Replies

The legal complexities are far more intricate than most people realize. Every state has a different patchwork of gun control laws, which the feds cannot preempt for non-federal employees. The pilot would, practically, have to get a non-resident permit for every state - and many states make it very hard or impossible to get non-resident permits. The obtuseness and obfuscation of laws of each state, multiplied by the number of states the pilot operates in, make it practically impossible for pilots to not commit misdemeanors & felonies on an almost daily basis.

Example: a simple cross-country flight from NYC to LA with a stopover in Chicago.
- NY does not grant CCW permits to non-residents.
- Should an exemption be made or the pilot live in NYC, CCW permits in NYC are terribly difficult (nearly impossible) to obtain.
- Illinois prohibits carry of firearms, period.
- Chicago requires registration of all firearms possessed, and is refusing to register any more.
- California, practically speaking, does not grant non-resident CCW permits.
- None of these states recognize CCW permits from other states.
And that's just the beginning.

Should Bush push for arming pilots, he would have to push for major overhaul of gun laws in nearly every state, plus force the Supreme Court to rule on applying the 14th Amendment to state gun permits. While it is a huge battle that must be fought and won, even if he is adamantly totally unquestionably passionately for arming pilots, he simply doesn't have the time to deal with it now as he's got a war to run.

With all do respect and appreciation for your post, go tell that to families' of 7,000 dead Americans. This is just legalese bull.

If the Federal government can not protect us, only give us legalese as an excuse, then why in the hell do I pay more Fed taxes than most people make.

The one thing that the Federal government is legitimately responsible for, they have failed in. And like so many other things they have failed in, they are not willing to allow us to handle ourselves. It is apparently business as usual.

I think you have identified the real problem. He has to act NOW and can't wait for the requisite overhaul of gun laws.

On the otherhand, John Lott says it could take up to 35,000 air marshalls to have a marshall on each domestic flight. That's going to be awfully expensive. Sounds to me like that's the basis for letters to congress critters and the President endorsing John Lott's proposals. And maybe a letter to the Airline Pilots Association, saying you'd look favorably on their striking if they aren't allowed to be armed voluntarily.

The argument that pilots should concentrate on flying the plane rather being police is specious. The purpose of having pilots armed is to insure that they remain pilots, not to make them air marshalls. If the pilots of the planes hijacked on the 11th had guns, they would have remained pilots instead of dead on the floor or tied up in the back.

ctdonath2 said: "Every state has a different patchwork of gun control laws, which the feds cannot preempt..."

The power to regulate inter-state commerce has been used by Congress to outlaw firearms which never leave the state in which they are manufactured. I believe that this is clearly unconstitutional.

Forbidding states from dis-arming the pilot of a conveyance being operated in inter-state commerce is unlikely to be found unconstitutional. Flights which are begun and ended in a single state would not be covered by such a law. The Second Amendment would have to be used to prevent the government from infringing on the right of pilots and airlines to keep and bear arms.

I have suggested to others that the term "wily" describes George W. Bush. His support of the airline pilots association might not be enough. He may be waiting for some Democrat to take the lead. Then he can pile on. George W. seems like the kind of guy who doesn't care who gets the credit as long as the right things are done.