[marinepilot81]

I've had a few discussions about this topic and wanted to see what every one else thought.

Here are the variables I see:

1. I have a right to bear arms, but not to fly. Can a private company restrict my 2nd Amendment?

2. Airlines are controlled by the FAA and receive govt subsidization. Should they have to abide by govt rules? A subsidized company can't discriminate against homosexuals so can they take away my 2nd Amendment?

3. I don't buy the "Flying OK Corral" argument. More guns = less crime.

4. Would it have any deterrent effect?

[Winchester 73]

I certainly agree with #3 and believe it would have a deterrent effect.
We are not going to get our way with a private company on #1 and #2 unfortunately.
Particularly in today's paranoia environment.

[everallm]

H'mmmm, lower air pressure, lower oxygen content, alcohol and short tempers after being held up on the tarmac for 4 hours......Add firearms and we got ourselves a party.....

I think the funniest thing I ever saw on a flight was a very inebriated member of the TFB (Tatooed F**kwit Bretheren) screaming at another drunk who he thought had been eyeing up his wife.

Yell, Yell, Scream, Scream, Posture, Posture...."Right...Had enough of this, I'll teach you some @#$%!)*!&# manners...outside!"

[Gunnerpalace]

NO NO NO!

Private businesses and properties should be able to say no guns, but in that respect we can also boycott them,

Hold on don't slam me yet, guns on airplanes is a bad idea except for pilot's marshals, and LEO's with permission, after sitting in your seat in the boiling hot, kid kicking your seat, and backed up toilet, for some CCW's it could be too much and there we have an issue. plus if you fire on a BG and miss, everyone is kinda screwed.

[lanternlad1]

I like Archie Bunker's take on it...

The airline should hand out guns to every adult as they board, and collect them as they get off.

That would work. :)

[ammopoor]

I believe no guns allowed. Many businesses refuse right to carry and I believe there were at least 17 documented restricted areas in the missouri's ccw laws most if not all were government or affilated buildings/business. Don't get me wrong I enjoy my rights especially to carry but no guns in airtravel. You still have the ability of brute force to take a threat down as did the people on the PA flight on 911 GOD BLESS THERE SOULS.

[Prince Yamato]

Honestly, with security being what it is, I'm not real scared on airlines anymore. Since it's almost guaranteed the other guy doesn't have a gun, it'd be a fisticuffs with a ratio of like 30:1 odds in our favor. I am more concerned about being deaf after a gun is fired in such a closed area. There are also air marshals. Again, not real worried about planes.

[Avenger]

Prince Yamato, I wouldn't want to get into a fight on an airplane. 30:1 only matters if all 30 can actually get to the 1. Realistically, 2 or 3 to 1 is more like it, and frankly I'd prefer to NOT have "help" from somebody else. Every time I've had a "partner" in a fight, they were almost as much of a problem as the bad guy.

That said, I'm not worried, since Bill Shatner is gettin' old, and probably wouldn't be able to see the thing on the wing anymore!

[springmom]

Yes.

Airlines are private companies, but so are the companies that run some toll roads, bus lines, etc. They are called "common" carriers, and I'm no lawyer, but to me that implies there is a public aspect to the provision of their services, and therefore they do not have unlimited "private property" claims over their customers.

[au1776]

I say no. While the common carrier status may require a more compelling interest, I think they'd be able to win that argument.

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Gunnerpalace: Hold on don't slam me yet, guns on airplanes is a bad idea except for pilot's marshals, and LEO's with permission, after sitting in your seat in the boiling hot, kid kicking your seat, and backed up toilet, for some CCW's it could be too much and there we have an issue. plus if you fire on a BG and miss, everyone is kinda screwed. Just like sitting in traffic on a hot summer day.

I voted yes. I think they should be allowed. However I do think the private business should have the ability to restrict guns if they so wish.

The answers given to us in the pole are poorly chosen. I think the question is a little to open ended and needs to be rewritten.

[chrlefxtrt]

How about allowing CCW holders to stow their pistol in a locked box in the carry on area not underneath with luggage. Then we institute a policy not too unlike that of Israel. Where everyone is "profiled". I'm fine with no loade firearms on my person while in transit, that doesn't worry me. It is when I leave the relative security of the airport in an area I don't know. People rarely get robbed or assaulted IN the airport.

[.cheese.]

I voted yes... the only real reason I would be tempted to say no is wondering if an ND would have massive consequences for an airplane.

I don't know the answer, so I can't really comment on that. I think mythbusters tested it, but I forget the outcome.

On the other hand, I'm tempted not to fly period anymore. I don't feel safe, and it's not just because of terrorism related stuff. I feel like I'm in a tin can hurling through the sky just waiting for some accident to happen because I worry the airlines aren't spending the kind of money I'd like them to to ensure I'm totally safe up there.

So I'm tempted now to drive everywhere.... and maybe one day get a small aircraft that I can fly myself and maintain myself..... if I have the money for it ever.

[cassandrasdaddy]

i'd vote no and can quote a number of posters here as examples of why no

[OldCowHand]

I agree with Gunnerpalace's statement that "Private businesses and properties should be able to say no guns, but in that respect we can also boycott them." However, airline companies are currently regulated to a degree that makes them effectively only semi-private, as witness the fact that they cannot at present turn Gunnerpalace's observation on its head: If the airlines were deregulated sufficiently that a company could make the business decision to permit open carry on board, that company could advertise that decision and thereby gain a competitive advantage over the other companies that failed to similarly accommodate security-minded passengers. Today's regulatory environment makes that sort of free-market solution impossible.

[nwilliams]

I don't like the idea of even Air Marshals being armed. I took a defensive pistol class with a lady Air Marshal and she was by far the worst shot in the entire class, it was a little scary actually:uhoh:

Sorry I love the 2nd but I think airlines should have a no gun policy.

[EricTheBarbarian]

Im not sure what shooting a gun on an airplane does, but apparently it doesnt suck everyone out of a busted window or air marshalls wouldnt carry them.
I dont necessarily think that its so important to need to use a gun on an airplane, but you probably want it when you get where you are going.

Not allowing guns on planes sounds like it makes it a huge hassle to take them anywhere with you when you need to fly. Not allowing a pocket knife is a big enough hassle,im sure the powers that be think having CCW is completely out of the question.

Ive made it a point to not take anything with me while flying that I would be too upset if I lost it ever since all of my bags had the locks cut off and everything searched through. They couldnt fit all of my stuff back in the duffel so it was strew about in a taped shut garbage bag. Apparently if you print a piece of paper and put it in the bag saying you can do whatever you want you can do just about anything. I dont trust the employees to not take something if they want it, so I chose to fly with nothing I would care too much about if I lost.
I would assume if they allowed CCW through some narrow way with a large amount of hoops to jump through, they would do their best to take your carry piece from you for national security or fill in the blank policy.

in a perfect world, it would be allowed, and in reality it should be, but never will be

I am the only air marshall on this plane professional enough....:neener:

[Feud]

I vote no.

Just imagine if there were multiple people armed on the flight. Should a situation arise the noise from gunshots and screams, close quarters, smoke and other obstructions would quickly make proper target identification nearly impossible (is that guy a good guy shooting or bad guy?). Then there is the risk of over penetration, I could imagine very quickly even the most well meaning of citizens quickly becoming just as deadly as the bad guy.

While the subject is here, does anyone know if Air Marshalls use frangible bullets?

[Diamondback6]

Uh, guys! Explosive decompression: myth? Busted.

Adam and Jamie did this one already, and while their science is sometimes more of "make a big bang"...

