Should a American Citizen, With No Legal Disqualifications, Be Able to Board a Bus,Train, Subway or Plane with a Firearm?

[IJ1981]

I agree. Let's get back to planes, busses and trains! Por Favor.

 

[Miami_JBT]

I agree. Let's get back to planes, busses and trains! Por Favor.

Government should not be able to mandate gun-free zones for the vast majority of public spaces and public services.

If private business wants to do so, they can do it like how it is done in FL.

Signs don't carry the weight of law. They have to tell you in person. Disney does that. You walk through a metal detector and they tell you to secure your piece in your vehicle if you had one on you.

Since places like Walmart and Dolphin Mall are too lazy/cheap to go Disney's route, you can carry even if they post signage that says no. Since signs don't carry the weight of law and they didn't tell you in person.

So, of American Airlines wants to ban guns, let 'em. They're private.

If Amtrak wants to ban guns. Nope! Government owned.

 

[valnar]

I'm okay with no firearms on planes. Only because one wrong shot can bring it all down. That opinion has nothing to do with the second amendment and more about the reality of the situation. I'm fine with busses, trains.

 

[GEM]

Exactly, for various reasons - alrliners are a special case. Folks would laugh if some posted: Do American Citizens Have the Right to Carry in the MRI room?

Yes, they do - shall not be infringed means that you have the right to shoot a new hole in your butt!!

I'm of the opinion that private businesses that are OPEN to the public to just walk in cannot ban but that's a different debate. If you need to travel with a gun, check your baggage. Done that a few times.

 

[Kleanbore]

Signs don't carry the weight of law.

That varies among jurisdictions.

 

[jar]

There is generally no way to determine if someone is an American Citizen With No Legal Disqualifications.

 

[Miami_JBT]

That varies among jurisdictions.

Again.... READ MY ENTIRE POST

"If private business wants to do so, they can do it like how it is done in FL.

Signs don't carry the weight of law. They have to tell you in person. Disney does that. You walk through a metal detector and they tell you to secure your piece in your vehicle if you had one on you."

I didn't say that in the entire country, signs don't carry the weight of law. I said the entire country could do it like how FL does it.

 

[GEM]

Oh, one could demand an official citizen ID card - that's a plan. Kleanbore is correct, depending on state the penalty can be a misdemeanor to felony. We await the Gun Gods of Scotus to determine whether draconian carry restrictions are constitutional but they are asleep on the yacht deck for that one. Can't even support a TRO because of legal garbage regarding dominance.

I think we have a consensus from reasonable folks that airline carry is not a good idea. Let me ask you, if we had OC on planes and you saw 4 men wearing Glock 17s and 4 mags - who are obviously not LEOs - would you get on that plane? I'd pass - to be blunt.

 

[plainsdrifter]

Been legal to carry in the Capitol for over a decade now.

Policy allowing guns in Florida Capitol worries some state employees

Capitol staffers who deal with the public are clearly concerned about their safety after a new law went into effect Oct. 1 allowing anyone with a concealed weapons permit to legally bring a gun into …

www.palmbeachpost.com

Florida’s Capitol allows some to carry guns, even amid security threat

Florida has 2.2 million people who have permits to carry guns. They can walk armed under the Rotunda, roam the corridors, visit lawmakers’ offices or visit the 22nd-floor observation deck.

www.tampabay.com

I worked protective operations for prior Governors in FL as a LEO and worked at the FL Capitol too. The public frequently is armed at the FL Capitol. It is not a gun-free zones even though FDLE makes it appear as such with their wording on their website. But then on the bottom they say folks can carry.

Prohibited Items

www.fdle.state.fl.us

FDLE's website is out of date. We no longer need permits to carry.

I personally have been armed as a private citizen while meeting with lawmakers and the Governor.

Well you didn't mention permitted. "I personally have been armed as a private citizen while meeting with lawmakers and the Governor." I suppose they feel more comfortable with an armed LEO.

