If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Beast)   Overstock.com CEO arrested at Salt Lake airport for luggage overstocked with loaded firearms   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 93
    More: Dumbass, CEO, Salt Lake City International Airport, charging document  
•       •       •

9202 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 5:49 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-18 06:36:21 PM  

anindependent: Can someone please direct me to the part of the constitution that says you lose the right to keep and bear arms when on a plane? How much harder would planes be to hijack if hijackers knew the passengers were packing heat?


Link

/obligatory
//gun owner and advocate
///slashies
 
2013-01-18 06:39:40 PM  

Jim_Callahan: My main question about this... one weapon, four arrests?

Really poorly worded article, or ridiculous amounts of creative license by the police? Having read a lot of news and known a decent number of cops, it could easily be either.

//Not sure why the carry-on limitations would apply to what I would guess is a private jet. He doesn't need a gun to hijack the plane, he already owns the plane.
//Admittedly "I didn't know it was in my luggage" is probably not a good excuse where a gun is concerned, because if anything that's even worse.


I thought the same thing. Was it three other arrests of the same charge? If not, that info is irrelevant, and seems to be a weak attempt by the author to present this incedent as more commonplace.
 
2013-01-18 06:40:44 PM  

eKonk: he denied knowing about the handgun

If this is true, he should be forbidden from ever touching a gun again. If you don't know you have your gun on you/in your luggage, you are far too irresponsible to be in control of it.


Maybe he didn't put it in there. When my (ex)wife's parents came to visit, she was worried they might snoop through her dresser, so she hid her octopus themed vibrator (hey, she was Japanese...) in my luggage. I did not know this. Guess what happened next time I took a flight (by myself).

Bag is going through the scanner, and the lady just starts looking at me. "what?" she looks at me, looks at the scanner, and looks back at me. "What?" she looks at the scanner and looks at me again. "what?" 'Um...nothing'.

When I got to my destination and started unpacking, I found it and was like "oh."
 
2013-01-18 06:41:38 PM  

Oznog: There's a store here in Austin which gets all the TSA-seized items out of Austin/Bergstrom.

So there's bins full of deadly Leathermans and other little mult-tools. Pocket knives. A few reasonably scary blades that are within the length that can be legally resold in this store (no swords, darn it!) And... hammers. And a kerosene lantern. Seriously? Who tried to take a kerosene lantern on the plane??


Yeah, it's like that display of prohibited items, there's some bizarre shiat in there. I don't understand who thinks a camping stove full of fuel, fireworks or chainsaws are a good idea(Heard a story this wek about a chainsaw and apparently they ARE allowed, as long as they are drained uf fuel)...

This jackass had luggage with him, I'm sure. A firearm is completely kosher in checked luggage. Even ammo if it is not a loaded gun and you declare it at the ticket counter.
 
2013-01-18 06:44:58 PM  
Very fitting use of the "dumbass" tag, indeed.
 
2013-01-18 06:45:06 PM  
Not sure what subby's point is supposed to be but

The President's plan includes:

Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands
Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and taking other common sense steps
Making schools safer
Increasing access to mental health services



[I'mOKWITHTHIS.jpg]
 
2013-01-18 06:52:44 PM  
Has anyone tried updating his Wikipedia entry with this incident yet?
 
2013-01-18 06:52:48 PM  

whidbey: Not sure what subby's point is supposed to be but

The President's plan includes:

Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands
Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and taking other common sense steps
Making schools safer
Increasing access to mental health services
Closing the CEOs-get-3-free-airborne-shootings loophole

[I'mOKWITHTHIS.jpg]


Not sure why they had that to begin with.
 
2013-01-18 06:54:09 PM  

eKonk: he denied knowing about the handgun

If this is true, he should be forbidden from ever touching a gun again. If you don't know you have your gun on you/in your luggage, you are far too irresponsible to be in control of it.


Word.
 
2013-01-18 06:57:36 PM  
He might have had a flunkie pack his bags for him. What better way to give paybacks for the hot cocoa sampler pack?
 
2013-01-18 07:00:17 PM  

Lochsteppe: Closing the CEOs-get-3-free-airborne-shootings loophole

[I'mOKWITHTHIS.jpg]

Not sure why they had that to begin with.


They must have thought it would be must-see TV.
 
