Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Sure to cause confusion!

  1. #1
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025

    Sure to cause confusion!

    Sea-Tac will be interesting if this is implemented:

    http://news.msn.com/us/us-agency-wan...oints-counters

    Although, it seems that they do this anyway...I OC there all the time and have foot and bike patrol floating around.
    Last edited by jt59; 03-27-2014 at 01:03 AM.
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47 12 x W122 10
    Posts
    1,762
    What has this to do with us? A change in police deployment tactics at airports? Big deal. Yawn . . .

  3. #3
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    Whats stopping the airports from banning all forms of carry on airport property?

  4. #4
    Regular Member Grim_Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington
    Posts
    792
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    Whats stopping the airports from banning all forms of carry on airport property?
    Covered here

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...SeaTac-Airport

    here

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...Seatac-airport

    and here

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...SeaTac-Airport

    in short... SeaTac can't do squat legally regarding any type of carry as long as you abide by RCW 9.41.300 because they are restricted by RCW 9.41.290

    per SeaTac's "rules"

    "16. Firearms and Explosives:
    a. No person may carry firearms on or about the Airport except as allowed by federal
    and state law."
    Armed and annoyingly well informed!

    There are two constants when dealing with liberals:
    1) Liberals never quit until they are satisfied.
    2) Liberals are never satisfied.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Why would they want this?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Why would they want this?
    Citizen intimidation/compliance exercise.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Plausible deniability. A cop can then use (plead) ignorance of the law when he gets thumped for violating state law. The resultant consequence during a citizen's seeking of a redress of wrongs will be nothing more than a training deficiency. Risk management/mitigation is what the private sector calls it.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  8. #8
    Regular Member J1MB0B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    239
    I guess I should work on my sarcasm skills, aparently they are lacking.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Citizen intimidation/compliance exercise.
    +1

    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Plausible deniability. A cop can then use (plead) ignorance of the law when he gets thumped for violating state law. The resultant consequence during a citizen's seeking of a redress of wrongs will be nothing more than a training deficiency. Risk management/mitigation is what the private sector calls it.
    +1

    I was confused since TSA has committed tremendous amount of crimes and have stopped zero terrorists.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by J1MB0B View Post
    I guess I should work on my sarcasm skills, aparently they are lacking.
    In today's topsy-turvy world, good sarcasm is indistinguishable from reality.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Arlington, WA
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    I was confused since TSA has committed tremendous amount of crimes and have stopped zero terrorists.
    That seems pretty unfair since they stopped that underwear bomber...no, wait, that was a defective bomb and an alert passenger. There was that shoe bomber...no, alert passenger again. Uhhh...never mind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •