TSA Catches Loaded Firearm in Luggage at Santa Barbara Airport

Definitely!!!! Someone so incompetent shouldn't own a gun!

Seriously RHS? Libertarians? The ONLY people who actually want to follow the Constitution? The ONLY ones who believe government should be smaller? That government shouldn't be the largest employer? That there should be term limits? So, I assume you're a leftist sheep who opposes all those things? Whats your belief?

You either understand history or trust the government. You can’t do both.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FBI_controversies But the FBI released a statement after the Durham report saying they’ve totally reformed themselves and won’t ever do anything like all that again…..

The trust in government agencies in the face of a long history of lies, abuses, misdeeds, and even illegal activity is absolutely astounding. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

From Blazers article,
"A Civil penalty for the offense of carrying a weapon onto a plane, something forbidden since the days of I dream of Jeannie, ranges from $2,050 to $14,950 and is evaluated by TSA on a case by case basis."

15 rounds are shown in the photo, 15th round was likely in the chamber. Why a "case by case" evaluation to determine the penalty? The man was about to carry a loaded weapon onto a commercial plane.

count em' again.

IMARSHELL - there are 15 shown. Counted em thrice.

Reviewing my 823 comment @ 8:44 and the OGSB comment 823 @8:32, is there a violation other than possessing a "large capacity magazine?" Possibly a CCW violation? Regarding the weapon on the plane I wrote " - about to carry" & OG wrote " - carrying a weapon onto a plane." In this incident the man never made it (into) the plane with the weapon.

If you owned a larger magazine prior to when the CA prohibition was enacted I believe you were able to keep it.

Voice; actually the hi-cap ban applies to all such, but is tied up in court due to a lawsuit questioning the law's constitutionality. Thus it isn't enforceable at this time.

How is it unconstitutional to limit the number of rounds in a magazine?

“shall not be infringed”

LOL - I had a feeling someone would spout that absolute baloney. OF COURSE it can be infringed. Are you able to purchase a fully automatic rifle? A tank? A missile? No, it CAN absolutely be infringed according the law.

You asked a question and that is the answer, whether you like it or not is irrelevant. I wouldn’t expect you to know this but yes, you can buy an automatic weapon built before 1990’s or so (forget exact date) of which their are many, and the permit/fee/tax to do so is thousands of dollars and they’re all registered. Yes you can buy a tank. Missiles, and the explosive shells tanks fire, are not firearms, they are explosives. Facts matter.

Tanks are not "explosives." Nor are anti-aircraft guns. Go buy one and tell us how it works out for you. "fActS mAtTeR"

" that is the answer" - No, it's not. It's a simplistic and incorrect justification, not an accurate and informed answer. It's akin to answering a question with simply saying "Because it is." You should take no pride in that response.

Like you often do, you’re arguing down a path that’s far outside of your understanding. Tanks are vehicles and can absolutely be bought, check out eBay. AA guns, which you clearly know nothing about, fire explosive shells. These are facts, as was my original answer, again, you not liking it or even thinking otherwise is irrelevant.

VOICE - I'll concede tanks are legal to buy, I had not idea. But you're missing my point. The 2nd Amendment is a free reign to buy anything you want. THAT is what I'm getting at. CA should be able to regulate within reason what firearms and accessories are legal in its state. The 2nd Amendment is NOT impervious to challenge. Decades of Supreme Court decisions indicate that it's not as "uninfringeable" as many (gun worshippers) tout.

Feel free to nitpick and pat yourself on the back over minutia, but it's true.

"Like you often do, you’re arguing down a path that’s far outside of your understanding." - Pot meet kettle.

Tanks aren’t firearms, neither are missiles, other explosives, nor the sophisticated technology needed to effectively use them. But to really pound the mail on the head in proving you incorrect check this stuff out exarmyvehicles.com

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - ARMS is the word. Now, tell us again how tanks and missile launchers aren't "ARMS?"

And wth does "sophisticated technology have to do with anything? Does the 2A only permit "low technology" arms? Or, are you ADMITTING that the authors of the 2A did not contemplate the future development of weapons?

Which is it?

Now, back to the real point that, despite what you maintain about the definition of arms, many consider the 2A to protect their "right" to own any weapon they want, with no restrictions or limitations. That's simply not true....

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" - District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 at 626 (2008).

So, back to your original, simplistic comment at 1:28pm today, "shall not be infringed" isn't a valid (or well thought out) answer to my question as to why the CA law re: large magazines was being held up in court for being "unconstitutional?" Sorry, but as I've shown, the right to "bear arms" CAN be "infringed." Case closed.

VOR, yeah, no. Read the Second amendment. "To bear arms."

Not muskets, rifles, pistols, etc..

"Arms" comes from "arma" which literally means tools of war. Your distinctions about rifles and pistols to tanks and shoulder mounted rockets, etc., etc. are totally false.

If you read the 2nd amendment with no context, then any member of a well regulated militia shall have the right to possess any weapon. Period. That's what it says.

Fully automatic weapons, Javelins, poison gas, flame throwers, biological weapons, nuclear weapons, all of it. "Armas". "Arms". Tools of war.

That's if you read the 2A with zero historical context. But you don't, do you.