2013-01-18 07:01:57 PM  

eKonk: he denied knowing about the handgun

If this is true, he should be forbidden from ever touching a gun again. If you don't know you have your gun on you/in your luggage, you are far too irresponsible to be in control of it.


I had to read that 3 or so times to make sure that is what it actually said. There was no other way to interpret that statement... unless of course they didn't quote the entire statement. Let's remember too, he was one of four people arrested and I wonder if he actually backs his bags. There are too many questions that need for me to be 100%. I am thinking I am about at 90% as of now for that was being a lie from what I just read, but that is just my opinion.

Anyway, I completely agree with you and said punishment.
 
2013-01-18 07:02:03 PM  

Jim_Callahan: My main question about this... one weapon, four arrests?

Really poorly worded article, or ridiculous amounts of creative license by the police? Having read a lot of news and known a decent number of cops, it could easily be either.

//Not sure why the carry-on limitations would apply to what I would guess is a private jet. He doesn't need a gun to hijack the plane, he already owns the plane.
//Admittedly "I didn't know it was in my luggage" is probably not a good excuse where a gun is concerned, because if anything that's even worse.


Doesn't stop him from shooting up the terminal or firing at other planes while walking out to his jet.
 
2013-01-18 07:05:00 PM  

anindependent: bugontherug: bugontherug: anindependent: Can someone please direct me to the part of the constitution that says you lose the right to keep and bear arms when on a plane? How much harder would planes be to hijack if hijackers knew the passengers were packing heat?

Pardon me. Forgot to actually write something.

My question is, are you serious?

Yes.

Do you think 9/11 would have happened if the passengers were able to defend themselves?


Well, the Flight 93 passengers defended themselves. The plane didn't crash into a building, but the passengers are just as dead.

My question to you, just as serious, is this: If there is only ONE hijacker, then maybe a person with a gun could do some protecting, sure. On 9/11 there were five per plane. They apparently (or probably) took secondary hostages prior to taking control of the cockpit. So even if you have a gun, what will you do if multiple hijackers with multiple human shields in front of them are commandeering the plane? Are you going to shoot through the hostages to kill the hijackers?
 
2013-01-18 07:20:30 PM  

anindependent: bugontherug: bugontherug: anindependent: Can someone please direct me to the part of the constitution that says you lose the right to keep and bear arms when on a plane? How much harder would planes be to hijack if hijackers knew the passengers were packing heat?

Pardon me. Forgot to actually write something.

My question is, are you serious?

Yes.

Do you think 9/11 would have happened if the passengers were able to defend themselves?


Are you farking serious?
 
2013-01-18 07:21:41 PM  
Oh, he was in a public terminal with a firearm on his person. Yeah, that's not cool private jet or no. If this was the fenced in biz jet area then I can't see why anyone would care. I guess it depends on the FAR part # he was flying under.
 
2013-01-18 07:30:28 PM  

anindependent: Can someone please direct me to the part of the constitution that says you lose the right to keep and bear arms when on a plane?


The planes owned by airlines are private property. It's not a constitutional question, per se. The airline is not a government entity nor public property. If the airlines wanted to make a rule that no one could have a green shirt on their plane, that is legal. (It would be silly and arbitrary, but legal). Likewise, I would have the right to refuse you entry into my private home if you were carrying a weapon.
 
2013-01-18 07:35:04 PM  

eKonk: he denied knowing about the handgun

If this is true, he should be forbidden from ever touching a gun again. If you don't know you have your gun on you/in your luggage, you are far too irresponsible to be in control of it.


Concealed means concealed.
 
2013-01-18 07:36:33 PM  

VegasVinnie: He dun goofed, is gonna lose that concealed carry permit.


This and deservedly so.
 
2013-01-18 07:37:33 PM  

Ivo Shandor: Oznog: And a kerosene lantern. Seriously? Who tried to take a kerosene lantern on the plane??

Did it have any kerosene in it? Maybe it was a gift for someone, carried on so that it wouldn't be smashed by the baggage handlers.


Stop being reasonable. You're not helping the fire.
 
2013-01-18 07:48:18 PM  
Oh look it's this thread again.
 
2013-01-18 07:50:38 PM  

Gyrfalcon: My question to you, just as serious, is this: If there is only ONE hijacker, then maybe a person with a gun could do some protecting, sure. On 9/11 there were five per plane. They apparently (or probably) took secondary hostages prior to taking control of the cockpit. So even if you have a gun, what will you do if multiple hijackers with multiple human shields in front of them are commandeering the plane? Are you going to shoot through the hostages to kill the hijackers?


