Forgetting you have a gun.

[DaleB]

Bruenor, I share your opinion. I am extremely forgetful, but to forget you are armed is...well, irresponsible. Sorry if I upset anyone, but that is how I feel.

 

[MrBogok]

PURE LUCK !!

 

[88E30M50]

Forgetting you're armed is irresponsible, but I think the ruling happened the way it should have. My opinion is that the law was written to keep people from intentionally carrying a gun into the secure area, not to smack down an idiot that forgot he had it on him. I think intent should play more of a role in judgements than it does. If someone does something with malicious intent, they should be punished the same whether or not they were successful. In this case, he was not intent on carrying past security and was given enough trouble and expense to insure he's not that stupid again without a permanent record. That's just my two cents in the issue.

 

[LawDog76]

How in the hell do you forget where your gun is. Then again, why in the hell would you grab it to take it with you when you know you're going where it isn't allowed. Knowing I'm going to an airport, my gun goes into the safe, not on my person.

 

[.40caltrucker]

Chris Paulsen needs to get this guys lawyer.

 

[Pale Rider]

How in the hell do you forget where your gun is. Then again, why in the hell would you grab it to take it with you when you know you're going where it isn't allowed. Knowing I'm going to an airport, my gun goes into the safe, not on my person.

I'm with you. The last thing I do before heading to the airport is a self pat down. I don't think I forgot is a good defense. Don't get how he won the appeal, it was admittedly his gun in a place it shouldn't have been. Am I missing something?

 

[Fargo]

I've been a gun owner for a very long time and again I have never forgot where any of my guns were. Yes, I have forgotten less important things, but I wouldn't classify guns as that. So once again I do consider someone who "FORGETS" he has a gun in his jacket pocket as negligent, sorry if that makes me ignorant.

Why do you think that "negligence" has anything to do with it? "Knowing or Intentional" is the requirement of that statute, not "negligent". Legally, it is miles from negligence to knowingly/intentionally.

Joe

 

[Fargo]

I'm with you. The last thing I do before heading to the airport is a self pat down. I don't think I forgot is a good defense. Don't get how he won the appeal, it was admittedly his gun in a place it shouldn't have been. Am I missing something?

Yes, you are missing the mens rea portion of the statute which requires "knowingly or intentionally":

IC 35-47-6-1.3
Firearm, explosive, or deadly weapon; possession in controlled access areas of an airport

Sec. 1.3. A person who knowingly or intentionally enters an area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property while the person:
(1) possesses:
(A) a firearm;
(B) an explosive; or
(C) any other deadly weapon; or
(2) has access to property that contains:
(A) a firearm;
(B) an explosive; or
(C) any other deadly weapon;
commits a Class A misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.84-1996, SEC.3.

Just because something is stupid/irresponsible/negligent does NOT mean it is or should be a freaking CRIMINAL OFFENSE!

Joe

 

[dross]

Eddie, I'm not a lawyer, but it looked to me that the appellate court was advising lower courts not to put that extra opinion in their ruling about whether the defendant knew. It seems that's the only thing that saved him.

 

[Eddie]

Eddie, I'm not a lawyer, but it looked to me that the appellate court was advising lower courts not to put that extra opinion in their ruling about whether the defendant knew. It seems that's the only thing that saved him.

I think so too, had the trial judge been less verbose the outcome might have been different.

 

[indytechnerd]

Devil's Advocate

IC 35-47-6-1.3
Firearm, explosive, or deadly weapon; possession in controlled access areas of an airport

Sec. 1.3. A person who knowingly or intentionally enters an area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property while the person:
(1) possesses:

(A) a firearm;
(B) an explosive; or
(C) any other deadly weapon; or​

(2) has access to property that contains:

(A) a firearm;
(B) an explosive; or
(C) any other deadly weapon;​

commits a Class A misdemeanor.
As added by P.L.84-1996, SEC.3.

This could just as easily be read as the "knowingly or intentionally" part is in regards to the entering of the area. Meaning unless you were dragged there against your will with an AK duct-taped to your hands, you meet the requirement in §1.3.1(A).

Note:
This (§1.3.1(A)) -> "A person who knowingly or intentionally enters an area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property while the person [possesses] [a firearm] commits a Class A misdemeanor."

is different from...

This -> "A person who enters an area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property while the person knowingly or intentionally [possesses] [a firearm] commits a Class A misdemeanor."

 

[zebov]

This could just as easily be read as the "knowingly or intentionally" part is in regards to the entering of the area. Meaning unless you were dragged there against your will with an AK duct-taped to your hands, you meet the requirement in §1.3.1(A).

Note:
This (§1.3.1(A)) -> "A person who knowingly or intentionally enters an area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property while the person [possesses] [a firearm] commits a Class A misdemeanor."

is different from...

This -> "A person who enters an area of an airport to which access is controlled by the inspection of persons and property while the person knowingly or intentionally [possesses] [a firearm] commits a Class A misdemeanor."

Aye, it could be read that way, but according to this case, it is not read that way

 

[SmileDocHill]

Sorry, but I ALWAYS know where every one of my guns are at, at all times and what condition they are in loaded/unloaded, etc.

But what the heck thats just me.

^^^^THIS^^^^^
I'm a noob so it is easy for me to say this but, I think the post I quoted personifies what it is to be a responsible gun owner (and the responsibility of a gun owner). Mistakes do happen, people forget things...like forgetting, or accidentally, or otherwise acting in a manor that violates the 4 rules. When those errors or lapse of reasoning occur you are responsible for anything that comes as a result of them.

 

[Fargo]

^^^^THIS^^^^^
I'm a noob so it is easy for me to say this but, I think the post I quoted personifies what it is to be a responsible gun owner (and the responsibility of a gun owner). Mistakes do happen, people forget things...like forgetting, or accidentally, or otherwise acting in a manor that violates the 4 rules. When those errors or lapse of reasoning occur you are responsible for anything that comes as a result of them.

Yeah, but no bad result came of this incident. Possession in the airport is "malum prohibitum" or "wrong because it is prohibited". It is not an objectively wrong act in itself.

Joe

 

[Fargo]

Aye, it could be read that way, but according to this case, it is not read that way

It is a longstanding principle of criminal law and canon of statutory construction that statutes are to be construed strictly against the state. This is often called the "rule of lenity" which basically gives the defendant the benefit of the doubt where there is true ambiguity in a statute that has not previously been resolved by the court. As such, I believe the court to have gotten it right here.

When interpreting a statute, we look to the express language of the statute and the rules of statutory construction.  Id.  However, we may not interpret a statute that is clear and unambiguous on its face.  Id.  Rather, the words of the statute are to be given their plain, ordinary and usual meaning unless a contrary purpose is clearly shown by the statute itself.  Id. at 301-302.   The language employed in a statute is deemed to have been used intentionally.   Id. at 302.
 When a term used in a criminal statute is not defined, penal statutes are to be strictly construed against the State and should be held to prohibit only that conduct which is clearly within the spirit and letter of the statutory language.  Glover v. State, 760 N.E.2d 1120, 1124 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. denied.   However, criminal statutes are not to be narrowed to the point that they exclude cases that the language fairly covers.  Id.

Hubbard v. State. No.?20A03-0509-CR-409. - HUBBARD v. STATE - IN Court of Appeals

Best,

Joe

 

[SKSnut]

How in the hell do you forget where your gun is. Then again, why in the hell would you grab it to take it with you when you know you're going where it isn't allowed. Knowing I'm going to an airport, my gun goes into the safe, not on my person.

Exactly, same here. i don't see how you can forget.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Exactly, same here. i don't see how you can forget.

Once one gets north of 100 guns, one can start to lose track.

A member of INGO once left a Ruger 22/45 on his bumper and drove downtown Lafayette and nearly fell over from a stroke once he discovered his mistake. Cell phone rings, girlfriend talking, you get distracted.

You've never forgotten anything your entire life? My roommate in undergrad could not find his hat that he habitually wore. He walked around and around our apartment trying to find it.

He walked into the bathroom a second time and looked in the mirror . . . he was wearing the hat. I shot coffee out my nose laughing.

How many times have you read on INGO of cops (mostly feds) leaving guns in bathrooms? How can they forget? Because they are living, breathing human beings just like us non-badges and they screw up. Administrative action? Sure, letter in the file, etc. However, it is not criminal.

Remember, mistake is not criminal. Accident is not criminal. Negligence is not criminal.

No excuses means one thing in say the USMC. In (civil) criminal law there are many excuses.

 

[radar8756]

So because they cant show Intent ... its OK

I recall several other cases recently where someone was caught with a gun at the airport and tried the "I forgot it was there" ... depending on who they were seemed more the decisive factor in thier punishment ( or lack of )

But a grade school kid that brings his pocket knife to school to cut a Apple ...
gets suspended for Life because Zero Tolerance doesnt care about Intent?

Personally I think most of the Cant Do That Here and Zero Tolerance type of laws are crap ... but thats probably another discussion


BTW: I'm way south of 100 guns so I know where all of mine are at all times ...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So because they cant show Intent ... its OK

Because the prosecution failed to show an element of the offense, intent, it is not a crime. Crimes require intent (in almost all cases, there are exceptions).

Remember, you also face civil (being fined) and administrative actions (suspension from school) as well.

 

[fnpfan]

i have unintentionally brought my gun into illinois a few times and not even thought twice about it.