Who's responsible (re. Webb gun incident)

Who is responsible for the incident that happened on the Hill yesterday?

1) Senator Webb, since it was his gun.
2) The aide, since he was in possession of the weapon.
3) Neither
4) Both
5) Somebody else
6) They're both victims of draconian DC gun laws.

Since the aide was carrying the gun, it would seem to be his responsibility, no?

Carrying your bosses briefcase while he is on the phone or equivalent is fairly common.

didn't know that.
If he was carrying Webb's briefcase without knowledge of what was in it, then by all means I expect Senator Webb to take full responsibility for it.

...

"side with"

...I mean that I think the Senator is responsible for the mistake, not the aide.

in the poll.

I like Senator Webb quite a bit....I helped on his local campaign and am proud to have him as our Senator. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong intentionally but ultimately the responsibility for Web's handgun is his.

I like Webb too, but it was his responsibility to know where the weapon was. This could be a good thing in the end.

it's up to the owner to secure the weapon.

...as long as Webb doesn't make his aide take the fall, and provided that the legal penalties are not too harsh.

I suspect that there are plenty of swing voters in Virginia who would see this as evidence of Senator Webb's Second Amendment cred. How many other Senators -- Republican or Democrat -- actually pack heat?

And for 2008, we need every Dem in our corner.

The District Court has recently doubted the constitutionality of the ban.

Here is the court ruling: http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Here is the summary:


edited for clarity

It's not in his nature to allow someone else to take the rap for this if it was, indeed, his fault. You are also correct that the incident won't hurt him a bit in this state.

- Is it his pistol
- How come his aide was carrying it
- How did the mistake occur

Anything less that forthrightness on this and no matter what his stand on the 2nd amendment is, it will hurt him.

link...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/ap_on_go_co/senate_arrest

It's a minor detail, not like he was gunning for someone. It's his gun, he should have kept it with him, not give it to an aide.

If Webb lets Thompson take the fall, Webb loses "cred" big time. If Webb owns his mistake, pays the fine, he wins. If he owns the mistake and uses senator "powers" to weasel out of a fine, he loses "cred" a little bit.

Even if Webb kept control of the gun, it's my understanding he can't carry it "loaded" into the building.

Its also Federal Law, not DC law.

It's his gun.

He didn't shoot or threaten anybody. Meh.

Sen. Webb: "I believe that it's important — it's important for me, personally, and for a lot of people in the situation that I'm in,to be able to defend myself and my family," Webb said. "Since 9/11 for people who are in government I think in general there has been an agreement that it's a more dangerous time. Again, I'm not going to comment, again, with great specificity about how I defend myself, but I do feel that I have that right."

So close, Mr Webb, while we appreciate your pro-gun stance, do not forget the rest of us down here on the ground! I have a family too, THAT places me, and EVERYONE ELSE, in the same situation you are in!


Anyone know how many "people who are in govt" were murdered on 9/11 vs how many civilians?

Private bodyguards for the rich and powerful get to carry serious hardware and local families can not have a functional long gun or a hand gun at all to defend themselves. One of many examples of the disproportionate racial impact of the gun laws, and emblematic of their racist roots.

Like terrorists are just waiting to attack Jim Webb, and he's going to shoot it out with them in the halls of the Senate office building. :eyes:

Kind of goes to show how stupid the guns for self-defense rationale is in general. Most people who have guns don't live in areas where they're needed. The people who live in places where they're needed, can't afford them. And if there weren't so many people in those areas with guns stolen from the people who don't need them, the dangerous places wouldn't be dangerous and nobody would need guns there either.

Stuck on stupid we are. What a country.

I think that is why the DC law is seen as so stupid - Webb can carry, but JQ on the street can't? Yet why is he more likely to be a victim? Sounds like Trump, Ronald Lauder, Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Howard Stern and Don Imus, and all the other well-to-do in NYC who have permits, while most common folk get screwed by having to do without. And since the laws aren't stopping the bad guys from getting the guns, only the other good guys who aren't as privileged as Webb or as rich as Trump will do without, or risk breaking the law themselves.

One thing about having a gun for self-defense - it is alot of responsibility and can be aggravating, but the 1st time you need it - it will be well worth it.

Webb for giving his loaded gun to another person.
Webb's aide for showing up in a restricted area with a loaded gun.

At first I said the aide, because he accepted responsibility. But really both are. Webb should never have ended up in a situation where he had to hand his gun off to somebody who wasn't legally capable of handling it.

It's Webb's gun. Plain and simple. Something that dangerous should only be in the hands of the person responsible for its safe keeping.

Did I read somewhere yesterday that the gun was NOT registered?

Unless it was something other than a reputable news source.