In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Legislation to Arm Pilots Gains Support in the Sen

Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
edited July 2002 in General Discussion
Legislation to Arm Pilots Gains Support in the Senate
By MATTHEW L. WALD


ASHINGTON, July 25 - Senate opposition to arming airline pilots waned further today as two more lawmakers unexpectedly endorsed the idea and positions against it were all but absent at a hearing on aviation security. The only counterargument that the secretary of transportation could offer at the hearing was that the requisite training would cost money.

Advertisement




A Senate bill that would permit pilots to carry handguns, similar to legislation that has already been overwhelmingly approved by the House, now has 24 co-sponsors. Among the latest to express support was Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, who said today that he had been leaning against the bill but changed his mind when he spoke to two pilots during a weather delay at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago.

Mr. Smith paraphrased those pilots' argument this way: "There are armed pilots already, but they're armed with F-15's and F-16's, and they have instructions to shoot us down if we can't keep control over our airplanes."

The senator said the pilots had told him, "We'd rather take the first shot," with guns of their own to use on terrorists.

At the same hearing, of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Senator George Allen, Republican of Virginia, also announced his support. Earlier Mr. Allen had favored what he described today as "a free-market approach" that would allow individual airlines to decide whether to arm their pilots, and so lure customers according to the carrier's decision.

Not everyone on the committee supports the legislation, but only the chairman, Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, spoke forcefully against the idea today. Supporters now believe they have enough votes to move the bill out of committee despite Mr. Hollings's opposition, and to win passage on the floor.

Mr. Hollings said in an opening statement, "If we had another billion to spend, which is the initial cost of arming the pilots, we could spend it more wisely on new doors" to secure airliner cockpits.

But Mr. Hollings's estimate was at the high end. The true cost would depend in large part on the number of the nation's pilots who volunteered to be armed, and an official of the Air Line Pilots Association said that while there were 90,000 who would be eligible, probably only 25,000 to 30,000 would take the training and be deputized as gun-carrying "federal flight deck officers."

The idea's main opponent, John W. Magaw, was fired for other reasons last week from the top post at the Transportation Security Administration. His successor, James M. Loy, said today that he was "hesitant" about the proposal but had ordered a thorough review.

President Bush himself has expressed reservations about arming pilots, but the bill's supporters hope the change in leadership at the security agency will provide a graceful way for the administration to reverse position.

One witness at the hearing today did speak against the idea: Capt. Ed Davidson, director of flight safety at Northwest Airlines, said, "As a professional commercial airline pilot, when I'm on duty, my singular focus is, and always must be, the safe operation of my aircraft."

Captain Davidson said a cockpit was like "a china shop," too confined and delicate a place for using a firearm. Giving guns to pilots, he said, would create "a temptation, and more likely an imperative, for flight crews to open the cockpit door in dangerous and chaotic cabin situations." That would occur, he said, "precisely the times the cockpit door should remain closed while pilots land the airplane as quickly as possible."

The Air Line Pilots Association, on the other hand, has become a strong supporter of the proposal. The chairman of its security committee, Capt. Stephen Luckey, said today that even if hijackers were killing flight attendants in the cabin, armed pilots would be disciplined enough not to open the door, because they would be "prepared to take some losses" to save the greatest number of lives, in the air and on the ground.

While the senators seemed to be preparing to overrule the Transportation Department on the arming of pilots, they also appeared disinclined to extend deadlines, set by Congress late last year, for a federal takeover of all passenger screening by Nov. 19 and for screening 100 percent of checked luggage for bombs by Dec. 31.

"I strongly oppose any extensions unless they make our system stronger," said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon. With the first chief of the security agency already fired, and with recent statements by Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta that his ability to meet the deadlines was being hobbled by insufficiency of resources, Mr. Wyden deplored "an indication that this issue is sliding back into the same pattern of the last 15 years," where Congress would move ahead after a "tragedy" and "an outcry," but, "for one reason or another, the job didn't get done."

Senator John McCain of Arizona, the committee's ranking Republican, asked Secretary Mineta whether the administration was considering exemptions on its own for large airports that now appear unlikely to meet the baggage screening deadline.

"That's something we've talked about in-house," Mr. Mineta replied, "but we haven't come to any determination between our department and the White House." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/26/politics/26GUNS.html



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Comments

  • Josey1Josey1 Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Transcript: Interview with Ellen Saracini







    Thursday, July 25, 2002


    This is a partial transcript from The O'Reilly Factor, July 24, 2002. Click here to order the complete transcript.


    Watch The O'Reilly Factor weeknights at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET and listen to the Radio Factor!

