What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[yesit'sloaded]

All a metal detector does is get the guy manning it shot.

 

[hnk45acp]

What problem would such testing solve? And how would this qualify as a legitimate government interest under a rational basis, immediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny test?

It doesn't "solve a problem" It educates a citizen and I'd be willing to let the Supreme Court decide if it was "infringement" under a strict scrutiny view

If the object is crime prevention, wouldn't a person with bad intentions be more dangerous if they were actually trained?

As I've said previously, the point is not crime prevention that's LE's job

Especially if you could factor out the number of licensed hunters, law enforcement, and others involved in a negligent firearm deaths despite having already passed some sort of training.

We were talking about re-writing current laws, which means, that many here agree that 18 is the right age so now you have many more younger gun owners esp. in states that prohibit ownership until 21.
You now have more gun owners in in states like NY, MA, CA, NJ, IL, HI, etc.
When you are dealing with new owners esp. those that have never been exposed to guns before you can immediately see that the instinctual handling of a gun is almost always incorrect handling of a gun and that many people need to be taught even the most basic of these rules. That's all I'm asking for no more or less.

BTW kudos to everyone for not letting this thread go to crap

 

[glummer]

the instinctual handling of a gun is almost always incorrect handling of a gun and that many people need to be taught even the most basic of these rules. That's all I'm asking for no more or less.

But WHY are you asking, if it doesn't solve a problem?
You must have a reason.
What is it?
I have to suspect that you have bought the gun-controllers' attitude that gun-owners are to be automatically considered dangerous, whether there is evidence to prove it or not.
If there is no GOOD reason (i.e. solve a real problem) there can only be BAD reasons for passing laws.

 

[hnk45acp]

But WHY are you asking, if it doesn't solve a problem?
You must have a reason.
What is it?
I have to suspect that you have bought the gun-controllers' attitude that gun-owners are to be automatically considered dangerous, whether there is evidence to prove it or not.
If there is no GOOD reason (i.e. solve a real problem) there can only be BAD reasons for passing laws.

I'll repeat my earlier example. Have you ever given someone a gun who's never handled a gun before? The first thing they usually do is put their finger on the trigger and point it a something. That's instinctive, they know where the trigger is and stick their finger on it. They point it at things because that's what you do with a gun.

We've been taught that those things are what NOT to do when you are handed a gun. Does this make this person a bad person? No. Just uneducated. Does that make them potentially dangerous? Yes to the degree that this particular person could hurt themselves or others, but not in a criminally dangerous way as you have assumed. That's why I'm asking.

Nowhere have I said that I consider gun owners "automatically" dangerous nor have I intimated such anywhere on this thread or any other thread, so please do not place such assumptions upon me. You don't know me well enough to do that.

 

[glummer]

hnk45acp

Nowhere have I said that I consider gun owners "automatically" dangerous nor have I intimated such anywhere on this thread or any other thread, so please do not place such assumptions upon me. You don't know me well enough to do that.

You have STATED that LAWS would be a desirable way to deal with firearms education, even though you admit there is no actual problem to solve. That definitely intimates that you automatically consider the owners to be dangerous if there is no mandatory training.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

frankie says:

It's simple economic theory.

glummer responds:

And not so simple reality.

Not sure which "reality" you're referring to, the one most of us seem to live in or some other one.

frankie says:

If you make something more difficult or more expensive, people will do or buy less of it. How much less is determined by the elasticity of the demand for the product or activity.

If you make guns harder to get for the BG's, by closing off normal commercial channels, fewer BG's will be able to get guns (or will want to bother getting them). How many fewer? Who knows. But you can be sure that some number fewer will have them.

glummer responds:

You can be sure of no such thing.

Of course I can. Economics is just a branch of the study of human behavior. The principle I refer to has been validated by many researchers and scholars over many years. No serious person questions its validity these days.

I'm curious. Do you disbelieve John Lott's conclusions that "more guns = less crime"? Because much of his research is based on the above principle.

glummer goes on:

Because you’re creating a black market, which INCREASES the number of actual (and paper) criminals, and breeds contempt for the law, and fosters corruption among law enforcement, and may actually INCREASE crime – think Prohibition.

