Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wyoming man with loaded gun arrested at San Jose airport
KCBS.com ^ | August 14, 2002 | kcbs staff

Posted on 08/14/2002 2:17:23 PM PDT by NEWwoman

Wyoming man with loaded gun arrested at San Jose airport Source: kcbs Publication date: 2002-08-14

SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) -- A Wyoming man arrested after airport security screeners discovered a loaded semi-automatic handgun in his carryon luggage was being held in Santa Clara County jail Tuesday night.

William Simmons, 57, was arrested around 2:45 Tuesday afternoon at Mineta San Jose International Airport after a screener found the gun in his luggage and notified police, said Officer Joseph Deras, a spokesman with the San Jose Police Department.

Simmons was being held on charges of possessing a concealed loaded firearm, Deras said. Simmons was uncooperative with police and had to be forcibly arrested, he said. Simmons was taken to a nearby hospital after complaining he was hyperventilating. He was examined and released, Deras said.

The airport was not evacuated because security screeners found the weapon before Simmons was past the checkpoint, Deras said.

(10:35p.m.)


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: California; US: Wyoming
KEYWORDS: airport; banglist; firearms; security
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 next last
To: RedBloodedAmerican
Duhhh..even old wives don't tell THAT tale. Put your scarf over the hole and it will knot up, preserving pressure.

The jet engine turbines are driving the pressurization mechanism. There's plenty of pressure to go around.

61 posted on 08/14/2002 5:48:36 PM PDT by ninenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
Hey, I did 6th grade 4 times. So that shows how much you know.

And great idea; we only allow Freepers to board aricraft aith guns on the hip! What a novel idea! And laws are laws, it doesn't matter whose they are. I don't think you missed my point, did you?

62 posted on 08/14/2002 5:51:00 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: ninenot; Tennessee_Bob; cmsgop
Ha!! Hey you sound like the guy in Production Control at the maintenance base for a major that I knew:

His advice to the mechanics, as a time saver while the aircraft was under heavy check in the hangar, was in order to pressure check the sealant around the new aft bulkhead was to seal off the aft half of the aircraft - from the interior at about the center tank area - with speed tape and tarpulin! LOL! Sure thing!

Now I know you are teasing me, so no more acting serious, okay?!!

63 posted on 08/14/2002 5:55:48 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
I notice the airlines are hurting now, even with government bailout money. They would go back to pre-9/11 levels of business if the Second Amendment were not being violated. I don't care if the airlines go broke, either.

We're in complete agreement.

In the year before 9/11, I flew about 20K miles, with plans to fly as many this year.

Since 9/11, I have flown zero miles. And I don't intend to fly anytime soon either. There isn't anywhere that I need to go that I can't simply drive to.

If our Rights were recognized at the airports, I'd probably buy a ticket just for the hell of it and take a short vacation out West somewhere.

But since that's probably not going to happen, I'll just watch as they go bankrupt, which I think the gov't wants to happen so that they can nationalize them.

64 posted on 08/14/2002 5:56:45 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
To your last sentence; yes. When you are submitting yourself to a company or organization that has restrictions for your own welfare, then yeppers. Infringe? So if you feel threatened in another area of life, like riding a public transit system, or in your own car, you will pop a gat at the first impression of you being "infringed" upon? I think the term "infringed" and the 2nd Amendment rights are being skewed and taken out of context. Why were they written, and who were they written in reference to? What had happened in these peoples past that prompted them to write this? I think that answering this will help.
65 posted on 08/14/2002 6:02:33 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
And I don't think *I* want to be aboard a pressurized tube of aluminum, hurtling around the globe at 600knots, 7 miles up when someone pops a hole in the skin! Can you say "Aloha Airlines!"?

A bullet hole in an airline is generally "no big deal" according to the stuff I've read by airplane engineers. Also, there is ammo available that will fragment on impact, so it's a moot point.

It is certainly not as bad as taking a Sidewinder missile up the ass, which is the current "policy", if it can even be called such.

Can you say "Aloha Airlines!"?

Yeah, the "evil handguns" are capable of making a 30 foot hole. I've even heard that many of the evil handguns can shoot bullets that can travels hundreds of miles, piercing anything in it's path. They are even known to just "go off" for no reason.

Time to ban them all. It's for the children.