For me, if there's a law against me carrying I just don't go there. Simple.
You didn't mention POTUS or SCOTUS and I believe it's the peoples right who serve that warrants laws to keep them safe, they have the right as do others on planes, trains and ships. Army bases? Off limits to civilians with the exception or workers. Should they be able to be armed as well?

 

[DustyGmt]

I'm not really in favor of firearm restrictions, but I believe being on an airplane with somebody with a firearm makes for an especially vulnerable situation for everybody on that plane. Doesn't even have to be some psycho intending to do harm, just some idiot with a gun who makes a mistake runs the risk for way too much collateral damage. I'd say, probably no on the plane, as far as carrying on their person. I would be in favor of them making you store your weapon and ammunition separately in a locked container.

Trains, bus, subway? I don't have a problem with any of those. The plane is the only one I think should be regulated for traveling with, but not prohibited.

 

[230RN]

I say what I'm about to say through a lens with 16+ years in law enforcement (plus 3 combat deployments as Marine Infantry prior to that). I don't think my experience makes me a wizard. I value and respect the opinions of normal, everyday, not leo or military, citizens. But I do have more experience dealing with crime, the victimized, predators, and prey than most.

I don't believe, I KNOW, that an increase in good people opting to arm AND HAVE A MINDSET TO DEFEND themselves and other innocents would reduce crime significantly in rather short order. Generally most criminals, delinquents, and deviants are not the "brave tough guy" deep down inside that they try and project to be. They have a self preservation filter, just like everyone else. Bullys mostly don't try and bully someone that they know might hurt their feelings. Criminals genetally don't victimize those that they believe can effectively fight back. Bullys look for people that they believe they can take, and generally it's to stroke their own ego and improve self esteem. Criminals also don't try and rob or steal from someone that they believe may give them a run for their money. They would rather pick an easy target. If bully's and criminals know that the average person is armed in one place, they are going to another place with much better survival odds (for the bully or criminal) to do their nefarious deeds.

Sure there are wildcards to this. There are, in fact, some people who will test almost anyone. There are, in fact, the crazy brave. Most of these people aren't even criminals or deviant, though. They box, fight MMA, or have some other outlet. It's pretty rare that the crazy brave are criminal or deviant. But a few are, and they will likely reak havoc in an armed society... at least until most of them meet their match. This would be the Billy the Kids. And they would hurt some innocents until someone stepped up and dispatched them. This phenomenon would be kinda rare, but it would occur. The rest of the criminal deviants would resort to skulking around at night hitting targets where no one is there to confront them. In fact most already do.

Of course, there are two giant caveats. One is that many good people are afraid to stand up or intervene because they fear they will get in trouble. In the modern litigious society, this fear is not unfounded. In fact, I dare say more people do not intervene to stop crimes out of fear of being ostracized or facing legal troubles than those who do not intervene out of fear of being harmed. These people would need to know that society had their back. The second caveat is there WOULD need to be stiff criminal penalties to deter would-be bullys that go around looking for fights. This would kneecap many (not all) of the crazy brave who would instigate unneeded duals or fights.

Under these conditions, I posit that an armed society would be a VERY polite and lawful society. More so than what we have today.

Well, some reality-based, experienced-based views rather than hand-wringing pearl-clutching on the matter of an "armed society !"

When Heinlein created the expression, he was undoubtedly aware of the sociological effects cited by 5whiskey. Someone remarked (elsewhere) about the increase in criminals in his area and I wisecracked. that we should give them all guns, and that would reduce their number by half. I was also remembering the Valentine's Day Massacre in 1929, where about seven criminals were removed from circulation without much cost to society. A corollary of The Billy The Kid theory.

I'm not really in favor of firearm restrictions, but I believe being on an airplane with somebody with a firearm makes for an especially vulnerable situation for everybody on that plane. Doesn't even have to be some psycho intending to do harm, just some idiot with a gun who makes a mistake runs the risk for way too much collateral damage. I'd say, probably no on the plane, as far as carrying on their person. I would be in favor of them making you store your weapon and ammunition separately in a locked container.