Beats crashing into a building. Of course the first time someone depressurizes the cockpit by shooting a hole in the side at 38000 feet it stops seeming so worth it, and the best defense against a bunch of guys with knives is just to lock the cockpit doors and refuse to negotiate with terrorists. The fact that they didn't do that in the first place is, in retrospect, unreasonably trusting.
 
2013-01-18 07:52:14 PM  
archive.sltrib.com

"It's all about the clowwdthes."
 
2013-01-18 08:03:59 PM  

you have pee hands: Gyrfalcon: My question to you, just as serious, is this: If there is only ONE hijacker, then maybe a person with a gun could do some protecting, sure. On 9/11 there were five per plane. They apparently (or probably) took secondary hostages prior to taking control of the cockpit. So even if you have a gun, what will you do if multiple hijackers with multiple human shields in front of them are commandeering the plane? Are you going to shoot through the hostages to kill the hijackers?

Beats crashing into a building. Of course the first time someone depressurizes the cockpit by shooting a hole in the side at 38000 feet it stops seeming so worth it, and the best defense against a bunch of guys with knives is just to lock the cockpit doors and refuse to negotiate with terrorists. The fact that they didn't do that in the first place is, in retrospect, unreasonably trusting.


Only because you are young and/or ignorant of pre-9/11 hijack protocols.

In the last rash of airline hijackings in the 1970's, the MO of hijackers was always to 1) take over the plane, 2) order the pilots to fly to someplace else, usually the Middle East, 3) land, and 4) use the passengers and crew to negotiate for weapons or the release of prisoners being held by Israel. Only if these negotiations did not take place were the passengers at risk of harm by the hijackers, and in fact after a few tragedies in the 1960's, hijackers usually took great care NOT to harm passengers if at all possible. So flight crews were told always to cooperate with the hijackers, obey their commands, with the goal of getting the plane on the ground and allowing professional negotiators and SWAT and commandos to take over.

On 9/11, these protocols were still in place, and even if the US government and security agencies were aware of the possibility of commercial airlines being used as bombs, this had not been disseminated to the air carriers themselves. So when the hijackers took over, the flight crews did as instructed: Obeyed orders, cooperated with the hijackers--and duly died. Since then, protocols have been changed, but you have to realize that things were different on 9/10 and nobody had yet thought "What if the hijackers DON'T want to take the plane back to Yemen?"
 
2013-01-18 08:05:36 PM  
Somewhere a bald eagle sheds a single tear.
 
2013-01-18 08:12:26 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: So are the rules the same for a privately chartered plane as they are for regular flights? I can never be without my ankle pistol.


No they aren't. Was mr overstock getting on a private flight? I
 
2013-01-18 08:14:29 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: So are the rules the same for a privately chartered plane as they are for regular flights? I can never be without my ankle pistol.


Are you kidding? Used to fly suitcases of coke and handguns right into LaGuardia. Screw this "driving cross country" crap, you could charter a Lear Jet and not worry about getting busted by some trooper pulling you over because your license plate light was dim.
 
2013-01-18 08:20:56 PM  

duffblue: Oh look it's this thread again.


Amazing how often this sh*t happens, ain't it?
 
2013-01-18 08:51:37 PM  

Frantic Freddie: I've carried handguns on planes,but in my checked luggage,in a proper locked case & I filled out the forms & gotten the tag,it ain't hard to do.

Follow the rules,it ain't hard.


Rules are unconstitutional.
 
2013-01-18 09:17:23 PM  
The CEO of Overstock.com was arrested this week at Salt Lake City International Airport for allegedly carrying a loaded firearm during a routine screening of carry-on luggage. Patrick Byrne was one of four people arrested, although he denied knowing about the handgun, a loaded Glock 23 .40-caliber weapon.

Shouldn't this guy have hired dudes who will carry weapons for him on his behalf? Who will put themselves into harm's way in case someone were to move against him due to his social-economic status? At least we have to assume this man is a self-made millionaire, as he's too stupid to have grown up as one (and used to the considerations they have to... consider).
 
2013-01-18 09:37:25 PM  

numbquil: Nothing is going to happen to him. Having as much money as this guy does gives you an exemption from the law.