So you're saying that a black market makes it easier for BG's to get guns than if there was an unrestricted (no background checks, cash and carry) white market in guns? What is the rational basis for that? How can anything be easier than walking into a store, picking out a gun, and buying it no questions asked?

frankie says:

If at the same time, you impose only a small or negligible burden on the GG's, the numbers of them seeking to acquire guns should not change by any significant amount.

glummer responds:

Which is not what happens in reality – think England and Australia.

Can you explain what you are talking about here? England and Australia have imposed huge burdens on GG's keeping and bearing arms. How do you classify outright gun bans as a "small or negligible burden"?

And if anyone can purchase and tote MP-5's anywhere they go no questions asked, how do you keep Al Qaeda suicide death squads from boarding airliners and starting full auto firefights at 35,000 feet?

Not to mention the myriad of other absurd situations that would result from a "no restrictions" regime.

 

[Dead]

It think firearms should be purchased as such: cash and carry, or order and shipped to purchasers address).

As others have said, NO law will ever prevent a person who has evil in their heart from obtaining a gun if they want one to do harm.

That said no restrictions should be placed on them other than selling to someone who is say under 16 years of age. For 16- <18 IF a parent says OK, and once 18 if you can buy it you can have it.

Carrying of a firearm for all legal purposes (e.g. not to commit murder, robbery, assault, and the likes) should also be unrestricted.

"And if anyone can purchase and tote MP-5's anywhere they go no questions asked, how do you keep Al Qaeda suicide death squads from boarding airliners and starting full auto firefights at 35,000 feet?"

Airlines are private commerical busniess if they do NOT want you on the plane for no reason at all they can of course boot you.. So if they do not want a firearm carried onto the plane by all means they can impose it on all passengers.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If you make it harder for criminals, you inadvertently make it harder for the law abiding as well. The operative word here is "harder".

Being prepared in advance to address crime as it is being, or about to be perpetrated upon yourself(etc.) is far more effective than trying to prevent crime with laws that make it harder for everyone to become prepared. The only crime prevention method that has any reliable lasting effect is the killing of, or permanent imprisonment of the offenders.

The MP5s aboard airplanes is a fallacious argument. Airlines are private enterprises and can limit anything they wish you to carry aboard. At any rate, how long do you think terrorists would be able to blast away before someone took them out? If terrorists wish to bring MP5s on an airliner, they'll do it regardless of the law. They'll obtain them regardless of the law.

Got any examples of those "absurd situations" that would result from no restrictions regimes from the past when we had no such restrictions?

If criminal types were allowed to purchase arms in the clear, it would be easier to keep an eye on those criminals. With that in mind, and supported by some interviews of criminals in prison(I don't remember the link to the study), I do believe the criminals prefer to obtain their arms "on the street" so as to remain anonymous, or anonymously armed, as they do right now.

Woody

 

[illspirit]

It doesn't "solve a problem" It educates a citizen and I'd be willing to let the Supreme Court decide if it was "infringement" under a strict scrutiny view

If it doesn't solve a problem, then it probably isn't a legitimate government interest. Especially not when prior restraint is involved.

As I've said previously, the point is not crime prevention that's LE's job

I know you did. I just threw that one out there preemptively since there are other people who seem to believe training would lower crime. Probably not anyone here, but it doesn't hurt to put everything on the table.

We were talking about re-writing current laws, which means, that many here agree that 18 is the right age so now you have many more younger gun owners esp. in states that prohibit ownership until 21.
You now have more gun owners in in states like NY, MA, CA, NJ, IL, HI, etc.
When you are dealing with new owners esp. those that have never been exposed to guns before you can immediately see that the instinctual handling of a gun is almost always incorrect handling of a gun and that many people need to be taught even the most basic of these rules. That's all I'm asking for no more or less.

But in states with training requirements, how many people were "chilled" from exercising their right? How many poor people thought the classes and licensing were too expensive and never bothered? How many people were intimidated by all the paperwork and laws?

I do agree that educating people is good. In fact, it would probably be a good idea to teach basic gun safety in schools. Perhaps even offer free classes to people when they buy a gun, or a tax credit if they do it themselves.

But to require that people prove they've been educated before they're allowed to exercise a fundamental right is, in my opinion, no different than ye olde poll tax/literacy test schemes used to disenfranchise voters.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

If you make it harder for criminals, you inadvertently make it harder for the law abiding as well. The operative word here is "harder".