    BILL O'REILLY, HOST: In the Back of the Book segment tonight, Ellen Saracini is the widow of a pilot that died on United Airlines Flight 175, the second plane to crash into the World Trade Center on September 11. Mrs. Saracini wanted to talk about arming pilots in front of a Senate committee. But the science and transportation committee may not let her.

    Ellen Saracini joins us now from Washington. First of all, I must say, Mrs. Saracini, that I'm very surprised that Senator Hollings, a Democrat from South Carolina, has not invited you to speak. I think he should show you respect, the respect that you deserve. And we're going to try to make that happen for you, and I suspect it might. What do you want to say to the senators?

    ELLEN SARACINI, WIDOW OF 9/11 PILOT: Well, I want to say to the senators that we need to have the armed pilots in the cockpit. The cockpit is now the last line of defense. And we need to have it secure. We need to make our skies safe and we need to have all our citizens of the United States safe.

    O'REILLY: All right. So, it's as simple as that. I mean, you don't have anything else other than your contention that everybody would be a lot safer if pilots were armed?

    SARACINI: Yes, that's right. Everyone would be a lot safer. And the worst-case scenario is what do we want to wait for, a military jet to fly alongside us and have to shoot us down in case there's a problem?

    O'REILLY: Now, why do you think they won't let you testify? I mean, it seems like you have a simple measure, that you would take maybe five minutes at the most to get it on the record. I mean, why are they denying you a seat before the committee?

    SARACINI: Well, we know that Senator Hollings is against arming pilots. That's very clear and I think he thinks that I have too compelling a voice. And I don't - I don't have an agenda. It's easy for me to speak. I know what I can say and that is just about anything. I don't have to be worrying about stepping on someone else's toes and not being able to say the facts.

    O'REILLY: Now, have you petitioned to the senator directly?

    SARACINI: Yes. I have a letter right here that was addressed to the senator. Senator Bob Smith wrote a letter, asking that I be able to testify and it was denied.

    O'REILLY: It was denied, and did you ask why? Did you get any explanation why it was denied from...

    SARACINI: No. I didn't get any explanation.

    O'REILLY: How did you find out it was denied?

    SARACINI: The guys from APSA told me that there would be no way I would be speaking in the...

    O'REILLY: A guy from whom?

    SARACINI: APSA, that is the Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

    O'REILLY: OK. So, you went through them, you went through the organization?

    SARACINI: Yes.

    O'REILLY: And they said flat out no. Well, you know, I think that's pitiful, I have to tell you. And we're going to call Senator Hollings' office because I want to get your story on the record before we did call him just to make sure that, you know, we have a bone to pick with him. And we do because you should be afforded every courtesy and every sign of respect.

    Now, we have - we understand that Secretary Mineta, who is the secretary of transportation, who in the past had been against arming pilots has now changed his mind. Did you know that?

    SARACINI: I don't know if he's quite changed his mind...

    O'REILLY: Yes, believe me. He has changed his mind.

    SARACINI: Well, that is a good sign.

    O'REILLY: Yes. He - you know, I don't know if he's changed his mind on his own. But Secretary Mineta will very shortly be coming out and saying, yes, we think that arming pilots is the good thing to do.

    Now, the argument against that is that perhaps it might be dangerous for a pilot to be shooting into, you know, a cabin and all of that. Have you thought about that?

    SARACINI: Sure. Well, first of all, the fuselage can handle some bullet holes without even depressurizing. But that's not the main point. The main point is that you train these pilots, many of them also are military pilots, very used to having handguns by their side anyway.

    And these pilots are trained for emergencies. They go out once a year, they go for procedures that just deal with emergencies. One flies the plane, one deals with the emergency. There's no difference. This is an emergency on the airplane that they can handle.

    O'REILLY: Yes. I am for that. I mean, I can't imagine any American objecting to this because if you live in a rural area or even in an urban area, you have a right to have a weapon in your home to protect yourself. And surely, in the age of terror that we live in, the pilots have a right to protect themselves and the passengers from anybody who would intrude upon them. So, I think it would pass.

    SARACINI: I think it would be a big deterrent.

    O'REILLY: Right. I think it will pass. But, you know, the larger question in here is why they denied you a voice in front of this committee. And believe me, Mrs. Saracini, we're going to find out. We're going to - we don't think that's very nice, and we think that the senator owes you an apology. And we hope that you will be able to testify. And I want to tell everybody you paid out of your own pocket to do this. There's nobody sponsoring you and you're doing it on your own, is that correct?

    SARACINI: Yes. It's something that I believe in. So, yes.

    O'REILLY: All right. Well, we admire you, Mrs. Saracini. Thank you very much for coming on The Factor.

    SARACINI: Thank you very much.


    O'REILLY: Thanks very much.

    Click here to order the complete transcript.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58755,00.html


    "If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Sign In or Register to comment.