More like having stupid amounts of money allows one to hire a lawyer good enough to get around most things.
 
2013-01-18 10:00:36 PM  

utah dude: [img832.imageshack.us image 54x11]


Can't have Fark tag, Ohio, Not yours.
 
2013-01-18 10:00:39 PM  

numbquil: Nothing is going to happen to him. Having as much money as this guy does gives you an exemption from the law.


Bingo. Because mankind is vile, evil, immoral and corrupt. There is little to no good in the world. To live is to suffer. Everything causes cancer. And everything that lives dies. In a lifetime filled with many years one may know a few fleeting moments of happiness. The rest is darkness, tears, unfulfilled longing and regret.

/ this message brought to you by the Happy Go Lucky Sunshine Committee
 
2013-01-18 10:03:06 PM  

Indubitably: Indubitably: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: duffblue: Oh look it's this thread again.

Amazing how often this sh*t happens, ain't it?

Not really.

Ghosts are afoot.

To ghost


Ghosts don't have feet.
 
2013-01-18 10:07:31 PM  

anindependent: bugontherug: bugontherug: anindependent: Can someone please direct me to the part of the constitution that says you lose the right to keep and bear arms when on a plane? How much harder would planes be to hijack if hijackers knew the passengers were packing heat?

Pardon me. Forgot to actually write something.

My question is, are you serious?

Yes.

Do you think 9/11 would have happened if the passengers were able to defend themselves?


I know gun-rights people have all these wonderful comic book fantasies about taking down the bad guy if only given they were given the chance, but...

Yes. Because up to that point, the standard procedure of hijackings is "Of course sir, we'll fly you to Cuba."

Yes, because the hijackers would've then had guns instead of boxcutters, and no passenger in their right mind would be having a John Wayne shootout in a full cabin of passengers.

Yes, because everyone in the world knows that we have the military weaponry to reign down holy hell on anyone we want...and that hardly has had much of a deterrent against Bin Laden and his crew in the past.
 
2013-01-18 10:33:17 PM  

Oznog: There's a store here in Austin which gets all the TSA-seized items out of Austin/Bergstrom.

So there's bins full of deadly Leathermans and other little mult-tools. Pocket knives. A few reasonably scary blades that are within the length that can be legally resold in this store (no swords, darn it!) And... hammers. And a kerosene lantern. Seriously? Who tried to take a kerosene lantern on the plane??


You laugh now, but guess who's going to be ready if the power in the plane goes out? Huh? Didn't think that through did YA! Yeah, I'll be ready with my kerosene lantern to light up so we can all see. You'll be left in the dark sucker!  And what if the power in the plane is out the entire flight? Yeah, I'll be able to read my book and you won't!


// :-)
 
2013-01-18 10:42:55 PM  
It's a reasonable precaution.

mcgarnagle.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-01-19 01:05:05 AM  
The shiat from Utah is overflowing and polluting my country
 
2013-01-19 04:31:49 AM  

unlikely: So the gay bashing religious zealot RONPAUL libertarian is also a gun-zealot retard?

Who'd have guessed THAT?

/me


They all go together. It's almost like being a gun nut is just being...a nut.
 
2013-01-19 09:06:05 AM  

Mikey1969: Firearm, Subby, firearm.

Just one. No need to conflate the issue yet again.


One's all you need to rain death upon the populace Dr. Sheldon Cooper PhD.
 
2013-01-19 09:13:23 AM  

Jim_Callahan: My main question about this... one weapon, four arrests?

Really poorly worded article, or ridiculous amounts of creative license by the police? Having read a lot of news and known a decent number of cops, it could easily be either.

//Not sure why the carry-on limitations would apply to what I would guess is a private jet. He doesn't need a gun to hijack the plane, he already owns the plane.
//Admittedly "I didn't know it was in my luggage" is probably not a good excuse where a gun is concerned, because if anything that's even worse.


The word you want is dissent. Dissent dissent dissent. SORRY but this is a rotsky-scale pet peeve of mine. Use the right gorram word or be prepared to be flamed mercilessly by my college educated ass.
 
2013-01-19 09:36:12 AM  
If everyone had a gun and could carry it as they pleased, we'd have no need for gun control.
 
2013-01-19 03:33:00 PM  
At overstock.com. Its all about the O, O O, face, vagina.

/Vagina
 
Displayed 43 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report