Assuming he had the gun in his carry-on accidentally, and there is no evidence of criminal intent, what is the issue here?
Exactly... “crime” in the “law” and “judges instructions” it was defined that in order to commit a “crime” there must be an act and an intent! Neither could be mutually exclusive or it was not a crime!!!
In another portion of the instructions it defined what law that was possibly broken. Intending to bring a firearm into the sterile area of an airport.
Then the last portion of the judges instruction stated that he must “knowingly” bring a firearm into the sterile area of the airport. If all of these were not proven, then he is not guilty. In this country it’s “innocent until PROVEN guilty.”
In this case there was zero evidence that he had “intent” to commit a “crime”. Therefor he is innocent of the crime accused!
I dont know for sure... But it seems pretty darn open/closed case to me!
May common sense prevail!