On the Incident of the 9mm & Jim Webb's Aide

I reckon that I'm expected to weigh in on this whole kerfuffle with Jim Webb's aide, Phillip Thompson, getting caught with a 9mm in his bag on his way in to work when he'd forgotten it was there. All righty then.

First of all, let's look at what Webb did. He has a Concealed Weapon Permit. Good for him. When he was about to enter an airport to get on a plane, he removed the weapon from his person in order to comply with airport regulations. Another good thing. Then he entrusted it to his closest aide, a man who is a law abiding adult well-known to Webb and legally entitled to possess arms. Once again, Webb did the responsible thing.

Then we come to what Thompson did. He forgot that the pistol was in his bag. That was a mistake. He entered Washington DC, which does not honor Concealed Weapon Permits from Virginia (or any other state) and does not allow firearms to be carried at all except in the case of a 'peaceable journey' in which one is transporting firearms through the district on their way someplace else without stopping.

The very fact that Thompson put the bag into the X-ray machine demonstrates that there was no criminal intent. Rather, he made a careless mistake. At no time can I see that Thompson put any person in danger through his actions. He did not point it anywhere he shouldn't have, did not discharge it or otherwise handle it in an unsafe manner. It was just sitting there in his bag.

A firearm does not just attack someone on it's own. Someone has to pull back the slide, flip the safety off, put their finger on the trigger and pull it. Thus I do not buy any arguement that it was possible for Thompson to have endangered any person through his actions.

He did break the rule. Capitol police did the right thing in arresting him. Security in this of all places has to be taken seriously.

However, it is important to make a distinction between what is a wise course of action for a police officer at the time of an incident and what is a wise course of action for a prosecutor once the facts have become clear. When you have a situation like this one in which there can be no doubt that the violation was an honest mistake in which no person was hurt or endangered, a good prosecutor should decline to go forward with charges. A prosecutor's job is to act as an attorney for the interest of the public whom he or she serves. How is it in the public interest to press charges against Phillip Thompson?

I have never bought into this modern 'zero tolerance' nonsense in public schools where they expel kids or try to throw them in jail for having a Swiss army knife in a pocket or an asprin in a purse. It is absolute idiocy. The thing to do in these sorts of cases is to take away the knife, give it back to the parents, make sure that the rule is now clearly understood and leave it at that. The same is true of 'zero tolerance' in other public arenas. Treating people like criminals for honest human errors is the perversion of justice. This is why we have prosecutors, in my opinion. It should be the fail-safe mechanism by which the letter of the law does not doom every innocent person who may possibly be swept up in it. A human being who can say ' this was technically illegal but pursuing it would be stupid.'

Lest I be accused of defending Thompson simply because he works for a fellow Democrat, I remind my dear readers of my recent defense of Scooter Libby and pleas that he be kept out of prison. I have no double standard.