Should We Be Able to Board a Commercial Airplane With a Gun?

[Coyote Blue]

Until the mid Sixties and the start of hi-jacking ,mainly to Cuba ,carrying on commercial aircraft was quite customary.

Much has changed in the last 48 years.What are your thoughts on this controversial issue,USA Carry?

All comments and votes are appreciated. All.
​

 

[superprincess]

No! Don't ask again....

 

[Firefighterchen]

It's not up to us. Airlines are a private business, they make the rules.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[jameshd]

It's not up to us. Airlines are a private business, they make the rules.

But they don't get to. The government makes the rules for them.

 

[Kramer1113]

I voted no but at first I wanted to say yes, but then I thought of those darn box cutters and the damage those did.
Then I thought, well, if everyone had a gun, but that makes no sense because with the right plan the plane is downed anyway... No.

 

[Firefighterchen]

But they don't get to. The government makes the rules for them.

The problem of the tyrannical government controlling our private businesses is a whole different problem that has nothing to do with airlines making their own rules for firearms.

If there were laws permitting carry on airlines, or no laws at all governing airlines, would the answer to this question be any different? No, it's still up to the airlines not us.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[THE REAL CAPTAIN JACK]

Its simple if I can't carry there, I don't use their services!! Goes for anywhere.

GUN CARRYING AMERICAN PATRIOT!!!!

 

[wolf_fire]

The question asks should we be able to board with a gun. It doesn't ask if the airlines are allowed to restrict our rights since they are a private entity. Being a private enterprise, they can make whatever restrictions they want.

As far as "should", we should be able to defend ourselves in every location we go in. To restrict otherwise is unpalatable to me. If, however, an entity decides that we shouldn't on their property, then I don't go on their property. I haven't flown since 1996 and I won't again.

 

[ezkl2230]

Absolutely, we should be able to carry on an aircraft, just as we should be able to carry on the premises of every business we enter. The Second Amendment places no restriction on where one is permitted to defend one's self. And as a former TSA officer, I can tell you there are still areas of weakness that make it possible for criminals to get weapons on board aircraft. To tell me that I may defend myself on the ground but not in the air is absurd.

And while airlines are private companies, the fed establishes these rules. Now, if the fed ever got out of the airline security business - which I fully support - it would be up to individual airlines to enforce their own rules.

Again, the question is SHOULD​ we be able to carry. The answer is yes.

 

[r1derbike]

I voted no for only one reason; explosive decompression at altitude. NDs happen, although highly unlikely. My answer has nothing to do with the question, and is safety driven only.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Maybe some of these posts weren't addressed to me...maybe I was misunderstood...but I was answering the question to SHOULD we....

Should we be able to carry into ANYBODY'S private property? We can all have an opinion on what others should do, my opinion is it's not up to us whether or not airlines SHOULD let us carry. When it comes to someone else's private property, the question for us is can or can not, not should or should not.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[ezkl2230]

I voted no for only one reason; explosive decompression at altitude. NDs happen, although highly unlikely. My answer has nothing to do with the question, and is safety driven only.

Not only highly unlikely, nearly impossible.

And even if large portions of the fuselage were to come off, modern aircraft are designed to continue flying. The size of the hole determines the likelihood of explosive decompression, and a bullet hole is simply too small to cause rapid decompression. Add multiple redundancies to the controls, and even a direct hit on a hydraulic line or computer guarantees nothing. Aloha Airlines flight 243 demonstrated just how much damage can be sustained by an aircraft while remaining airborne. In that instance, in which an entire section of the fuselage was blown off, only one person was blown out of the aircraft, while 65 others sustained injuries.

This myth has been disproved conclusively. It is a non-issue.

 

[tcox4freedom]

^^^Thanks for that^^^ it saved me some time.

I voted with a valid permit only because I believe anywhere we go in the US we should be able to carry. (International flights are a different story because the constitution doesn't really protect US citizens while abroad.)

 

[ezkl2230]

Maybe some of these posts weren't addressed to me...maybe I was misunderstood...but I was answering the question to SHOULD we....

Should we be able to carry into ANYBODY'S private property? We can all have an opinion on what others should do, my opinion is it's not up to us whether or not airlines SHOULD let us carry. When it comes to someone else's private property, the question for us is can or can not, not should or should not.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

This goes back to a long running debate BC1 and I have been having. No one argues that a homeowner has the right to determine what happens on their property - property that is truly private.

The issue with businesses is that they are not truly private property. They are places of public accommodation that are already highly regulated by local, state, and federal laws. It is an established principle that businesses do not enjoy the same level of protection as is afforded to private, HUMAN citizens. On my home property, I can exclude anyone and everyone for any and all reasons without facing discrimination or other charges. The rights of business owners, on the other hand, are severely limited by comparison, and civil rights are some of the biggest issues for them. There are those on this forum who argue that the Constitution only protects us from the government, that we have no civil rights when we enter the premises of a business. Until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that was perfectly true - and segregation was the choice of the business owner. Businesses truly had the right to serve or exclude, hire or fire any person for any reason - race, religion, handicap, etc.; within the bounds of applicable building codes, they could design their structures without handicap facilities, parking spaces, or any other accommodation. They could even label bathrooms and drinking fountains for use by specific groups. But in 1964, congress made the determination that the Constitution protected us from each other, as well, from businesses in particular. The CRA of '64 wasn't written to give certain groups special privileges (although that is how it is often interpreted), it was written to insure that businesses recognized that those certain groups had the same civil rights as everyone else - with one important exception: they still weren't willing to recognize the rights of minorities to bear arms. That would have been too radical and, for some, too dangerous. So the CRA doesn't address the issue of firearms. It doesn't change the fact that minorities possess the same right to bear arms and to provide for their own self defense as whites.