[Packman]

This pilot thinks he should be allowed to carry on any vehicle he commands.

Hitting a window does very little. Hitting another passenger is a very bad thing. Therefore, I agree with the FFDO concept. A Federal Flight Deck Officer is a pilot that is authorized to carry a sidearm, and when in command of an aircraft, is actually an acting LEO.

I'm not sure I like the idea of everyone having a gun on my plane, but I sure a shootin' want mine.

[serrano]

I remember in Rainbow Six someone had an airline ccw - had to be approved by the president I believe. I'm not sure if Clancy made this bit up? Can any special ops ccw on a plane?

[Feud]

Uh, guys! Explosive decompression: myth? Busted.

That's not neccesarily the problem. Most likely any gun fire would be along the length of the aircraft, unless the bad guy happens to be sitting next to you.

So you would be firing along the length of the plane with passengers in between you. I'm willing to bet that airline seats don't stop bullets well, and if you are shooting at the bad guy and miss (or if the bad guy is shooting at you and misses) you risk hitting those two very important people at the very front of the aircraft, not to mention all the passengers in between the two of you.

Or, if the bad guy is smart, by the time anyone knows there is a problem he could be shooting into the cockpit. Given the danger that a plane can be to not just those inside, but outside as well I think that, like allowing civilians to stockpile anthrax, the risk far out weighs any rational gain.

I say more Marshall's, with stricter requirements for them.

[newkahrman]

yep all a gun shot did was put a small hole in fuselage on mythbusters. It wasn't even enough to cause the oxygen masks to drop. I rarely fly but I am leaning towards just pilots and qualifying marshalls carrying. A terrorist could theoretically get a fake ccw.

[ctdonath]

4th Amendment sez the feds can't go pawing thru one's stuff without compelling individual-specific reason.
2nd Amendment sez the feds can't disarm the people, period.
I'd venture a guess that TSA "security" has cost far more than it saved.
The feds have no business saying I can't carry when I fly.

The airline ... maybe. That's between them and me.

[geekWithA.45]

Several thoughts:


1) In-cabin carriage of handguns was perfectly legal until the late 60's. My uncle used to pack on planes, no big deal.

2) As is my tradition, I point out that the "private businesses get to make whatever rules they want" libertarian dogma is demonstrably false.

Not all rights are absolute, and the rights of the property owner balance against the rights of the property users in different fashions. Generally, the property -owner's- rights are highest, but still limited in truly private propery such as your home. (Example: you still can't enslave your guests, but you can toss people out for conversation you don't approve of) There are a few places in the middle (workplaces, etc), but the other end of the spectrum is property that is open to public accommodation, where the public's rights are nearly as high as they are on the street. (Example: you can't toss people out of a restaurant because you don't approve of the content of their dinner conversation...)

I'll concede that aircraft offer additional complexities warranting a special case consideration, but I'm not willing to accept the "private property" dogmatic argument as the deciding factor.

[Winchester 73]

I voted yes... the only real reason I would be tempted to say no is wondering if an ND would have massive consequences for an airplane.

I don't know the answer, so I can't really comment on that. I think mythbusters tested it, but I forget the outcome.

The answer is a ND would have no effect 99.9 per cent of the time as far as bringing the plane down.
And I am very surprised at the number of posters who do not truly believe in,"shall not be infringed".
Property rights are more important right?Like your employer blocking you out of the company parking lot.
Sure, just drive back and forth to work through those lousy neighbourhoods unarmed.What do we care?We property owners have our rights.
Don't like it?Quit and find a new job.
I've gone through this nonsense for 20 years.This is total B.S. and hopefully eventually will be overcome in the courts or CWII.

[Alex45ACP]

Should be up to each airline to set their own policies. I doubt any of them will let people carry on their planes.

[GuyWithQuestions]

I'd say "no" to allowing CCW on airlines, provided that they have metal detectors and you have to go through the "secured area". I do realize that putting a bullet through a window probably won't do much and that CCW is usually allowed on public buses where there's a lot of crowd that may be shot.

Here's my reasoning: The reason I think it's good to allow CCW in public and in any unsecured area is because they can't send everyone in public through a metal detector and search everyone who's on the streets, restaurants, college campuses, etc. Since some criminals are going to just ignore "carrying firearm" laws anyway, why not let those with CCW permits carry for protection? Makes sense to me. However, on an airline where everyone goes through metal detectors, search people, and it's a secured area with many security personell all over the place, with them even restricting knives and finger nail clippers, why introduce deadly weapons when there's not so much of a problem in the first place? Hold ups on "U.S. airlines" are quite extremely rare now, especially with a firearm, so why introduce a possible problem?

Some say that the Bill of Rights says it's illegal for unreasonable search and seizure. When you use an airline, no one is forcing you to be searched in the first place. If I walk in and decide that I don't want to be searched anymore, I can always back out and just go someplace else. It's like if you walk into a private business that has metal detectors. They have no more right to search you than any citizen off the streets, but they can say if you want to go into their place you have to be searched. They're not violating any search laws. If someone wants to take a tour inside the U.S. capitol or FBI headquarters, which they searched me when I visited those two in Washington D.C., is it unconstitutional for the government to say you can't come inside without going through their metal detectors? Is this the same thing as a police officer stopping you on the road for no reason at all and saying that he's going to go through all your stuff and you have no choice? Is it the same as a police officer knocking on your door saying he has no search warrant and no probable cause but is going to come inside your house and search? Can you back out of these situations? Is it the same if you want to go inside a jail or prison to visit someone and you have to go through a security check point? Is that unreasonable search and seizure where they force you against your own will to be searched? Are they violating search laws?

That's my opinion for the airlines. For a private aircraft not part of an airline, I'd say they can do whatever they want.

[Winchester 73]

Guy,
Respectfully ,I again refer to the BOR,Amendment 2,last 4 words.

[Feud]

Respectfully ,I again refer to the BOR,Amendment 2,last 4 words.

Infringement and regulation aren't the same thing. Just as it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater, illegal to threaten someone, illegal to slander, illegal to commit libel, and illegal to display obscene images in public, those laws do not act as infringements upon the right to free speech.

Similarly, we have a right to liberty but that does not mean that we are free to do what ever we want. Does requiring a Drivers License infringe on our right to liberty? Not at all, but it certainly regulates it.

I appreciate your desire to maintain our liberties as outlined in the 2A, but one must interpret those liberties in the same context and applications as our other liberties are held, else our argument is weakened not only in the sight of the law but in the court of public opinion.

[Winchester 73]

I appreciate your desire to maintain our liberties as outlined in the 2A, but one must interpret those liberties in the same context and applications as our other liberties are held, else our argument is weakened not only in the sight of the law but in the court of public opinion.
__________________

Still feel,again respectfully,you are overruled by "shall not be infringed".
We will have to agree to disagree.Public opinion be d_____.

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Cerrano: I remember in Rainbow Six someone had an airline ccw - had to be approved by the president I believe. I'm not sure if Clancy made this bit up? Can any special ops ccw on a plane?
Rainbow Six is fiction.

The only people who can carry on commercial airliners are FFDOs, Air Marshals, LEOs on assignment, and that is it. I believe the pilot can deny any of them the right but I am not 100% sure.

[coat4gun]

Just as it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

The logic behind the comparison of yelling fire in a crowded theater to carrying firearms is flawed. While it may be illegal to yell fire if there is no fire, it is perfectly acceptable to yell fire if there is a fire. It is also legal to carry your voice into the theater. Carrying and using are two different things.

