PDA

View Full Version : Lautenberg: Terrorist Watch List (AKA Dept of Pre-Crime)


JDoe
05-05-2010, 11:43 AM
I want terrorists to fail in their attempts but banning sales of certain items including firearms to people on the terrorist watch list seems to be completely unconstitutional and another step towards some nightmare.

IIRC Ted Kennedy was on the terror watch list as are a number of children and other innocent law abiding people. This looks like that *** **** Lautenberg would be happy if a Department of PreCrime were formed too.

There isn't any chance of this passing is there? I mean it looks completely unconstitutional in so many ways.

NJ Sen. Lautenberg pushes bill to close 'terror gap' in weapons sales (http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20100505/STATE/100505019/-1/newsfront/NJ-Sen.-Lautenberg-pushes-bill-to-close-%E2%80%98terror-gap-in-weapons-sales)

By RAJU CHEBIUM • Gannett Washington Bureau • May 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — Convicted felons, domestic abusers and mentally ill people can’t purchase firearms and explosives, but the federal government doesn’t have the power to block such sales to suspected terrorists, Sen. Frank Lautenberg is telling a Senate committee this morning.

The New Jersey Democrat wants Congress to pass his legislation to close the so-called “terror gap.”...

...The Lautenberg measure was introduced in June 2009 but it hasn’t advanced. Today marks the first hearing it's getting.

HokeySon
05-05-2010, 12:15 PM
yup, looks unconstitutional, but then again so did most of the patriot act.

Arondos
05-05-2010, 12:17 PM
I had a hassle getting through airport once. The ticket wouldn't process because my name showed up on some list (common name).

The very nice lady behind the counter got told "You have got to be kidding me? I have been active duty for 17 years. I have probably got more clearance than anybody working in this airport. Whose *** do I need to leave teeth marks in to get this cluster**** straightened out?" (yeah i slipped and swore). She looked up at me. I apologized for getting irritated with the system and told her I realized it wasn't her fault but I couldn't believe it.

She asked to see my I.D. so I tossed my military I.D. on the counter. Took a phone call and about 5 minutes and I was on my way. With an apology for the inconvenience and a thank you for my service.

And these clowns want to restrict people based on a suspicion? Hmm let me see the logic our beloved reps will use.

You own a gun so you must be a suspected terrorist so we need to take your guns away. And on the list you go.

You tried to buy a gun so you must be a suspected terrorist so no purchase. And on the list you go.

You mentioned buying a gun. We need to block that. And on the list you go.

stix213
05-05-2010, 2:40 PM
I'm fine telling suspected terrorists they can't get on a 747. But when we start taking away rights protected by the constitution to people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime, we have gone too far.

loather
05-05-2010, 3:25 PM
yup, looks it's unconstitutional, but then again so did most of is the patriot act.

Fixed it for you. :)

kcbrown
05-05-2010, 3:40 PM
I'm fine telling suspected terrorists they can't get on a 747. But when we start taking away rights protected by the constitution to people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime, we have gone too far.

I'd rather let them get on the 747 and allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms onto the airplane (maybe you restrict it to people with valid CCWs but regardless, you want enough people there who can act as a credible deterrent).

That way, the terrorist who is allowed onto the 747 will be shot full of holes if he actually tries anything.


I wish people would begin to understand that the way to solve these problems is generally to increase freedom rather than to decrease it, and that the only time you should be decreasing it is if you really have no other choice.

Marxman
05-05-2010, 4:48 PM
Yup, firearms legislation would have kept those terrorists from getting pilot training and box-cutters by September of 2001, the fact that we don't have it now is astonishing.

I can understand panic inducing bad or misappropriated response but with this much consistency on curbing gun rights in times of panic it's hard to see this law as anything other than a shell game trying to pass yet another law the government can/will abuse.

I mean really, the terrorists don't pay attention to any law passed by us infidels, so why the hell would it matter if they cant legally buy firearms? They'd just get them the way criminals have since the first gun laws were passed - illegally.

anthonyca
05-05-2010, 5:58 PM
Lautenberg's actions in the senate have been detrimental to this country. I am not just talking about his gun bans, which were retro active and made many police and soldiers federal felons.

Look at the proliferation of the Russian mob and all their scams of our tax money. Who sponsored the bill to PAY them to live here? Yes, this guy, and when other groups complained that the Russians were getting special treatment by being payed to live here, no interest loans for travel, free care at the VA( that I can't even get as an honorably discharged reservist) social security at a younger age and with out ever paying in a dime, he just extended to almost any group. Haven't you noticed the mentality of so many who now come here not to work, but to take from the system? Thank this guy.

He gets involved with local and state politics also. An example is state helmet laws. Lautenberg threatens to with hold federal highway funds if a state does not pass laws he wants.

artherd
05-05-2010, 7:14 PM
This is a bad idea - as long as terrorists are arming themselves through trackable means we have one more way to find them.

If this passes they simply go underground and will arm themselves through the black market.

dad
05-05-2010, 7:25 PM
Lautenberg is a true Nazi!

GearHead
05-05-2010, 7:50 PM
I'm fine telling suspected terrorists they can't get on a 747. But when we start taking away rights protected by the constitution to people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime, we have gone too far.

As somebody whose name is on the do-not-fly list, I hope you get hassled next time you fly just to see exactly how many hoops I have to jump through every time I want to see my parents.

Billy Jack
05-05-2010, 8:02 PM
People, elections have consequences as you are all finding out. Spend all your time obsessing on the 2nd Amendment while you are losing your other rights.

Join the Tea Party, send campaign contributions to candidates all over the United States that support the Constitution, attend Town Halls.

Billy Jack
'The force is strong with this one'



www.californiaconcealedcarry.com

anthonyca
05-05-2010, 8:21 PM
As somebody whose name is on the do-not-fly list, I hope you get hassled next time you fly just to see exactly how many hoops I have to jump through every time I want to see my parents.

Can you tell us more Anouilh this? Is it true most only find out they are on the no fly list when they try to fly, and there is no way to fnd out what got you put on there, and who put you on there?

Ford8N
05-05-2010, 8:51 PM
If a person is on "the list" arrest them and put them on trial. Otherwise don't put them on "the list" or even have "a list".

GearHead
05-05-2010, 8:56 PM
Can you tell us more Anouilh this? Is it true most only find out they are on the no fly list when they try to fly, and there is no way to fnd out what got you put on there, and who put you on there?

I assume you are on a mobile device and "Anouilh" means about.

Yes, I discovered I was on the list when I was 16 and tried flying somewhere with my family. I was denied a ticket, which is odd because most people on the list are >18. For 3 or 4 years, it was a huge pain in the *** to travel anywhere, since I would have to factor in an extra hour or two for every airport stop.

Fast forward to 2010 and it's a bit better. I only get hassled when I leave the country, which hasn't happened in a few years.

