Return to From the Editor's Quill
5 February 1997
Dear Editor,
Regarding your weapons policy, my main concern is that the policy be objective. Any object which violates local laws should be excluded, of course. Beyond that, it should be realized that a weapons policy can't be a substitute for rules against boorish behavior. Some e-mail discussions which I've been in indicate that people believe that weapons policies need to be as open-ended as possible so that the security people have a justification for kicking out people who act boorishly.
But boorish behavior should be covered under rules against boorish behavior. Any massive object can be used to endanger people, and even light objects can under some circumstances. It's the action, not the object, which makes the offense.
For this reason, I don't believe an open-ended, retroactively changeable definition of "weapon" (i.e., "If we say it's a weapon, it's a weapon") is appropriate. I don't think such a rule would help to protect the Bucconeer organization from liability. Rather, the rule should be against something like "any actions which endanger other people or seriously interfere with their ability to participate in and enjoy convention events."
Appropriate penalties, including expulsion, can be specified, along with the discretion to apply them. If it seems appropriate to cover objects used as weapons, then there might be a rule that states, "If a person carrying any object demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to carry it in a manner which doesn't threaten or inconvenience those around, the person will be required to surrender the object to Convention Security (or whomever) for the duration of the convention."
Such a policy would keep people happy and provide for everyone's safety while safeguarding the con's liability.
Gary McGath
We plan to publish our Weapons Policy in Progress Report Two. Ed.