Do you have adblock enabled?
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) CEO arrested at Salt Lake airport for luggage overstocked with loaded firearms   ( divider line
    More: Dumbass, CEO, Salt Lake City International Airport, charging document  
•       •       •

9236 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jan 2013 at 5:49 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-01-18 05:53:31 PM  
11 votes:
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.
2013-01-18 05:52:48 PM  
3 votes:
Federal security director Vera Adams said they didn't believe there was "malicious intent" in any of the incidents,

Of course not, he's a corporate CEO, if it was one of us regular joes on the other hand......
2013-01-18 08:03:59 PM  
1 vote:

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 07:30:28 PM  
1 vote:

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 06:34:55 PM  
1 vote:

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?


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

Yes. Because they were easily able to defend themselves, if they'd been willing to take a little damage from the knives. Which they would have been, if they'd felt it critical to fight back. Which they didn't.

In 2001, everyone knew that if you get hijacked, you sit down and shut up and everyone gets off the plane at Disneyland or something.

No one will ever again successfully hijack an American airliner. Period. Guns or no. Because now everyone knows if the plane gets hijacked, either you get the plane back or everyone dies. Remember that guy who tried to open the door (which is impossible anyway) and his fellow passengers beat him to death with laptops? It wasn't a question of ability, it was a question of will.
2013-01-18 06:28:43 PM  
1 vote:
I am personally very pro-gun-rights, and even I think this was a stupid farking move. You can't even bring a bottle of water through security anymore; it seems inconceivable that he would think he could bring a gun through.

Every time I go on a plane, I completely empty and repack every bag I'm going to take. I know most of my carry-on bags have had knives or magazines or other TSA-proscribed items at one time or another. I make damn sure there's nothing in anything I'm carrying through an airport that shouldn't be there. As someone who owns weapons, I am very conscious of the fact that I am personally responsible for their disposition at all times, and thus give a shiat.

If this man can manage a company (and not being familiar with's management or financials, that's not necessarily a safe assumption) he should damned sure be able to tell there are no guns in his carry-on. Hell, if he wanted to bring a gun, he could have easily declared it and checked the bag in.*

*As long he secured it per TSA regulations.

/Wonder if he'll be compelled to surrender his weapons?
//Since he's probably wealthy with connections, being a CEO and all, it could go either way
2013-01-18 06:21:02 PM  
1 vote:
2013-01-18 06:17:37 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2013-01-18 06:09:39 PM  
1 vote:
Nothing is going to happen to him. Having as much money as this guy does gives you an exemption from the law.
2013-01-18 06:06:16 PM  
1 vote:
Firearm, Subby, firearm.

Just one. No need to conflate the issue yet again.
2013-01-18 06:01:26 PM  
1 vote:

They need to find Overstock spokeswoman Sabine Ehrenfeld and bring her in for questioning.
2013-01-18 05:55:30 PM  
1 vote:

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.

"Responsible gun owner", he is not.
2013-01-18 05:38:17 PM  
1 vote:
So the gay bashing religious zealot RONPAUL libertarian is also a gun-zealot retard?

Who'd have guessed THAT?

Displayed 13 of 13 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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.