The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 17, 2009, 02:12 PM   #1
gretske
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Lake Murray, SC
Posts: 182
Obama to End Pilot Carry Program - Why?

According to a report in the Washington Times, the Obama administration is quietly ending the highly successful program to train pilots and flight crews for carry on planes. The program was launched after 9/11 and has been trouble free, save one AD. Not bad, considering that over 12,000 people are licensed and trained and carry handguns on thousands of flights.

If this story is true, it says two things. First, the Obama administration is going to pursue a blindly partisan anti-gun agenda, and, second, they are going to pursue this agenda in a stealth manner instead of honestly and openly.
gretske is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:16 PM   #2
Ronbo1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: MN
Posts: 134
Obama

If it is a useful program of course he wants to end it. Same as closing Gitmo and letting 250 terrorists go free, can't call them terrorists or killers anymore though not politically correct. Give the killers a group hug instead and then they will love us. Am on Obama overload.
__________________
When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves

Abraham Lincoln
Ronbo1 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 04:48 PM   #3
ilbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 29, 2006
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 516
..

The only people he wants carrying guns are those whose paychecks he controls.
__________________
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; March 18, 2009 at 09:43 AM. Reason: Not relevant
ilbob is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 04:53 PM   #4
goodspeed(TPF)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 1,162
This is sad news.
__________________
It's a trick. Get an axe.

http://www.thepiratefleet.com/index.shtml
goodspeed(TPF) is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 07:21 PM   #5
P5 Guy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2005
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 1,119
Why?

BHO is not worried about Air Force One being hijacked.
P5 Guy is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 07:27 PM   #6
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,057
Guess it's to be expected and unfortunately probably an indication of more anti gun activity moving forward. If true there should be a public outcry on this one since it's an anti terrorist safety issue.

Seems to go against his statement that "I won't take away your guns". Not that many believed that given his pro anti gun legislation history.
JWT is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 08:00 PM   #7
bob.a
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 298
Here's a link to a story about a pilot's accidental discharge, which led to being discharged from his job.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2008...ing-in-flight/

Sounds like the TSA rules make for safety problems.
bob.a is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 08:33 PM   #8
bclark1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,531
You're on the right track...

Plane crashes kill a lot more folks than negligent discharges. We ought to just end this whole air travel thing to avoid all these unbearable evils.

I have to agree with the OP - whoever is in charge of this move, it's bogus and ill- or un-reasoned. If we can't trust a guy with a sidearm, how can we trust a him with a 750,000 pound metal tube full of jet fuel travelling 600 miles per hour? I haven't seen many skyscrapers (or planes, for that matter) taking much in the way of structural damage from a 230 grain JHP.
bclark1 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 08:59 PM   #9
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,049
Quote:
“TSA’s got these pilots taking off and putting on their guns 10 times a day. It’s a recipe for disaster and that’s why no other agency does it.”
That's a procedure that should've been criticized and changed awhile back. I'm not entirely sure I could scream negligence at a guy who was just following an arbitrary and stupid procedure.

Of course, it gives the administration a scapegoat to point at and say, "see what happens when you have guns on planes?" [Insert something about thinking of the children]

Thing is, I've only seen one actual reference to the abandonment of the FFDO program, and that's from a state newspaper. Does anyone have confirmation on this?

More to the point, has anyone heard from the administration on this? I'd like to hear how they plan on spinning it.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 09:08 PM   #10
CortJestir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Southern CT
Posts: 1,406
It's an editorial, not a news piece... Gotta dig deeper, fellas.

I found this lurking on some of the Pilot forums...It's an email some ALPA (airline pilot union) members received...

Sources here and here, but they are from other forum posts. It would be better if we can get a first-hand acknowledgment of the email below...

Can anyone here who's a member of this union verify this email?

Quote:
Newsflash from ALPA International

TSA Reconfirms Commitment to FFDO Program
March 17, 2009

In stark contrast to an op-ed article in today’s edition (March 17, 2009) of the Washington Times, that claims “…President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology,” TSA officials reassured ALPA they are committed to the FFDO program and have plans for its expansion.

