Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: R. Mark Clayton on 21 Jan 2010 08:45 "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2010012012305316807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... > On 2010-01-20 07:43:42 -0800, "Save $3.99" <dev(a)null.null> said: > >> "Nicko" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:b5c04b72-9e09-42bc-990f-144febebaeff(a)14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... SNIP > > When was the last time a US domestic flight was diverted to Canada because > of weather? I can find Vancouver flights diverted to Seattle. Presumably the reverse happens from time to time. > > Typically, an American inadvertently bringing firearms or pepper sprays or > other prohibited items into Canada can simply turn the offending item over > to Customs, who sends the item to be destroyed. So you lose your $20 > starter pistol. Big deal. And you haven't tried to import the item, however in the example I gave to change airports and wait two days for a flight required clearing customs and firearms would give you big problems in the UK - 5 years just for possession. > > This is not to say that I think packing a gun in your luggage is much of a > solution against theft. Neither do I - the FBI are likely to shoot first and ask questions afterwards... > > -- > Waddling Eagle > World Famous Flight Instructor >
From: Savageduck on 21 Jan 2010 10:26 On 2010-01-21 05:45:32 -0800, "R. Mark Clayton" <nospamclayton(a)btinternet.com> said: > > "C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:2010012012305316807-christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmailcom... >> On 2010-01-20 07:43:42 -0800, "Save $3.99" <dev(a)null.null> said: >> >>> "Nicko" <nervous.nick(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:b5c04b72-9e09-42bc-990f-144febebaeff(a)14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com... > SNIP > >> >> When was the last time a US domestic flight was diverted to Canada because >> of weather? > > I can find Vancouver flights diverted to Seattle. > > Presumably the reverse happens from time to time. OK. However the original hypothetical was for SFO-BOS. As for the East coast, a West coast domestic flight bound for SeaTac would have US options such as Portland. Another thing to consider is, there is no guarantee passengers on a US domestic flight would be carrying passports, now required for Canada-US travel, that would create another set of problems. The airline is more likely to seek out a US alternate. > >> >> Typically, an American inadvertently bringing firearms or pepper sprays or >> other prohibited items into Canada can simply turn the offending item over >> to Customs, who sends the item to be destroyed. So you lose your $20 >> starter pistol. Big deal. > > And you haven't tried to import the item, however in the example I gave to > change airports and wait two days for a flight required clearing customs and > firearms would give you big problems in the UK - 5 years just for > possession. Yeeeees, but all of this is still hypothetical, and there is still no proof of intent to smuggle a weapon into Canada and possess it illegally. What makes you think the luggage would be moved out of customs bond after a week let alone two days? Some items will be held in bond for months. Your bad outcome is based on your assumption of how Canadian authorities are going to handle an extraordinary situation which is out of the control of any of the protagonists, the traveling, gun packing photographer, the airline and the weatherman. If things panned out according to your script the PR for Canadian customs and the airline would be disastrous. As far as the 5 years for possession in the UK, please cite the Penal Code or other reference, just to show that isn't just another hypothetical. Remember the original problem was posed for an SFO-BOS flight diverted to Canada, the UK had nothing to do with it. I seriously doubt you would, in the hypothetical circumstances set out, have a problem on a US domestic flight diverted to Canada because of an emergency. Especially if all rules were complied with and no criminal intent is demonstrated. > >> >> This is not to say that I think packing a gun in your luggage is much of a >> solution against theft. Agreed. > > Neither do I - the FBI are likely to shoot first and ask questions > afterwards... Where did you get that idea? You might want to check on use of force rules, and regardless of what Hollywood and publicized bad shooting incidents might lead you to believe, the FBI and the great majority of Law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and the RCMP are professional and are not trigger happy goons. I can't speak for other national police forces. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Chris H on 21 Jan 2010 13:17 In message <2010012107260231729-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes >Yeeeees, but all of this is still hypothetical, and there is still no >proof of intent to smuggle a weapon into Canada and possess it >illegally. They don't need to do that. You and your unlicensed firearm are in Canada. That is illegal. During the several weeks you are in detention waiting for trial your lawyers and work out a defence. > What makes you think the luggage would be moved out of customs bond >after a week let alone two days? Some items will be held in bond for >months. Sod's law says your case with the gun (starter pistol) is the one that for some obscure reason gets put in the wrong pile and get opened or moved though customers or scanned. "He's got a GUN!!!" You get asked to help with enquires.... >Your bad outcome is based on your assumption of how Canadian >authorities are going to handle an extraordinary situation Yes. >which is out of the control of any of the protagonists, the traveling, >gun packing photographer, the airline and the weatherman. All of which are irrelevant. Many terrorists and criminals are caught though chance like this and until you prove otherwise you are a criminal.... >If things panned out according to your script the PR for Canadian >customs and the airline would be disastrous. How so? >As far as the 5 years for possession in the UK, please cite the Penal >Code or other reference, just to show that isn't just another >hypothetical. No it's real. Ask any UK citizen. Illegal Possession is 5 years. > Remember the original problem was posed for an SFO-BOS flight diverted >to Canada, the UK had nothing to do with it. True. Also very unlikely. However we were discussing what happens when a flight gets diverted to a country it was not intending to land in. >I seriously doubt you would, in the hypothetical circumstances set out, >have a problem on a US domestic flight diverted to Canada because of an >emergency. Especially if all rules were complied with and no criminal >intent is demonstrated. You could demonstrate that as your defence after they locked you up. >>> This is not to say that I think packing a gun in your luggage is >>>much of a >>> solution against theft. > >Agreed. >> Neither do I - the FBI are likely to shoot first and ask questions >> afterwards... > >Where did you get that idea? Real life and personal experience. There have been several cases shortly after 9/11 >You might want to check on use of force rules, and regardless of what >Hollywood and publicized bad shooting incidents might lead you to >believe, the FBI and the great majority of Law enforcement agencies in >the U.S. and the RCMP are professional and are not trigger happy goons. Proof please... -- \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/ \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
From: Savageduck on 21 Jan 2010 14:37 On 2010-01-21 10:17:40 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)phaedsys.org> said: > -----------<Snipped to prevent head explosion caused by Devil's > advocacy>-------------- > This is not to say that I think packing a gun in your luggage is >>>> much of a >>>> solution against theft. >> >> Agreed. >>> Neither do I - the FBI are likely to shoot first and ask questions >>> afterwards... >> >> Where did you get that idea? > > Real life and personal experience. There have been several cases shortly > after 9/11 > >> You might want to check on use of force rules, and regardless of what >> Hollywood and publicized bad shooting incidents might lead you to >> believe, the FBI and the great majority of Law enforcement agencies in >> the U.S. and the RCMP are professional and are not trigger happy goons. > Proof please... Real life and personal experience. 25 years of real life Law enforcement experience, and training and cooperative assignments with both FBI & RCMP. My Lieutenant's badge now has a fancy retired ribbon running across the top. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Jeremiah DeWitt Weiner on 21 Jan 2010 15:23
In rec.photo.digital C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > TSA has had problems with thieves of their own, so I would not regard > them as any more reliable than any other airline workers. In fact, > cases containing firearms are labelled, which would seem to me to > attract the attention of thieves. No, they are not labelled, and have not been for years. In fact, it's specifically against the law for the airlines to label firearms cases; see 18 USC 922(e). That aside, yeah, stuff still goes missing from checked baggage, and the entire original article seems to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking: "If it has a gun, they're going to be extra-special careful, right? Right?" Notwithstanding the complete lack of evidence that they actually do anything like that... As for me, I don't like checking my gear at all, because I want it as close to my person as possible at all times. I'd sooner check my last change of clothes than my camera gear - it's usually easier and cheaper to buy new clothes than to buy a new body, lenses, flash, etc. -- Oh to have a lodge in some vast wilderness. Where rumors of oppression and deceit, of unsuccessful and successful wars may never reach me anymore. -- William Cowper, 1731 - 1800 |