I propose a Federal program, which once completed, would allow current state level concealed weapons licensees to carry said weapons on board commercial flights.
The course would be expensive. Perhaps $850. And it would be extensive. Perhaps 1200 rounds over 4 days. It would also be put together by people qualified to teach such material, and would include extensive legal instruction as well as AFHS level marksmanship requirements.
Discuss.
Nobody is impressed by what you can't do. -THJ
One the one hand, I'm not so sure.
With the level of very careless gun-handling I see, even by people that *should* know better, I'm kinda thinking that I'd rather not be flying an airplane with a fuselage-full of passengers of unknown origins packing heat. Adding holes to the airframe in mid-air isn't something I'd like to experience....
On the other hand... rather than a federal permit system, how about letting the individual airlines make up their own company policies on the matter? Don't like the way one airline treats the issue? Find another airline...
Because there isn't an airline in existence that would allow this unless it was mandated by the government?Originally Posted by Dan_S
I think you might be surprised...
If the Gov't took away the various restrictions pertaining to the carrying of a weapon on commercial aircraft and left the decision up to various companies, you'd see airlines that would allow concealed handguns on flights.
I still think that any aircraft, much less pressurized aircraft, and your average CCW permit holder don't mix well.
I'm against it.
FAM's, Federal LE, certain military authorized to carry on board flights, and other entities charged with airplane lethal force issues spend much more time than a week, and 1200 rounds before they are turned loose on a plane with a gun.
I firmly believe there should be more FAM's, and that all FBI, DEA, ATF, etc. that are field/enforcement officers should be trained specifically for lethal force aboard any conveyance they are authorized to carry on. But not at the expense of quality of the training, and upholding high standards. The FAM qual course was among the most demanding anywhere. It has also sent people looking for new jobs. But (and there are those closer to the program with more detailed info than I) there was a time when the standard dropped, in order to put more FAM's in the air.
Even if a non-FAM/non-FED LE person "passed" the qual course with their handgun doesn't mean they are prepared to deal with a lethal force encounter at 37,000 feet. There is a lengthy process for Federal LE hiring, for a reason. The selection process & basic training courses are lengthy, extensive, and detailed. There are numerous decision making exercises, as well as force on force scenarios combined with feedback from seasoned trainers with years of experience in their field.
I believe the process the FAM's (and other FED LE) go through gets one as prepared as one can be without any prior experience. Continued training, evaluations, qualifications, and experience on the job helps keep them prepared.
I don't see a way that is affordable or feasible for "John Q Citizen" to be screened, interviewed selected, trained, evaluated, certified, and have sustainment training, qualification, and evaluation to carry aboard commercial aircraft. I don't see it as a right, but rather an enormous responsibility.
Not to mention the drastic problems that the .gov would have getting sued by the 99% of folks who want the Flying Permit but couldn't qualify for one.
I'm also against it for similar reasons as stated above. In addition to having the skill to prevail in a lethal force encounter with a firearm, having the mindset to not !FIGHT! is equally if not more crucial. I just don't trust to any jackass who can pony up a fee and pass a Rorschach blotter exam.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I don't think the concern is that a lucky 124gr HST is going to bring down a 70 ton airliner, although the uninformed seem worried about this possibility.
Discharging firearms in a crowded metal tube without hitting bystanders is problematic. In fairness, however, I can't seem to find many instances of it happening in the 1960s, back before they installed metal detectors at airports. The easy and flippant comment is that "blood would flow in the aisles the same way it currently flows in the streets whenever Shall Issue comes to a new locale. Instead of gunfights over parking spaces like we have in CCW states, maybe we'll have them over a place in line for the head at FL320..."
Anyhow, this is all above my pay grade and doesn't fret me much anyway: As long as the airlines and FAA keep up their security kabuki and insulting probulation in order to make morons feel safe, I'll continue only flying if someone else is buying the ticket. I won't spend my own money to get groped by a mall cop reject.
The FFDO training program is 40 hours.
Though honestly I don't see the point of debating it, the TSA HATES the FFDO program. They were only dragged into it kicking and screaming, and it was one of the first causalities of the sequester (last I heard there is no money being spent to allow them to qualify). If it took practically a fist fight in the parking lot to allow pilots to carry on an airplane, it would take a thermonuclear weapon to allow anyone non-LE to carry on an airplane.
Don't get me wrong, it's not a round penetrating the hull or a window and the possible accompanying loss of cabin pressure. It's unlikely to be catastrophic. The lack of cover and no means to retreat/escape for me and mine is my primary concern.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Reply With Quote