Carrying a firearm into a crowded theater is like bringing your voice into the theater. Using your voice in a crowed theater to yell fire if there is a fire is like using a firearm to stop someone from shooting up the crowd.

Neither your voice or a firearm can affect anything until used.

[GRIZ22]

The only people who can carry on commercial airliners are FFDOs, Air Marshals, LEOs on assignment, and that is it. I believe the pilot can deny any of them the right but I am not 100% sure.


Any Federal Officer who can carry all the time and has taken a annual certification course can carry on a commercial airliner.

There are a lot of complications to allowing people to carrying on a commercial airliner. Among them:

1. Sleeper terrorists could legally get a CCW and you'd have to let them get on with a weapon.

2. You have a Fl CCP and a PA non-resident CCP (to make it easy). You're flying from Miami to Philadelphia non-stop so you're legal at both ends. Something happens at Philly and your flight is diverted to NJ or NY. What happens then. I believe law abiding citizens should be able to carry wherever they are but we need to deal with the way it is not the way it should be.

[geekWithA.45]

Griz22: You've identified some of the complications I've alluded to.

GuyWithQuestions: How certain are you that allowing normal activities to be contingent on consent searches is a good public policy consistent with a free society? Don't you think that somewhere, "reasonable" gives way to "people tolerate it out of habit", sacrificing the free character of the society in the process?

Isn't setting the default to favor freedom what America is about?


We know that when people are used to liberty, they expect liberty. When they are accustomed to oppression, they accept oppression. Papa Stalin has taught us that people will tolerate literally any degree of oppression.

Is that what we really want? To set the defaults to bondage and constraint?

[Feud]

The logic behind the comparison of yelling fire in a crowded theater to carrying firearms is flawed.

I'm not comparing yelling fire in a theater to carrying a firearm. I was only using it as an example how even in a free society the most basic of civil liberties, the freedom of expression, can reasonably be restricted for the greater good of the public without compromising the integrity of the right. I did this to point out that reasonable restrictions can be applied with out "infringing" on our 2A rights.

[langenc]

"2. You have a Fl CCP and a PA non-resident CCP (to make it easy). You're flying from Miami to Philadelphia non-stop so you're legal at both ends. Something happens at Philly and your flight is diverted to NJ or NY. What happens then. I believe law abiding citizens should be able to carry wherever they are but we need to deal with the way it is not the way it should be."


Why is carry NOT legal at 'both ends'? More infringement!! Philly and NY.

I thought I could refer you'al to a recent article about Air Marshals and Flight deck Crews CCW. Wife must have hid it away.

What we ALL should be doing is demanding the flight crews be armed and do away with the 40+ page application for same. Same rules for flight crew as marshalls and get teachers carrying at school/college.

[coat4gun]

The logic behind the comparison of yelling fire in a crowded theater to carrying firearms is flawed.
I'm not comparing yelling fire in a theater to carrying a firearm. I was only using it as an example how even in a free society the most basic of civil liberties, the freedom of expression, can reasonably be restricted for the greater good of the public without compromising the integrity of the right. I did this to point out that reasonable restrictions can be applied with out "infringing" on our 2A rights.

You can Constitutionally restrict yelling certain things, just like you can Constitutionally restrict where and how you use a firearm.... but you can NOT restrict the keeping and bearing of either a voice or a firearm without violating the Constitution. Since keeping and bearing is an individual right, the individual defines "infringe" and to this individual (me), anything that restricts me from keeping and bearing is unconstitutional.

[romma]

What can I say, it's private property... However, if they allowed it, then what the heck!

[Fly320s]

As an airline pilot, I have absolutely no opposition to people carrying firearms on my plane. Anyone, any gun.

But, there's always a but, I do have a problem with people shooting-up the airplane I am on. With rights come responsibility. If a person uses a firearm, then that person is 100% responsible for the results. It doesn't matter whether the gun was fired at a shooting range or in an airplane.

[jlbraun]

I've asked this before. If you're a common carrier you fall under FAA jurisdiction. A one-time charter flight would be OK with guns on board, multiple scheduled flights fall under common carrier.

[ctdonath]

I can shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater - I'm just responsible for the consequences. Nobody binds or "checks" tounges in theaters. If there _is_ a fire, dang straight I'm shouting "FIRE!"

As another noted, airplane CCW was the norm for a long time. No problems.

[Gunnerpalace]

While the subject is here, does anyone know if Air Marshals use frangible bullets?

Yes they do.

As for explosive decompression the plane did not do that but, the reason the mask did not drop was probably the fact that the plane was gutted, at 22,000 ft the scenario would be bang, miss, decompress, plane shudders, masks drop, plane dives to get to a lower altitude, and panic among the passengers ensues, meaning you probably wont get a second shot.

Also imagine the litigation YOU will incur on yourself from, not just the feds but the sheeple (can I use that term?) who might sue you because "I should have followed the BG's demands and not tried to stop them".

[GRIZ22]

Why is carry NOT legal at 'both ends'? More infringement!! Philly and NY.


As I said you need to deal with reality, things the way they are not the way they should be.

[Technosavant]

Uh, guys! Explosive decompression: myth? Busted.

Adam and Jamie did this one already, and while their science is sometimes more of "make a big bang"...

Airliners are not perfectly sealed; there is already a fair amount of air leakage from the pressurized fuselage, and the bleed air from the engines copes well; a few bullet holes won't make any difference unless they are in the hydraulics, engines, or pilots.

Anybody remember the Aloha Airlines 737 that became a convertible while in-flight? It landed without major issue, other than missing about 20 feet of roof; the only people who were killed were NOT belted in and were sucked out. The pilots took the plane before 10,000 feet, and other than a lot of wind, everybody left was safe.

The only real issue for me in firearms on board airplanes is having enough room to deploy the firearm effectively and accurately. The last few times I flew, I barely had enough room back in coach to change my mind.

[GuyWithQuestions]

GuyWithQuestions: How certain are you that allowing normal activities to be contingent on consent searches is a good public policy consistent with a free society? Don't you think that somewhere, "reasonable" gives way to "people tolerate it out of habit", sacrificing the free character of the society in the process?

Isn't setting the default to favor freedom what America is about?



Let me ask you this first: Do you only think that it's unreasonable to restrict concealed carry on security checkpoint airlines with metal detectors, or do you also think it's unreasonable to allow metal detectors at places like the U.S. Capitol building and FBI Headquarters? I'm just trying to find out if you disagree with restricting CCW at metal detector security checkpoint areas, or if you only disagree that the FBI building and airline examples compare.

[KBintheSLC]

I voted NO. I have a CCW, and carry daily so I do value our rights in this respect. However, I don't want some idiot CC'er (yes... even CC'er can be idiots at times) opening fire on a plane and potentially breaching the fuselage in mid flight. I don't even like the idea of armed Air Marshall's. I think knives or even tasers are more practical defense weapons on planes. Even frangible ammo can easily breach the delicate aluminum walls of an aircraft. Guns have no place there IMO.

I'll probably get railed for saying that on this forum, but I can live with it. :)

I say we work on getting it legal in places like NY, CA, and DC before we waste our time trying to push it on airliners.

[Gunnerpalace]

I say we work on getting it legal in places like NY, CA, and DC before we waste our time trying to push it on airliners.

That is something I agree with, besides how do you think the media will paint us?