As of today, there is no way of knowing how you got on the list, if you are on the list for certain or who put me on it. In fact, I might even be off the list at this point. Alas, the government sees fit to keep me in the dark

GearHead
05-05-2010, 8:57 PM
If a person is on "the list" arrest them and put them on trial. Otherwise don't put them on "the list" or even have "a list".

Arrest them for...what? I was/might still be on the list and have never done anything illegal that would render me a terrorist suspect, aside from having a very common name.

Ford8N
05-05-2010, 9:08 PM
Arrest them for...what? I was/might still be on the list and have never done anything illegal that would render me a terrorist suspect, aside from having a very common name.

That's right......why waste every bodies time if the "list" means NOTHING.

nick
05-05-2010, 9:20 PM
I'd rather let them get on the 747 and allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms onto the airplane (maybe you restrict it to people with valid CCWs but regardless, you want enough people there who can act as a credible deterrent).

That way, the terrorist who is allowed onto the 747 will be shot full of holes if he actually tries anything.


I wish people would begin to understand that the way to solve these problems is generally to increase freedom rather than to decrease it, and that the only time you should be decreasing it is if you really have no other choice.

This.

MP301
05-06-2010, 8:52 PM
I would say that this couldnt happen, but this POS Lautenberg pulled of life-time prohibition a Misdemeanor DV, so anything is possible.

dantodd
05-06-2010, 9:14 PM
I would say that this couldnt happen, but this POS Lautenberg pulled of life-time prohibition a Misdemeanor DV, so anything is possible.

at least with a DV rap you had access to due process, not so with this POS bill.

kcbrown
05-06-2010, 9:43 PM
The lame excuse on the part of the judiciary that justifies the continued existence of the no-fly list is that flying on the airlines isn't protected, and the list is a regulation against the airlines and not against individuals as such. It's a BS argument, but it's the one in use (from what little I understand, at any rate -- I'm very open to corrections, as usual).

The government would have no such argument to fall back onto for this. This bill would be a direct infringement on RKBA. If McDonald goes anywhere close to the way we expect then I see no way for this bill to survive a 2A rights challenge.

But it does serve the purpose of making clear to the voting public who is really against the rights of the people...

anthonyca
05-06-2010, 10:24 PM
at least with a DV rap you had access to due process, not so with this POS bill.

What about people who plead with out being told, or plead before it was law? Also, you do not need to be convicted of dv with due process, a restraining order or just being under indictment will get you lautenberged. It may not always be for life but if at the wrong time it could cost your life.

gunpower500
05-07-2010, 5:01 AM
Really?? I guess this is where i have to disagree... I fly often and I do not want a gun in the plane, to tell you the truth... The plane is small, pack with people, 10,000 feets up the air and i'm in it. The last thing i want is a gun fight on board, put holes in the sidewall of the plane and depresurize it. I hope there're FAMs on my flights, or if not i think the pilot has a small gun. Beside i'd rather nuckle up with the terrorists, no guns for them please.

Not to mention sometime accident happens, i'd hate to be the guy sitting next to some dude when his gun accidently goes off on board. :no: But then again it's probably my frequent flyer nightmare haunting me...




I'd rather let them get on the 747 and allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms onto the airplane (maybe you restrict it to people with valid CCWs but regardless, you want enough people there who can act as a credible deterrent).

That way, the terrorist who is allowed onto the 747 will be shot full of holes if he actually tries anything.


I wish people would begin to understand that the way to solve these problems is generally to increase freedom rather than to decrease it, and that the only time you should be decreasing it is if you really have no other choice.

MP301
05-07-2010, 6:28 AM
at least with a DV rap you had access to due process, not so with this POS bill.

Yes and no. You can get a DV charge very easy...and without ever touching anyone. When the amendment was passed, It was retroactive to anyone that EVER hade a DV Misdemeanor. Not a Felony, but a Misdemeanor.

That means, all those folks that took some deal to make it go away all of a sudden, without any recourse, became prohibited. Surprise!

Many folks will take a deal for probation only, etc. whether guilty or not, because they are afraid of going through court. Not to mention a court trial changes your Attorney fees from a few thousand to tens of thousands.

Do you think that those folks would have so easily signed off on their gun rights for life for a Misdemeanor had they known they were doing it? Would you? Even if you legitimately screwed up and gave the spouse a shove, does that warrant a lifetime prohibition?

The most interesting part is, that if you have a Felony DV and you get it expunged, you can get your gun rights back. But if it is a Misdemeanor and you get it expunged, you still a no go.

This is because states like ours never purge information in your DOJ file. So, even if expunged, when the ATF looks at your file and it is there...expunged or not, it happened and your prohibited. But, since the Lautenberg amendment says specifically Misdemeanor. WTF?

advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 7:13 AM
I have heard (yes the number is a secret) that the Terror Watch List is 440,000 people which is one in every 750 Americans. Just let that ratio sink in: 1 in 750 Americans. Next time you go to a high school football game, a concert, or even the mall--there are many "terorists on the list" there. Common sense tells us that there are probably a lot mistakes in there. The problem is the list is secret--they won't tell you if you are on it or why--even in court you and your attorney can only see redacted evidence as to why you are on it. If you are put on it and then denied something, you 60 days to try and prove you should be taken off once you figure out that list was why you were denied--but since you are not told you are put on, you'll very likely miss that deadline. And the judge cannot order you be taken off--the AG still gets to decide if you are taken off or stay on because the fact that you are on is enough proof you should be kept on. Anyone else reminded of Stalinist Russia here?

Scarecrow Repair
05-07-2010, 8:06 AM
I fly often and I do not want a gun in the plane, to tell you the truth... The plane is small, pack with people, 10,000 feets up the air and i'm in it. The last thing i want is a gun fight on board, put holes in the sidewall of the plane and depresurize it.

Urban legend. I think even mythbusters busted this one. Planes DO NOT fail from even moderately sized holes at altitude. There is always a slight danger of hitting something vital, but there are triple redundant flight controls, I believe, and after the Sioux City DC-10 near-miracle, they are all routed differently.

advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 8:19 AM
Urban legend. I think even mythbusters busted this one. Planes DO NOT fail from even moderately sized holes at altitude. There is always a slight danger of hitting something vital, but there are triple redundant flight controls, I believe, and after the Sioux City DC-10 near-miracle, they are all routed differently.

Air Marshalls will fire on board and they pack a .357 SIG which is ballistically equivalent to a .357 Magnum in a 125 grain bullet--which is the common weight. They aren't worried though I am sure they only fire if the risk is worth taking. Nonetheless, I think that fact should ease your worries.

kcbrown
05-07-2010, 2:12 PM
Really?? I guess this is where i have to disagree... I fly often and I do not want a gun in the plane, to tell you the truth... The plane is small, pack with people, 10,000 feets up the air and i'm in it. The last thing i want is a gun fight on board, put holes in the sidewall of the plane and depresurize it. I hope there're FAMs on my flights, or if not i think the pilot has a small gun. Beside i'd rather nuckle up with the terrorists, no guns for them please.


