WHY THE * IS THIS WOMAN CARRYING CONCEALED????

tr fox

On page 8 of my March 2004 NRA Magazine AMERICA'S 1st FREEDOM, is a letter to the editor from commerical passenger airline pilot by the name of Capt. Greg Rice from S. Chareleston, OH. On one of his flights there were two women passengers who WERE BOTH CARRYING A CONCEALED FIREARM ABOARD HIS AIRPLANE. Think the woman were FBI or Air Marshals? No! One worked for the F.D.I.C. and the other for the D.O.E. Now I thought all governments, especially the federal government, HATED the idea of people carrying concealed guns. Especially on planes and even when carried by the pilots of those planes. So where the * does a mere Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation!!!Not a true government agency!!) EMPLOYEE get the federal right to carry a concealed firearm at all, let alone on an airplane?? Is she afraid she will be attacked by an angry bank depositer who lost some savings??

The FDIC is an independent agency created by congess in 1933.

And don't even get me started on the Department of Energy woman. Although at least she is a true government employee. But why a federal permit to carry a concealed firearm? And on a plane? Is it likely in the performance of her DOE duties she is likely to have to use that gun on a plane?

Once again we get just a brief glimpse behind the curtain and find that anyone even loosely connected with the federal government is automatically considered to be a huge step over and above the common citizens who pay her salary.

BTW, FYI, same situation, even worse actually, with the Federal Reserve Bank. If you want more details, just ask.

Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"

rldowns3

Well, it's because those in government jobs are citizens and those not in government jobs are sheep and slaves. Don't ya know that already?

On a non sarcastic note, it is my personal belief that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." By that I mean if they don't want American citizens (read: us normal people) to carry firearms then I think that anybody in government jobs shouldn't be packing either....after all, what would they have to fear in a "gunless" society, right?

tr fox

right. I've always said the police were using a double standard by carrying their firearm off duty. If we common citizens have to rely on calling 911 for an on-duty officer to help us, why can't such a great system also protect the off-duty police officer? And that way the officer would not have to expose his family to the "danger" of having a gun in the house.

Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"

Teamblue

If they were authorized to carry then they were most likely GS-1811 series employees. They are titled "Criminal Investigators" and every Cabinet level and associated agencies have them.

One could debate whether they should carry on a plane, but for now the law allows it.

It should be noted that any state or local law enforcement officer has to show a specific need to be able to do this and be authorized ahead of time.

Also I disagree with the assertion that somehow having off-duty officers carrying their weapons is a double standard. Many officers are still "on-call" and respond to incidents at all hours. Also there is a more specific danger in that officers have been targeted while they are off duty for revenge by people they have held to account largely because it is believed they will not have their weapon. That is a documented fact.


Justice through Valor

"Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war" Psalm 144

3gunner

I can somewhat see your point being that we are talking about a FDIC employee and a D.O.E. employee and a airplane. However, there may be another side to the coin to consider regarding off-duty officers being armed. Now don't chisel this in stone but I am pretty sure that an LEO is required to act upon the commission of any felony which occurs in his/her presence. Now, if I was a Federal LEO and was required to apprehend a suspect while he/she was committing a felony; I would also want my weapon, even while travelling. As I understand the law concerning this, it is stated that an LEO may arrest for this or may arrest for that, but the wording changes to must arrest when it pertains to a felony in progress. I can understand and have no problem with an LEO carrying a concealed weapon while off-duty. Just as I have no problem with other law abiding citizens also carrying there weapon concealed.

tr fox

Originally posted by Teamblue
If they were authorized to carry then they were most likely GS-1811 series employees. They are titled "Criminal Investigators" and every Cabinet level and associated agencies have them.

One could debate whether they should carry on a plane, but for now the law allows it.


Also I disagree with the assertion that somehow having off-duty officers carrying their weapons is a double standard. Also there is a more specific danger in that officers have been targeted while they are off duty for revenge by people they have held to account largely because it is believed they will not have their weapon.

---

above posted by team blue---
Thank you for you informative explanation. But I still don't see how an employee working for a "Corperation" should have any kind of federal permit, expectially not a gun permit. I think there are cases where the US government is carelessly awarding the title of a government agent, and thereby elevating those government agents above the private citizens and companies, when it is not righful a true government agency to begin with. For another example, take the Federal Reserve. The only true connection that agency has to the US government is that it
is chartered to be the nation's bank. A bank for all the nations banks. But the Federal Reserve Bank Guards, if you stop one of them, will be able to flip out federal id stating they are federal police.

In reagards to the double standard about police carrying off duty, this subject is one that I need to try to make point but it is difficult to use without making it look like I am actually slamming the police. I believe off duty police should and need to carry. If not only to protect themselves, maybe to protect me and my family if we get criminally attacked ant that off-duty officer is on the scene for personal reasons. Although I will mention that this doesn't seem to happen often.

