• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man with handgun, ammunition arrested at BWI

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

LINTHICUM, Md. (AP) — A Virginia man was arrested this month while carrying a concealed handgun and 30 rounds of ammunition at Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport, the federal Transportation Security Administration has disclosed.

Police did not announce the Aug. 1 arrest at the time, but the TSA posted an account on its Web site to highlight the success of its technique for screening passengers by closely observing their behavior.

According to the TSA, the man was "exhibiting suspicious behaviors" consistent with the actions of a terrorist before an attack. But Cpl. Jonathan Green, a spokesman for the Maryland Transportation Authority police, said there were no indications that the suspect was involved in terrorism or was "feeling out" security at the airport.

Court records identify the man as Thomas J. Sackie, 45, of Falls Church. He was charged with having a handgun on his person without a permit and taken to Anne Arundel County District Court. He was released without bail.

Cpl. Green said the agency did not issue a press release at the time because it did not think the incident was a major arrest. He described the man as someone who "made a bad decision and got caught."

The man told officers he intended to get a permit for the gun but hadn't gotten around to it, Cpl. Green said.

The TSA said an officer observed a man acting suspiciously as he stood at a ticket counter. The officer, who had been trained through the agency's Screening Passengers by Observation Techniques, or SPOT, program, notified police, who determined that the man was carrying a 9 mm Glock and ammunition without a permit.

One listed address for Thomas J. Sackie was the same as that of Oakley Network Systems in Falls Church. According to public records, Tom Sackie is senior vice president of that firm.

Oakley is a data security and investigative company that specializes in protecting clients against "internal threats," according to its Web site. Mr. Sackie did not return messages left at Oakley's office.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070819/METRO/108190043/1004/metro
 

bayboy42

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
897
Location
Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
imported post

Man, you better watch out for the TSA's "SPOT" program...pretty amazing that just by observing the man, the officer could determine "that the man was carrying a 9 mm Glock and ammunition without a permit." As a graduate of the "SPOT" program, do you get x-ray glasses:lol::what:
 

psmartin

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2006
Messages
205
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

It's amazing that .. in Maryland of all places..TSA didn't immediately run press releases to all the major networks proclaiming the thwarted terror attack!

Hopefully the guy doesn't get the book thrown at him, although anyone with GOOD SENSE knows that Maryland isn't Virginia. "Average joe's" aren't getting permit in Maryland.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

OK... I did wonder about this.

He is old enough that he should know he cannot make it past the metal detectors packing a gun.

He could have unloaded it and placed it into checked baggage or just walked out altogether.

They never mention why he was there with the gun and what he intended to do with it before the flight.



http://www.bwiairport.com/customer_assistance/do__s_and_dont__s/

Firearms and ammunition may not be carried by a passenger on an aircraft. However, unloaded firearms may be transported in checked luggage if declared to the agent at check-in and packed in a suitable container. Handguns must be in a locked container. Boxed small arms ammunition for personal use may be transported in checked luggage.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Ya.... Not sure what he was thinking.

But I have to wonder about him. Seems like he is not very bright in what he did.

From VA and flying out of MD. So I will assume he left home to go to the airport.

So WHY did he take his gun?

Being an older guy, he should have known better and checked to see what he needed to do to take it with him.

But maybe he lives in a cave and did not hear about the ban on transporting firearmson anaircraftso long ago.
 