The last thing anyone wants on board is a gunfight. But I'd rather have that than to let the terrorist have his way with us. And I'd rather have the occasional gunfight than the no-fly list. My freedom is worth the risk. And so is yours.

You and others need to understand this, and quick: liberty has a price, and that price is risk. If you can't deal with that then find another country to live in -- there are plenty of them where they've been more than happy to take away your freedom in order to "protect" you. This one was founded on the principle of liberty for all. It's time we restored it to that.

Sinixstar
05-07-2010, 2:19 PM
This is a bad idea - as long as terrorists are arming themselves through trackable means we have one more way to find them.

If this passes they simply go underground and will arm themselves through the black market.

And in the process of denying them - you've tipped them off that you're watching them.

advocatusdiaboli
05-07-2010, 2:35 PM
And in the process of denying them - you've tipped them off that you're watching them.

And in the process of smoking them out only to lose them, you've denied probably 10x as many legal innocent citizens, with maybe a similar name or close SSN or something else, their fundamental constitutional rights and it will cost them years of time and tens of thousands of dollars to try and get them back--and they might fail ultimately. But meanwhile we've shredded our constitution and brought our country ever closer to a police state. There are, by some counts, 440,000 names on that list as of 2009--1 in 750 Americans. That's an astounding number.

Good guys -1 Bad Guys +1

Wherryj
05-07-2010, 7:04 PM
I want terrorists to fail in their attempts but banning sales of certain items including firearms to people on the terrorist watch list seems to be completely unconstitutional and another step towards some nightmare.

IIRC Ted Kennedy was on the terror watch list as are a number of children and other innocent law abiding people. This looks like that *** **** Lautenberg would be happy if a Department of PreCrime were formed too.

There isn't any chance of this passing is there? I mean it looks completely unconstitutional in so many ways.

I know a specialist who has a five year old son with the same name as someone on the watch list. Everytime they fly they end up being detained for several hours and have to have several supervisors sort it out. I can only imagine how much trouble it would be to correct a case of mistaken identity when it comes to purchasing a firearm. After all, dozens of adults don't see the irony of a 5 year old on a watch list.

Sinixstar
05-07-2010, 7:51 PM
And in the process of smoking them out only to lose them, you've denied probably 10x as many legal innocent citizens, with maybe a similar name or close SSN or something else, their fundamental constitutional rights and it will cost them years of time and tens of thousands of dollars to try and get them back--and they might fail ultimately. But meanwhile we've shredded our constitution and brought our country ever closer to a police state. There are, by some counts, 440,000 names on that list as of 2009--1 in 750 Americans. That's an astounding number.

Good guys -1 Bad Guys +1


I wasn't even going to get into that whole mess - I just assumed that went without saying, and is arguably a 'value add' in the eyes of the idiots introducing the bill.

GaryV
05-08-2010, 12:31 AM
Urban legend. I think even mythbusters busted this one. Planes DO NOT fail from even moderately sized holes at altitude. There is always a slight danger of hitting something vital, but there are triple redundant flight controls, I believe, and after the Sioux City DC-10 near-miracle, they are all routed differently.

That's right. There's no way that thousands of cubic feet of air, under only about a 5psi pressure differential, are going to just rush out one, or even 20, holes less than half an inch in diameter. A gun fight in the tight confines of a crowded airliner would obviously not be a good thing, but it's virtually no danger at all to the overall safety of the aircraft itself.

Midnightblue 72
05-08-2010, 12:40 AM
With the amount of people who are placed on No Fly lists as punishment or in error, why should they NOT be allowed to buy a weapon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJBZZ...eature=related

Fast forward to 1:14 of the video, Rahm Emanuel: "If you are on the no fly list because you are known, as MAYBE a POSSIBLE terrorist, YOU CANNOT BUY A HANDGUN IN AMERICA!" (applause)

If anyone here thinks banning anyone on a "No Fly, No Buy" list is okay, then I say you have no understanding of the constitution. Funny, Emanuel wants this and the late ted Kennedy was placed on a no fly list.

LOL

How ironic.

***Posted in other topic****

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 2:04 PM
Really? are you speaking out of your emotional state regarding feeling that your rights are being taking away or are you speaking out of your common sense here?

Let me tell you some logic, if firearms are allowed to be brought on board then i dont think the terrorists have to bring any bomb on board. All they have to do is bring firearms on board and shoot as many people as they can. That will get their point across, people will be fear to fly and their mission to inflict fear in the mass is complete.

Think of this situation here:
10 terrorists with guns on board who are well organized and trained in combat fighting, possible airplane flying and "press this red button to go see your virgins in heaven" versus the possibility of some law abiding citizens with guns on board who most do not know each others and some are probably sleeping.:sleeping:

About moving to another country, no thank you i'll stay in my great country and flight for what i believe, I'm an American. The no firearms on board is as logical as it is. If you want to carry your gun on board, buy your own airplane.



The last thing anyone wants on board is a gunfight. But I'd rather have that than to let the terrorist have his way with us. And I'd rather have the occasional gunfight than the no-fly list. My freedom is worth the risk. And so is yours.

You and others need to understand this, and quick: liberty has a price, and that price is risk. If you can't deal with that then find another country to live in -- there are plenty of them where they've been more than happy to take away your freedom in order to "protect" you. This one was founded on the principle of liberty for all. It's time we restored it to that.

advocatusdiaboli
05-08-2010, 2:11 PM
Let me tell you some logic, if firearms are allowed to be brought on board then i dont think the terrorists have to bring any bomb on board. All they have to do is bring firearms on board and shoot as many people as they can. That will get their point across, people will be fear to fly and their mission to inflict fear in the mass is complete.

While I agree we should leave the firearms on board to the Air Marshalls, I don't believe terrorists would just start a gunfight on a plane as you suggest and here is why they wouldn't and would choose a mall instead:

1) first there are a finite number of people on a plane--once they shoot them all and they can smuggle very limited rounds which means a dozen or two max. And their movements for defense and reaching targets is restrictive. While a mall offers a chance to bring more ammunition and kill many more and much more movement and cover.

2) There will be no escape from the plane afterwards--so they kill maybe 24 and then die. In a mall or other crowded place, they can kill far more and maybe escape or set off a bomb killing first responders and more--think the film "The Kingdom" before you accuse me of giving ideas--this is common sense and smart terrorist already know this.

