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.
Sens defy Bush,intro. pro-guns in cockpit bill
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
"Standing side-by-side with U.S. airline pilots, Senators on Thursday introduced legislation that would allow guns in the cockpit, defying a Bush administration decision not to allow pilots to carry firearms aboard planes. 'The logic of having an arm of some appropriate kind ... in the hands of a pilot or copilot in command absolutely makes sense,' said Senator Frank Murkowski. 'We're going to change the law,' he promised. On Tuesday, Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw said he would not authorize pilots to carry guns as requested by airline pilots following the suicide hijackings of September 11 which killed some 3,000 people." http://www.thenewsmexico.com/noticia.asp?id=26348
"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
"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
-- Ask your two senators to cosponsor this important bill
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
(Thursday, May 23, 2002) -- Great news! New Hampshire Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) has taken an important step toward protecting American aviation by utilizing pilots armed with firearms to defend themselves, their passengers, and their crew.
The bipartisan Smith bill, S. 2554, was introduced today with the cosponsorship of Democratic Senator Zell Miller (GA) and Republicans Jim Bunning (KY), Conrad Burns (MT), Frank Murkowski (AK) and Strom Thurmond (SC).
The introduction of S. 2554 is the most recent development in a battle waged by Smith and House pro-gun advocate John Hostettler (R-IN).
So effective were Hostettler's efforts that his cause has now been taken up by House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) and Congressman John Mica (R-FL). Their counterpart to Smith's bill, H.R. 4635, was introduced earlier this month.
Currently, a pilot is defenseless against terrorist efforts to take over his plane. And, with F-16 fighter jets positioned to shoot down hijacked airplanes, it is only a matter of time until the current policy of disarming pilots results in another terrible calamity.
S. 2554 would change all of this: the Smith-Miller bill would deputize trained pilots to use firearms to defend their planes and MANDATE that the Bush administration put armed pilots in the air within 90 days.
The Smith-Miller bill would also establish a program to train flight attendants in the use of non-lethal force. As a result of this program, the principal flight attendants' union -- the Association of Flight Attendants -- has reversed its position and now supports the armed pilots bill. The bill also has the support of the 62,000-member Airline Pilots Association.
ACTION: Please contact your two senators and ask them to cosponsor S. 2554, the bipartisan Smith-Miller airline protection bill. You can call your Senators at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 877-762-8762. To identify your Senators, as well as to send a message via e-mail, see the Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm on the GOA website.
Pre-written message
Dear Senator:
Currently, pilots are defenseless to protect themselves and their planes against hijacking.
Please cosponsor S. 2554, the bipartisan Smith-Miller armed pilots bill.
Sincerely,
http://www.gunowners.org/a052302.htm
"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
Hypocritical Posterior Protecting
c 2001 Norman Turner
Published 05. 23. 02 at 20:13 Sierra Time
Well folks, the decision by governmental agencies refusing to arm airline pilots in order that they might protect their cockpits, is clear proof that the bureaucratic prime directive is still to protect themselves from blame rather than to protect the American public. By making such a decision, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and John Magaw, undersecretary for transportation security, have demonstrated that their job titles are merely sad and empty honorifics.
The reasons given for this denial of a most fundamental security measure are ignorant and politically correct, knee-jerk clich?s to ward off criticism from the radical left.
".pilots need to concentrate on flying the plane," said Magaw. "Specially trained air marshals should be the only armed officers on board," he bleated, displaying an abysmal ignorance of the true state of the problem that resulted in the September 11 attack.
First of all, only a few flights have air marshals aboard now, and anyone who believes that all flights will be so provided in the reasonable future is deluded. Secondly, an air marshal has limited ability to protect the cockpit from the passenger cabin.
Senator Ernest Hollings, (D-S.C.) in an amazing display of naivet?, stated that guns would not be needed as long as pilots kept cockpit doors locked while in flight. I flew commercially a week or so ago and was seated far enough forward to afford an unobstructed view of the cockpit door.
The flight attendant entered the cockpit several times, perhaps using a key, but she did not knock and wait for the pilot to get up and open it for her. I could easily have moved forward and entered with her.
One of the pilots left the cockpit at one point to visit the toilet. He appeared to use a key to reenter the cockpit. I could easily have approached him from the rear and stabbed him in the back with a carbon fiber knife or some other such weapon undetectable by the magnetometer, and entered over his collapsing body. This was the situation a week or so ago. Who would have stopped me, Senator Hollings? If there was an air marshal aboard, he was seated behind me and would have had no chance to stop me. I would have appeared to be headed for the forward toilet, just behind the cockpit.
