Some crazy drama yesterday

Feb 15, 2010 22:34

Anthrocon bans fur over open carryPosted by GreenReaper (Laurence Parry) on Sun 14 Feb 2010 - 01:42 ( Read more... )

furry, drama

Leave a comment

shadowfox24 February 16 2010, 04:45:06 UTC
IK has the right to carry. Thing is though that AC has the right to ban anyone for any reason. Kage could ban everyone who likes The Eagles if he so desired. As I stated elsewhere this is a situation where an unstoppable Libertarian force (2nd Amendment rights) meets an immovable Libertarian object (private property rights).

IK has turned his carry status into a personal crusade and that's the main reason he was banned. He says he wouldn't carry in con areas but what are the odds if he's willing to carry into an airport? It's a risk no responsible con chair could afford to run.

That said Kage was extremely unprofessional in the manner in which he dealt with this. He can go ahead and put that claim of it affecting AC's relationship with the local police on Ebay and see who buys it. The childish and outright slap in the face contained in the certified letter reflects directly onto the content of his character.

Reply

freakylynx February 16 2010, 04:51:23 UTC
That is true, it is a situation I am sure no con chair would or should have to carry as a risk - anyone who has attended a furry con knows there's a tad too much irresponsibility going on with those attending. I have not read all the items related to this situation but I would not be surprised if it couldn't have been handled a bit better, on the surface it sounds poorly executed.

Reply

maddogairpirate February 16 2010, 04:53:26 UTC
This hits the nail on the head perfectly for both issues, yes.

Reply

foxhack February 16 2010, 04:54:16 UTC
I thought guns of all kind were banned in US airports because of Homeland Insecurity?

Reply

maddogairpirate February 16 2010, 04:55:36 UTC
It's my understanding he was prosecuted, but under PA law there is nothing against open-carry, so the charges were dropped.

I'm not sure if airports are somehow protected under national law like that. It's an interesting point.

Reply

natashasoftpaw February 16 2010, 05:02:11 UTC
Generally, weapons in airports are only restricted beyond security checkpoints. The person in question carried his weapon in the baggage claim, which is pretty unrestricted access to allow people and their luggage to easily be picked up by friends/family and drivers/chauffers, and there are no metal detectors or security checkpoints there. While some areas may restrict weapons in those areas of an airport, Pennsylvania is not one of them.

Reply

shadowfox24 February 16 2010, 04:59:45 UTC
Carrying a gun on your person unless you're an air marshal, uniformed law enforcement escorting a prisoner or other such authorized personnel has been illegal for practically the entire history of commercial aviation. It's why no responsible person would walk into an airport with one any more than you'd walk into a bank.

Guns are allowed to be transported by air but they have to be unloaded, separate from the ammunition and stored in a secure, locked and labeled container and then only as checked baggage.

Reply

natashasoftpaw February 16 2010, 05:05:23 UTC
The incident in question occurred in the baggage claim outside of any security checkpoints. That's the part that made it legal under Pennsylvania state law, according to the article. Had he been carrying within the security area, it'd be a very different story.

Reply

freakylynx February 16 2010, 05:00:11 UTC
I don't have enough understanding about those laws to comment on that. But I do have some understanding of politicians who make the laws and in that regard I could say that logic and being free of contradiction would require better and more thoughtful people than they to avoid such confusion :P

Reply


Leave a comment

Up