Your solution would be that authorities abuse such a loophole to severely restrict constitutional rights. Define mentally ill. There's no end to who could be claimed mentally ill. Using rare cases to justify mass restrictions is ridiculous.
Guess he wasn't planning on committing suicide. Then too, the point is he is a veteran with mental problems (due to the Bush war), and he was not getting the help he sought when he turned himself into the FBI.
What "loophole"? There are already laws against the mentally ill owning a gun/rifle/pistol/shotgun. Evidently your solution is just to open up the doors of the asylum, and letting the inmates have what they want. Every mass killing is a "rare case". And you have no clue as to how to prevent them, so we just need "more guns".
There is no way to prevent shootings. Eventually, you will want those on prescriptions to be denied their gun rights. You want to expand the asylum.
once someone has accepted the faith based nonsense that restricting honest people from owning guns will somehow deter evil ones (who already are banned from owning guns) from becoming armed, there is no end to that faith based belief short of complete bans.
Tell us why the FBI under the blundering leadership of Obama/Holder/Lynch could allow both the Ft Lauderdale and Orlando shooters free to kill others after they interviewed them? Tell us why Obama and John Kerry allowed Muslims terrorists to come here and try to murder as many people as they could in San Bernardino and Ohio State? How long will this be allowed? Twelve more days.
Demonstrate precisely how airlines disallowing the transport of ammunition in checked luggage would prevent a shooting from occurring at the airport. Show how such a requirement would not be completely subverted by the individual simply going out to acquire new ammunition, and then returning to the airport and committing such an act. Ammunition is hardly a scarce commodity in the united states, meaning it would be quite easy to acquire what had to be left behind, all without anything in the way of paperwork or a background check. At the very best, your proposal would amount to a temporary delay. But it would not in any way actually stop someone from committing such an act, and murdering a significant number of innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Demonstrate that there is actually a need for such an approach. Incidents such as this are isolated in nature, and not indicative of what normally occurs when someone legally transports a firearm and ammunition on an airliner.
And the FBI apparently concluded that he was not a credible threat. Who would be in charge of determining what would amount to mental illness? Who would be providing the oversight necessary to ensure this arbitrary classification is not being abused by an individual or individuals who are politically motivated at preventing as many individuals from legally owning a firearm as possible? That is because there is absolutely no way to prevent a mass killing from occurring. The FBI and other agencies have tried to build a reliable profile of individuals who are most likely to commit a mass killing, and they concluded that there is no profile that can be built. Those who are most likely to commit a mass killing is a very broad, very diverse category that includes far too many types to be worthwhile. It would prove impossible to narrow down the likely individuals.
Hundreds of thousands of people travel with firearms every year. It's a common practice...No matter what it is in life whenever you have people doing something, regardless of what it is, things are going to happen at some point. Millions of people drive every day, some people crash. Thousands of airplanes fly around the globe every day, every once and awhile, not often, one is going to crash. I'm not trying to be cold hearted or anything here but I am a realist......(*)(*)(*)(*) happens. That's what annoys me the most about people. You can't fix everything. You just can't. Every single time something happens people freak out and panic and try to do something to make sure it can't happen again. And in turn, by trying to make sure it doesn't happen again, we regulate the living crap out of everything to where the inconvenience just simply becomes not worth the law. At some point people need to seriously sit down and honestly understand that in a world full of 7 billion people you are never going to be completely safe from danger. Unless you confine yourself to an impenetrable bubble and never move then you are exposed to society...A society where (*)(*)(*)(*) happens. And there is nothing you can do about it. People hate that phrase but sometimes it's true. You have a better chance of tripping down the stairs in your house and breaking your neck than you do of getting shot by a nutcase in an airport. You have a better chance of dying in a car wreck on your way to the movies than you do of being in the crossfire of a mass shooting. Point is, stop freaking the hell out all the time. Fear is fine, it's a part of human nature, but irrational fear is just that. Irrational. You can't stop everything. You know why they let you drive 70+mph on the interstate even though it's dangerous and your reaction time is less? Because making the speed limit 30mph where you have more time to react ISN'T WORTH the inconvenience that would cause everybody having to drive that damn slow to travel anywhere. So yes, the government has decided that the convenience of travelling faster to reach your destination is worth more than danger it poses to your life. That is how society works, risk vs reward. So in laments terms why doesn't the government make the interstate speed limit 30mph when they know it would save more lives? Because that would be stupid. Why doesn't the government put hardcore gun restrictions on everything and not let you bring one in your luggage on an airplane? Because that would be stupid. The amount of inconvenience that would cause the hundreds of thousands of people who do it every year isn't worth the risk of 1 nutcase out of every million people shooting up the place. Thats why. And if people are so worried about it then don't fly, how about that. You have a much better chance of dying on your way to the airport than you do in the terminal at the hands of a mass shooter. But thats logic talking right there, can't have any of that.