My conclusion: I fear malls and other crowded places and commuting trains (bombs not firearms) more than airplanes. The 9-11 terrorists used planes not for the people on them but because they were directable flying bombs to hit high rise buildings with a lot of people in them. The people on the flight were an impediment to their plan not their target. The memo Condie Rice let sit on her desk unread stated this but she ignored it thinking it incredible.

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 2:58 PM
Regarding the watch list, I dont think i'm on it because I dont have to go through extra scrutiny everytime i fly. I did in many cases being search more than usual if i see my boarding pass being marked with "SSSS". I asked the TSA guys why i'm being picked and this guy told me it could be because i might pay cash, bought 1 way ticket or have no check baggage. (which turn out to be true, I bought my 1 way ticket to LA with no baggage to pick up my bike). I think people on the list should never lose their rights because of some list somebody make up and decide not to share the info. As many people pointed out, so many mistake can be make about a person and nothing you can do to clear your name.

kcbrown
05-08-2010, 3:05 PM
Really? are you speaking out of your emotional state regarding feeling that your rights are being taking away or are you speaking out of your common sense here?


A bit of both.


Think of this situation here:
10 terrorists with guns on board who are well organized and trained in combat fighting, possible airplane flying and "press this red button to go see your virgins in heaven" versus the possibility of some law abiding citizens with guns on board who most do not know each others and some are probably sleeping.:sleeping:
If you have 10 terrorists who are well organized and trained in combat fighting, I'd say the flight's in big trouble regardless. You can assume they'll be armed with something, because lots of things can be used as deadly weapons. Under those circumstances, you'd need more than one armed air marshal as defense.

And even if you manage to defend against that case, what happens when the number of terrorists on board increases to 20? 30? 40?

The airliners need only a bulletproof, locked bulkhead between the passenger compartment and the cockpit to prevent the terrorists from being able to take control of the airplane, regardless of whether or not they have guns.


And you assume a vanishingly small proportion of armed civilians on the aircraft. That would be the case now because we're a gun-averse society. We're working on that.



About moving to another country, no thank you i'll stay in my great country and flight for what i believe, I'm an American.
Well, given your previous statements, what exactly do you believe in? You obviously believe in banning guns on airplanes. Why not extend that to any place that has a lot of people in a relatively confined space? Like, say, trains, buses, college classrooms, etc.? Your reasoning would apply just as much there as it would in airplanes.

And I can't tell, but you might even agree with the no-fly list. If you do agree with it (an arbitrary list that prevents people from traveling via air without due process), then exactly what kind of "American" are you? (ETA: our most recent posts crossed paths. It sounds like you don't agree with the list, so this only applies to people who do agree with it).



The no firearms on board is as logical as it is. If you want to carry your gun on board, buy your own airplane.I already have.

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 3:09 PM
Well I've seen "The kingdom". Its a good movie btw. But reason why Terrorists choose Airplanes to attack instead is because of its media coverage and the respond from people. I feel as hopeless as I come when i'm in the plane. My life is pretty much in the hand of the pilot.

Shootings on the ground and people can run, hide or escape. Shootings on the plane, well, you better grow some wings fast.

Like i previously state, these terrorist wont be afraid to "push the red button to go see your virgins in heaven". Taking as many people with them as possible and make sure the rest will be in fear of fly is a fair trade.

I dont understand when you say they can sneak in 24 rounds, why is that?



While I agree we should leave the firearms on board to the Air Marshalls, I don't believe terrorists would just start a gunfight on a plane as you suggest and here is why they wouldn't and would choose a mall instead:

1) first there are a finite number of people on a plane--once they shoot them all and they can smuggle very limited rounds which means a dozen or two max. And their movements for defense and reaching targets is restrictive. While a mall offers a chance to bring more ammunition and kill many more and much more movement and cover.

2) There will be no escape from the plane afterwards--so they kill maybe 24 and then die. In a mall or other crowded place, they can kill far more and maybe escape or set off a bomb killing first responders and more--think the film "The Kingdom" before you accuse me of giving ideas--this is common sense and smart terrorist already know this.

My conclusion: I fear malls and other crowded places and commuting trains (bombs not firearms) more than airplanes. The 9-11 terrorists used planes not for the people on them but because they were directable flying bombs to hit high rise buildings with a lot of people in them. The people on the flight were an impediment to their plan not their target. The memo Condie Rice let sit on her desk unread stated this but she ignored it thinking it incredible.

advocatusdiaboli
05-08-2010, 3:21 PM
Well I've seen "The kingdom". Its a good movie btw. But reason why Terrorists choose Airplanes to attack instead is because of its media coverage and the respond from people. I feel as hopeless as I come when i'm in the plane. My life is pretty much in the hand of the pilot.
Shootings on the ground and people can run, hide or escape. Shootings on the plane, well, you better grow some wings fast.

Well, then why have most terror attacks been on the ground? IED, car bombs--far more effective, easier to plan and execute, and the attackers get away to do it again. Airplanes have none of those attributes. And I don't buy the virgins myth as their motivation--most of those recruited have lost family to some government and have an eye-for-an-eye ax to grind. You telling me the Arab and Chechen women, currently the majority of the suicide bombers (which an airplane is because there is no escape), are doing this for virgins? Please. You need to learn more about the people doing this, you are repeating the common myths made in ignorance and not what the people tasked with finding and stopping these people say and know. They don't hate our way of life although they don't want it either--they want us to stop interfering in the Middle East and isolate ourselves so they get to do what they want--Sharia law, theocracies, refuse to sell the West vital oil, etc.--which we cannot and will not do because we need to secure the strategic oil .

I dont understand when you say they can sneak in 24 rounds, why is that?

Just a round number--its damn hard to get a significant number metal bullets in significant quantities through TSA screening--even if they get some, it won't be many. That's why the 9-11 hijackers used box cutters not firearms and why the real target was the buildings--the plane passengers were just a bonus.

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 3:24 PM
A bit of both.

If you have 10 terrorists who are well organized and trained in combat fighting, I'd say the flight's in big trouble regardless. You can assume they'll be armed with something, because lots of things can be used as deadly weapons. Under those circumstances, you'd need more than one armed air marshal as defense.

And even if you manage to defend against that case, what happens when the number of terrorists on board increases to 20? 30? 40?



Well I'm willing to nuckle up with the terrorists if they are not arm with guns. I'm sure many more would join me as after 9/11 mentality. If we are 20~40 terrorists on board, our intelligent is really ****ed up. It's a lost.

Regarding my belief, yes i believe airplane is not a place for guns, just as any federal buildings. I'm okay leaving my gun outside my car or in my checked baggages when i enter these places. The same arguement cannot be use for other places though because they are not federal grounds with high terrorist risk.

Well if you own your own plane, congratulation, but a small few number of us calgunners have not save enough money to buy our own plane yet. hell i dont even know how to fly.

kcbrown
05-08-2010, 5:07 PM
Well I'm willing to nuckle up with the terrorists if they are not arm with guns.