[marinepilot81]

1. I lost all confidence in the TSA when the airline lost my Glock and their answer was "it'll turn up somewhere."

2. Terrorists have no problem getting weapons on board. Only white men and 80 yr old women in wheel chairs get searched.

3. While airlines receive federal money, they ought to conform to federal policies.

4. Are a few dead passengers better or worse than everyone dead in a smoking hole in the ground?

5. As always, and as it should be, I think I should have my rights and then be held accountable for my actions. Not told "you're too incompetent to use your rights".

[Gunnerpalace]

4. Are a few dead passengers better or worse than everyone dead in a smoking hole in the ground?


What if you miss and hit the pilot?

What if they already have control of the plane?

Do you know there will be just one BG, because previous incidents say count on 5 to deal with?

Wasnt there another thread, oh yeah:http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=308101&highlight=magic+talisman

Plus if you kill someone even if you stop an attack you will no doubt get sued, and if the plane goes down your estate will get it then, there are so many variables and areas where problems with us can happen it needs to be the Feds for now. If someone was to go on CNN,FOX, and any of the other talking head shows right now and try and get this we would be dismissed as "crazies" which will just hut us, and we do not need that right now, Parker is coming up if it goes bad we will have to worry if we will be able to buy a .22 in the months after this, if it goes good (really good)then we will be fighting over which laws to get rid of first, if it goes medium good that puts us right back here.

[EricTheBarbarian]

Everyone is assuming you have to shoot up the plane if you have a gun on your belt or in a holster. Much like antis in ohio thought after ccw was legal the streets would be flowing with blood since everyone would start shooting.


Whats the problem with just having it in a holster, then going on your way when you get off the plane? I dont see why this is a problem, since this is most likely to happen 99.99% of the time.

Getting a gun somewhere when flying has to be a major hassle and Im sure alot of people would feel better if they knew it was attached to them on a belt or otherwise. Less chance for the TSA flunkies to loose it or steal it.

The risk is small that islamic jihadists are going to hi jack the plane you are on, and youre going to need to open fire and save the day. Remember, you dont know who is ccw'ing. A quote another member on here has used is " An armed society is a polite society." This might make people think twice about doing something foolish.

The risk of needing your carry piece on a plane is probably as likely as needing it to fight your way to the mailbox and back. Situations arise where you need it, but most people dont get in gun battles everytime they leave the house. On the otherhand, it is certainly more convenient to be able to carry it with you than jump through hoops and make special arrangements.

I dont think ccw on a plane is anymore dangerous than carrying in a crowded mall.

You probably wont need to use it, but why arent you allowed to have it? Its better to be looking at it than looking for it.

[Sans Authoritas]

Quote:
Just as it is illegal to yell fire in a crowded theater

Coat4Gun wrote:

The logic behind the comparison of yelling fire in a crowded theater to carrying firearms is flawed. While it may be illegal to yell fire if there is no fire, it is perfectly acceptable to yell fire if there is a fire. It is also legal to carry your voice into the theater. Carrying and using are two different things.

Carrying a firearm into a crowded theater is like bringing your voice into the theater. Using your voice in a crowed theater to yell fire if there is a fire is like using a firearm to stop someone from shooting up the crowd.

Neither your voice or a firearm can affect anything until used.

Dead on accurate, Coat4Gun. Bullseye. People who follow the "logic" of the quote you cited are so afraid someone will use their tongue to unjustly shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, they want to cut tongues out.

-Sans Authoritas

[Feud]

You can Constitutionally restrict yelling certain things, just like you can Constitutionally restrict where and how you use a firearm.... but you can NOT restrict the keeping and bearing of either a voice or a firearm without violating the Constitution. Since keeping and bearing is an individual right, the individual defines "infringe" and to this individual (me), anything that restricts me from keeping and bearing is unconstitutional.

That's not how it works (nor how it should work). Freedom of expression is an individual right, but that does not give the individual the freedom exclusive right to determine in what is and is not Constitutional. Voyeurism, public nudity, and death threats are all means of self expression, but they are regulated and for good reason, regardless of how much their proponents may disagree.

But let's take your example, that the right to keep and bear arms is a right where the individual defines "infringement" and anything that restricts the individual is unconstitutional. Is denying prisoners firearms unconstitutional? Certainly, since they define what is and is not constitutional concerning their individual right.

Or, if I decided that background checks infringe on my ability to keep and bear arms, do I have the right to declare such null and void? If I decide that sales taxes infringe upon my right by making guns too expensive to keep and bear do I have a right to not pay it? Such is silly, the only means by which a law may be deemed unconstitutional is through a court, else our society would be utter chaos.

The system you describe is legalized anarchy (if there can be such a thing), where any person can declare an act of state unjust. You can certainly think a law is such, you can say so as well, but anything beyond that would led immediately to the complete break down of the social contract, after which your rights would only exist so long as you could defend them from all comers.

[Sans Authoritas]

Feud,

There is a selection of responses to your points contained in the thread entitled "Second Amendment is completely general... etc."

-Sans Authoritas

[inkhead]

Heh I'm more of the opinion like the guy from NY, that you give out free NY giant baseball bats to everyone on the plane. Should a terrorist decide to pull some crazy ****, well you get the idea..

Seriously though...What's you motivation for carrying on a plane? Security? Are you landing in the thick of it? I've personally flown in several private planes with firearms, and it's just a pain for transportation.

I'm all for carrying, but you talk about people who can't fit a laptop or their elbows into a space carrying a firearm. Especially since 9/11 everyone is been told to be afraid, if they knew they could carry on a plane, you'd have everyone with a firearm.. In a confined space mistakes happen....

Heh that policy of leaving people sitting in the plane on the runway for 6 hours alone would probably test even my patience when carrying... if legal...


If you absolutely need to carry on a plane, then you are already flying in your own craft or with another person. If security is that important I'd probably work on other issues like passenger manifests vs. if you could be allowed to carry on the plane.

Seriously if you are that worried why would you fly? If it's so important to fly, get to know you passengers... (very rarely is it that important)

Sorry but regardless of your "right", they don't mean anything, (sad) but unless you plan to "enforce" your right...

[Fly320s]

Quote:
While the subject is here, does anyone know if Air Marshals use frangible bullets?

Yes they do.


No, they don't. Standard hollow-point ammo. Gold Dots, IIRC. I've had a few FAMs on my flights; last I heard they are still using standard ammo. Next time I see a FAM, I'll ask just to make sure.

[Fly320s]

Heh I'm more of the opinion like the guy from NY, that you give out free NY giant baseball bats to everyone on the plane. Should a terrorist decide to pull some crazy ****, well you get the idea..

Seriously though...What's you motivation for carrying on a plane? Security? Are you landing in the thick of it? I've personally flown in several private planes with firearms, and it's just a pain for transportation.

I'm all for carrying, but you talk about people who can't fit a laptop or their elbows into a space carrying a firearm. Especially since 9/11 everyone is been told to be afraid, if they knew they could carry on a plane, you'd have everyone with a firearm.. In a confined space mistakes happen....

Heh that policy of leaving people sitting in the plane on the runway for 6 hours alone would probably test even my patience when carrying... if legal...


If you absolutely need to carry on a plane, then you are already flying in your own craft or with another person. If security is that important I'd probably work on other issues like passenger manifests vs. if you could be allowed to carry on the plane.

Seriously if you are that worried why would you fly? If it's so important to fly, get to know you passengers... (very rarely is it that important)

Sorry but regardless of your "right", they don't mean anything, (sad) but unless you plan to "enforce" your right...


Replace "plane" with in public, such as shopping or dining, and you might start to see a difference.