Trains, bus, subway? I don't have a problem with any of those. The plane is the only one I think should be regulated for traveling with, but not prohibited.

I surely agree that there are inherent "sensitive places" where at least safe storage of firearms might be advisable, but we have seen in recent times where the concept of "sensitive locations" has been abused to the point of essentially infringing on all gun rights. Need I cite examples?

The problem there was the same problem with the concept that "no right is absolute." While technically correct (e.g. with incarceration and capital punishment), the statement gives no limitation on how much a given right can be limited! And that's exactly what we have seen with NFA and GCA and all the folderol with the ATF diddling around with a shoelace being defined as a machinegun in and of itself. (Later withdrawn, but the example is relevant.)

Terry, 230RN

 

[GEM]

Sensitive places are well known tactic to make carry useless. This has been recommended as a tactic since shall issue laws became common. In TX - antigun folks at the time of the first law promoted easy to post signs - like the Ghostbuster type. That led to the 30.06 which was designed to be specific and obnoxious. However, OC was seen as so obnoxious to some that 30.07 signs appeared and unfortunately added some 30.06s. Now folks said - I WILL NEVER GO TO - blah, blah. A local restaurant chain I knew of put up the 30.07s. Management was quite ok with CHLs but had customer complaints of the typical OC type - not impressive tactical individuals, to say the least. I asked about complaints - a couple of old toots had fits but that was it and their stores were usually jammed.

So it is true that sensitive places are a tactic. However, unless you have no common sense - the airliner is a specific risk profile that is a reasonable ban. I've carried to legislative hearings in the TX Capitol. However, that was not floating in the air.

 

[230RN]

Sensitive places are well known tactic to make carry useless. This has been recommended as a tactic since shall issue laws became common.

...

So it is true that sensitive places are a tactic. However, unless you have no common sense - the airliner is a specific risk profile that is a reasonable ban. I've carried to legislative hearings in the TX Capitol. However, that was not floating in the air.

Nor was the air pressure outside the room only 4.4 psi. <grin> <Official Nerd-Approved response>

 

[Ignition Override]

“Disregard.”

“Roger, your last transmission is disregarded”.

 

[Archie]

Republicans should campaign on allowing domestic abusers, mental patients and no-fly list quasi terrorists on planes with guns and, of course, repealing the machine gun ban at the same time. You know, freedom for gun owners trumps all other considerations in society and the rest of the Bill of Rights. I mean, like it's the 2nd amendment and, obviously, well-regulated militia includes that above.

BTW, that's exactly what these rhetorical circle- um... dead-end conversations- seem to lead to.

Such stifled thinking. The really dangerous aspect of any firearm is the user. No firearm ever harmed anyone without the intent of the user.

One notes currently Democrat actively allows domestic abusers, mental patients and other criminally oriented persons to run loose with scant deterrent. At the same time, Democrat wants to remove all firearms from non-governmentally persons. They are working to punish owners of firearms while releasing the criminally oriented.

Most of my working life has been upholding the laws of the U. S., protecting residents of the U. S. and being a defender of the weak and helpless. But since retired, I am denied armed access to any number of locations. I am not a threat, even with a nuclear bomb in my pocket.

But if it makes you feel better...

 

[Chief TC]

Sorry, all you people with no care for anyone to carry on an airplane are circumspect. It is flagrant disregard for safety and the care of fellow human beings. You have nothing to support your argument. It is just reckless abandon without any thought or purpose for the community at large.

 

[IJ1981]

Sorry, Chief, but 75% of the forum members disagree with your diatribe.

Think this over again.

 

[rust collector]

There's the fun part of threads such as this. Sooner or later folks are taking potshots at others who don't think the same way. Anyone who wished to register their vote and their opinion has had an opportunity to do so, it's not a beauty contest, so let's call it a day.