Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

-_Stove_- t1_j29nw7e wrote

Reply to comment by RevengencerAlf in Boston man charged with bringing loaded gun to Logan Airport Terminal A security by JBupp

i think you are mistaking "Having a loaded weapon in the airport" vs "Bringing a gun to the airport". By bringing a firearm to Logan, he had to be in Mass, which requires an FID, and why he caught a few new charges. The title isn't misleading, it's quite accurate.

2

RevengencerAlf t1_j29prql wrote

No I'm not mistaking anything. And you're just semantically restating the same thing.

As I said....

>the real point here is that he's a multiple offender and didn't have a license for the gun in the first place.

He's not really getting charged with "bringing a loaded gun into an airport" vs being charged for getting caught illegally possessing a firearm. It's not where he had it. It's that he had at all when he wasn't supposed to. If a person who is properly credentialed to carry a firearm walks into logan with it and casually puts it through security like did they're most likely just going to have it confiscated.

5

thspimpolds t1_j29pzk7 wrote

Actually caring a loaded firearm at Logan at all is illegal since 9/11.

3