Let me get this straight: you're willing to go hand to hand with a combat-trained terrorist but you're not willing to go gun to gun with the very same combat-trained terrorist?

What's the real difference there? The "average" (unarmed) person you seem to be so concerned about has about the same chance in either situation: little to none.

I strongly suspect that being "combat trained" makes a much bigger difference in hand to hand combat than it does gun to gun. The amount of skill, coordination, etc., required to prevail in hand to hand combat is much greater than that required to shoot straight.



I'm sure many more would join me as after 9/11 mentality. If we are 20~40 terrorists on board, our intelligent is really ****ed up. It's a lost.
Don't you think that very same mentality would be present whether or not the population on the plane is allowed to be armed?

For your scenario to work, the terrorists have to significantly outnumber the armed civilian sheepdogs plus however many air marshalls are on board.

20 terrorists is only twice as many as 10. If it takes a real intelligence screwup to allow 20 terrorists on board, I hardly see how allowing 10 wouldn't be.

Regardless, you do not remove someone's rights without due process. To insist otherwise is to spit on the Constitution and the principles the country was founded upon. So if you're going to forbid someone from flying, then it should only be as a direct result of jailing them for committing a crime after trying them in a court of law.

Terrorists are nothing more than members of another form of organized crime. They should be treated as such.



Regarding my belief, yes i believe airplane is not a place for guns, just as any federal buildings.
Why should federal buildings be so special? Because government workers are somehow more "special" than the rest of us?

The only legitimate argument you can really make against firearms in an airplane is a public safety argument. Not the safety of the passengers, but the safety of the people on the ground. And that argument is dealt with nicely by putting bulletproof bulkheads and doors between the passenger compartment and the cockpit in all the airliners.

That is far preferable to stripping everyone of their right to keep and bear arms.

There is no legitimate argument you can make whatsoever for disarming the general population in federal buildings, with the possible exception of the courts.



I'm okay leaving my gun outside my car or in my checked baggages when i enter these places. The same arguement cannot be use for other places though because they are not federal grounds with high terrorist risk.
High terrorist risk is found wherever the terrorists decide to strike next. Their targets are not set in stone, nor is their method of attack. There may be some common characteristics between all the targets but "federal building" is almost certainly not one of them. The WTC buildings weren't federal but the terrorists attacked them all the same.

The best defense against terrorists is an armed population.

Why do you and so many others always seem to insist on resorting to restrictions on freedom instead of increases in freedom when faced with some problem like terrorism? Think outside the box!


"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart, 1791.



Well if you own your own plane, congratulation, but a small few number of us calgunners have not save enough money to buy our own plane yet. hell i dont even know how to fly.I know. Flying personal aircraft is far too expensive, and I think you can thank overbearing regulation on the part of the FAA for that (for instance, manufacturers have to get their manufacturing facilities recertified if they want to make any significant changes to their production methods). That's a discussion for a different forum, alas.

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 5:08 PM
I think the reason why there has not been alot of attacks on the aviation industry compare to ground transportation is because of airport security and federal agency guarding airport, overlook flights and all that good stuff. them guys are there for a reason now, aint they.

yes it is easier and safer to have IED on the ground and bomb building, but the terrorists wont get as much media coverage and as much fear out of people as a attack on airplanes. Terrorists want the most bang for their bucks, to them a successed hit on the aviation industry is alot bigger than a successed hit of a carbomb.

the virgin thing was a joke implying those who has the willingness to blow themselve up for their belief, not directly telling you that's what they believe when they blow themselve up.


Well, then why have most terror attacks been on the ground? IED, car bombs--far more effective, easier to plan and execute, and the attackers get away to do it again. Airplanes have none of those attributes. And I don't buy the virgins myth as their motivation--most of those recruited have lost family to some government and have an eye-for-an-eye ax to grind. You telling me the Arab and Chechen women, currently the majority of the suicide bombers (which an airplane is because there is no escape), are doing this for virgins? Please. You need to learn more about the people doing this, you are repeating the common myths made in ignorance and not what the people tasked with finding and stopping these people say and know. They don't hate our way of life although they don't want it either--they want us to stop interfering in the Middle East and isolate ourselves so they get to do what they want--Sharia law, theocracies, refuse to sell the West vital oil, etc.--which we cannot and will not do because we need to secure the strategic oil .



Just a round number--its damn hard to get a significant number metal bullets in significant quantities through TSA screening--even if they get some, it won't be many. That's why the 9-11 hijackers used box cutters not firearms and why the real target was the buildings--the plane passengers were just a bonus.

kcbrown
05-08-2010, 5:29 PM
I think the reason why there has not been alot of attacks on the aviation industry compare to ground transportation is because of airport security and federal agency guarding airport, overlook flights and all that good stuff. them guys are there for a reason now, aint they.


Then how do you explain that the rate of aviation hijackings in the U.S. has been roughly constant over time (with the exception of a slew of hijackings by common criminals in the early 1970s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings) despite the fact that airport security back then was much less strict (essentially nonexistent)?

You'd have to somehow argue that there are a lot more people who are motivated to hijack U.S. airplanes today than there were back then. If that's the case then I say address the root cause of the problem. The security theater in U.S. airports today is a bandaid (and a poor one at that), not a cure.

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 5:32 PM
i dont think we are on the same page regarding this matter KCBROWN. i'm not insisting on taking away any freedom here, I'm saying guns should not be on board for passengers. I'm sure alot of people are agreeing with my point of view.
Regarding federal buildings and such, I feel that they are more apealing of being a target as of any building that has a significant importantness in our society. the government workers safety are as important as yours and mine.

In your scenario that if we are allowed to carry guns on board:
I'm not affraid to go hand in hand with any terrorists, and i'm sure alot of other guys will agree. But if the bad guys has guns and i happen to be a person who doesnt carry guns on the airplane, i'll be more than hesitate to rush them. Not to mention all the stress my mind will go through when and if (god forbid this will ever happen) my flight get hijacked. I'd rather them be armed with boxcutter, knifes and rush them with other people. 1 gunshot would make alot of people ***** themselve in that case.

Cos
05-08-2010, 5:33 PM
I'm fine telling suspected terrorists they can't get on a 747. But when we start taking away rights protected by the constitution to people who have not been convicted or even charged with a crime, we have gone too far.

You have gone _too far_ when you start tossing people around on a mere suspicion of any sort. "Excuse me, sir, but I can't let you into the cinema because you look awfully suspicious to me" and so on.

'Innocent until proven otherwise' doesn't ring a bell?

gunpower500
05-08-2010, 5:36 PM
I looked at the list, in the early 70s there was alot of hijack for US flights but in the 2000s the only 1 we have is sept 11. I'd say we're doing a good job.