But not necessarily by the same amount.

A background check law does nothing of any significance to keep me from buying guns. I can pass a background check.

But it forces BG's into the black market, where their options are more limited.

Small burden on the GG, larger burden on the BG.

The MP5s aboard airplanes is a fallacious argument. Airlines are private enterprises and can limit anything they wish you to carry aboard.

Not exactly. Airlines are also "public accommodations". There are limits on what they can regulate.

Besides, there's a more basic problem with your argument. Most people who post here decry what they say is a lack of public acceptance of guns, gun owners, and non-LEO's who choose to carry guns. Those not hooked into the "gun culture" are dismissed as "sheeple" or worse.

But now you're using this lack of acceptance to "solve" the "AQ with MP-5's aboard airliners" absurdity, by claiming that airlines can simply ban guns on their own if they want to. And presumably most or all would want to. (So the government doesn't have to.)

And as much as you strain to avoid the absurd scenario of letting people carry MP-5's aboard airliners no questions asked, it remains that if the gun culture enjoyed the acceptance that many would like it to have, airlines may well choose not to ban people from carrying MP-5's aboard.

So the AQ death squad could blend in with all the LAC's carrying MP-5's aboard and they could all spend the whole flight in Condition Red waiting for the firefight to break out.

But let's dispense with the technicalities of who should ban MP-5's being carried aboard airliners. The more direct question is, "Do you think that MP-5's should be allowed to be carried aboard airliners?" Or, it is better policy to have a so-called "sterile cabin" where passengers are not permitted to carry weapons and security is provided by armed sky marshalls and armed pilots as a last line of defense?

Which makes more sense? Which do you think would provide a safer and more secure flight environment?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

As others have said, NO law will ever prevent a person who has evil in their heart from obtaining a gun if they want one to do harm.

No system is perfect.

But if you make something more costly and/or difficult people will do it or buy it less often, and/or fewer people at the margin will do it or buy it.

This is a basic principle of economics and has been proven to be true by many researchers working over many years. For a source I'd refer you to any of Samuelson's texts on the subject.

If getting a gun is more difficult, some people with evil in their hearts will be too stupid or lazy to do it. If getting guns were easier, even these stupid and lazy evil people would get them.

If you know of research that shows otherwise, whether it pertains to gumballs or guns (or anything else), please provide the source.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Got any examples of those "absurd situations" that would result from no restrictions regimes from the past when we had no such restrictions?

Sure. Plenty.

I've heard of people being shot in courtrooms before guns were generally banned there. I can't cite a particular case, mainly because most of them are so old now. (Wasn't there a case in CA where a mother snuck a gun into court and whacked some guy that molested her son and was getting off?)

And she had to sneak the gun in. Just imagine what courtrooms would be like if anyone could carry anything they wanted to no questions asked.

In response to these incidents, guns were banned in most courtrooms. More recently metal detectors have been installed in most venues to make it much harder to smuggle weapons in.

Some occassionally slip through but very few these days.

At one time (starting around the middle 60's as I recall) it was common for airliners to be hijacked at gunpoint by people wanting to go to Cuba and/or (later on) Islamic terrorists. Guys would just go to the cockpit, pull a gun, and announce they were commandeering the plane.

In response guns were banned in carry-ons and security checkpoints with metal detectors were installed just about everywhere.

These days, far fewer airliners are hijacked, and almost none at gunpoint in recent years.

AQ suicide squads are a relatively new development. Gun interdiction was in place prior to AQ coming on the scene. So we have not had the opportunity to observe them in a "no restrictions" environment.

 

[captlid]

"Do you think that MP-5's should be allowed to be carried aboard airliners?

I dont see anything wrong with that. There was a cartoon that came out when 9/11 happened. There were three guys holding boxcutters and the rest of the passengers had all manners of firearms pointed at them. Even if that cartoon had three terrorists with mp5's it would be too costly for them to operate that way.

Predators go after easy prey not prey that will fight back and injure or kill said predator. That's why all these stupid regulations in regards to weapons are just that: stupid. They disrupt the balance of nature in the relationship between predator and prey.

If every terrorist knew that they would be repelled when they try to murder others how many do you think will follow?

In israel terrorists had to resort to bombs to get their deeds done, cause getting into firefights with the israelis turned out to be futile... We are fortunate enough in this country that we dont have a huge population of folks with absolutely no hope of economic and social advancement living right next door to us.

 

[glummer]

The principle I refer to has been validated by many researchers and scholars over many years.

Ostentatious sigh.
It only applies ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL.
That has been validated by many researchers and scholars over many years, even if you would prefer to ignore it.
With gun control laws, everything else is NOT equal; you are changing the nature of the market for criminal-use guns.

What is the rational basis for that?

Black market = A(added number of criminals (suppliers)) + B(illegal buyers who can’t pass the check, even though they are not going to commit crimes) + C(relatives and friends of A & B who are now more tolerant of criminals because they fear the police) + D(corrupted police who look the other way because they are bribed, or because they sympathize with B & C) = tendency to increased crime.
That’s how it worked in Prohibition.
Why do you pretend not to understand that?

Can you explain what you are talking about here? England and Australia have imposed huge burdens on GG's keeping and bearing arms. How do you classify outright gun bans as a "small or negligible burden"?

That’s the reality you were not so sure about.

And if anyone can purchase and tote MP-5's anywhere they go no questions asked, how do you keep Al Qaeda suicide death squads from boarding airliners and starting full auto firefights at 35,000 feet?

If these bogeymen actually exist, can you explain why they (and you) are fixated on using MP-5s to kill passengers aboard airplanes, when they are perfectly free already to use shotguns (legally available), buckshot (legally available), hacksaws (ditto), and overcoats (ditto) to kill those same passengers in the airport terminal while the victims stand in line entering Security?

If it doesn't solve a problem, then it probably isn't a legitimate government interest. Especially not when prior restraint is involved.

Amen, brother.

 

[glummer]

I've heard of people being shot in courtrooms before guns were generally banned there.

And I’ve heard of people DYING in courtrooms because the only guns there were in the hands of police (until a criminal got hold of an officer’s gun.) See Atlanta a year or so ago.

Gun interdiction was in place prior to AQ coming on the scene. So we have not had the opportunity to observe them in a "no restrictions" environment.

Airports outside of the Security gates are a "no restrictions" environment.
Ditto most shopping malls, crowded streets, etc. etc.
We have observed little or no terrorist activity.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why do you call gun owners the "gun culture"? Most gun owners are a part of a giant silent segment from all walks of life.

If you have a "sterile cabin," why would you need armed pilots and Sky Marshals? With no one armed, where is the threat?

Look at the logic of a terrorist group armed with machine guns. Each one of those terrorists can only shoot one person at a time, regardless of how fast those guns will spit out bullets. Now picture 10 armed passengers per terrorist. There is no way a group of terrorists would prevail, let alone survive. That is one less airliner that will be turned into a guided missile used to kill thousands or destroy a significant piece of infrastructure. It's a better situation than having the four or five terrorists armed with box cutters with the rest of the passengers disarmed as was the case on 09/11/2001.

Those 19 terrorists might as well have had MP5s. It wouldn't have made much difference. Flight 93 could still have met the same fate with the terrorists armed with machine guns. There is no way they could have held off the throng of passengers who were already consigned to death as much as the terrorists were!

You can't dispense with the "technicalities" of who should, or would if they so chose to, ban machine guns aboard airliners. The option is there just as it is my option to disallow you to carry a gun into my home.

What makes more sense is having the ability the fight back.

If you make it harder for criminals, you inadvertently make it harder for the law abiding as well. The operative word here is "harder".

]But not necessarily by the same amount.

A background check law does nothing of any significance to keep me from buying guns. I can pass a background check.

But it forces BG's into the black market, where their options are more limited.

Small burden on the GG, larger burden on the BG.

Not when it comes to those machine guns the terrorists will get their hands on! Not when it comes to those machine guns criminals will get their hands on! For me to buy a machine gun "legally", I've got to pass a background check, pay for a "stamp", and cough up about ten times what such an arm is worth because of the finite number of machine guns available as a result of the "Firearm Owners Protection Act, 1986". A thief or terrorist can get one on the black market or steal one. There is where the real burden is, my friend.

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

 

[ksnecktieman]

This thread is growing faster than I can read. I have one comment for frankee,

"And if anyone can purchase and tote MP-5's anywhere they go no questions asked, how do you keep Al Qaeda suicide death squads from boarding airliners and starting full auto firefights at 35,000 feet?"

The easy way. Provide a box of pistols at the entry to the airliner, and if anyone wants one, they take one to their seat with them. If anyone stops a hijacking they get a 10.000$ reward. (of course you have those little tracking chips like walmart uses to keep them from being removed from the plane.) How many terrorists do you think would stand up in front of a cabin full of armed men and declare a hijacking? I do understand the suicidal nature of a "Jihad". We might loose a few airliners, but we would never again have one flown into a skyscraper. There would be absolutely no "hijack for profit" incidents.

Do you want to stop crime? Issue every man and woman in the united states a small revolver, and ask that they carry it with them all the time. Violent crime will stop. Our revolving door criminal justice system will be unimportant. I am sure that by the third attempted robbery someone will get the drop on them and stop their criminal career.

Gun control is not about crime. To accept that it is you have to accept as fact that criminals are stupid. "Stupid?" A forty year old man that has never worked a day in his life, and has had all he wanted of the better things of life? So he has lived a couple of years behind bars, with little luxury. does he look stupid in that light?
I will close with the gun law that I think should trump all others, and I do think that anyone that can not read and understand it should go back to school.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Black market = A(added number of criminals (suppliers)) + B(illegal buyers who can’t pass the check, even though they are not going to commit crimes) + C(relatives and friends of A & B who are now more tolerant of criminals because they fear the police) + D(corrupted police who look the other way because they are bribed, or because they sympathize with B & C) = tendency to increased crime.
That’s how it worked in Prohibition.
Why do you pretend not to understand that?

I understand it all right. It just doesn't relate to the real world.

What you're saying is that a black market makes it easier for criminals to get guns that a completely free, open, and unregulated market.

This is an obvious absurdity. You have to start making sense or I'm not going to bother to respond.

frankie says:

Can you explain what you are talking about here? England and Australia have imposed huge burdens on GG's keeping and bearing arms. How do you classify outright gun bans as a "small or negligible burden"?

glummer responds:

That’s the reality you were not so sure about.

Then you completely miss the point.

I'm saying that restrictions that impose a small burden on GG's while imposing a larger burden on BG's are "reasonable", beneficial to society, and can pass constitutional muster.

England and Australia are examples of places that impose a large burden on GG's. The restrictions they impose would not, in my opinion, pass constitutional muster, are not reasonable, and are not beneficial to society.

In fact, the restrictions (bans) in effect in england and Australia actually impose a greater burden on GG's than on BG's. The GG's get their guns through the tightly regulated (or non-existent) legal market while the BG's get theirs through the black market.

It these cases, the black market is more easily accessed than the white market.

That is not the case here. Here we have a very free and open legal market to anyone who can pass a background check. Those who cannot are relegated to a less-ascessible black market with far fewer available choices.

See the difference?

If these bogeymen actually exist, can you explain why they (and you) are fixated on using MP-5s to kill passengers aboard airplanes, when they are perfectly free already to use shotguns (legally available), buckshot (legally available), hacksaws (ditto), and overcoats (ditto) to kill those same passengers in the airport terminal while the victims stand in line entering Security?

Our current regime is far from the "no restrictions" environment that you seem to be advocating for. In fact, from what I can tell, it is filled with (what are to you) unconstitutional gun control laws. Some of these laws just might make it more difficult for AQ to run ops like that.

But whatever they can do or not do now, if we had it your way, it would be easier for them to run ops like that.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Why do you call gun owners the "gun culture"? Most gun owners are a part of a giant silent segment from all walks of life.

I consider myself to be a proud member of "the gun culture". I have done my best to instill my children with these values as well. My son just took the class to get his CHL.

To me, being considered part of the gun culture is a compliment.

If you have a "sterile cabin," why would you need armed pilots and Sky Marshals? With no one armed, where is the threat?

1) No security is perfect. Something can always slip through.

2) With guns, sky marshalls are better able to handle whatever threat BG's can muster with anything less than guns or bombs.

Look at the logic of a terrorist group armed with machine guns. Each one of those terrorists can only........