[marinepilot81]

To be honest, I expected more arguments concerning the ability of a private company to restrict constitutional rights. A couple of CCW holders have been using the same arguments my anti-gun friends use to discourage me from carrying.

"A bunch of people, all with guns, will only lead to trouble."
"People will just start shooting and everyone will die."
"You don't need it on the plane."
"The TSA/FAM will protect you so there's no need to protect yourself."

People ask me "Why do you carry, is it because you're expecting trouble everywhere you go?" I answer, "no, if I was expecting trouble, I'd take the shotgun".

You have to understand, if a terrorist take over the plane, you're all dead anyway. Give me a chance to shoot before we impact. And, I don't think that guy in front of me will recline his seat back all the way looking into the barrel of my XD. That's a joke.

[LaVere]

I can't quite vote either one. I would say that maybe by showing your CCW permit and say USA passport or maybe drivers license. Would be good enough to have your CCW rights.
Private property public access is not absolute. While Malls and planes are own by private corp or persons. They can't just do what ever they want. Places with public access are more controlled by laws.
At this time in our society law makers won't protect our right to CCW in public access areas as they do other rights. Hopefully they will change in our favor and soon.

[ilbob]

I am not all that sure that CC on an aircraft is a real good idea. But, probably no worse than what we have now where there is just the illusion of safety, promoted by the BGs laying low for a while.

They are getting ready for the next round. Don't think it will be airplanes this time. Too soon for the kind of time frame these guys deal in. Maybe a half dozen schools or malls. Maybe an old folks home. Who knows where they will strike next, or when.

[Gunnerpalace]

if a terrorist take over the plane

That's singular, from previous incidents expect 5 guys.


They are getting ready for the next round. Don't think it will be airplanes this time. Too soon for the kind of time frame these guys deal in. Maybe a half dozen schools or malls. Maybe an old folks home. Who knows where they will strike next, or when

This is true right here all the CT guys have said this, I stress again, Work on the easiest front before you try to climb MT Everest.

[Feud]

They are getting ready for the next round. Don't think it will be airplanes this time. Too soon for the kind of time frame these guys deal in. Maybe a half dozen schools or malls. Maybe an old folks home. Who knows where they will strike next, or when.

Glenn Beck was on campus speaking a few days ago and a friend of mine who helped set it up snagged me an up close ticket. He talked a bit about the "perfect day" idea, scary stuff.

[GuyWithQuestions]

Replace "plane" with in public, such as shopping or dining, and you might start to see a difference.

And now let's say we take the "plane" example, and took away the metal detectors, security checkpoints, security personel, just like it is in many "public" places like restaurants, schools, etc. Then I would say, "Yes, we should allow CCW on airlines." In public, saying no CCW stops the law abiding citizens and some of the criminals (some criminals out there say they follow and respect some laws while ignoring other laws), but a lot of the criminals it does not stop (Cho from Virginia Tech, Illinois shootings, Amish school, Columbine, etc). However, when there are metal detectors, searching, security checkpoints and many personel trained on dealing with troublemakers and the fact that hijacked planes in the U.S. aren't very common anymore, then I know quite a few would just rather not introduce a problem that may not be there, even if those with permits are a lot less likely to commit crimes. Even if shooting a hole through a window probably won't do anything. Even if the vast majority of those with CCW permits on an airplane will behave themselves. I'm quite for allowing CCW into schools, preschools, and sports arenas, because all the security checkpoint and ability to search everyone isn't the same as it is at an airport and so in those situations it's not good to engage in victim disarming.

[frankie_the_yankee]

That airliners are private property has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

That airliners are "public accommodations" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

(Almost all) air travel is interstate commerce. As such, Congress has enumerated power under the Commerce Clause to regulate it.

So at best, there is a conflict between Congress' Commerce Clause powers and citizens' 2A rights.

When conflicts like this exist, and are litigated, the highest standard to which a law can be held is that of "strict scrutiny". To meet the test of strict scrutiny, the court must find a "compelling state interest" for the statute, that the statute is "narrowly tailored" to the specific purpose, and that there isn't some other less intrusive means of accomplishing the same goal.

(IANAL and do not wish to nitpick here, but the above is a fair summation of the scrict scrutiny doctrine, IMO.)

In the late 60's and early 70's, before passenger screening was implemented, anyone could carry a concealed handgun on their person into the passenger cabin. Whether they had a permit or not didn't really matter as no one was searched or checked. As long as it was concealed no one knew.

In those same late 60's, it became quite common for various political dissidents and criminal types to hijack airliners at gunpoint, most often demanding that they be flown to Cuba or some other place beyond US extradition.

Sky Marshalls were placed aboard airliners, but besides being too few it was easy for hijackers to get the drop on them and/or take a flight or cabin crew member hostage. For the same reasons, arming the cockpit crew, also fairly common in those days, was not too effective either.

Between 1968 and 1973, when passenger screening was adopted, over 100 airliners were hijacked. That's almost 2 per month. I was a young man at the time, and remember well how common it was.

After passenger screening was put in place in 1973, and guns were banned from the passenger cabin, hijackings, especially of US aircraft, plummetted to much lower levels. Not zero to be sure, but very much lower than in the pre-screening days.

Think of how rare hijackings are today by comparison with having 1 or 2 per month.

And yes, the screening system didn't prevent 9/11, but that just shows that any system can be beaten with enough effort and forethought.

But the fact that this or that approach may not be perfect doesn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't try to do everything we can to prevent hijackings.

Two takeaways from all this.

1) The federal laws/rules mandating screening and banning guns have never been challenged in the last 35 years as far as I have been able to determine.

2) If they ever were, the real-world experience with screening and banning guns can so clearly be shown to have reduced hijackings that if the laws/rules were ever challenged, the standard of strict scrutiny could easily be met, IMO.

Bottom line: There's no 2A right to carry a gun on an airliner, and there likely never will be.

And trust me. I know all about what "...shall not be infringed.", means, so you don't need to ask. If someone thinks I am off base with this analysis, they are perfectly free to cite case law to the contrary.

I also hold a CHL, am a Life Member of the NRA, and carry a handgun anywhere I legally can.

[Winchester 73]

All your rhetoric is still wrong.You can spout all you want but you're still overruled by the 2nd
Amendment.
Your NRA credentials don't make a dent against your anti-constitutional wrong headed thinking.And I'm going to trust you?With a two dollar wallet,maybe.
Leave Texas and move back to where?NY?
You'll feel more comfortable there with your Socialist jargon.Yankee.

[frankie_the_yankee]

All your rhetoric is still wrong.You can spout all you want but you're still overruled by the the 2nd Amendment.
Your NRA credentials don't make a dent against your anti-constitutional wrong headed thinking.And I'm going to trust you?With a two dollar wallet,maybe.
Leave Texas and move back to where? NY?
You'll feel more comfortable there with your Socialist jargon.Yankee.

I try to keep the discourse in the real world and this is what I get?

Can you cite any case law supporting your position?

Or maybe it's you that is spouting "jargon"?

Take a gun and a copy of the second amendment aboard an airliner and we'll see who get's "overruled", and by what.

[Thernlund]

Not having read the entire thread...

I voted no, but the question isn't granular enough. It's not a simple yes/no. I don't think the FAA should have a say in the matter. I do think that individual airlines, as private businesses, should determine for themselves if they want to allow that.

I would suggest a system where security checkpoints stay in place (in a pre-9/11 fashion), but that anyone found carrying receive a stamp on their boarding pass. Then the airline would be responsible for sorting out how they want to handle that at the gate.

