Honest Mistake: Order A TV From Amazon, Receive An Illegal Assault Rifle

from the might-have-been-a-mistake dept

With guns and violence in the news lately, you would think that everyone involved in the chain of the firearms business would be a teensy-weensy bit more careful, from manufacturers, to retailers, all the way up to those handling the shipping and distribution. As with any other business, you have to expect to deal with some human error, but one would imagine that the firearms industry would have the tightest of controls in place right now.

As it turns out, such notions are exactly that: imagination. Or, at least that appears to be the case in the Wired story of a man from Washington D.C. who ordered a television on Amazon and was shipped a Sig Sauer 716 Patrol Rifle. For anyone keeping score at home, that's a military grade weapon. Seth Horvitz, the guy who is guilty of attempted TV-buying, is not a military grade citizen.

“When I saw some metal parts inside the box, I thought, ‘Maybe this is a TV stand or mount or something,’” Horvitz said in a phone interview with Wired. “When I realized it was an assault rifle, it was pure shock and disbelief.”

The Wired interviewer chooses not to ask Horvitz if he attempted to point the weapon at his wall and pull the trigger to see if flat-panel televisions shot out, which is disappointing. In any case, Horvitz did the responsible thing and immediately called the D.C. police, who informed him that the weapon is illegal to own in the District of Columbia. There is no word yet on whether flat-panel displays are also illegal, but I'm guessing not. 

The story then details how the mistake happened, which essentially appears to boil down to a lovely bit of insight into the shipping warehouses of UPS, in which the Label Fairy made a mistake and put two shipping labels (only one of which was correct) on the box-'o-death and allowed the box to be shipped anyway. Everyone from the guy who let it leave the warehouse to the guy who delivered the rifle to Horvitz's door apparently decided to play the new hit game "Shipping Address Coin Flip", resulting in Horvitz getting his new Rambo Halloween costume accessory. Amazon, predictably, disavowed any responsibility for the mistake, which it's looking like it has every right to do. On the other hand, when Horvitz tried to post a review of his purchase, Amazon blocked it. Admittedly, the review was hillarious, and guns and funny just don't mix:

I'm not sure what pretending all this didn't happen accomplishes from Amazon's end, other than to perhaps flip open the cover to the Streisand Effect alarm, press it, and wait for the derision to ensue.

Filed Under: guns, mistakes, shipping, tv
Companies: amazon, ups

Loaded Gun Falls Out Of Checked Bag. Feeling Secure At Airports Yet?

from the grope-grope-grope dept

It's always fun for me when Techdirt has stories about the TSA, but perhaps not for the same reasons as everyone else here. By that, I mean that the range of reaction to such stories always strikes me as incredibly varied. Get a story about the TSA working with the cosmopolitan state of Tennessee to check drivers for whatever it is they check for, and you'll get serious responses about our civil liberties being eroded. Write about these all-world defenders of truth and justice laying the smackdown on a possible-terrorist but confirmed breast cancer survivor and her mammory implants, and truly flabbergasted readers will demand action from our politicians. Relate the words of the guy that created the TSA to begin with and his apprehension about where the agency has gone in its off-broadway tour of security theatre, and you'll even get some folks defending the TSA in the comments. These are all well and good, true opinions and feelings from either side; the stirring of a wonderful national debate.

Me? I just like to laugh. And no one has made me laugh lately like the TSA.

Gumnos alerts us (without a patdown, no less) to a USA Today story of how LAX's airport security is trying to define ironic comedy. At least, that's what I assume they're doing, because otherwise it means that some of their people may be in need of an IQ test. Look, no security is perfect. Something is going to sneak through occasionally. And we've been told the terrorists are creative, hiding exposives in their shoes (laces out, Dan), their underwear (I'm assuming they have to go with tighty-whities here, right? Or else everything would just kind of fall out?), and we've been told that the clearly deep-thinking and well-funded terrorist networks around the world are looking into hiding a multi-megaton nuclear warhead in a hair bonnet.

