It stands to reason then, that a citizen should be able to carry any arm (and there's been a thread ot two on FR about what is and isn't a protected arm) that fits under the seat in front of them or in the overhead bin, right?
Sure.
It would work until some nimrod brings in a WP grenade and has to play with it during the flight. Then someone's got to make some rules.
Just what changes exactly?
If he "has to play with it?, he's not merely bearing arms is he?
The issue is not bearing arms, it is what one nimrod does with such that is the crux of law. Such activity as "playing" with live grenades is appropriately covered in law as a public menace without violating the right to bear arms. Laws regarding attempted murder in no way intrudes upon the Right to "Bear" or own weapon for their proper purpose as laid out in the Colorado Constitution:
"in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned"
Put yourself in a position of accountability for airline and passenger safety. Is this your best answer? If so, what guidelines would you install?
It gets real touchy here, IMO. The fedgov should not be restricting citizens bearing arms. The airlines, otoh, may do so at will. After having spent much of the last year in the air, I'm not as comfortable with the idea of many or most of the passengers carrying without restiction as I once was. Like most other people, I trust myself more than I trust 90% of the rest of the population. But that 10% that I trust will not likely populate the flights that I take.