That said, I think that if the FAA took a hands off approach it wouldn't matter anyway. Airlines wouldn't want to shoulder the potential liability of a gun-toting loony plugging away at the passengers. Government regulation would give way to private restrictions, the net result being the same.


-T.

[GuyWithQuestions]

All your rhetoric is still wrong.You can spout all you want but you're still overruled by the the 2nd Amendment.

Your profile says you're a member of "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" http://www.jpfo.org/ . Aren't they considered the U.S.A.'s most aggressive defender of firearm ownership and they believe that the NRA is a bunch of radical left extremists in firearm issues? They believe that many of the NRA's positions on firearms will push the U.S. into the same situation that Nazi regime pre-war Germany was in?

[Winchester 73]

Can you cite any case law supporting your position?

Or maybe it's you that is spouting "jargon"?

Keep bloviating Frankie.
You and your "case law" is all thats wrong with this country.If we could just get back to to the 1791 basics we wouldn't need internet gas bags like yourself telling us this is the way it is.Like it or lump it.
I have no interest in having discourse with you if this is your idea of what the "real world" is supposed to be.
As said,move north ,Socialist and feel more comfortable.Mass or Jersey would be cool for you.Kapish?

[Winchester 73]

Your profile says you're a member of "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" http://www.jpfo.org/ . Aren't they considered the U.S.A.'s most aggressive defender of firearm ownership and they believe that the NRA is a bunch of radical left extremists in firearm issues? They believe that many of the NRA's positions on firearms will push the U.S. into the same situation that Nazi regime pre-war Germany was in?

Guy,at least Frankie has some grey matter.
You're too oblivious to really bothering to respond to.
Glad you had enough savvy to limp over to my profile though.
Now take a Nyquill and try to drift off into a dreamless sleep.That should be easy.

[Thernlund]

You guys better take this private, or you'll be the ones that got this thread locked, eh?


-T.

[GuyWithQuestions]

Winchester,

Before you name call

JPFO on the NRA from JPFO's own sources:

If one goes to JPFO's http://www.jpfo.org/ website, enters "NRA" in their search site field, the only thing that comes up are articles about how the NRA is not doing much for the 2nd amendment, is on the wrong side, how they're promoting a police state, how they support those who will take away our rights, how they're disgusted by the NRA, how the NRA has radically different gun control views than the JPFO, how many members of JPFO don't want membership in the NRA anymore, etc. On the bottom of their website, the article "JPFO and NRA Have Different Views of BATFE" shows a letter from the NRA about BATFE and how many of the NRA's views from the letter and real life are not found in the wording of the 2nd amendment nor Constitution. Wikipedia basically says the same thing about JPFO's views on the NRA under "National Rifle Association", but the search site under JPFO's own website is a lot stronger in expressing disappointment with the NRA.



In the JPFO's article "The NRA Disgraces Itself -- Again", Neil Smith says:
I've seen the latter many, many times, most recently when the National Rifle Association cooperated with some of the nastiest, most notorious advocates of victim disarmament -- congressvulture Carolyn McCarthy, that blood-sucking scavenger of the dead for one -- to "tighten up" provisions of the highly-illegal Brady Law. Passed by the congress on an unrecorded voice vote, HR 2640, the "NICS Improvement Act" drags us not just another notch closer to national firearms registration, or even worse, to a national registry of firearms owners, but to a Big Brotherhood in which everything an individual does can be monitored and scrutinized electronically by jackbooted thugs.

There can be no doubt that we are now living in a police state -- albeit an extremely well-upholstered police state, at least for the time being -- and that the National Rifle Association, in its usual, typical, dimwitted, bumbling eagerness to ingratiate itself with that police state's architects, has just made the police state immeasurably worse.

Then he ends with:
Those who own and operate the NRA (and I am not talking here about its members, whom the leadership simply regards as warm bodies to be counted) should think long and hard about how they'd like to see a national campaign of membership card burnings. It would be as simple to organize as an Internet "flash mob", and the media, of course, would eat it right up. The disgraceful recent conduct of the NRA has now brought that group to within an Angstrom unit of that horrible eventuality.

[GuyWithQuestions]

(merged with post directly above)

[GuyWithQuestions]

The subject of this thread is supposed to be on CCW on airlines, not how frankie_the_yankee should leave Texas for NY where he'll be happy with socialists as a Yankee or how I should take a Nyquill and try to drift off into a dreamless sleep since that should be easy.

[smee781]

I say no only to the fact that if you have a AD in your house or car all you have is a hole in the floor, if you have a AD in a plane you could kill everyone! Safety is my reason,,,,,that is why you cant bring a loaded gun into a gun show! You know some where someone would have an accident.

[GuyWithQuestions]

frankie_the_yankee said:

I also hold a CHL, am a Life Member of the NRA, and carry a handgun anywhere I legally can.


A certain individual responded with:

Leave Texas and move back to where?NY?
You'll feel more comfortable there with your Socialist jargon.Yankee.


My response to this: If you were to go around and ask many random people in public if someone has a concealed carry permit and walks around everywhere in public with a loaded (and probably chambered) handgun, would most random people that you ask agree that this individual is an extreme left-winged freak for gun control? What's relative to individual groups isn't necessarily what's relative to society as a whole. There are many out there who believe Obama and Hilary are extreme right-wings, and others that believe The Brady Campaign doesn't care much about gun control.

[jon_in_wv]

After a little research I discovered you can ship your handgun via UPS/Fed Ex to YOURSELF if you are travelling to another state. For instance, when I go to California to visit my sister I can UPS my weapon to her address and my name. She may receive the package and legally only I can open it. It is illegal to ship to someone else, but not yourself. Its a little easier than trying to get it on a plane even in checked baggage. The airlines are Federally regulated and there is NO provision for anyone to carry concealed on those planes who isn't a federal officer ON DUTY and in the course of his duties. To my knowledge anyhow.

[frankie_the_yankee]

frankie_the_yankee wrote: Quote:
Can you cite any case law supporting your position?

Or maybe it's you that is spouting "jargon"?

W73 responds:

Keep bloviating Frankie.

Hmmm. So requesting citations to case law on the "legal" forum is now "bloviating"?

You and your "case law" is all thats wrong with this country.

Oh. I get it. You can't cite any case law because there isn't any that even remotely supports your position.

If we could just get back to to the 1791 basics we wouldn't need internet gas bags like yourself telling us this is the way it is.Like it or lump it.

So if everyone simply agrees with you, there'd be no problem, right?

I have no interest in having discourse with you if this is your idea of what the "real world" is supposed to be.

What's your idea of what the real world is supposed to be? Some place where you or some other self-appointed purveyor of "revealed truth" tells the rest of us what the constitution and the law mean, whether we agree or not?

As said,move north ,Socialist and feel more comfortable.Mass or Jersey would be cool for you.Kapish?

Someone expresses an opinion different from yours, and you start calling them "Socialist" and ordering them to move to a different part of the country. Is that how the law works? Is that a "High Road" response?

Like I said, take a gun, a copy of the second amendment, and your legal theories, and insist on boarding an airliner with them. Then see what happens in the real world.

Hint: You won't be charged with trespass on the airline's private property. What you will be charged with are a number of federal and state felonies, depending on exactly what you do and say.

Yeah. This thread will probably get locked. Someone starts a thread on the Legal forum posing a legal question. Many people raise the private property aspect of the question, which brings on some discussion. Then someone else contributes some history and legal thought that has been overlooked thus far (I read the whole thread before posting), and instead of thoughtful responses, a person taking an absolutist "the constitution means what it says and I know what it means" position (as if the rest of us must automatically agree) starts name calling and making various illogical and/or non-legal related statements.

