[SBeck]

Here me out. A lockbox makes sense from a couple of standpoints:

1. An airline pilot is easily identified and even if he picks up his firearm in the sterile area - beyond the checkpoint - he or she will become a target of opportunity for a directed attack by terrorists to obtain firearms.
2. A lockbox would give airport police the time to respond to an incident. I know how that sounds, but the function of the weapon is for the defense of the cockpit. Its carriage in the airport is a liability and a risk.
3. Missle command uses lockboxes to secure the codes for the launch of nuclear weapons inside their already secure launch facilities. This is probably the same reasoning behind the lockbox, it prevents the accidental or inadvertent use of a weapon of last intent.

Don't let the use of a lockbox override the logic of another layer of defense.

[lepton]

3. Missle command uses lockboxes to secure the codes for the launch of nuclear weapons inside their already secure launch facilities.

Ummm. That's to keep them safe from the people inside. It keeps people from being able to use that knowledge to fake launch codes. It's not because they want to make sure that they don't accidentally use the codes.

[tall_tex]

My thoughts to your 1, 2, & 3.

1. Pilots easy to identify and become targets.. They
already are targets. Flight crews need a separate
and secure area to board their flights. Screend, ID's
authenticated, out of sight from the flying public. The evil do'ers will not know which pilot is carrying
and who is not. Of course all in the cockpit should.
The few pilots who are allowed to carry need their own
weapons. They know them, are trained to use them, have
practiced with them. It is called conceal and carry.

2. Allow the airport police time to respond?
Airport police, taking time to put on their Superman
capes, blue tights and thigh high black boots so they
can attempt to leap a tall building in a single bounce
if I am on that flight that is getting hijacked. Well
only if they are as as good as the D.C. Park Police, in
that case I just may have to recosider.

3. Electronic opening of a lock box from an off site
location? Why offer to give them weapons if you are
not going to allow them access? Might just want to
put the guns in the cargo area, with the dogs and cats?
Cutting a throat, sticking a pen or pencil in an ear
tales a split second. Waiting for a donut eating,
coffie drinking federal employee to get permission from
his supervisor who is in the restroom reading the news
paper, if he can read English, to give his permission
to unlock the box so the pilot can get to his gun when
when he has a terrorist "trying", breaking through his
"maybe someday", fortified cockpit door.

Lock boxes, trigger locks, are all PC and an easy way out of doing the correct thing. Tom

[Long Cut]

Sorry, have to disagree. I hold a Florida CCW license, and NOWHERE on it does it say I must carry my weapon in a "lockbox" (I have gotten to HATE that term). A weapon is useless unless it is carried ready for use.

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.

[Action-America]

Here me out. A lockbox makes sense from a couple of standpoints:

1. An airline pilot is easily identified and even if he picks up his firearm in the sterile area - beyond the checkpoint - he or she will become a target of opportunity for a directed attack by terrorists to obtain firearms.

This whole issue would be moot, if we allowed any law enforcement officer, from any federal, state or local agency, who wanted to take specialized training, to carry a weapon on the plane.  On any given flight, there is a fairly good chance that one of the roughly 700,000 combined full time law enforcement officers in the U.S. will be on that flight, either on official business or for pleasure.  Add pilots and air marshals to that mix and the odds of one or more guns being on any given aircraft, in the hands of trained professionals, becomes quite high.

In that case, even if a terrorist were to manage to get a gun from a single pilot, his chances of successfully using it in a hijacking attempt becomes very small.  He and some others try to use the stolen gun in a hijacking and are suddenly faced by two armed, off-duty policemen and an air marshal.

The problem is that our laws no longer respect the Second Amendment.  In fact, if we did respect the Second Amendment, any citizen who could pass a comprehensive background check (at his own expense), was willing to take the necessary training to use a gun on an aircraft (at his own expense) and pay for the special ammo required, would be allowed to carry a gun on any aircraft.  Then the terrorists wouldn't stand a chance of seizing control of one of our aircraft.