Posted on 09/05/2002 4:06:17 PM PDT by SBeck
Bush to OK Guns for Airline Pilots
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:37 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to allow commercial pilots to carry weapons in the cockpit after the Bush administration dropped its opposition to the idea.
The administration, though, said a number of safety and logistical issues needed to be resolved.
In a letter to two senators, the White House recommended giving pilots lockboxes for the weapons so they won't be left in the cockpit. It also said only pilots who volunteer to carry weapons and receive extensive training should be armed.
Al Aitken, a pilot speaking for the 14,500-member union representing American Airlines pilots, which supports arming pilots, said the 87-6 vote meant the Senate recognized that all the security layers the administration is putting into place are still inadequate.
``The people who need the weapons as a last line of defense are the pilots,'' he said. ``They're the only ones they're trying to keep the gun from,'' he said, adding that thousands of state and federal law enforcement officers travel on planes while armed.
The heads of 21 airlines, which oppose the measure, sent a letter to each senator Thursday saying they wanted to discuss the idea of arming pilots with Congress and the administration.
``It must be noted, however, that while we are spending literally billions of dollars to keep dangerous weapons off of aircraft, the idea of intentionally introducing thousands of deadly weapons in to the system appears to be dangerously counterproductive,'' the letter said.
To address some of the airlines' concerns, the administration suggested a ``detailed, effective'' training program be designed from scratch and tested before an estimated 85,000 pilots are allowed to carry weapons.
The administration also warned the cost would be significant -- $900 million to start and $250 million annually thereafter -- and said there is no money now in the Transportation Security Administration budget to cover the expenses.
The letter from Transportation Security Administration chief James Loy was delivered to Sens. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz., as the Senate debated the measure that would allow all pilots to carry guns into the cockpit. Hollings is chairman of the Senate Commerce and Transportation Committee; McCain is the committee's ranking Republican.
``If there is to be responsible legislation establishing a program to allow guns in the cockpit, it must address the numerous safety, security, cost and operational issues,'' Loy wrote.
Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., offered the amendment to the homeland security bill that would prohibit airlines and the federal government from barring armed pilots.
``We prefer a more comprehensive approach in our amendment, but are grateful for any efforts by the administration to roll the ball down the field,'' said Smith's spokeswoman, Lisa Harrison.
The chairman of the House Transportation Committee's aviation subcommittee, Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., said pilots should be armed at least until bulletproof cockpit doors are installed in all planes.
The Federal Aviation Administration said Thursday that manufacturers and airlines agree an April 9 deadline to install the new doors can be met.
Mica said the administration realized that the momentum in Congress favoring arming pilots is strong. A bill to create a program that would train and arm some pilots passed the House 310-113 in July.
Transportation Undersecretary John Magaw, who headed the TSA until July, said in May he would not allow pilots to carry guns. Reinforced cockpits and armed air marshals provide enough protection against terrorists who try to take over an airplane, Magaw said.
After Magaw's departure, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta said he would re-examine the issue.
Frankly, no one's been able to explain to my satisfaction why airports are so magic that weapons may not be carried within their sacred doors. Security screeners would have a coronary if they saw what rides on a typical Aircrewman's survival vest on a daily basis.
IMHO, we need to get over our society-wide horror of firearms. Places which are made "sacred" like airports and restaurants are made helpless.
Just exactly how did Bush, who was adamant in OPPOSING arming the pilots outfox anyone by finally caving in to overwhelming political pressure (ie a veto prof margin) I Just don't see anything but an antigunner (that would be King George II) being forced to do something that he didn't want to do (arm the pilots). Please explain how this is outfoxing anyone. I'd like to know.
Kinda like Billzebubba and welfare reform.
69 posted on 9/5/02 10:00 PM Pacific by Orion
You can always tell this kind of leader. They are the ones wetting their finger, and sticking it in the wind to see which way it is blowing before "taking a stance".
And to think he actually said that he wouldn't Rule by the polls. Nah, not Dubya. Now that he saw he was gonna get a spanking in both Houses of Congress on the issue, he waffles.
67 posted on 9/5/02 9:39 PM Pacific by Lazamataz
Quite that, people are gonna get the wrong impression. :)
By the way, what was so dumb about my comment? (Other than it cracked your facade of cool headed deliberation - I swear a lot of FReepers are as emotional as liberals).
Except he wants to arm them with ray guns.
I was amused back in my lurking days, when people here speculated about what weapons an EP-3 crew might have (the one that went down in China). One guy said "Berettas, some MP-5s, probably". We wish. Don't forget who appointed most of the top brass for 8 years. Some things take time to root out.
Back in the '90s I flew on combat missions over Bosnia and Albania, and counter-drug ops in Central and South America. Not once was I issued a weapon beyond my Ontario survival knife. That's why I'm so impressed that this "Arming Pilots" happened at all.
Maybe someday they'll arm US. Hell, just let me carry my Springfield, it's already paid for.
It is, however, quite sufficient to pop one into a dirt-bag coming through a door two feet away.
Oh my God!
Please accept my humble apologies. Rhode Island is two for two, a rino and a rat
Yep, that's the idea. The Bush Administration realized that if it ever became necessary to shoot down an airliner to prevent another 9/11 type attack, the public would grieve for the lives lost, but would understand. HOWEVER, all those who had been nixing the idea of armed pilots would take about ten seconds to do an about-face and begin demanding "WHY didn't you do everything possible to prevent things from going this far?" - and they'd do it without feeling a scintilla of hypocrisy, too.
Hopefully, Bush was shrewdly waiting for the emotional response to the 9/11 anniversary to build before "dropping his objections" so this could get done. Sort of an anti-Daschle tactic, perhaps?
Now, if we can keep the pilots out of the bars and make sure the cabin doors stay locked, this threat is effectively negated. I guess a big, red, multilingual placard on the cabin door that says "WARNING! DEADLY FORCE AUTHORIZED BEYOND THIS POINT" would be asking too much...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.