Former Chief Bill Maas won’t face state charges
By GLENN E. RICE
The Kansas City Star
Former Kansas City Chiefs nose tackle Bill Maas will not face state charges after he was detained at Kansas City International Airport on Sept. 5 when security screeners discovered a loaded 9mm Glock handgun in his carry-on bag as he prepared to board a flight.
Maas said he grabbed the wrong bag when he was departing for the airport, officials said. The handgun was confiscated, and Maas was released pending additional investigation.
Maas could not be reached for comment on Wednesday.
“Missouri law currently makes it impossible to prosecute someone who tries to carry a gun on a plane unless that person was going to commit a crime,” Platte County Prosecutor Eric Zahnd said.
The facts in Maas’ case are similar to those in dozens of other cases, which Zahnd said his office has been forced to reject over the past several years. Carrying a weapon aboard a plane is prohibited by federal regulations, but is legal under state law because of the Missouri loophole, Zahnd said.
However, Maas could still face a civil penalty from the Transportation Security Administration.
Carrie Harmon, a TSA spokeswoman, said she could not comment on any particular case, but said passengers are notified whether they are assessed a civil penalty within 60 days of the violation. The penalty range for carrying a loaded firearm is between $3,000 and $7,500, Harmon said.
Maas, who lives in Lee’s Summit, could also face municipal charges under a Kansas City ordinance. City prosecutor Beth A. Murano said nothing has been submitted to her office.
If concealed carry works on the ground....it will work in the air.
Nope. There is sufficient bleed-air capacity that a dozen bullet holes wouldn't seriously lower the cabin pressure.If you miss on an airplane and don’t hit someone else, you just de- pressurized the cabin.
What makes you think it works on the ground?
Question: What does the title mean: More Guns, Less Crime?
John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness.
Question: It just seems to defy common sense that crimes likely to involve guns would be reduced by allowing more people to carry guns. How do you explain the results?
John R. Lott, Jr. is a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute. He was previously the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago Law School.
Lott: Criminals are deterred by higher penalties. Just as higher arrest and conviction rates deter crime, so does the risk that someone committing a crime will confront someone able to defend him or herself. There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.
Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.
Question: What is the basis for these numbers?
Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.
Read, my man, READ (something besides Roman history).
Ask John Lott why NYC with strict gun control laws and NO ccw effectively has a lower violent crime rate that Anchorage Alaska, where anyone can carry anytime without a permit, let me know what he says.
Ask John Lott why NYC with strict gun control laws and NO ccw effectively has a lower violent crime rate that Anchorage Alaska, where anyone can carry anytime without a permit, let me know what he says.
Wild Alaska, is right, more guns do not mean less crime. The idea doesn’t work, because it implies that guns effects crime. guns and their ownership do not affect the decision process of either the citizen or the criminal.
basicaly John Lott is wrong. It is probaly more important to question what you belive is right then what you belive is wrong.
That applies to continuous and direct journey while traveling by automobile on interstate highways and it's a federal provision in FOPAI read somewhere else that in Missouri (I suppose as in TX), you can conceal carry while engaged in 'continuous travel'.
why is the word "effectively" in your sentence?
It's so silly of an "argument" that it's laughable.
I seriously think you're getting dementia if you think that your anecdotal evidence trumps an in-depth 18 year study with flawless impeccable scientific method. A 7th grade science student would laugh hysterically at the notion of your "argument" holding any scientific validity whatsoever
back on topic, I think it would be a better idea if a person were able to carry mace or a stun gun on a plane as oposed to a gun.