Dutch Uncle

Campaign Veteran
Joined
May 11, 2006
Messages
1,715
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I agree this guy has very poor judgment to say the least. I wouldn't trust him to provide "security" against any kind of threats, internet or otherwise. He's not a very good example of the folks who carry, so I'm glad to hear he "didn't get around to getting a permit". What kind of a soft-headed lubber doesn't realize you can't just carry a gun in MD, especially while getting ready to get on a plane? How many state and federal laws does thaqt violate?! A simple INTERNET check would have told him he could have dismantled or locked the pistol in his luggage, stored the ammo separately, then declared it as check on luggage at the desk. Federal Peaceable Journey laws would protect him on Maryland's roads, and TSA rules allow checking firearms in baggage if declared. Maybe he's not familiar with how to use the internet to find these things out.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:
I agree this guy has very poor judgment to say the least. I wouldn't trust him to provide "security" against any kind of threats, internet or otherwise. He's not a very good example of the folks who carry, so I'm glad to hear he "didn't get around to getting a permit". What kind of a soft-headed lubber doesn't realize you can't just carry a gun in MD, especially while getting ready to get on a plane? How many state and federal laws does thaqt violate?! A simple INTERNET check would have told him he could have dismantled or locked the pistol in his luggage, stored the ammo separately, then declared it as check on luggage at the desk. Federal Peaceable Journey laws would protect him on Maryland's roads, and TSA rules allow checking firearms in baggage if declared. Maybe he's not familiar with how to use the internet to find these things out.
EXACTLY!!!

So what we have here is a fine, upstanding member of the community exercising his rights to keep and bear arms.

He is so responsible that he chose not to get a CC permit and failed to research how to transport a handgun while traveling by air. It has been all over the news that you cannot do it and for as long as I can recall... you cannot take a gun on the plane.




So I do not think I can trust any decisions he may make when it comes to use of force! People.. watch out!!! This guy is out there. :lol:
 

bayboy42

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
897
Location
Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
imported post

Who said he was trying to board an aircraft? Who said he was traveling by air? Who said he was really even a traveler?

Based on what I read in this article, yes he screwed up, he didn't have a license but nowhere did I read that he attempted to board an aircraft with his gun.
 

HankT

State Researcher
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
6,215
Location
Invisible Mode
imported post

Dutch Uncle wrote:
I agree this guy has very poor judgment to say the least. I wouldn't trust him to provide "security" against any kind of threats, internet or otherwise. He's not a very good example of the folks who carry, so I'm glad to hear he "didn't get around to getting a permit". What kind of a soft-headed lubber doesn't realize you can't just carry a gun in MD, especially while getting ready to get on a plane? How many state and federal laws does thaqt violate?! A simple INTERNET check would have told him he could have dismantled or locked the pistol in his luggage, stored the ammo separately, then declared it as check on luggage at the desk..... Maybe he's not familiar with how to use the internet to find these things out.


This guy is a senior veepat an IT security company. The company provides products and services to BIG customers, including Fortune 100 companies. So, he is quite aware of how to use the Internet. He is also obviously connected politically since he got special treatment by the TSA--his arrest was not announced at the time it happened and possibly the only way it was made public was due to an eagle-eyed reporter scanning TSA internally aimed reports. This guy isno neophyte. But he does qualify for goof with a gun status, that's for sure.

OK, he's an executive goof with a gun...:)

I wonder ifthe goof's firmwill loseanyof the business it has with the Department of Defense?
 

XD Owner

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2006
Messages
377
Location
Arlington, VA
imported post

Any chance he can use the Second Amendment as an affirmative defense? I have a dream, where he gets a hotshot lawyer and the law is overturned as unconstitutional because the the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The article did not mention brandishing, threatening behavior, illegal discharge of firearm, wounding or murder. Just a citizen with a pistol. Anyone hurt? SO why was he arrested?

Do we needpermits to carry our laptops around? Go to an airport. Tell me that none of the people hooked up to the Wi-Fi network is doing something illegal, like downloading child porn, using credit card numbers purchased from Russian hackers to buy DVDs to convert into cash later to be funneled to Hezbollah, or directing a botnet to take down Wal-Mart?

If pistol carriers need permits, then so do laptop carriers! Who knows what evil things those crazy and fanatical laptop users are up to in public!

(This was written on a laptop, but inside my home. You'll need a search warrant to examine it.)
 

bayboy42

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
897
Location
Gloucester Point, Virginia, USA
imported post

All these posts go back to my original questions posed earlier this afternoon (which nobody has really attempted to answer):

Who said he was trying to board an aircraft? Who said he was traveling by air? Who said he was really even a traveler?
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

As I understand it.... They never "observed" a gun... just his behavior as being suspicious.Besides carrying a concealed firearm without a permit... he was not breaking any laws.