66 posted on 08/14/2002 6:04:19 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Mulder, don't you think that allowing passengers to be armed on aircraft will bring MORE Govt intervention?
67 posted on 08/14/2002 6:04:47 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
So do you think I am anti-handguns or referring to them as evil handguns because I think they should not be allowed on aircraft in the cabin area, loaded? Or was that just tossed out there for a comment?
68 posted on 08/14/2002 6:07:07 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
A bullet hole in an airline is generally "no big deal" according to the stuff I've read by airplane engineers

I believe that would depend on where it went.

69 posted on 08/14/2002 6:07:41 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: NEWwoman
The whole decompression effect is way overblown according to most sources. The Aloha airlines incident happened after a large piece of the fuselage was lost behind and above the cockpit. A bullet hole or three won't endanger most planes. Besides a dead terrorist's face makes a dandy plug if it comes down to it, or even a wallet for that matter. I'll take my chances in a decompressed plane with a competent crew to fly it over the wrong crew and a fully compressed interior.
70 posted on 08/14/2002 6:09:27 PM PDT by amstaff1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
I can see it now: "114 people have shootout aboard Flight 327 to Newark. Pictures at 11".

Are those like the shootouts that occured over parking spaces when CCW laws passed in 34 states? The liberals promised those, but they never happened.

Or the gun battles involving shoppers in the grocery store check out lines? The liberals promised that as well.

Or is it going to be like the "Wild, Wild West" (which is exagerrated to start with), with gun duels? The liberals promised that would happen as well.

71 posted on 08/14/2002 6:10:48 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ninenot
thanks - kindof on embarassing story, but I have never claimed to be infallible ;~D
72 posted on 08/14/2002 6:12:20 PM PDT by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Got any links to the source of those "promises" you cite? Thanks.
73 posted on 08/14/2002 6:14:20 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: amstaff1
Thanks for the info and sanity check.
74 posted on 08/14/2002 6:14:26 PM PDT by NEWwoman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
So do you think I am anti-handguns or referring to them as evil handguns because I think they should not be allowed on aircraft in the cabin area, loaded?

I think you're simply anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment based on your rationale for those positions.

75 posted on 08/14/2002 6:18:09 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Got any links to the source of those "promises" you cite?

Do a search here for any article involving CCW laws under consideration. In nearly every article, there is some liberal predicting a scenario like the ones I listed. I simply picked their favorite three to cite.

76 posted on 08/14/2002 6:20:47 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: NEWwoman
"I know these days we check our Constitutional Rights at the airport gate. That said ... I feel a bit angry that his Wyoming man was treated this way. Clearly, he had forgotten about his firearm and was no real threat to anyone."

As a former Marine and avid Gun owner I ask you "are you nuts"?

If it was a simple mistake as you assert then he should have freely admitted his mistake and gone away with the Police quietly...he was uncooperative and as a result of his actions, was treated the way he was.

"I'm sure if it had been calmly pointed out, he could have unloaded it and checked it into baggage. (Though that clearly is not the policy anymore. He has to be made a criminal."

He was a criminal the minute he put the weapon in his luggage, loaded and put it through one of the machines.

It was by definition a concealed weapon.

"Also, I wish this man had been aboard one of the jets that flew into the WTC or Pentagon."

Grow the Hell up.

77 posted on 08/14/2002 6:20:56 PM PDT by VaBthang4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RedBloodedAmerican
Mulder: Does your "right to safety" also involve the power of the gov't to ban guns anywhere they please?

RedBloodedAmerican: "To your last sentence; yes"

I rest my case.

78 posted on 08/14/2002 6:25:13 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Nope, neither. Applies to carrying loaded weapons on aircraft.

What's odd to me is I know many liberals (including relatives) who are adamant about allowing passengers to have concealed weapons onboard. So is it a "Liberal v Conservative" thing?

79 posted on 08/14/2002 6:29:22 PM PDT by RedBloodedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: VaBthang4
If it was a simple mistake as you assert then he should have freely admitted his mistake and gone away with the Police quietly...he was uncooperative and as a result of his actions, was treated the way he was.

A few years ago, being "uncooperative" actually meant being uncooperative. That's not the case anymore, thanks to the militarization of the police coupled with the ignorant fools working airport security. "Uncooperative" means whatever they want it to mean.

Anyway, in the current police state environment, being "overly cooperative" will be deemed suspicious as well. Heads you win. Tails I lose.

80 posted on 08/14/2002 6:29:33 PM PDT by Mulder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-178 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson