In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Moron Alert: G.I. Joe doll disarmed at airport

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited August 2002 in General Discussion
Soldier toy disarmed at airport


GI Joe's gun "had to be taken from him"

A doll caused a security alert at an American airport because its two-inch plastic gun was considered a dangerous weapon.
Judy Powell, 55, from Walton on the Hill, Surrey, bought the GI Joe toy in Las Vegas and packed it in her hand luggage.

But security staff at Los Angeles International Airport refused to let Mrs Powell on board the plane with the replica rifle.

Mrs Powell had to put the gift - minus the rifle - in her suitcase so it could go in the aircraft's hold.



If GI Joe was carrying a replica then it had to be taken from him

Los Angeles International Airport

Mrs Powell said: "I was simply stunned when I realised they were serious.

"Security examined the toy as if it was going to shoot them and looked at the rifle.

"I was really angry to start with because of the absurdity of the situation.

"But then I saw the funny side of it and thought this was simple lunacy."

A spokesman for Los Angeles International Airport said: "We have instructions to confiscate anything that looks like a weapon or a replica.

"If GI Joe was carrying a replica then it had to be taken from him." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2173150.stm



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Armed & dangerous?

    LA Customs Frisk GI Joe
    LA Airport Killer Was Egyptian
    LA Airport Security Chaos


    Security officers at Los Angeles Airport have confiscated a gun in a security scare - from a plastic toy soldier.

    The two-inch weapon belonged to a GI Joe toy - similar to an Action Man.



    A British tourist told how over-zealous security staff confiscated the two-inch-long plastic rifle from a GI Joe toy soldier she was taking home as a gift for her grandson.

    Judy Powell, 55, bought the doll in Las Vegas as a gift for George, seven, and packed it in her hand luggage.

    Stunned

    But when she passed the bag through an X-ray machine at Los Angeles International Airport, security staff spotted the tiny replica Armalite rifle.

    Mrs Powell, from Walton on the Hill, Surrey, said: "I was simply stunned when I realised they were serious."

    Security "examined the toy as if it was going to shoot them and looked at the rifle", she said.

    They then told her that if she wanted GI Joe to keep his rifle, she would have to check in again and put the toy in her suitcase so it could go in the aircraft's hold.

    Lunacy

    Eventually, she agreed. Mrs Powell added: "I was really angry to start with because of the absurdity of the situation. But then I saw the funny side of it and thought this was simple lunacy."

    A spokesman for Los Angeles International Airport said: "We have instructions to confiscate anything that looks like a weapon or a replica.

    "If GI Joe was carrying a replica then it had to be taken from him."




    Last Updated: 14:32 UK, Monday August 05, 2002
    http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12070123,00.html





    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Painting Depicting Police Shooting Not a Threat, Court Rules
    By Jessica Cantelon
    CNSNews.com Correspondent
    August 05, 2002

    (CNSNews.com) - A California high school student's painting, which depicted him shooting a female police officer in the head, does not constitute a threat, according to a recent ruling by a state appeals court in Sacramento.

    The case dates back to the winter of 1999/2000. According to court documents, the then-15-year-old sophomore, whom authorities identify only as "Ryan D," painted a large canvas depicting "a person wearing a green hooded sweatshirt and discharging a handgun at the back of the head of a female peace officer."

    The painting included the officer's identifying badge number. She also had "blood on her hair, and pieces of her flesh and face were being blown away," according to the court's description of the canvas.

    "Not a very nice painting," commented James Webster, Ryan's defense attorney. "But he's not charged with painting a graphic painting; he was charged with a terrorist threat."

    Threatening Is As Threatening Does

    "Did I feel threatened? Absolutely," said Chico Police Sgt. Lori MacPhail, the officer depicted as the victim in the painting. "It was horrible, horrible, horrible. I can't believe the court saw this [evidence] and drew this kind of conclusion. It's ridiculous," she told CNSNews.com.

    "It was clear, demonstrated threat as far as I'm concerned," MacPhail added.

    MacPhail was working as a school officer at Pleasant Valley High in December of 1999 when she cited Ryan for marijuana possession. A month later, Ryan turned in his art project, touching off a legal debate that would last for the next two-and-a-half years.

