Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RevengencerAlf t1_j298ahs wrote

The headline is technically accurate but also a bit misleading misleading. Bringing the gun to the airport isn't really what's getting him in trouble. The TSA confiscates weapons all the time to the point that their cringy social media presence memes about it trying to make themselves look like they're actually effective.

For a loaded gun you might still catch charges for it the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for t he gun in the first place.

27

-_Stove_- t1_j29nw7e wrote

i think you are mistaking "Having a loaded weapon in the airport" vs "Bringing a gun to the airport". By bringing a firearm to Logan, he had to be in Mass, which requires an FID, and why he caught a few new charges. The title isn't misleading, it's quite accurate.

2

RevengencerAlf t1_j29prql wrote

No I'm not mistaking anything. And you're just semantically restating the same thing.

As I said....

>the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for the gun in the first place.

He's not really getting charged with "bringing a loaded gun into an airport" vs being charged for getting caught illegally possessing a firearm. It's not where he had it. It's that he had at all when he wasn't supposed to. If a person who is properly credentialed to carry a firearm walks into logan with it and casually puts it through security like did they're most likely just going to have it confiscated.

5

thspimpolds t1_j29pzk7 wrote

Actually caring a loaded firearm at Logan at all is illegal since 9/11.

3