TSA’s leadership immediately contacted ALPA and requested a meeting to discuss this news report. ALPA representatives met with TSA executives this afternoon and were told that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program.

Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively pursuing sources of additional funding. These funds will be used to enhance the program’s management structure and oversight, which if implemented, will address an ALPA Board of Directors security priority.

TSA is currently training hundreds of pilots each year and plans to continue to train at least that number or more into the future. The size of the FFDO cadre has grown so large that additional resources are needed to provide greater structure and oversight to this important program, which TSA referred to today as “an important layer of defense.”

“ALPA is very pleased that the TSA was so proactive in communicating its concerns to the Association and we are likewise pleased that we are able to report this good news to the membership,” said ALPA President, Capt. John Prater. “ALPA values its relationship with the TSA, and it is obvious from the way the agency handled this event that the feeling is mutual.”
__________________
"They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about..."
- Lord Hugh Percy, on the events of April 19, 1775
Do you know what you're about? Find out at an Appleseed near you.
CortJestir is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 09:16 PM   #11
bclark1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,531
Quote:
Originally Posted by CortJestir
Gotta dig deeper, fellas.
I'm here to chat, not learn! Just cause I'm on while I'm "working" doesn't mean I want to work!

Thanks for the update though
bclark1 is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 04:11 AM   #12
blume357
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2005
Location: Greenville, SC
Posts: 3,943
Just another Obamah conspiracy theory that has no basis ....

but because folks want to believe it, it becomes true.
blume357 is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:02 AM   #13
gretske
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Lake Murray, SC
Posts: 182
I think some of you may have missed something in my original post. I said, "If this story is true,. . ." I have no way of knowing if it is or is not, but I would point out that many people said the same thing as some of y'all when Woodward and Bernstein published their original series on Watergate.

Now, as to whether it is a "news item" or "opinion," I challenge you to read most any daily newspaper today, for example the New York Times, and tell me which items are "news" and which are "opinion."

Why would anyone believe that Obama would do this? Well, just take a look at his gun control record, and while you're at it, look at Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Joe Biden, among others. Would a move like this, which was hotly contested by anti-gunners at the time, be hard to believe? Not for me!

I don't care what they say, I only care what they actually DO. Know how to tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
gretske is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:47 AM   #14
CortJestir
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Southern CT
Posts: 1,406
It seems to me the author of the editorial deemed to interpret the diversion of $2M from the FFDO program as Obama "quietly ending the federal firearms program" with no comment from either the TSA or the Obama Administration. This is hardly sound journalistic process. Hence the huge word "EDITORIAL" in the headline.

I'm not saying we should be complacent about what the current administration may do to our gun rights. We should always be aware. But in this heated political and economic climate, it's important to maintain some perspective, lest the fear mongering get the best of all of us.

Cheers,
CJ
__________________
"They have men amongst them who know very well what they are about..."
- Lord Hugh Percy, on the events of April 19, 1775
Do you know what you're about? Find out at an Appleseed near you.

Last edited by CortJestir; March 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM.
CortJestir is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 08:04 AM   #15
#18indycolts
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Indpls
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Same as closing Gitmo
You're absolutely right! The U.S. constitution doesn't mean anything! Allowing people a right to a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty?! You're right, that isn't what this country is about anymore, just thank George W. for that.
#18indycolts is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 02:17 PM   #16
Kmar40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 668
Please list one instance in US history where foreigners on the battlefield or anywhere else in the world were accorded US constitutional rights.

Unfortunately for you, every Supreme Court and President in history agreed with GW.

Osama bin Carterphobia is no worse than Wphobia.

EDIT: Invectives are forbidden here - Antipitas.

Last edited by Al Norris; March 18, 2009 at 04:55 PM. Reason: Pointing out rules violation.
Kmar40 is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 04:52 PM   #17
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,057
According to Fox News: "Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.

In an editorial published Tuesday in The Washington Times, the newspaper wrote that "President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology."

Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding..."