Edit: oh and the reason for the motivation is because we are in knee-deep in the middle east. I dont think those guys like us being there very much.


Then how do you explain that the rate of aviation hijackings in the U.S. has been roughly constant over time (with the exception of a slew of hijackings by common criminals in the early 1970s. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_hijackings) despite the fact that airport security back then was much less strict (essentially nonexistent)?

You'd have to somehow argue that there are a lot more people who are motivated to hijack U.S. airplanes today than there were back then. If that's the case then I say address the root cause of the problem. The security theater in U.S. airports today is a bandaid (and a poor one at that), not a cure.

Cos
05-08-2010, 5:38 PM
I hope there're FAMs on my flights, or if not i think the pilot has a small gun. Beside i'd rather nuckle up with the terrorists, no guns for them please.

Someone did a calculation recently and the math was like this: FAMs have apprehended like 4 people over 2009. All of them were either drunk or violent for some reason. Yes, all 3,000 FAMs in US have gotten 4 drunks! Which cost about $200,000,000 (yes $200 mils, dude) per arrest of each of these dangerous criminals. Wow! Fantastic efficiency of wasting you money if you ask me.

kcbrown
05-08-2010, 5:47 PM
I looked at the list, in the early 70s there was alot of hijack for US flights but in the 2000s the only 1 we have is sept 11. I'd say we're doing a good job.

But in the 90s there was only 1 (and that was by a disgruntled employee, not a terrorist), and in the 80s there were none.

So we're not doing any better a job now than we did back then. And yet, we put up a whole bunch of additional restrictions in order to accomplish the same thing that we achieved without those restrictions before.

That's what's known as "security theater". It's security for the sake of appearances.

In other words, we gave up a whole bunch of our rights for ... nothing.

I'd say we're not doing a good job.


Why do you and others insist on "solving" the problem by shackling everyone instead of freeing them? Isn't the purpose of the U.S., its entire reason for existing, to promote freedom?

We're going in the wrong direction!

kcbrown
05-08-2010, 6:01 PM
i dont think we are on the same page regarding this matter KCBROWN. i'm not insisting on taking away any freedom here, I'm saying guns should not be on board for passengers.


And how is that not taking away any freedom? The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. What makes an airplane so special a place that the entire right should be thrown away while one is on board one? I say it's not so special as all that, and have given ways to solve the specific problems we've been talking about that do not require stripping people of that right.


I'm sure alot of people are agreeing with my point of view.
I'm sure a lot of people are. But then, a lot of people agree that the entire population (except for police) should be disarmed in its entirety, as well.

Argument by appeal to popularity is a common logical fallacy. Either your argument stands on its own merits or it doesn't. I haven't seen anything in yours that is logically compelling, and certainly nothing that is sufficiently compelling to warrant wholesale removal of the individual's right to keep and bear arms while in certain places!



Regarding federal buildings and such, I feel that they are more apealing of being a target as of any building that has a significant importantness in our society. the government workers safety are as important as yours and mine.
You feel that they are more appealing.

But do you know that they are more appealing? Do you know how much more appealing they are? Have you got numbers backing your position? Intelligence supporting your viewpoint?

If not, then on what basis are you building your argument? Basing it on emotion isn't enough. The anti-gunners do that all the time, as you well know.



In your scenario that if we are allowed to carry guns on board:
I'm not affraid to go hand in hand with any terrorists, and i'm sure alot of other guys will agree.
And the women?

A woman with a gun is just as deadly as a man with a gun. A woman unarmed isn't (in general ... sorry, ladies) nearly as much of a threat as an unarmed man.

By disarming the population, you significantly cut their effective battle strength.



But if the bad guys has guns and i happen to be a person who doesnt carry guns on the airplane, i'll be more than hesitate to rush them.
Your choice to be unarmed is your own. It is not your right to make that choice for others.

If you wish to deal with the additional risks that come with being unarmed, that's your call to make. It is completely wrong for you to insist that everyone else be unarmed just so you can be.

GrizzlyGuy
05-08-2010, 6:20 PM
Why do you and others insist on "solving" the problem by shackling everyone instead of freeing them? Isn't the purpose of the U.S., its entire reason for existing, to promote freedom?

We're going in the wrong direction!

Yup, and I think I'd put "problem" in quotes too. Here is the summary of an interesting article (http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/66186/john-mueller-and-mark-g-stewart/hardly-existential):

Many people hold that terrorism poses an existential threat to the United States. But a look at the actual statistics suggests that it presents an acceptable risk -- one so low that spending to further reduce its likelihood or consequences is scarcely justified.

From that article, a table summarizing the risk of terrorism vs. other risks:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/files/images//Mueller.jpg

Americans are 3.7x more likely to drown in the bathtub than to die as a result of a terrorist attack. We're 437x more likely to die in a traffic accident. Yet people constantly wring their hands and worry about evil terrorists being around every corner, while the politicians keep overreacting and taking away our cherished liberties in response to this "grave" threat.

Criminey, why don't the politicians leave us alone and go worry about something more pressing, like regulating bubble bath or whatever it is that leads to all those bathtub drownings. :rolleyes:

POLICESTATE
05-08-2010, 6:23 PM
All this fear over terrorism only makes them win. Until they start blowing up themselves up in shopping malls and supermarkets every week we don't really have much to worry about.

advocatusdiaboli
05-08-2010, 6:34 PM
Criminey, why don't the politicians leave us alone and go worry about something more pressing, like regulating bubble bath or whatever it is that leads to all those bathtub drownings.

Excellent posts--this and before on this topic. This is one of the problems we face in a complex modern world: humans are not very good at assessing long odds and comparing them because emotions take over and often lead to irrational decisions and prioritization. HTe problem in a democracy is that once the masses show they are under emotional sway, unscrupulous politicians can leverage it for their own ends--one of which is to restrict rights and gain more power. Hence the Patriot Act, the bank bailouts, the pointless invasion of Iraq, gun control, the terror watch list and 2A rights, and more. Watch for them as they unfold and don't fall for them. Terrorism is indeed a problem and should be militated against, but so are gangs and drug cartels, illegal immigration, oil drilling without safety procedures (it won't kill anyone directly but the economic devastation could be huge), etc.

gunpower500
05-09-2010, 4:17 AM
It appears that some of us may have been confuse between the NO-FLY list with the TSA Watch list.
The no-fly list means just that, the person who name is on it can not fly. Most of the list contain names of known terrorists and sometime people with the same names get mistake as a person on the no-fly list. It's a crime to be a terrorist.
The watch list, well it watches people. It's as bull **** as it sound. If someone seem to think you are involve with the terrorists, they probably will try to report you and you probably will be under some sort of serveillance.

gunpower500
05-09-2010, 4:52 AM
I agree the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. However an airplane is a special place and i'm for not having regular folks carrying onboard. Given it's tight cabin in nature, the enclosed enviroment and the fact that it moves 10000 feets from the ground, there is not much you can do in case of a mistake.
If someone's gun accidently goes off and hit somebody else, the medical attention will be alot later than with ground transportation, sometime it may take an hour to just re-route, land, and emergency crew on the scene. That might cost an inocent life.
Training will be in consideration if one is allow to carry on board. I'm sure Air Marshals go through a very different training regarding onboard gun fights, target locating and getting use to being on the airplane and shooting.

