found it during screening, before the passenger could board a plane.
To summarize - a passenger attempted to bring a Ruger .45 and ammunition past security at Richmond International Airport earlier this morning. Why this qualifies as BREAKING NEWS 5 hours after the fact ... I'll leave that for y'all to figure out.
Now, the guy could've very easily forgotten it was there if he routinely carries in the bag he had on the plane. I know I've had items in my laptop bag that would've made airport security rather ... excited ... if they'd found them. :P While explanatory, it's not exculpatory. It was a stupid move. If you're transporting your weapons (and yourself) by plane, follow the rules and procedures. Yes, it's a pain in the butt. Yes, it's an intrusion into privacy, etc. etc. But (and it's a big but), it prevents you from violating any number of federal laws. Which means, you'll be able to keep that nice, shiny CHP (oh, and the firearms, too) that the Commonwealth of Virginia was nice enough to issue to you.
The local station is starting to get on my nerves with the hysterical rants about guns, lately. Now, I know this isn't a change for them, it's just that I've started paying more attention to articles/stories about gun usage. We've had several stories over the past couple weeks that the hysteria became in-your-face-obvious. The first was a local deputy that used a personal weapon (not even his duty sidearm) to defend himself and his home from a burglar. The local papers and TV news tried to play the story off as a vigilante mission by the deputy and were making calls for something to be done to the deputy. Now, VA is NOT a Castle Doctrine state (yet, that is). The legal precedents in the local courts strongly lean that direction, however. The deputy was doing what any homeowner should be allowed to do - protect himself. Almost two weeks later, the state police are still investigating, but likely won't do anything to the deputy. However, the article makes it sound like the homeowner was in the wrong for shooting someone WHO BROKE INTO HIS HOUSE and THREATENED HIS FAMILY.
The second story happened just this past weekend and is making the rounds of the gun blogs. Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned is just one example of the reaction. Now, the guy was carrying a loaded Glock in his waistband without a holster. Definitely falls into the category of Less Than Intelligent Moves. Guy did something stupid and paid the price. His wife is quoted as seeing him move it around when it went off. GAAAAH! Modern firearms (yes, even Glocks) don't just "go off". On a bad day, surrounded by idiots, *I* am more likely to "just go off" than your standard firearm. Holsters, in this case, are good for two things - making sure that the weapon doesn't randomly drop out and keeping outside objects from interacting with the bang switch. Especially your finger. The local coverage of this story played up the "evil gun decided to take the guy's life" angle instead of using it as a reinforcement of the importance of safety. Yes, the man was less than bright for carrying that way. A $10 piece of cheap plastic would've done him better. Playing to peoples' fear, instead of using it as a means to instruct, is just sad.
I better stop this here, because the more I think on this, the angrier I get, and my co-workers would rather I keep the angry mumbling to a minimum.
No comments:
Post a Comment