But what you don't expect to encounter is what happened at LAX. And that's for a loaded .38 caliber pistol to kind of just fall out of a passenger's duffel bag as it was being loaded onto the plane. Now, to be fair, the TSA promptly and proudly announced that it isn't their duty to screen anything but carryon luggage, as if this was some kind of a win for them. But all that makes me wonder is why a federal agency in charge of ensuring safe transportation is more concerned with slapping around our meaty bits than, oh I don't know, checking the damned luggage that goes on the plane! Again, this is not carryon luggage, but rather checked luggage. But how does it make any sense to parse out different sets of luggage to be checked by different agencies with potentially different equipment and...You know what? I'm not going to try to make sense of this for fear of a complete mental breakdown.

Still, I'm all about the positivity, which is why I pictured myself standing in line, waiting to board the plane (why am I always in Group D, damn it?) and watching the baggage handlers out the window lovingly slam my stuff into the luggage compartment, when a loaded .38 pistol comes spinning out of the bag and lands on the tarmac. After a moment of watching the handlers stare dumbly at each other for a moment, I burst out laughing, pointing at the gun, then back at the airline employees, then off in the distance where some TSA agent is playing puppet with a 98 year old triple amputee (try figuring that one out), then back at the gun. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat.

So take a moment to thank the TSA for all the laughs.

Filed Under: airport, guns, security, tsa

Philly Police Harass, Threaten To Shoot Man Legally Carrying Gun; Then Charge Him With Disorderly Conduct For Recording Them

from the lovely dept

As police are insisting that having the public record them is a dangerous situation that shouldn't be allowed, we get a striking example of just how important that right is at times. Julian Sanchez points us to a story of a guy in Philadelphia, who had a license to carry a firearm in a city where it's legal to openly carry a firearm -- but who ran into a police officer who apparently did not understand his city's own laws:

On a mild February afternoon, Fiorino, 25, decided to walk to an AutoZone on Frankford Avenue in Northeast Philly with the .40-caliber Glock he legally owns holstered in plain view on his left hip. His stroll ended when someone called out from behind: "Yo, Junior, what are you doing?"

Fiorino wheeled and saw Sgt. Michael Dougherty aiming a handgun at him.

What happened next would be hard to believe, except that Fiorino audio-recorded all of it: a tense, profanity-laced, 40-minute encounter with cops who told him that what he was doing - openly carrying a gun on the city's streets - was against the law.

"Do you know you can't openly carry here in Philadelphia?" Dougherty asked, according to the YouTube clip.

"Yes, you can, if you have a license to carry firearms," Fiorino said. "It's Directive 137. It's your own internal directive."

You can hear all of this via the YouTube clip, embedded here: It gets worse and worse. Dougherty threatens to shoot Fiorino for trying to show him his license:

Fiorino offered to show Dougherty his driver's and firearms licenses. The cop told him to get on his knees.

"Excuse me?" Fiorino said.

"Get down on your knees. Just obey what I'm saying," Dougherty said.

"Sir," Fiorino replied, "I'm more than happy to stand here -"

"If you make a move, I'm going to f------ shoot you," Dougherty snapped. "I'm telling you right now, you make a move, and you're going down!"

"Is this necessary?" Fiorino said.

Other cops show up and they continue to curse at him and scream at him, while he calmly responds to their claims. They discover that he has a recording device in his pocket, and they go even more ballistic, telling him he broke the law with that as well. Eventually, they finally realize that he wasn't breaking the law with the gun and let him go... But once he posted the audio on YouTube, suddenly the District Attorney took renewed interest in the case, and charged him with "reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct," claiming that he refused to cooperate with police. If you listen to the tapes, it's hard to see how anyone could make that claim with a straight face. It seems pretty clear, from the beginning, that it's the police who were recklessly endangering someone and who were disorderly in how they dealt with Fiorino.