About alot of people agree that the entire population minus the police should be disarmed, i think you are talking about CA and a few of the retard places. The rest of the country support and respect 2A rights. The rest of the country also agree with no guns on flight.

Special buildings do apeal more of a target than others, I dont think i need a backup source for this. All the terrorists hit we got have always been on buildings or place that are somehow special. I mean c'mon, when was the last time a terrorist try to blow up a corner store? no bomb ever set off or try to at Hunterpoint, SF. When are we gonna see a terrorist attack on east Oakland?:confused:

I'm for a well armed society because that would be my dream come true, but there are certain places guns shoul be off limit to. On that note schools should not be one of them. Students should be allowed to carry.

And how is that not taking away any freedom? The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. What makes an airplane so special a place that the entire right should be thrown away while one is on board one? I say it's not so special as all that, and have given ways to solve the specific problems we've been talking about that do not require stripping people of that right.

I'm sure a lot of people are. But then, a lot of people agree that the entire population (except for police) should be disarmed in its entirety, as well.

Argument by appeal to popularity is a common logical fallacy. Either your argument stands on its own merits or it doesn't. I haven't seen anything in yours that is logically compelling, and certainly nothing that is sufficiently compelling to warrant wholesale removal of the individual's right to keep and bear arms while in certain places!


You feel that they are more appealing.

But do you know that they are more appealing? Do you know how much more appealing they are? Have you got numbers backing your position? Intelligence supporting your viewpoint?

If not, then on what basis are you building your argument? Basing it on emotion isn't enough. The anti-gunners do that all the time, as you well know.


And the women?

A woman with a gun is just as deadly as a man with a gun. A woman unarmed isn't (in general ... sorry, ladies) nearly as much of a threat as an unarmed man.

By disarming the population, you significantly cut their effective battle strength.


Your choice to be unarmed is your own. It is not your right to make that choice for others.

If you wish to deal with the additional risks that come with being unarmed, that's your call to make. It is completely wrong for you to insist that everyone else be unarmed just so you can be.

GaryV
05-09-2010, 9:00 AM
If someone's gun accidently goes off and hit somebody else, the medical attention will be alot later than with ground transportation, sometime it may take an hour to just re-route, land, and emergency crew on the scene. That might cost an inocent life.
Training will be in consideration if one is allow to carry on board. I'm sure Air Marshals go through a very different training regarding onboard gun fights, target locating and getting use to being on the airplane and shooting.

What is the chance of that? When was the last time you ever heard of someone carrying a concealed weapon having it accidentally go off, except when they were drawing or holstering (or otherwise handling the weapon, as opposed to just carrying it)? If we have a simple rule - guns must stay encased/holstered (unless needed for defense) - there is virtually zero chance of this.

As for training, the same principles apply as always - be sure of your target and be aware of what's behind it. If you train at all, hopefully you train in that.

kcbrown
05-09-2010, 1:33 PM
It appears that some of us may have been confuse between the NO-FLY list with the TSA Watch list.
The no-fly list means just that, the person who name is on it can not fly. Most of the list contain names of known terrorists and sometime people with the same names get mistake as a person on the no-fly list. It's a crime to be a terrorist.


If it is a crime to be a terrorist, then it follows that someone who is on the no-fly list should be arrested and tried for the crime. But that's not what the no-fly list does: it simply prevents people from being able to fly.

Hence, the no-fly list is as much a bullsh*t list as the watch list.

kcbrown
05-09-2010, 1:53 PM
I agree the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. However an airplane is a special place and i'm for not having regular folks carrying onboard. Given it's tight cabin in nature, the enclosed enviroment and the fact that it moves 10000 feets from the ground, there is not much you can do in case of a mistake.

If someone's gun accidently goes off and hit somebody else, the medical attention will be alot later than with ground transportation, sometime it may take an hour to just re-route, land, and emergency crew on the scene. That might cost an inocent life.

Removal of everyone's fundamental right to keep and bear arms cannot be justified on the mere chance that something might go wrong, or on the mere chance that in the event of a mistake, a single individual has a greater chance of dying than they would on the ground.

The arguments you're using in support of removal of RKBA on airplanes are essentially identical to those used by anti-gunners in other situations.

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do better than that to convince me that such a fundamental right needs to be stripped when one is on board an airplane.



About alot of people agree that the entire population minus the police should be disarmed, i think you are talking about CA and a few of the retard places. The rest of the country support and respect 2A rights. The rest of the country also agree with no guns on flight.
Again, that doesn't matter. It's still argument by appeal to popularity, and that's a logical fallacy.

Would you use the same fallacy in support of restrictions on speech? If the majority of people believe that, say, flag burning, should be banned, would you support such a ban even though it's a blatant infringement on the right to free speech?

I wouldn't. An infringement is an infringement, and it doesn't matter how many people are in favor of it!

The more fundamental the right, the stronger the argument against the right must be for the infringement to be justifiable. RKBA is very nearly as fundamental as it gets, because it derives in part from your right to self defense, which derives from your right to life.



Special buildings do apeal more of a target than others, I dont think i need a backup source for this. All the terrorists hit we got have always been on buildings or place that are somehow special. I mean c'mon, when was the last time a terrorist try to blow up a corner store?
Probably more recently than you think. Israel gets such attacks relatively frequently, no? (there was one in 2003, for instance)


I'm for a well armed society because that would be my dream come true, but there are certain places guns shoul be off limit to. On that note schools should not be one of them. Students should be allowed to carry.What makes a school any different than a federal building? If there's any place a terrorist would get lots of press, it would be a school, no? So by your previous logic, people at schools should be disarmed, right?

My point is that you're being inconsistent in applying your arguments. Additionally, the arguments you're using need more substance than they currently have in order to be sufficiently compelling to justify infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

kcbrown
05-09-2010, 4:10 PM
I agree the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. However an airplane is a special place and i'm for not having regular folks carrying onboard.


You agree that it's a fundamental right. Good. We can work with that.

If you agree that it's a fundamental right, then you must agree with the implications of that, namely that infringements of that right should be subject to a very high standard of scrutiny by the courts. Like, say, strict scrutiny.

Now, that means that with respect to infringing the right to keep and bear arms on an airplane, the government:


must have a compelling interest in the reason behind the infringement (safety of the flight, so it does),
must be able to provide compelling evidence that the infringement in question achieves the goal behind the infringement (neither you nor the government have done that yet), and
must tailor the infringement so that it is as small as possible in order to achieve the goal.


