I disagree quite vigorously with your asinine "one strike, you're out" proposal (read: "once a victim, always a criminal&quot , but it is ridiculous that people like Ed Hale keep getting away with this crap by saying "Oops, I forgot!" I don't forget to put my big boy toothpaste in my checked bag, for Christ's sake. There is no reason, at any time, to put a firearm in your carry-on. If you were going to bring it on the plane, it belongs in your checked bag from the very beginning. The fact that people put these things in their carry-on is very good evidence they intended to illegally sneak a firearm onto a plane instead of following the established procedure for traveling with firearms.

You vigorously disagree with my proposal yet you go on about how "Oops, I forgot" is unacceptable. What's wrong with demanding that gun owners be fucking responsible. Why would you "disagree quite vigorously" with that?

to be pleased that a violation of law hasn't been brushed aside for a minor celebrity. It's too common for powerful people to violate this exact law, and simply get sent home with no charge. I'm glad that Jack and I were treated equally by the law -- that's not related to your proposal, and I still disagree with every word of it.

Since car comparisons are so popular, I'll give you my perception of what your "One Strike, You're Out" would look like applied thereto:

A person shouldn't be able to ever own a car again if:

1. they lock themselves out
2. they are involved in a collision (inc. with the curb)
3. a child joyrides their car
4. their car is stolen
5. they forget to turn off their high-beams
6. take more than 10min to locate their car in a parking garage
7. enter a one-way street the wrong way

Obviously not designed to increase safety, but to make as many people legally ineligible for car ownership as possible

Can't wait to hear the gun clutching crowd come to the defense of this criminal.

I would never say that looks tacky on you. In fact, some might argue they think it might attrack just what you are looking for. All kidding aside, weren't you the one who said pro control folks think wearing a gun looks tacky? Who told you that? Your mother? LOL!

... unless it's a white firearm after Labour Day

Of course, it would imply that the clutching wearer is surrendering.....in which case, we look out for our prisoners.

A difference of opinion on the punishment.

The pants wetting crowd will want life long punishment of some kind.

Without evidence of other criminal activity involving the gun, I say a nice fine is in order.

it should be treated like any other object you're not allowed to carry past the screening station - he can forfeit the item, or miss the flight while he arranges another disposition of it...

should be punished severely with the loss of gun rights is because he's demonstrated a flagrant disregard for safety and responsibility.

since, under the law it is a privilege and not a right
and drunk drivers kill more people and cause more damage

It's who ya know...
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003/2003-01-23-dobbs-gun.htm

People were still chewing on Freedom Fries and saying "Yer with us or agin' us!" and "Nahn Wun Wun changed ever-thang!" when that happened. But she walked...

Is this guy any relation to Fat Tony? If so, he'll walk too!

With the tough gun laws in NJ, you or I would have done at least a Year in Prison.

Hopefully his lawyer can fix this for him.

We love you, Big Daddy!

"Sorry, Jack, but one strike you're out," like that's the law, perhaps you can post that law for all to see.
But really Micky, you have no idea what the truth is, but since you brought it up, why don't you post some links to some studies to what you're claiming, I'm sure you've researched this before posting it.

You really don't want my opinion of your comments, really, you don't.

You write to original poster

'You really don't want my opinion of your comments, really, you don't.'

Ok. For once we agree.

We've agreed on subjects other than the guns issue. I think I've agreed with you in Meta, LBN and GD, and I'm sure there are a few gun issues we agree on, one being that I believe that all private sales should have a background check done, and this can be accomplished by opening up the NICS to private sellers to find out if the buyer is a prohibited person or not.

Thank you for that. I appreciate it.

But, why would you not want to demand safety and responsibility from gun owners? Why would you want to give them a second chance when they proven themselves unfit?

He may very well have forgotten it was in his bag, it happens, doesn't mean he's unfit to own or carry a firearm. You're one strike your out is way out of line and I, for one, would never support such a draconian measure.

Forgetfulness may explain his behavior but it doesn't excuse it. How many other gun laws does he break do to forgetfulness? Doesn't matter. It's the law. He broke it. Let's enforce it rather than make excuses for someone's poor judgement.

He should be punished, a hefty fine would be sufficient, but Mikey's one stike and your out is waaaaaaaaaaaaay to draconian.
In this country, we do believe in second chances, drunk driver's are a great example, 1st offense is usually a loss of your license for a period of time, a hefty fine, a hike in your insurance, drunk driving school, maybe a few days in jail, but it's not one strike and your out, so why should this be any different?

No-one ever noticed.

Apparently, it's really not a big deal at all, certainly not one that requires the circus act it's given in many places.

Rational gun policies... You don't have'em.

Bringing more than how many ounces of toothpaste is a 'big deal' but carrying an undeclared gun isn't? How many other gun laws or regulations do you break and claim it's no big deal?

is about carry-on baggage. He did not forget a gun in a carry-on bag and they missed it. Nobody was hurt by the mistake and nobody could have been hurt. (Unless of course a TSA agent or baggage handler stole the gun, but that would be breaking the law).

Drug dealing?

One strike and you're out??? Out of what?

If you are a convicted drug dealer, you get no more drugs? If you are a convicted armed robber, you get no more guns?

to engage in reasonable debate.

One strike and you're out??? Out of what?

If you are a convicted drug dealer, you get no more drugs? If you are a convicted armed robber, you get no more guns?

How many times do you think a gun owner should break gun laws before losing his license? I always find it amusing when the gun clutching crowd says we don't need more was....just better enforcement of existing ones......

Willfully obtuse, the favorite strategy of those who do not wish to engage in reasonable debate.