Oh, I'm fired up now

It really is all in who you know.

My father (Hi, Dad! Love ya!) has sent me the news that Phillip Thompson, the aide to Senator James Webb, D-VA, will NOT be charged for attempting to enter the U.S. Capitol Complex with a handgun and two loaded magazines.

(Deep breath)

I want to stipulate up front that I firmly believe that Mr. Thompson had absolutely no idea that he was carrying what appears to be Senator Webb's firearm and ammunition. It is also my opinion that Thompson is a loyal employee of Senator Webb, who unceremoniously threw the poor bastard under the bus after the Senator forgot to remove said hardware from his bag before giving it to Thompson. It's crystal clear in my mind that the boo-boo in question was the Senator's, and that Thompson should not be charged in this case. I won't even get started here on how hypocritical lawmakers can have firearms on Federal property, and enjoy other perks such as being allowed to smoke in their offices, while not allowing ordinary peasants to have the same considerations, or how the entire D.C. ban on firearms is blatantly unconstitutional. I'll get into that another time.

In so many of the laws that we as peasants have to follow, however, intent is not part of the equation. Did you do what was alleged, whether you meant to or not? "Officer, I didn't see the stop sign". Well, tough. You still get the ticket. That's the way it works in our country. Obviously, some discretion is occasionally used, which Mr. Thompson was apparently the recipient of, and justifiably so.

So, all that being said, does anyone in the universe believe for one nanosecond that any other citizen would get anywhere near the consideration that Mr. Thompson has gotten?

Let's use an example. Suppose we have a Virginia resident, licensed to carry a concealed handgun. He keeps it in an attache case, for easy access. One day, his student son, who is 18 and hoping to get a Congressional intern appointment, snags an interview on Capitol Hill (hopefully for one of the non-lecher lawmakers). He grabs his father's attache case to put his resume in, in order to appear more professional, never noticing that his dad's handgun is inside. He then has the exact same sequence of events happen to him as happened to Mr. Thompson.

It defines rational belief that U.S. Attorney Jeffrey Taylor would issue the following statement about our fictional example:

“After reviewing and analyzing all of the evidence in the case, we do not believe the essential elements of the crime of carrying a pistol without a license can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt",

Yet that is exactly what Mr. Taylor had to say today, after announcing that Mr. Thompson would not be charged.

Oh, really? Capitol police officers found the weapon in the bag that Mr. Thompson submitted for screening right in front of them. I'll bet a million dollars that there are security cameras at the checkpoint that caught everything, yet Mr. Taylor can't prove anything?

Here's another laugher:

"It was unclear whether the pistol belonged to the freshman senator."

Yeah, I'm sure whoever investigated this was just stumped about finding the owner of the pistol. Those funny little numbers printed on every firearm, which the police use to solve crimes every day, just weren't of any use in this fiasco.

No wonder they let this little nugget out on Friday afternoon, hoping that people wouldn't notice.

Well, we noticed. What a crock.

Jeffrey Taylor had better not charge anyone who makes such an honest mistake in the future, or we will be merciless in our hounding of him.