Banning firearms on the airplane fails to meet the last two requirements of strict scrutiny. It badly fails the last requirement. The need to maintain safety on board the airplane in the face of people carrying firearms could easily be achieved by requiring that anyone who wishes to carry a firearm on board the airplane take a class on the unique situational characteristics of the airplane environment.

But even that wouldn't meet the evidence requirements of strict scrutiny.

Note that the government cannot infringe on the right even by proxy. That means they cannot compel or influence private parties to cause infringement of the right. Airplanes are privately owned by the airlines, so as such the airlines have the right to ban firearms on their airplanes, but that must be their own independent choice.


So...do you really believe the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental in the face of the above? (I most certainly do, obviously).

gunpower500
05-10-2010, 1:58 AM
when talking about corner stores, i was preferring to US soils.

Israel itself is a target, the country knows it. Its neighbors are consider hostile. That's why they are always on high security alert, have you ever been to their airports? You get screen 3 times, 1 while you drive into the airport, another time before the check-in counter and 1 more at the gates. Our TSA guys are shtt compare to their security guards, they are armed and work side by side with military guards carry assault rifles. They mean business. Every citizen is required to serve 2 years in the military, they get issued full auto assault weapons to take home. You often see them sling their rifles over their backs on the street.

http://i481.photobucket.com/albums/rr175/gunpower500/girls-carrying-guns-israel-jew-01.jpg

Schools are way different than federal buildings. Schools doesnt have any sort of check point/ security entrances and a ready to go protective force. Anybody can enter and leave, anybody can practically carry anything in, legal or not. People in school should not be disarm, matter of fact, they should be allow to arm themselve in case things go wrong, again. Please stop thinking that all places are the same, they are not.




Probably more recently than you think. Israel gets such attacks relatively frequently, no? (there was one in 2003, for instance)

What makes a school any different than a federal building? If there's any place a terrorist would get lots of press, it would be a school, no? So by your previous logic, people at schools should be disarmed, right?

My point is that you're being inconsistent in applying your arguments. Additionally, the arguments you're using need more substance than they currently have in order to be sufficiently compelling to justify infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

gunpower500
05-10-2010, 2:06 AM
Okay, this seem like a logical explanation. i think i can agree that with proper trainings and background/ security clearance, one has the right to carry on board.

If you are willing to jump through the hoops, get proper training on how to effectively use your firearm on aircraft, get proper clearance and background investigation to prove you have no tie to terrorists, then you are more than welcome to go on the plane armed and i will be glad to sit next to you. Hell, you are practically a non-paid private air marshal. this might sound like a excellent idea but i'm affraid it might not fly anytime soon.


You agree that it's a fundamental right. Good. We can work with that.

If you agree that it's a fundamental right, then you must agree with the implications of that, namely that infringements of that right should be subject to a very high standard of scrutiny by the courts. Like, say, strict scrutiny.

Now, that means that with respect to infringing the right to keep and bear arms on an airplane, the government:


must have a compelling interest in the reason behind the infringement (safety of the flight, so it does),
must be able to provide compelling evidence that the infringement in question achieves the goal behind the infringement (neither you nor the government have done that yet), and
must tailor the infringement so that it is as small as possible in order to achieve the goal.


Banning firearms on the airplane fails to meet the last two requirements of strict scrutiny. It badly fails the last requirement. The need to maintain safety on board the airplane in the face of people carrying firearms could easily be achieved by requiring that anyone who wishes to carry a firearm on board the airplane take a class on the unique situational characteristics of the airplane environment.

But even that wouldn't meet the evidence requirements of strict scrutiny.

Note that the government cannot infringe on the right even by proxy. That means they cannot compel or influence private parties to cause infringement of the right. Airplanes are privately owned by the airlines, so as such the airlines have the right to ban firearms on their airplanes, but that must be their own independent choice.


So...do you really believe the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental in the face of the above? (I most certainly do, obviously).

gunpower500
05-10-2010, 2:21 AM
In theory, guns will never accidentally go off if they are handle properly. In practice is a whole different story, guns accidently went off some the time, people unholster their firearm for reasons other than self-defense. Accidents just happen... The last incident i remember was some guy in walmart, while paying at the counter the gun went off, 1 round hit the ceiling but nobody got hurt, i cant remember exactly when right now.
There are rules regarding firearms handling already in place, some rules are more than bullshtt.

The training principle you are stating is like something i see in a palmlet when i buy a new gun. We should alway be sure of our target and know what behind it. The basic point of shooting a gun is to hit your target and notthing else. However training for different situations are very different. You dont use the same training for self-defense to do breach and enter.




What is the chance of that? When was the last time you ever heard of someone carrying a concealed weapon having it accidentally go off, except when they were drawing or holstering (or otherwise handling the weapon, as opposed to just carrying it)? If we have a simple rule - guns must stay encased/holstered (unless needed for defense) - there is virtually zero chance of this.

As for training, the same principles apply as always - be sure of your target and be aware of what's behind it. If you train at all, hopefully you train in that.

kcbrown
05-10-2010, 3:49 PM
Okay, this seem like a logical explanation. i think i can agree that with proper trainings and background/ security clearance, one has the right to carry on board.

If you are willing to jump through the hoops, get proper training on how to effectively use your firearm on aircraft, get proper clearance and background investigation to prove you have no tie to terrorists, then you are more than welcome to go on the plane armed and i will be glad to sit next to you. Hell, you are practically a non-paid private air marshal. this might sound like a excellent idea but i'm affraid it might not fly anytime soon.

Note that for the above to pass strict scrutiny, the government must provide substantial evidence showing that even those requirements are necessary to achieve the goal they have a substantial interest in. In other words, they'd have to prove that the training and background check requirements actually yield the public safety improvements they seek.

Strict scrutiny is a relatively high hurdle to jump when the courts actually take it seriously.


And note, too, that the "special" aspects of the aircraft environment do not apply to federal buildings, so removal of RKBA within a federal building really is an unjustifiable infringement and therefore Unconstitutional. The willingness of the government to forcibly strip everyone of their weapons prior to entry into a federal building does not bootstrap the infringement into something Constitutional (apologies to Alan Gura, whose words I have surely badly mangled here :) ).

Courts may be a special case, and one can probably successfully argue that the nature of the targets within (witnesses, jury members, etc.) is such that the state has a very special interest in keeping them safe, and that removal of RKBA within the court building is the only way to achieve the desired safety levels for those specific people (which is to say: an armed person would be able to take out a specific target more quickly than anyone could respond, so the only recourse is to disarm that person, and since it's impossible to know which person might make the attempt, the only recourse is to disarm everyone).