Appears Obama isn't actually trying to kill the program - still bears watching.
JWT is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 06:51 PM   #18
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kmar40
Please list one instance in US history where foreigners on the battlefield or anywhere else in the world were accorded US constitutional rights.
From Article Six:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(my italics)

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Constitution requires their provisions to be followed, which, I think, gives the latter the status of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. QED.

Until GW Bush and his pals came along, this was, for the most part, observed.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:04 PM   #19
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Constitution requires their provisions to be followed, which, I think, gives the latter the status of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. QED.
Signing the conventions does not require the US to follow them. They are treaties and must be ratified. The US has ratified several of the Geneva conventions, but has not ratified the two protocols added in 1977 because the US did not agree with them.

Care to guess who and/or what the un-ratified 1977 protocols cover?

Something defined as "unlawful combatants" and "terrorists".

Quote:
You're right, that isn't what this country is about anymore, just thank George W. for that.
Hmmm....guess you can't blame Bush for that one, eh?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:12 PM   #20
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for private companies to have their private employees trained and certified to carry a firearm? Let the airlines foot the bill.
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:17 PM   #21
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Actually, why don't we let airlines foot the bill for airport security too?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:26 PM   #22
Playboypenguin
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: Great Pacific Northwest
Posts: 11,515
Quote:
Actually, why don't we let airlines foot the bill for airport security too?
That is the very reason why we shouldn't pay for additional measures. The taxpayers are already providing the highest level of security for the airlines. Should we also pay to train the stewardesses? Pay for the in flight meals? Pay for there gas?
Playboypenguin is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:50 PM   #23
model67a
Member
 
Join Date: February 19, 2009
Posts: 38
Obama and Holder

I read this story on the NRA website. We all are very lucky to have the NRA/ILA looking out for us. Obama, Holder, and all of their anti-gun friends are going to do all they can to "sneak" their laws in where ever they can. Chris Cox and all of the rest of the organization do a good job of keeping up on the legislation so that they aren't able to "sneak" them in. We as an organization need to up our activity too. Write all the lawmakers, just not the one's that represent your area but others, even from different states. When it comes down to the voting, Senators from New York affect people from California the same with their one vote as much as a California Senator affects them with his one vote. It's still one vote affirmitive or negative. In fact they may pay more attention when someone that they don't formally represent contacts them because it gains their interest and curiousity. Also we could make a personal commitment to solicit everyone we come in contact with to join NRA, GOA, etc. There are a lot of new gun owners who bought guns after the Obama takeover that just might join if they were asked!!! stay safe
__________________
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!
Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), 1759
model67a is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 07:59 PM   #24
Kmar40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 668
Quote:
Please list one instance in US history where foreigners on the battlefield or anywhere else in the world were accorded US constitutional rights.
The question remains unanswered. Please give an account of on which these constitutional rights were accorded or which other President supported the ACLU/Al Quaeda position.

Quote:
The Constitution requires their provisions to be followed, which, I think, gives the latter the status of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. QED.
That's a D- or F answer even for an undergrad conlaw course. Again, cite a case or at least an accepted constitutional theory.

Last edited by Kmar40; March 18, 2009 at 08:04 PM.
Kmar40 is offline  
Old March 18, 2009, 09:48 PM   #25
OnTheFly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2007
Location: SE Nebraska
Posts: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBP
That is the very reason why we shouldn't pay for additional measures. The taxpayers are already providing the highest level of security for the airlines. Should we also pay to train the stewardesses? Pay for the in flight meals? Pay for there gas?
Because the flight attendant's (you need to be more politically correct here ) training, what they had to eat, or the gas in their personal vehicle have nothing to do with providing a last line of defense to prevent a 100 ton object from being used to kill thousands of people. It IS a national security issue, not just an issue of concern to the specific airline.

Fly
__________________
I told my wife I was scheduling a mid-life crisis. It was either a Harley or guns. Secretly, I've already decided on guns. :-)

Bang... Bang... Bang...
OnTheFly is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13010 seconds with 7 queries