    Ryan's art teacher, disturbed by the painting, took it to the vice principal of the school. Ryan was brought in for questioning a few days later, his attorney, James Webster, said. And once MacPhail saw the painting, the police department began investigating and then brought the matter to the state district attorney.

    A Butte County Superior Court judge found that Ryan's actions constituted a terrorist threat against MacPhail, but Webster appealed the case. Last week, California Appeals Court Justice Arthur Scotland overruled the county court decision, writing that "criminal law does not, and can not, [sic] implement a zero-tolerance policy concerning the expressive depiction of violence."

    According to Scotland's ruling, the fact that the alleged threat was in the form of a painting made it "necessarily ambiguous," due to possible use of "symbolism, exaggeration and make-believe."

    To qualify as a "terrorist threat," explained Webster, there not only has to be a specific intent to convey the threat, but "that act must put the person that it's conveyed to - intentionally conveyed to - in sustained fear of their life."

    While MacPhail maintained she "had every reason to believe that he was capable of carrying out the threat that he painted," Ryan's attorney said the painting was merely a way to "vent his frustrations."

    "He wasn't threatening to do it to anybody," Webster said.

    The Matter of Free Speech

    "I wonder how that judge would feel if he was the one in the painting," countered Jim Pasco, executive director of the national Fraternal Order of Police. "You know, he might have a different perspective of free speech."

    Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute, said he and his colleagues are "avid defenders of the free speech rights of students" but he added that, "schools do have a compelling interest to prevent students from planning or carrying out acts that may result in violence or induce students to engage in violent activity."

    David Hudson, research attorney for the First Amendment Institute, said he is not surprised by the verdict, because of the problem in trying to "apply the wording of the statute," to a minor.

    "It was simply a hard fit to ... apply that criminal law to that student," Hudson said, citing the fact that Ryan did not deliver the painting to the person allegedly being threatened.

    "I don't think it would be unreasonable for a school to investigate in light of some of the tragedies we've dealt with," Hudson said. "I'm just not so sure about charging the student under this criminal statute."

    "It's not criminal to be offensive," Webster noted. "Anytime anybody says anything that's offensive to a neighbor or a co-worker, all of a sudden we've got a felony terrorist threat charge."

    Webster said schools should look for alternatives to litigation when confronted with offensive students.

    "Kick the kid out," Webster said. "Get him out of the school, get him away from there ... but you don't throw him in jail."
    http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200208\NAT20020805a.html


    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    Havent these people any common sence? How dumb are these people doing security? Is mental retardation a job qualification? Are their family trees required to resemble telephone poles? Inquiring minds want to know...

    When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
  • Gordian BladeGordian Blade Member Posts: 1,202 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    In a related news item, a flight at LAX was delayed for an hour when Barbie was taken by two male security guards and strip-searched in a curtained booth. She was eventually allowed to board the plane on the condition that she break up with Ken and give the guards her phone number.
  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    This does not surprise me at all.After the NRA convention ended in Reno NV,many returning members had their buttons and trinkets confiscated at security in the airports.Things such as pro-gun buttons,glock and other firearm shaped pins,dummy "Silver bullet" as are given out by the NRA were just some of the things deemed to cause a disturbance.What on earth is going on here?!

    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
  • ccasey612ccasey612 Member Posts: 901 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Moron is put lightly.

    If you will blame gun makers for every shooting then blame car maker for every car accident.
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can see that when / if I travel by air again, I will have to be ultra careful about what I have on my person & in my carryons. Just reading this BS doubled my blood pressure. I'm sure that I would, at a minimum "cause a disturbance" if something this stupid happened to me. What's next, refusing to allow someone wearing clothing with political slogans or firearms logos to board? Closet Gestapo wannabes with less brains than a pig turd.
  • gunpaqgunpaq Member Posts: 4,607 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    I am waiting for the time when one of our servicemen or vets is not allowed to board a flight or is detained because he has a tattoo with a firearm on it.

    Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
  • dads-freeholddads-freehold Member Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    greetings, this gets very close to the 1984 thought crime, this just gives a glimps of what the homeland security force can and will do in the near furture. the real morons are us for leting the powerbase go to these people. thankyou congress, thankyou citizens. if voting would help it would be illegal. respt submitted dads-freehold

    rodney colson
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Can anyone explain how a painting could be a TERRORIST threat??????? I can see how someone might feel threatened by such a painting (not a justified feeling but feelings are feelings and not logical) but TERRORIST????