No rights are absolute. This is because,

Conflicts arise among rights and/or among rights and enumerated powers.

We resolve those conflicts by arguing them out in the courts, not by consulting self-appointed purveyors of revealed truth.

All any of us can have is an opinion of what the constitution means or as to how a conflict may be properly resolved. This includes everyone from a SCOTUS justice to people on Death Row. It is only when a majority of a court share the same opinion does it rise to the status of "a ruling".

We select people to serve on these courts through an orderly and constitutional process. People don't just decide to serve on them themselves because they believe they deserve to or for some other such absurd reason.

Later court rulings generally follow the logic and precedent of earlier ones where similar principles are at issue. This lends a valuable predictibility to the law.

The body of such rulings forms what we call "case law".

In contrast, we also sometimes encounter something called "rock law". "Rock law" consists of strange legal theories that are generally proclaimed from the top of a large pointy rock where no one can see or hear the "rock lawyer". Sometimes, groups of rock lawyers get together and agree with each other, which makes them feel good.

But deep down inside, they know that if they act on their rock law theories, they are very likely to end up doing time in prison. This produces frustration, which sometimes boils over.

The advent of the Internet has added a new dimension to the art of "rock lawyering", enabling rock lawyers to actually be heard by a wider audience while still maintaining a semblence of anonymity.

Threads like this always seem to bring out a rock lawyer or two.

[AR-15 Rep]

I say no firearms on flights. There are trained people for the task and have specific training dealing with aircraft. Too many people within close quarters to allow someone without specific training to be able to use the firearm effectively and not cause injury to an innocent bystander.

[Gunnerpalace]

Before anyone goes any deeper answer one question:

How do you think the general public would react to this idea?

[RKBABob]

I get the impression that most of you don't fly very much.

Try this quick exercise:

1.) Place a paper target inside your closet.

2.) Load your wife and kids and dog and cat into the closet.

3.) Walk into the closet with your loaded weapon.

4.) Close the door behind you.

5.) Attempt to shoot the target without hitting Jane, or Billy, or Fido.

If you can do this, then you are qualified to discharge a firearm in a modern commercial aircraft.

I'm all fo being able to check a loaded pistol, then retrieve it at the end of the flight... but I don't see much use for it during the flight. At least I wouldn't want to attempt using it... frankly, I'd be mose scared of a citizen using a gun to defend the aircraft then I would be of the crazy trying to hijack it. I can't imagine a situation where there could possible be a clean shot, even for an experienced shooter.

[Winchester 73]

Someone expresses an opinion different from yours, and you start calling them "Socialist" and ordering them to move to a different part of the country. Is that how the law works? Is that a "High Road" response?

Like I said, take a gun, a copy of the second amendment, and your legal theories, and insist on boarding an airliner with them. Then see what happens in the real world.

Hint: You won't be charged with trespass on the airline's private property. What you will be charged with are a number of federal and state felonies, depending on exactly what you do and say.

Yeah. This thread will probably get locked. Someone starts a thread on the Legal forum posing a legal question. Many people raise the private property aspect of the question, which brings on some discussion. Then someone else contributes some history and legal thought that has been overlooked thus far (I read the whole thread before posting), and instead of thoughtful responses, a person taking an absolutist "the constitution means what it says and I know what it means" position (as if the rest of us must automatically agree) starts name calling and making various illogical and/or non-legal related statements.

No rights are absolute. This is because,

Conflicts arise among rights and/or among rights and enumerated powers.

We resolve those conflicts by arguing them out in the courts, not by consulting self-appointed purveyors of revealed truth.

All any of us can have is an opinion of what the constitution means or as to how a conflict may be properly resolved. This includes everyone from a SCOTUS justice to people on Death Row. It is only when a majority of a court share the same opinion does it rise to the status of "a ruling".

We select people to serve on these courts through an orderly and constitutional process. People don't just decide to serve on them themselves because they believe they deserve to or for some other such absurd reason.

Later court rulings generally follow the logic and precedent of earlier ones where similar principles are at issue. This lends a valuable predictibility to the law.

The body of such rulings forms what we call "case law".

In contrast, we also sometimes encounter something called "rock law". "Rock law" consists of strange legal theories that are generally proclaimed from the top of a large pointy rock where no one can see or hear the "rock lawyer". Sometimes, groups of rock lawyers get together and agree with each other, which makes them feel good.

But deep down inside, they know that if they act on their rock law theories, they are very likely to end up doing time in prison. This produces frustration, which sometimes boils over.

The advent of the Internet has added a new dimension to the art of "rock lawyering", enabling rock lawyers to actually be heard by a wider audience while still maintaining a semblence of anonymity.

Threads like this always seem to bring out a rock lawyer or two

All that bombast to attempt to repudiate four simple words from 1791.And you still failed.
Next time keep it pithy.

[coat4gun]

so, you would rather rely on the slim chance that there is a Federal Marshall on the plane to keep the hijackers from plowing into another building?

This is better how?

I would rather risk the slim chance of accidentally being shot than putting my faith in Government help. There may be some collateral damage... but its better than the whole plane going down. I would take a bullet for my wife and kids if I knew it would stop everyone on the plane from dieing.

[frankie_the_yankee]

All that bombast to attempt to repudiate four simple words from 1791.And you still failed.
Next time keep it pithy.

4 simple words that you apparently cannot grasp the meaning of, while simultaneously remaining oblivious to your gigantic blind spot on the subject.

If 300 million people think they mean one thing, and a few rock lawyers think they mean something else, what does that tell you?

(Oh, I know. That the rock lawyers are brilliant "knowers" of "revealed truth" and that the rest of us (the 300 million) are fools, dupes, or worse.)

But then ask yourself, if we're such fools, how come we've been running the country for the last couple of centuries, and continue to do so, while you're sitting on top of a rock somewhere?

[Winchester 73]

If 300 million people think they mean one thing, and a few rock lawyers think they mean something else, what does that tell you?

300 million Americans agree with you,Frankie,a pompous blowhard?
I think not.
And it tells me that if you think people like you have been running this country for the past 200 years, you're an even bigger simpleton than I thought.
If thats possible.

[GuyWithQuestions]

The other day I went around asking people I know who love guns, who hate the Democratic candidates, and say that most of the current laws are unconstitutional. I asked them what they think of allowing people to carry loaded firearms onto airlines past all the metal detectors. I said that there's this one gun forum online and many are saying that there's the right to bear arms and the part about not being infringed means that they should. These people I asked responded with statements like, "Is that supposed to be an intelligent question?" "Do you really yourself believe loaded guns should be allowed on airlines?" Like I said, being a left-wing communist is only relative. THR doesn't seem to represent what most gun owners across the U.S. are nor what most people who say they believe in the 2nd Amendment believe, it seems like it only takes a certain part of the population.

[frankie_the_yankee]

And it tells me that if you think people like you have been running this country for the past 200 years, you're an even bigger simpleton than I thought.

There are laws on the books giving the FAA authority to regulate airlines. That's a fact.

These laws get their authority from the Commerce Clause.
Another fact.

The FAA has banned passengers from carrying guns and other weapons in the passenger cabin.
Still another fact.

These laws have been in full force since their inception 35 years ago.
Another fact.

You don't have to agree with them, but if you are caught violating them you will go to prison.

You can think whatever you want to think. I'm sure that nothing I can say could change your mind. (And to be honest, such a miniscule "accomplishment" wouldn't be worth the trouble.)