How do you know they "can only" do ........? Maybe they can do things you haven't thought of.

Not when it comes to those machine guns the terrorists will get their hands on! Not when it comes to those machine guns criminals will get their hands on! For me to buy a machine gun "legally", I've got to pass a background check, pay for a "stamp", and cough up about ten times what such an arm is worth because of the finite number of machine guns available as a result of the "Firearm Owners Protection Act, 1986". A thief or terrorist can get one on the black market or steal one. There is where the real burden is, my friend.

But even if they can get them, they will not be able to sneak them aboard the plane.

 

[Officers'Wife]

If getting a gun is more difficult, some people with evil in their hearts will be too stupid or lazy to do it. If getting guns were easier, even these stupid and lazy evil people would get them.

But when getting a 'gun' is difficult there is a greater economic reward in providing one. Any 'redneck' with a milling machine, a metal lathe and a little imagination can make a firearm. Including the rifled barrels.

Item last, a person with evil intent will find a tool to commit that evil. The Columbine children originally planned on using IED's. In fact they planted at least one that I recall. Had they been dedicated enough to destruction to test their detonating devices the death toll would have been higher by a factor of ten.

Selena

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

This thread is growing faster than I can read.

Actually it is rapidly filling up with utter nonsense.

I have one comment for frankee,

"And if anyone can purchase and tote MP-5's anywhere they go no questions asked, how do you keep Al Qaeda suicide death squads from boarding airliners and starting full auto firefights at 35,000 feet?"

The easy way. Provide a box of pistols at the entry to the airliner, and if anyone wants one, they take one to their seat with them.

And there's a good example of it.

Did you ever wonder why no serious person (meaning an airline executive, government official, etc.) on the face of the Earth has proposed doing such a thing? Is it because they are all fools, morons, idiots, or lackeys of the state, and you and a few others have some brilliant insight into the problem that the rest of us just cannot see?

This is supposed to be The Legal Forum. We're supposed to discuss matters of law here. This thread is supposed to be about what restrictions on 2A rights might be "reasonable" and/or might not constitute "infringement" of the 2A.

Instead, it gets filled with proposals to hand out pistols to all airline passengers.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

frankie wrote:

If getting a gun is more difficult, some people with evil in their hearts will be too stupid or lazy to do it. If getting guns were easier, even these stupid and lazy evil people would get them.

Officer's wife responds:

But when getting a 'gun' is difficult there is a greater economic reward in providing one.

Sure. But my proposals are based upon the idea of making it more difficult for BG's while keeping it relatively easy for GG's.

It's NOT to make it difficult for everyone.

And yes, if getting a gun is very difficult for BG's, the price will rise to meet the demand. But at the higher price, fewer BG's will be able to get them. (When something costs more, you can't sell as many of them.)

And if BG's have to get guns built from scratch from underground makers, that would make even fewer available to the black market.

Running an underground gun manufacturing operation is not easy. Either it's a one man show, in which case you can't make too many of them. (Think Seacamp.) Or you have a lot of people involved in which case it's hard to keep it quiet.

Harder for the bad guys while keeping it easy for the good guys. That's my guiding principle and I think that such measures would pass constitutional muster, even after a favorable Heller ruling.

 

[robertbank]

"The easy way. Provide a box of pistols at the entry to the airliner, and if anyone wants one, they take one to their seat with them. If anyone stops a hijacking they get a 10.000$ reward. (of course you have those little tracking chips like walmart uses to keep them from being removed from the plane.) How many terrorists do you think would stand up in front of a cabin full of armed men and declare a hijacking? "

A better question would be "Who in their right mind would board the plane with a bunch of Sky Marshall wanna bees packin" Can only imagine how long the line up would be for pilots for the plane.

Now I really have just about read everything. Where is the bottle of Scotch?

Take Care

Bob

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

A better question would be "Who in their right mind would board the plane with a bunch of Sky Marschall wanna bees packin"

Who indeed, Robert. Who indeed.

 

[revjen45]

OK. I agree that handing out guns to everybody might not be a good idea. So how about a discount for CHL holders (passed a background check) who board with a Bowie knife &/or an Asp baton? No worries about holes in the plane, hitting a hydraulic line, etc.