No matter what your opinion is on guns or open carry rules, it's hard to see how this guy deserves the treatment he received from police who clearly did not understand the law in their own city -- and it's even more ridiculous to see him facing a (trumped up) charge, after he uploaded the audio. It seems like a pretty clear case of vindictive prosecution, even as part of the issue is that the very thing that pissed off law enforcement is precisely what proves this guy was perfectly reasonable throughout the encounter.

Filed Under: disorderly conduct, guns, harassment, open carry, philadelphia, police, recording

New TSA Report: Every Test Gun, Bomb Part Or Knife Got Past Screeners At Some Airport

from the but-they-got-to-touch-your-junk dept

While the TSA is still fighting as hard as possible to be able to either see you naked or touch your private parts, apparently it hasn't spent that much time actually figuring out how to look for people carrying weapons onto planes. A few folks have sent in this ABC story about a man who boarded a plane with a loaded handgun that had been in his carry-on bag. The guy noted that he normally carries the gun in his bag, but takes it out before traveling -- he just forgot to do so and was pretty spooked when he realized he had the gun on him (he reported the incident to the TSA upon landing).

But even more scary than that is the article notes that the TSA admits that it's really bad at finding weapons, saying that the "failure rate" of tests is reaching 70% at some major airports and at some airports "every test gun, bomb part or knife got past screeners." So, while scanners are looking at or touching your crotch, they're apparently not bothering to look for guns. Comforting.

Filed Under: bombs, guns, screening, tests, tsa

While TSA Looks At You Naked, Child Finds Loaded Gun Magazine Left On Southwest Plane

from the feel-safer? dept

Another day, another series of bizarre TSA-related stories. While the TSA still won't provide any evidence that its efforts have actually made air travel any safer and continues to defend its security efforts as necessary, CNN is reporting that a child on a Southwest flight found a loaded gun magazine in a seatback pocket, which was kicked to the floor as the child climbed over the seats. Apparently, a law enforcement official (not an air marshal) who was allowed to take the clip on the plane, left it in the seat. Obviously, this is not a failure of the TSA, in that the mistake was by the law enforcement agent who left the clip, but the point is that it's impossible to protect against all threats on a plane, and many of the TSA's actions seem to be based on the fiction that it is possible. I have nothing against legitimate security that makes us safer, but there's little indication that that's what we're getting from the TSA.

Filed Under: guns, planes, security, tsa

James Bond's Gun Gets A Trademark... Based On An Online Survey

from the can-we-also-vote-against-it? dept

Apparently the maker of the gun preferred by (yes, fictional) James Bond has been able to get a trademark on the design, as "James Bond's weapon of choice." The USPTO initially rejected the trademark request, leading the company, Walther, who makes the PPK handgun, to do an online survey that suggested 54% of gun owners recognized the gun, with some of them mentioning James Bond in explaining how they recognized it. Apparently this online survey was enough to convince the USPTO that it had made a mistake. Who knew that the USPTO could so easily be influenced by online surveys? Can we have 4chan or Reddit folks stuff the ballot on future online surveys that might influence USPTO rulings?

Filed Under: guns, james bond, survey, trademark

Inventor Involved In Patent Troll Tracker Lawsuit Arrested For Weapons Stockpiling

from the exactly-what-the-founding-fathers-had-in-mind dept

Sometimes you come across stories so odd, you just don't know how to classify them. You may have heard, recently, about the New England man, Gregory Girard, who was arrested for illegal weapons stockpiling in his home. The guy, who claimed that he believed Armageddon was quickly approaching, had recently told his wife both, "It's fine to shoot people in the head because traitors deserve it," and "Don't talk to people, shoot them instead." Not surprisingly, he's being held without bail for being too dangerous.