First of all, your assumption that luggage compartments aren't pressurized is false. They are pressurized on every passenger plane that flies over 10K feet. If not, the animals in their kennels would keel over, all your containers of toothpaste, makeup, water, etc would explode. In fact, on modern airliners, there are blow out panels between the cargo bay and passenger compartment to ensure there is no great pressure differential that could cause a collapse of the cabin floor. Second, just because you see no reason for ammunition in luggage doesn't mean there is no reason. I'm legally allowed to conceal carry in Florida for self defense. When I fly there I take my carry weapon with me, properly secured in a locked case within my checked luggage. The rules require the ammunition to not be "loose", meaning it's either in a magazine or in a proper container, like the original case it was purchased in. The weapon cannot be chambered or loaded. When I arrive, if I didn't have ammunition my weapon would be worthless. I don't do this but I have a co-worker who participates in rifle matches in and out of state. He packs is rifles appropriately for flight, and packs his ammunition as well. This is hand-loaded, specific ammunition for precision, competitive shooting. He cannot obtain that ammunition anywhere else. By prohibiting ammunition in cargo, it would restrict his freedom to competitively shoot in matches out of state.
In both cases: In full accordance with state and federal laws, a well as airline policy. - - - Updated - - - Under the law, it was not illegal for him to own a gun.
Try enforcing the laws already on the books. Try funding mental health programs instead of cutting them. This shooter was already in confinement for his mental illness, why was he cut loose, and given his gun back? Why wasn't the VA doing more?
Then the law needs to be changed. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.” He was confined at one time, and had a history of mental illness. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ng-suspect-esteban-santiago-mental-health-fbi
I haven't seen anything in his hI story regarding a formal adjudication, nor do we know if his commitment fell inside or outside of the definition from ATF: A person is “adjudicated as a mental defective” if a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority has made a determination that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: Is a danger to himself or to others; Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs; Is found insane by a court in a criminal case; or Is found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility, pursuant to articles 50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 850a, 876b. A person is “committed to a mental institution” if that person has been formally committed to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment: To a mental institution involuntarily; For mental defectiveness or mental illness; or For other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or by voluntary admission. In any case, if NICS isn't updated, background checks are wothless.
As someone that travels with my firearm and ammo very often for my occupation, your proposal would be a downside.
It's a legal thing. You are allowed to bring guns in checked luggage, with a few guidelines. This is the first time I've ever heard of this happening, despite it being legal pretty much as long as airlines have been around.
The point is that ammunition that is not contained in a gun barrel is not very explosive, and isn't very dangerous. Not fired from a gun, the bullet doesn't have much velocity.
Ship the ammo or buy it there. not a huge hassle I dont think. tell me why it is more than a minor inconvenience.
This is correct. Ammunition requires an enclosed chamber and barrel to contain, concentrate and direct the expanding gas to generate meaningful velocity. I thought everyone knew this...?
It is impossible to prove someone sane. The problem is that the above does not allow for due process. A constitutional right (like the right to won guns) can only be taken away by due process. That means the right can't be taken away until after the hearing. The arbitrary decision of a mental health worker alone isn't enough to do that.