Contact was made based on their training to spot people acting like a terrorist. It was only then that he was found to be armed.

Everything appears to be legal and proper. Not sure what defense he can raise.

Both laptops and guns can be used to commit illegal acts. The only difference is that unless you decide to smash someones head in with the computer... laptopsdo not kill people.

You have the right to beep and bear arms... The Constitution does not permit youKeep and Conceal them. ;)

As always.... the bad guy will still conceal carry since he does not really care. The law only stops the honest people who will refrain until they receive a permit. The bad guy must be caught in the act of concealing so that he can be punished accordingly.
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
Both laptops and guns can be used to commit illegal acts. The only difference is that unless you decide to smash someones head in with the computer... laptopsdo not kill people.

:shock::what:


I'm confused by this statement. Are you implying that only the laptop requires a decision to kill people, where guns do it all by themselves? Posessing the owner into going on a killing spree?

Seems to me, unless you decide to take out the firearm from it's holster and shoot someone, guns do not kill people.

Is that statement wrong??
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
I'd say there's about 0% chance of using the constitutuon in any defense, if the part you intend to use is the 2nd Ammendment. That silly old thing? Judges have rolled their eyes at Constutional Defense for over a century. And whenever their feet are held to the fire, they find some way to "interpret" it to mean the exact opposite of what is written in very plain and easy to understand language.

Bottom Line: he was arrested for doing something that was illegal according to a law that was illegal itself.

Thus, his action was not illegal and he was arrested for no reason.

But since reality and the letter of the law are not things that any branch of our government abides by anymore; he's screwed.
I can party agree with you.

He is screwed!

But he was not arrested for no reason. He was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit.

The reason for the initial contact is a little suspect to me. I am not sure I really agree with it. They spotted when they determined as being "suspicious behaviors" at the ticket counter.

Granted, the police cannot just search everyone unless they could articulate the person may be armed. So I am going to alsohave a little bit of trouble here too and would love to know if he gave up his gun or if they found it. Was he constantly adjusting his gunand this was spotted? We do not know.



Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was not violated when a police officer stopped a suspect on the street and searched him without probable cause to arrest.

The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Because of the important interest in protecting the safety of police officers, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk", or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

gregma wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
Both laptops and guns can be used to commit illegal acts. The only difference is that unless you decide to smash someones head in with the computer... laptopsdo not kill people.

:shock::what:


I'm confused by this statement. Are you implying that only the laptop requires a decision to kill people, where guns do it all by themselves? Posessing the owner into going on a killing spree?

Seems to me, unless you decide to take out the firearm from it's holster and shoot someone, guns do not kill people.

Is that statement wrong??


Ahh!! Allow me to clarify my brain processing....

Computers are not designed to kill people.. while guns are. :lol:

But in the end.. computers and guns do not kill people.... people do!
 

gregma

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
618
Location
Redmond, Washington, USA
imported post

LEO 229 wrote:
You have the right to beep and bear arms... The Constitution does not permit youKeep and Conceal them. ;)
Nor does it forbid you from Keep and Conceal. It only stipulates that you can not infringe on being allowed to keep arms, and it says that you can not infringe on being allowed to bear arms. Saying you can not bear them in one fashion or another would make that a defacto infringement.
 

LEO 229

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
7,606
Location
USA
imported post

gregma wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
You have the right to beep and bear arms... The Constitution does not permit youKeep and Conceal them. ;)
Nor does it forbid you from Keep and Conceal. It only stipulates that you can not infringe on being allowed to keep arms, and it says that you can not infringe on being allowed to bear arms. Saying you can not bear them in one fashion or another would make that a defacto infringement.
But since it is not explicitly in there... it does not forbid a state from preventing it. :D
 
Top