But that's the reality. Violate the law, quote your constitutional theories, and go to prison.

[KBintheSLC]

You have to understand, if a terrorist take over the plane, you're all dead anyway. Give me a chance to shoot before we impact.

MARINEPILOT81

Didn't you quench your thirst for blood enough during your military service? "Please give me a chance to shoot... pretty please." If the above statement is true, then why do you need to shoot? Everyone is dead anyway... right?
Can someone say "Too much TV watching, video game obsessed, guy who joined the military so he can legally go out and kill people"??? I have to admit, I am appalled.

[GuyWithQuestions]

I though THR is supposed to introduce people to responsible firearm ownership, make people feel better about firearms knowing there's responsible owners out there and introducing them to making activism efforts, etc, instead of name calling and ostracizing from the rest of the forum every person who brings up a different view even if they themselves don't name call?

I've been looking at the JPFO's website and most of what it is is heated name calling about how some person is blood-sucking or how the NRA doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment. Now that's all I see from Winchester, with the name calling being from anyone in this forum who disagrees and saying that they don't believe in the 2nd amendment and is a socialist, move north (at least he didn't say something as extreme like move back to Africa). I thought the High Road is supposed to take another route than this?

[Gunnerpalace]

I've been looking at the JPFO's website and most of what it is is heated name calling about how some person is blood-sucking or how the NRA doesn't believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly, there is something WE all need to maintain an image calling others scum, does not help.

Again, a gun is not a magic talisman just because you have one does not mean 5 bg's in a small space cant disarm you. Because they can.

But I guess because I don't support this idea that makes me a anti-gun person. :rolleyes:

[jon_in_wv]

I don't have a problem with a federally regulated private industry not allowing me to carry my firearm as they provide a better level of security than I probably can. The whole question is kinda redundant isn't it?? I fall under LEOSA and can carry in all 50 states. Civilians don't and what happens when your plane flies over or lands in states that don't honor your CCW? We don't have nationwide reciprocity yet (we should though). The bottom line is that the airline industry is really run by private corporations. If you don't like them not honoring your CCW, than stop complaining and take the bus, train, or DRIVE. Everyone believe in freedom until you want the government to MAKE someone do what you want.

[Winchester 73]

And I am very surprised at the number of posters who do not truly believe in,"shall not be infringed".
Property rights are more important right?Like your employer blocking you out of the company parking lot.
Sure, just drive back and forth to work through those lousy neighbourhoods unarmed.What do we care?We property owners have our rights.
Don't like it?Quit and find a new job.
I've gone through this nonsense for 20 years.This is total B.S. and hopefully eventually will be overcome in the courts or CWII.

As I clearly stated 2 days ago, I understand fully that one cannot just walk onto an airplane with a firearm and the BOR's in their pocket and not expect to be arrested.We have to overcome in the courts or elsewhere first.
I am a Second Amendment absolutist ,but also a realist.
Still ,I feel that someday in the not too distant future, I'll be able to again walk onto that plane,enter that classroom,courthouse or police station without the threat of arrest ,because I'm carrying a firearm or other weapon.Which I believe is my God given inalienable right to self defense ,not granted,but verified by the Second Amendment.
And from my lofty vantage point, sitting proudly alone on top of my pointy rock(well, maybe with a few others who share my ideology)I think that day is going to come to pass sooner than most think.
And to Guy and Frankie,that same ideology made me respond much too harshly to the posts of both of you in the last 18 hours.I went overboard with zealousness and I'm sorry for attacking you both so vehemently.
I apologize and realize you may not forgive me.
But I'm going to make a strenuous attempt to make sure my control is not lost again.

[frankie_the_yankee]

It takes character to offer an apology. I accept.

Still ,I feel that someday in the not too distant future, I'll be able to again walk onto that plane,enter that classroom,courthouse or police station without the threat of arrest ,because I'm carrying a firearm or other weapon.

A classroom or police station, perhaps. But I am very doubtful that carrying will gain (legal) acceptance in courtrooms and airliners.

For one thing, it's hard for me to picture judges ruling to allow litigants and/or spectators to possess guns in what they have long come to consider as "their" courtrooms. Judges are pretty used to having their way in their own courtrooms, and I think they will tend to keep it that way, even to the point of throwing out any contrary act of the legislature (however unlikely) as violating separation of powers or something.

And the historical record of our experiences with airliners, pre and post passenger screening, is just too clear to either: a) make a case to legislatively recind the current ban, or, b) overrule it judicially on any sort of constitutional grounds.

Pre-ban, planes were getting hijacked left and right. Post-ban, hijackings slowed to a trickle.

In some circumstances (very narrow ones in my own view), setting up a so-called "sterile" or "secure" area simply makes sense. And that lies at the heart of what judges weigh when applying strict scrutiny and/or deciding whether a "compelling interest" is at stake.

[Winchester 73]

It takes character to offer an apology. I accept.


Thank you.
There are a few states ,I believe ,that allow courtroom carry,albeit very few.
Alabama is one if I'm not mistaken.
You are correct about the airlines.This will be the last bastion to fall.

[Winchester 73]

I fall under LEOSA and can carry in all 50 states. Civilians don't and what happens when your plane flies over or lands in states that don't honor your CCW?

No disrepect jon,but remember ,you are also a civilian.
And when we land in such a state as an example Illinois, FOPA will carry us through.
I've flown from Miami to Chicago a dozen times with firearms and have had no problems whatsoever.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/926A.html

[marinepilot81]

MARINEPILOT81

Didn't you quench your thirst for blood enough during your military service? "Please give me a chance to shoot... pretty please." If the above statement is true, then why do you need to shoot? Everyone is dead anyway... right?
Can someone say "Too much TV watching, video game obsessed, guy who joined the military so he can legally go out and kill people"??? I have to admit, I am appalled.

Wow. I didn't join the military out of blood lust or even a strong sense of patriotism. It's hard to fight for a country who treated my father the way people did when he came home from Vietnam.

I joined because there are a small number of men in this country that, when faced with the challenge of defending our constitution, still rise and take arms.

I joined to serve amongst, and lead, such wonderful citizens.

Back to topic, yes, when faced with a terrorist who wants to turn my airplane into a missile, I'd like the ability to fight back.

[jon_in_wv]

Winchester 73. Having a firearms in your checked luggage is a far cry from carrying it concealed which is what they are talking about here. My point was that it is legal to ship it rather than hassle with the airlines at all. Thank you for reminding me I am a civilian also. Of course I don't get what your point was but thanks anyhow.

[ksnecktieman]

The way I read the results of this poll, 32 percent of us are in favor of gun control.
The original question was not, "Can we carry on airplanes?" It was "Should we be allowed to carry on airplanes?"

I did NOT vote. I think we should carry, any time, and any place that we choose.

Asking if it should be allowed is admitting that the second ammendment does not mean what it says, or does not apply here. ( I am aware that it is not applied here, but I think it should be.)

[marinepilot81]

I might have phrased the answers incorrectly here. I apologize if I did.

My position is that while the airlines take federal money, use federal controlling agencies, and engage in interstate commerce, they should not be allowed to infringe upon our constitutional rights.

I do not support gun control of any kind. Honest citizens don't need laws to remind them to be honest citizens and criminals are criminals because they don't respect the laws we have.

How about an NRA airline!?

[Don Gwinn]

We're going to lose some members over this abomination of a thread. I am not very happy about that.
You know, we're really not kidding about this whole "High Road" thing we keep harping about.