Opponents of this reasonable request for means to protect the flight deck express the equally na?ve mantra that reinforced cockpit doors mean that pistols are unnecessary. What hogwash. On the flights I was on, there was a visible mesh covering on the door, which meant that it would be difficult to break through.
However, in the action I imagined a terrorist taking, he would have been through the door while it was open, as it is a number of times on every single flight. If he had an accomplice, they both would have been inside the cockpit and the armored door would serve to keep any help out while they killed the unarmed pilots and took over the plane.
Another knee-jerk "concern" about arming pilots is that "an errant shot might hit a passenger or damage a key electrical system on the plane." Give me a break. What are we talking about here? Do you imagine that in the September 11 situation that an "errant shot" by a pilot would have been a consideration. Consider what the alternatives are and under what conditions the pilots would be using their weapons should they be allowed to have them.
And what are the alternatives and fall back positions that these bureaucrats take to protect the American public? The primary action is to scramble fighters, F-15s or F-16s, most often flown by National Guard or Reserve pilots. Many if not most of these pilots are Airline pilots in their primary jobs. They are tasked to shoot down any airliner which has been commandeered by hijackers.
Can you imagine a more ironic situation? The fighter pilot, who is not be entrusted with a .38 caliber pistol while flying his airliner, is tasked to shoot down an airliner and kill all aboard, with his 20 millimeter cannon or Sidewinder missile, in his secondary job, and all because the pilots in the airline cockpit could not defend it.
The only obvious advantage to the decision taken by the bureaucrats tasked to defend us is that they would be protected from lawsuits by litigious "victims" should anyone be injured in an attempt to defend the cockpit with a pistol. If a fighter shoots down the undefended airliner, they can hide behind a regretful position that "every step was taken and that the airliner and the 'heroes' aboard died for the greater good of the country."
What a sad and disgraceful situation, and all for lack of a little common sense and courage.
http://www.sierratimes.com/02/05/24/turner.htm
c 2002 SierraTimes.com (unless otherwise noted)
"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
went on strike?
Pressure mounts for allowing firearms in cockpits
Posted: May 24, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Mandi Steele
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
A leader of the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance says he personally opposes a strike to force the government to allow firearms in the cockpits, but he has heard rumblings about the possibility from others.
The group yesterday held a joint press conference with Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., in support of legislation he introduced to mandate that the government allow pilots to carry guns. The introduction of the bill came two days after the testimony of John Magaw, head of the Transportation Security Administration, who told the Senate he would oppose arming pilots. Magaw said he and the airline industry do not believe firearms in the cockpits are necessary to prevent terrorism. Instead, he said he is considering the use of non-lethal weapons and believes new regulations requiring fortified cockpit doors have made air travel safer since Sept. 11.
Magaw said he believes arming pilots may result in more danger to passengers and crew. He wants pilots to focus solely on flying the plane.
Meanwhile, the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance strongly supports Smith's bill. Bob Lambert, board member of APSA, said the fortified doors between the cockpit and the rest of the plane are only a "temporary fix." Any door can eventually be penetrated, he said. He believes pilots ought to have the right to carry firearms on top of safety measures the airlines suggest for a "multi-layer effect" toward safety.
Lambert pointed out that during the Cuban missile crisis era, pilots were allowed to carry firearms, and those policies did not result in increased danger to passengers and crew.
"This legislation will fix what is broken with the existing law that authorizes arming pilots," said APSA Chairman Tracy W. Price. "The Bush administration has caved to pressure . and is refusing to do the will of the Congress and the American people. Sen. Smith's bill - and a very similar bill introduced in the House by Congressmen Mica and Young - will mandate the program, forcing the administration and the airlines to do the sensible thing: arm airline pilots with firearms to offer a last resort, final line of defense against the terrorist threat."
Polls conducted on the subject reveal an overwhelming support by Americans for the arming of pilots. According to APSA, 77 percent of even those who support gun control still agree that pilots should be allowed to carry firearms.
Smith's bill includes language that would provide for defensive training for flight attendants as well as discreet systems for them to communicate with the cockpit. The bill also includes a study of non-lethal weapons for flight attendants to use in the passenger cabin.
"We have always advocated a multi-layered system," said Price, "and these provisions in the Smith bill are well-considered and appropriate."
APSA believes both the House and the Senate will pass Smith's bill. As for support from the White House, Lambert said, "We're convinced President Bush will sign it."
The pilots' organization is working closely with Smith to get the bill passed. As far as taking matters into their own hands and refusing to fly unless pilots are allowed to be armed, Lambert said, he personally does not support a strike, and APSA does not sanction a strike either. Although he said, "I've heard people taking about it." http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27729
"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
"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