So, what does that have to do with stuff we write about here? As noted at The Prior Art, Girard is the inventor and claimed patent holder at the center of the high-profile patent infringement lawsuit that involved Rick Frenkel, who had been the anonymous guy behind the still greatly missed Patent Troll Tracker blog. As you may recall, Frenkel was sued for defamation in East Texas, after he had questioned the legitimacy of a date change on a patent lawsuit filed against Cisco (where Frenkel worked at the time). Basically, the lawsuit appeared to have been filed the day before the patent was granted and then, magically, the date changed. The lawyers involved suggested it was an honest mistake, but others suspected otherwise.

Either way, Frenkel's case settled, and (separately) the judge just recently tossed out the patent infringement lawsuit against Cisco that resulted in all of this, after realizing that it appeared that Girard and the holding company he had set up for lawsuits involving this patent didn't actually own the patent in question. Girard had developed the invention while employed by another company, which was working on similar technology, and Girard's own employment agreement said he would automatically assign any inventions over to the company. Still, during the lawsuit, Girard's lawyers tried to play him up as an All-American inventor:

"Mr. Girard is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the Patent Clause in the basic Article I of the U.S. Constitution."

But perhaps not what they had in mind when they penned the rest of the Constitution.

Filed Under: guns, patent troll tracker

MPAA Worried That People Don't Know A Gun Can't Shoot Through Your TV

from the how-nice-of-them dept

Apparently the MPAA is quite worried that people watching a movie trailer might not understand that a gun pointed at the screen can't actually shoot through the screen. The organization is forcing preview trailers that show someone pointing a gun directly at the screen to actually change the video or cut that scene out of the ad. As the report at the AV Club asks, is the MPAA worried that someone from a century ago who's never seen TV or a movie is going to suddenly show up and freak out? Anyone who's seen the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated knows that the MPAA works in mysterious ways, but this just seems ridiculous.

Filed Under: advertisements, guns, movies, mpaa, trailers
Companies: mpaa

Supreme Court Decision On Guns May Cut Promoting Progress Out Of The Constitution

from the promote-the-progress dept

I was debating whether or not to write anything about this, but William Patry has done a good job discussing how the Heller case may impact copyright, and it's something I was concerned about, so it should be discussed. No matter what your thoughts on "the right to bear arms" (which was affirmed as an individual right in the Heller decision), it may come back to cause trouble for those of us who believe that intellectual property has gone too far and does not "promote the progress."

As I've pointed out multiple times, one of the big questions concerning whether or not intellectual property law should be strengthened or weakened is based on how you parse the clause in the Constitution that enables Congress to create the IP system:

"The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

By my reading, that means that if the act of securing exclusive rights for a limited time does not promote the progress of science and the useful arts, then it is not covered by the Constitution. That is, the first part of the clause is defining under what conditions (to promote the progress...) it is okay to do certain things (secure exclusive rights). Thus, any intellectual property system that is shown not to promote progress (or worse, to hinder it) is by definition unconstitutional. Others, however, read that first part "promoting the progress" as a sort of "preamble" discussion. Thus, their reading is that securing those exclusive rights for a limited time, by definition, "promotes the progress."

So, what does the Heller decision on guns have to do with all of this? Well, as some in our comments pointed out way back in March, the key to the Heller decision was how the court interpreted part of the clause: "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State...." If it interpreted that as meaningless preamble, saying that the right to bear arms had nothing to do with "a well regulated militia" then it opens up some pretty serious questions about constitutional interpretation. As Patry notes, the court can now treat sections of the Constitution it doesn't like as preamble, rendering them meaningless.

Again, so whether or not you're happy with the way the court decided the Heller case, the fact that it has no problem deciding that a clause in the Constitution can be ignored as "preamble" could have very bad consequences for those of us pointing out that dangerous innovation-hindering intellectual property systems are against the Constitution. Hopefully, the courts would still recognize that this clause is relevant and not meaningless -- but they now have the necessary tools to claim that promoting the progress is meaningless and has no bearing on whether or not a particular intellectual property system is constitutional.

Filed Under: clauses, copyright, guns, heller, preamble, promote the progress, supreme court