Ales, this all goes back to Sac's question about the high capacity magazines, which the correct answer was the 2A. Your expansion to include flames throwers, poison gas, Javelins, etc. is simply not how the 2A amendment has been interpreted by the judiciary and applied, my personal feelings aside. I always thought the interpretation never put enough weight on the "well regulated militia" portion, which should have allowed the requirement of some formal training at least as rigorous as what it take to get a drivers license. Sacjon, the sophisticated technology is in reference things like the advanced sensors and fire control tech. that allows a Javelin missile to find and hit the target, technology sperate from a firearm or 'arms'. If you believe the authors of the 2A DIDN'T contemplate future development of weapons than by extension, the 1A wouldn't apply to the internet, radio, TV, etc. and be limited to the spoken word, newspapers, and books.

VOR, you and your anti-safety, anti-American crowd always trying to take away our rights. I happen to be a member of a well regulated militia. The 2A means that I am legally allowed to maintain a stock of nerve gas for my and my family’s protection. Period, the end. Stop trying to rewrite the second amendment and our fundamental rights as American citizens!! I will not be a victim!!! Nerve gas will take out any home invader, too bad if it also kills everyone in the neighborhood and my own family!! My freedom my choice!

He literally doesn’t understand his own attempt at logic. He’s saying the founders anticipated technological change and this 1A applies to internet, television, I.e. all technological modes
Of speech. By that logic, they anticipated all forms of “arms”, I.e., tools of war, and of course he’s right, which is why my owning a dirty bomb is constitutionally PROTECTED.

Uh oh, your superior logic went backwards and trapped you LOL

"technology sperate from a firearm or 'arms'." - No, the entire machine, technology included, constitutes "arms." There is no separation, unless you can cite the case law where you believe that distinction exists.

"arms
/ (ɑːmz) /
pl n weapons collectively" - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arms

"The right to bear arms generally refers to a person’s right to possess weapons. " - https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html#:~:text=The%20right%20to%20bear%20arms%20generally%20refers%20to%20a%20person's,for%20Congress%20to%20regulate%20guns.

As much as I disagree with the idea, it's pretty clear you're WRONG about missile launchers, etc not being considered "arms."

These nitwit constitutional experts always leave out the "well regulated" bit. Funny about that.

VOR, you can't have it both ways buddy.

If you read the 2A then you know very well what it says, it is crystal clear.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Arms also would refer to blade weapons, because in Europe the underclass was often barred from owning swords, etc..

Arms means weapons and tools of war, period, the end.

Shall not be infringed has zero wiggle room in the language.

Period.

The fact that the courts have interpreted the 2A in order to limit (infringe) the right of citizens to bear (own, use) certain arms, does not change the original language at all.

That being the case, because the court has changed the law, the door is gapingly wide open for the courts to limit (infringe upon) civilians' right to bear all types of weapons to adjust for changing technology, and therefore, under your own logic, the court could easily go back and study what weapons of war existed at the time of the passing of the 2A and limit access to only weapons with those specs and capacities.

That means, very clearly, absolutely obviously, that the court has the option to only allow people to own single shot firearms, rifles, pistols, cannon, and blades. No semi-automatic weapons, not even revolvers.

As far as I am concerned, that would be just fine.

Now go ahead and twist yourself into a pretzel to try and talk your way out of that one, you've been intellectually wrecked and you don't even understand it.

VOR, nah, you tried to argue specific weapons and systems as a justification for infringing upon some weapons and not others. You're wrong.

You literally are incapable of tracking your own arguments and attempts at logic.

To boil it down so you can understand it; there is zero wiggle room in the language of the 2A. However, the courts have decided to interpret the 2A to infringe upon and limit to some extent the rights of the citizen to own certain weapons.

Do we agree on that fact?

Pretty sure we do.

That being the case, you you can not argue in any sense against the ability of the court to further limit what weapons citizens can have--they have already done so, they can continue to do so. This means that the courts can in fact ban any weapon they choose, including ones using high capacity magazines, silencers, suppressors, semi-automatic mechanisms, fully automatic mechanisms. You agree the court has interpreted the 2A, you agree the court has the ability to do so.

Now dispute what I have just said, prove it wrong, try to claim fEEEliNgS

SBDUDE - exactly. At the very least, they should be banned from owning any firearms for a time. It's pathetic listening to gun lovers cry about how bad CA is to them, yet they can get away with something like this with only a fine.

"the unidentified man was invited to accompany law enforcement off the premises."

"Invited" is an interesting way to put it. I hope we get to know the outcome of the investigation (ie. was it an accident or did he intend to hurt people?).

At least they gave you the option of eating it. Some time ago we had an apple in our carryon and the TSA person would not let us step aside and eat it. (The restriction was due to agriculture, not fluids.) Apparently if we had pre-sliced the apple it would have been allowed. I do understand they can’t have a lot of people munching away in their limited spaces. But man, we were counting on eating that apple in the plane.

Too bad about the apple. I don't think I would've felt very good on the plane after eating 16 ounces of applesauce! It never occurred to me that applesauce qualified as a liquid.

Rules for thee but not for me. Politicians trying to prevent citizens from protecting themselves with the very same firearms used to protect politicians is peak hypocrisy. Their life is no more important than any other life or family.

Wow, really? You're defending bringing a LOADED handgun on an airplane?

"I will not be a victim or statistic." - Neither will the billions of Americans throughout history who never needed an arsenal to protect themselves.

MATT - welcome to Edhat.

@Sac, more like welcome to the GOP and their asinine rationalizations.