Senate by voice vote passes admendment to bill for Pilots to carry firearms(my title)

AP ^ | 10/11/01 | Jim Abrams

[Dane]

The last paragraph of the linked article.

The Senate approved an amendment offered by Sen. John Breaux (news - bio - voting record), D-La., to study the use by flight crews of nonlethal weapons to disable would-be hijackers. Senators also passed by voice an amendment by Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., that authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) to permit pilots to carry guns. Under the measure, airlines and pilots would make the decision whether to put weapons in the cockpit.

[jonathonandjennifer]

Please E-mail Speaker Hastert at dhastert@mail.house.gov with your support. I suggest copying Rush, maybe get further exposure. My message is below:

Dear Speaker Hastert: Please allow the House to vote on the armed pilots amendment in connection with the Aviation Security Bill. If you have to add language to indemnify the airlines and pilots against liability for death or injury to what appear to be violent hijackers, in order to placate the airline lobby, please do so.

[mc5cents]

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the authority to determine who can and cannot carry a firearm? If the Feds have this authority, when did they get it?

From the same ether space that they found the authority to do about 10,000 other things that are unconstitutional.

You know, it does say "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." But then, I guess we now quibble over the meaning of the word "is" don't we?

[Republican Wildcat]

I think the aviation industry would qualify as interstate commerce.

[AndyJackson]

How can I find out who voted for and who voted against this?

That is the beauty of a voice vote. You have to rely on the Senator's own honesty to tell you, and now he has plenty of time to decide whether he is for or against. In fact, he can even change his mind depending upon his sense of the will of his constituency [and his own conscience].

[FreedomPoster]

Formatting is our friend. I don't think this has anything to do with Michael Bellesiles, who holds the Orwell and Stalin Chair of Historical Revisionism at Emory University. That is an important story as well, but this is different. At least I think your post was about Bellesiles, but it was hard to read/tell.

HTML Bootcamp (or Wow, how did they do that?)
http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a1e6b7134bf.htm

[El Gato]

This is not the text of the amendment, but it is the relevant text from Sen. Smith's bill on the same subject introduced after the kamikazi hijackings.:

(a) POSSESSION OF FIREARMS ON COMMERCIAL FLIGHTS- No department or agency may prohibit a pilot, co-pilot, or navigator of a commercial aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection of a commercial aircraft, who is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a firearm , from possessing or carrying a firearm for the protection of the aircraft.

[southland]

I agree with you.I am a former Air Force Pilot and also a former Air Traffic Controller. The question should not have had to be raised.

[KQQL]

the beta look is weird..... :(

[mattdono]

If you like the old style, you can click the link that says, "Old Style".

I am with you...I don't mind change, but I like being able to read all the thoughts on one screen.

[Lady GOP]

excellent..ha!

[culpeper]

The anti gunners realize that they are fighting a losing battle and have resorted to outright fabrication of data and revisionist history. If you are against the private ownership of firearms you are simply a marxist, plain and simple, these people are as dangerous as these terrorists because they are making us weaker from within. My grandpop always told me,"never give up your guns boy".

[clamper1797]

My friend ... I hate to admit it but I have ADHD and if an article is not formated ... I just see words that require more attention than I can give. I would love to read it. Can you please format ... Thanks in advance

[supercat]

If this really happened it is a little redundant. My understanding is that the FAA always allowed pilots to be armed. It was the airlines that banned it. Nothing has changed.

IIRC, the FAA allowed airlines to arm their crews if those crews passed FAA-approved courses. No courses, however, were actually approved by the FAA.

[GUIDO]

I actually can't believe that this was voted on by the "voice" of the Senate. You would think that Schumer, Hillary, or another democrat would have asked for a recorded vote.

They would not want a record vote because at this day and time their record vote of NO would not please many Americans.

[afuturegovernor]

It said it was passed by a voice vote. I THINK that means that the presiding officer of the Senate just asked for members to say "yea" or "nay" and therefore each member wasn't required to go on record with a vote either way.

BTW, you picked a heck of a day to join FR.

[ccmay]

Interstate commerce? I think this one actually makes sense. Especially from the public safety angle.

Right you are, this rule should supersede local laws in places like DC and California that otherwise might prevent a pilot from being armed. This is totally Constitutional and to be applauded.

-ccm

[higgmeister]

more bang for the bump

[Spin]

Okay. I read an article on CNS News about how it was not prohibited. They didn't mention any courses. Either someone didn't do their homework or everyone is confused.