But the even in your explanation you almost touch on a double standard by mentioning how that off duty officer may have been targeted by the bad guys and would have a need to protect him/herself. What about that yong woman who gets off work late each night and walks to the deserted parking lot and has been targeted by the bad guys for rape, robbery and murder? Doesn't she have jus t as much a need to carry concealed as that off duty police officer. The only point about this I was trying to make is that so often some of the very high ranking police officials will testigy at hearings and state that the common citizens has no need to carry concealed. And all the while this same high ranking officer carrysz his firearm off-duty. I find this somewhat hypocritical but again I am NOT slamming the street cop. I usually support the street cop.

Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"

gap1916

They were undercover NSA [:p]

Greg
Former
USMC
ANGLICO

Teamblue

tr,

Your point is well taken. Recent incidents such as the Dru Sjodin tragedy in ND illustrate this well.

My state is a "shall issue" state and I think this system works well. We do not seem to have a problem with the law-abiding folks who get their CCW permits. They tend to follow the rules and be responsible about their business.

I believe that all states should be "shall-issue" and the opportunity to carry concealed afforded to anyone that is not a felon or have articulable mental health issues that would disqualify them.

Justice through Valor

"Blessed be the Lord, my rock, who trains my hands for war" Psalm 144

kalifornian

IMHO I think you are taking the wrong approach on this. I prefer to use these examples as an example of somewhat normal people being trusted with guns and how if it is good for them to have them, then it is good for everyone else to have them.

Technically, you are correct in that this is unfair and a double standard. However, if you take the stance of "they shouldn't get what we can't have", you do less to promote gun rights than if you speak in terms of "they get to have guns, why can't we?". I don't want off duty LEO's and Federal Employees to be disarmed, I want the right for most people to be armed.

It bugs me that some of the flaming anti-gun nut liberal politicians are CCW permit holders, but in my opinion this hypocrisy helps us if we use it to our advantage.


http://ynot4free.com

Night Stalker

You'd be AMAZED at the number of departments / organizations / agengies / etc.. who have Federally BADGED and CREDENTIALED officers who are legally permitted to fly with their weapons. It shocked me the first time I signed into the system. I know some folks will not agree with it, but as long as they sign-in, get tehe waiver, and meet/greet all of the others on-board who are travelling in the same capacity, I do not have a problem with it.

NSDQ!

"Also I heard the voice of the Lord saying who shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, here am I, send me." -Isaiah 6:8

Colt Super

It's the government placing itself above the governed... again.

God Bless America and...
NEVER Forget WACO
NEVER, EVER Forget 911

madmarc0

No problem with it at all.

Why should we have a problem with it, they are evidently in a job capacity that allowed them to posess and carry a firearm on a plane.

I have no issue with it, My personal friend works for the I.R.S. and he carries and we always give him a hard time at the range by telling him " if we don't pay our taxes you gonna shoot us" it's all in good fun and he is allowed to carry pretty much anywhere because he works for the Treasury Dept.

Remember, these folks are our friends not our enemies and we are not commiting a crime then it's all good!
As for the double standard, hey, I still take my guns on the plane but they are just a floor below me.

I measured it and cut it twice, and it's still too short!

Lowrider

I read a list on the internet a while back, it may have been on this board, of all the various govt. employees who are authorized to carry weapons - even on planes. Would you believe that even people who work for the Smithsonian fall into this catagory?

Passenger 1. Hey! What the hell are ya doin' with that gun on this airliner?

Passenger 2. It's OK, man, I'm a secret agent from the museum.[:D]

Lord Lowrider the Loquacious.

Member:Secret Select Society of Suave Stylish Smoking Jackets

She was only a fisherman's daughter,
But when she saw my rod she reeled.

Sawz

And were complaining about someone with a concealed carry permit because? ...I would gladly want these two ladies on board anyone of my flights as long as they knew how and had the cajones to use them when the time called for
... get more people with concealed carry out there maybe a few more rapes murders armed robberies will be stopped ..whatever excuse it takes. I dont care who or what position they hold as long as they pass the qualifications.they have a right to protect themselves just as much as you do. you being in the same postion would jump on the chance im guessing without so much as a second look

---

"Respect your Tools"
"Freedom is not Free"

tr fox

I believe every lawful citizen should have the tools to protect self and family for when the police are not available. I believe every true LEO should be armed at all times. I DO NOT believe the government should find ways to give federal authorization to Museum Guards or private corporations such as the FDIC solely becuase the FDIC has a charter from the government. And what about the PRIVATE bank I mentioned called the Federal Reserve. It is only "federal" because it received a charter to be the nations bank. So how's come their bank guards carry such an offical title as Federal Police? The way the government is going pretty soon EVERY chartered corperation or true federal agency will find some reason to be armed; and all thewhile the government continues to pass more and more restrictive laws on honest but common gun owners. Can no one but me see a kind of double standard? I mean, the way things are going it won't be long before you will walk into your local post office and EVERY CLERK will be armed! Now that is fine with me as long as I can ALSO BE ARMED! But you know that will never happen and even in conceled carry states you can be arrested for carrying your legal gun into a post office. Maybe no one agrees with me on this, but the government is steadily, once again, elevating the government and it's employees above the common citizens who pays for it all.

Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"