No. If people are too chickenshit to leave the house without their emotional support firearms, then they alone should have to bear the consequences of those actions.

I've managed to fly on airplanes for 45 years now without packing anything that would go against the TSA rules. Surely an actual legislator, who should be held to a higher standard anyway, can handle the same amount of responsibility. I'm sure this Republican state senator would have felt the same way if it was a basketball player getting busted for a vape pen in a Russian airport instead.

The difference with your vape pen analogy was that that basketball player intentionally brought an illegal substance into the country thinking they could not be held responsible for it. This senator did an accidental thing that was reported to the authorities as soon as it was prudent to do so.

If your basketball player, of who we all know we're talking about, accidentally carried it into the border of Russia and then surrendered it to customs saying I brought this illegal substance accidentally I would be on the same side of showing a leniency to encourage this kind of voluntary surrender of contraband.

As would any reasonable person because getting people to voluntarily follow the rules is much better than doing it through force of terror which encourage this in them to hide the fact they are doing it such as your basketball player example did.

> emotional support firearm

Do you lock the door to your home at night?

In Boy Scouts, we have a motto, "Be prepared." Why do anti-2A people regularly belittle people who carry guns? How is it any different than carrying a pocket knife or locking your doors? You are preparing for any situation the world might throw at you. The likelihood that someone will break into your home is low, so why lock the door? Is it an emotional support lock?

Locking your door at night is extremely unlikely to have any life threatening downsides. I suppose you could concoct a scenario where you live with someone with an altered mental status and the locked door prevents them from escaping during a fire, but that's reaching.

A gun at rest, which this case was, is also extremely unlikely to have any life threatening downsides. What is your point?

Are you trying to claim that locking your door at night, and carrying a firearm daily, both result in the same amount of risk of life threatening downsides? Because I would very much disagree with that statement.

Yes, because a gun that sits in a holster with a safety on is just as likely to kill you as a door is. Guns don't shoot themselves.

A gun has only one purpose: to kill. I'm disinclined to give people any kind of leeway when it comes to mistakes with firearms.

At least the damn thing didn't discharge mid-flight.

Killing is not always bad, murder is. (Common mistranslation of a commandment).

Wow really? One purpose?

Did you ever hear of target practice? Or marksmanship? You do know it’s an Olympic event right? Do you feel the same about archery? Or darts? Clearly whoever made darts so sharp and pointy was making a statement that they exist only to puncture skin, right?

I stand by what I said.

Glad to have you confirm you are indeed clueless about guns and their uses.

Discharge during flight... You have the classic movie understanding of firearms. Firearms do not accidentally discharge without them being played with.

You know what, you're right - I did the classic passive voice thing. I should have written "At he didn't accidentally discharge the damn thing mid-flight."

I agree with that sentiment because not knowing where your firearm is, is a very bad thing. Because if you don't know where your firearm is you cannot be confident of its status if it is loaded or not. That being said, I still don't think the actions of Hong Kong were proportionate in this regard. That's a total opinion people are free to disagree on but if the goal is to reduce problems then having a honest mistake that was reported as soon as possible receive a high punishment does not encourage people to rectify their mistakes as soon as possible. It actively encourages the opposite to conceal the mistakes or to dispose of it on the plane before he left. The concealing of the mistakes will always result in worst outcomes for everyone.

How, exactly, do you imagine that would happen?

He did admit to realizing he had the gun when he reached in to his bag mid flight. We don't know the state of the gun, was it loaded, was it secured in a holster with a covered trigger, etc... But how this could happen is, if the gun is loaded and it's loose without a covered trigger, and you don't realize it's there then reaching in to your bag and moving things about searching could very well trigger an accidental discharge.

I'm not saying there should be no accountability for his mistake, because not being aware of where your firearms are is very serious thing especially if you're choosing to carry one. I just don't think this action by HK is in proportion to the crime. It would have been better to seize and return it and let the TSA issue a fine.

According to the article he violated American law as well. He put it in his carryon while "According to the TSA, firearms can only be brought on commercial flights if they are unloaded, packed in a locked, hard-sided case and checked."

At least he can now point to the fact that he voluntarily turned it in as pretty solid evidence that it was an honest mistake.

Imagine if he had been caught by TSA instead. He would likely have been arrested just the same (like in these cases [1], which all happened in the past couple of weeks), but now he has a lot more explaining to do because the "testimony of his memory" is not publicly verifiable.

[1] https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2023/10/17/tsa-offic...

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2023/10/23/tsa-preve...

https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2023/10/13/nassau-co...

You should do more research on these cases the TSA does stop a number of firearms but the number of people who are actually fined and or arrested is quite small. Because the TSA does take into account that carrying and transported some firearms is legal and while it is not legal to carry them past the TSA checkpoint people can forget them in their bag because it's the same bag they use when they're not flying.

A vast majority of these cases simply result in the person being questioned and then returning the firearm to be properly placed in a checked bag but not allowing them to cross the checkpoint with it.

It's not just firearms that are illegal to bring past the TSA checkpoint knives and other such "weapons" are as well. The TSA likes to tout their numbers because it makes foolish people feel safe. In reality the number of people with bad intent that they stop from bringing weapons on board is effectively zero and this is by their own admission. I myself would travel weekly and I had a multi-tool with a knife on it one week that I had forgotten was in my bag. The TSA found it pulled it out and let me on my way. Yes they could fine someone, but considering that this is legal behavior just not in this very strange area they do not push this issue unless there is egregious violations because they are not confident that they would win in court. They are confident that they could win in the fact that they can limit the area but not fines in jail time.