    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    Things are out of control, not getting there, allready there. The only thing keeping the feds from outright banning of firearms is they know it would cause a cival war they could not win. Consequently, they will continue to suffocate us with more laws, regulations, restrictions and reasons for confiscations. How much more will the American people take? Sheep, either you hold still while the master sheers your wool or your lamb chops...

    When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
  • The firearms consultantThe firearms consultant Member Posts: 716 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    My good friend decided to drive 2200 miles to Camp Perry last week so he wouldn't have to put up with the airport lunacy trying to get his AR15 and ammo to Ohio, Sad indeed.

    I might not always tell you the truth, but I will never lie to you!
  • 96harley96harley Member Posts: 3,992 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Well honey, looks like we'll have to leave my "Assault with a Friendly Weapon" boxers in the dresser. Would hate to walk through the terminal in my birthday suit.
  • wipalawipala Member Posts: 11,067
    edited November -1
    About 15 years ago a friend of mine returnig home to Japan from college over here in the states was searched and questioned by Japanese authorities because of a 44 Magnum bullet keyring I gave him as a momento of letting him shoot my Ruger. They confiscated the keyring ,and the photos of him shooting various firearms including an old Thompson belonging to the Sheriffs Department I worked for at the time. I never thought I would see the day that happened in this country.

    Remember here at DeeDee"s If we can't kill it, it's immortal
    D.D.Snavely
  • hubein00hubein00 Member Posts: 14 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't blame the security people for this one.About 2 years ago they confiscated the same type of GI Joe toy weapons from a child at CLT.A co-worker friend of mine had a Beretta key chain taken from him.This had hanging from it a 1 inch die cast metal replica of their famous semi-auto pistol.This happened more than 10 years ago.These zero tolerance policies were put into place long before 9/11 and I expect it to get only worse.Regards.
  • will270winwill270win Member Posts: 4,845
    edited November -1
    I got to take a trip in my Glock shirt! Won't that be funny?


    ~Secret Select Society Of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets~
    Will270win@nraonline.com
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I still know I would say **** YOU, it's a piece of plastic (or whatever), completely harmless & you are *not* taking it. Let them make a case out of it, I sure will. Complete and utter BS. If it's a pocket knife, OK, but a simple pen is more dangerous.
  • gunpaqgunpaq Member Posts: 4,607 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Question: If going through the airport security check point and the screener says that they will have to confiscate an item (harmless & legal to carry) from you due to "zero tollerance" do you have the right to say "no, return my property and I will not board that plane and will leave the premises"? It sounds like some of these screeners may be collectors confiscating items of personal interest. Also, if an item is confiscated (harmless & legal to carry) why could it not be forwarded to your destination or home (at your expense) instead of being held in an evidence locker or being destroyed?

    Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
  • IconoclastIconoclast Member Posts: 10,515 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    gunpaq, a much more rational comment than mine - this business infuriates me so badly, even at a distance, I admit to losing it. But yes, if these mental midgets insist someone cannot have something of this nature on their person / in their carry-on luggage, then they should be allowed: (a) to put the item in the checked baggage (b) have it mailed to them. Barring that, I still think I would refuse to be robbed and sue. "Zero tolerance" means nothing that could be used as a weapon (although I can think of at least two things they still allow through which can be used as a deadly weapon), it does not mean photographs / a child's plastic toy or earrings - key chains - label pins - whatever. I won't tempt fate that way, but you may bet that the next time I fly I will wear a hat, T-shirt & jacket with pro-gun slogans &/or large renditions of firearms on them.
  • pikeal1pikeal1 Member Posts: 2,707
    edited November -1
    I'm going to Vegas next week, and im wearing my GOA t-shirt.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Pencils and Newspaper will be next, I can kill wil either one.

    STUPID< STUPID

    "A wise man is a man that realizes just how little he knows"
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    pikeal -- Good luck getting on the plane.. If they're afraid of a toy, they may be terrified of a T-shirt.

    This takes zero tolerance to a whole new level. The woman should have told the guard to pick on somebody his own size. Poor Joe....

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Sign In or Register to comment.