The point is, congress made the determination that the Constitution protects us from each other, as well as from the government. Business owner property rights were severely curtailed by the enactment of the CRA.

And as I noted in another post, segregation was POLICY (not law) in the north until congress intervened and said that the Constitution protected us from unjust POLICY.

I live in what was the unsegregated north. Segregation was never the law here, but as recently as 50 years ago my wife (who is African/Native-American) and I could not have bought the house we now own. Why? Because the business man who platted this area had a rider in the title of the property that forbad a Negro, Jew, Indian, or any of another of a number of ethnicities from owning property in his plat. It wasn't the LAW, it was POLICY. And why not? According to your argument, he was the owner of the business, the owner of the property, and had the right to say who would and would not be able to buy and own property in his plat (BTW, Ron Paul was big on this idea as well; it is his belief that the CRA unlawfully prevents business owners from doing what they want, and with whom they want to do it, and it was part of his campaign platform to do away with the CRA and the ADA). I have the original title deed to the original undeveloped lot. My wife was a little nervous when we bought our house 13 years ago and the title search turned up those documents. I had to remind her that the CRA nullified those conditions and made their inclusion illegal.

It wasn't the LAW in our area, it was one man's POLICY.

Guess what? The Constitution protects us from BOTH.

 

[BluesStringer]

I voted no for only one reason; explosive decompression at altitude. NDs happen, although highly unlikely. My answer has nothing to do with the question, and is safety driven only.

Actually, explosive decompression caused by gunfire is a total myth. It has never happened, and could not be made to happen in controlled experiments.

Here's a thread from Jan. 2012 talking basically about the same topic as this thread. As usual, myths about the prudence of firearms laws on airliners were rampant.

Here's one of my replies dispelling the myth.

And here's another reply of mine responding to more myths promulgated by the same poster after he dropped the "explosive decompression" myth.

Most of the thread is bickering over the prudence of government restrictions on carrying on airliners. It was both funny and frustrating, with only brief spurts of on-topic, relevant and informative postings, but it was kind of entertaining.....if you're into that kinda thang that is.

My answer to the OP is that the government *should* have no say-so whatsoever about when, where, how or if someone chooses to carry, but as Firefighterchen saliently points out, the airlines themselves do have that authority/right. I have refused to fly since the first reports of TSA abuses started circulating. I don't know when that was....'03? '04? Not sure, but I didn't fly much before that anyway and have always preferred driving over flying (commercially) because I like to see the scenery up close and personal when traveling. It's not likely to change no matter what (or how many) any of us thinks about it. It's another government intrusion into private business and people's private lives that has the imprimatur of legitimacy given to it by the Supreme Court, but then the SCOTUS has spent the last ~225 years assaulting rights of The People that the Framers were unambiguous about describing as fundamental, natural, unalienable and God-given. It is my strong belief that the majority of them are looking down on their progeny in utter and complete disgust.

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

<null>

First of all, if you're going to screw with the forum's default formatting, at least pick a font and a size that doesn't show the "jaggies" that were basically eliminated in the early 80s on computer screens. That was the hardest post I ever read, but I did read it, and I've got a couple of questions for you concerning it.

One, are you suggesting that a business is likewise bound by the CRA to allow any and all free speech or "peaceable assemblies" or the press interrogating their employees on their property? How about a preacher who happens to be a part-time reporter who wants to stand on a table in the cafeteria of Microsoft screaming the Gospel at the top of his lungs and reporting about management's reactions to it? Would that be a legitimate claim of 1st Amendment rights on any level?

By such "logic" your wife, if she owned a business, would have to allow the KKK inside to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.

Sorry man, I usually agree with you, but the above post is utter nonsense, besides the formatting making it nearly unreadable.

Blues

 

[superprincess]

What a difference a day makes, yesterday I said no. But after today's events at LAX, I have changed my mind. If you are legally permitted to carry then yes, I feel you should be granted permission to carry.

 

[jcreek]

I voted no for only one reason; explosive decompression at altitude. NDs happen, although highly unlikely. My answer has nothing to do with the question, and is safety driven only.

This is been disproven several times. Modern commercial aircraft are structurally reenforced to prevent tearing of the aircraft skin. A bullet hole (or even several) is not big enough to create "explosive decompression." You'd be unlikely to even reach rapid decompression and the worst injury that would occur might be some ruptured ear drums.

 

[wolf_fire]

I voted no for only one reason; explosive decompression at altitude. NDs happen, although highly unlikely. My answer has nothing to do with the question, and is safety driven only.

A single bullet hole cannot cause "explosive decompression" in an airplane. It isn't even going to cause a mere hiccup in the air pressure of the plane. This is a Hollywood stupidity that they put in movies and the ignorant masses have eaten it hook, line and sinker.

Just like you won't be able to see the laser shot from one space ship to another. Just like you don't need wings on a space ship to turn (there's no air to turn against). Just like there would be no sound in space. Just like many things that Hollywood shows in their movies that cannot happen. The decompression myth is just that, a myth. Otherwise, no one would be able to jump out of that gaping hole when sky diving, they would be sucked out with 'explosive decompression' instead. A tiny bullet hole, heck many tiny bullet holes, wouldn't cause a problem on an airplane. This is also why Air Marshal's carry as do many pilots.

I see this has been addressed after I wrote my reply. I'm not trying to throw any more salt on a wound. This was just my reply from my initial read of your post.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I have a question... does anyone know of a single airline in the world that allows carry of a fully loaded firearm by a passenger?