If law permitted CCW on Airlines with a 8 hour training course would you do it?

BGutzman · July 16, 2011, 10:54 AM

If all federal and state laws were changed to allow CCW/CHL holders could carry on board national flights would you take such a course and carry on planes?

For this scenario lets say the weapon had to be concealed and no open carry allowed. Would you be willing to take the course and carry?

**Aguila Blanca** · July 16, 2011, 11:09 AM

Maybe. But grudgingly.

Let's face it. First, we have a Constitutional right to carry. Beyond that, I have taken qualification classes, and I hold multiple permits from a number of states such that I can legally carry in something like 32 or 35 states (haven't checked recently). So why should I need an 8-hour course to be allowed to continue my lawful carry onboard an aircraft? IMHO, a 45 minute familiarization with things like "This is where the control wires run, try not to shoot here" should be all that's required.

Really ... what are they going to teach me in 8 hours?

And why should I be required to take any more training than is absolutely necessary to clue me in to the particular concerns of possibly discharging a handgun in an aircraft? Remember, I'm not the pilot. You're not talking about making me a Federal Air Marshal, right?

kraigwy · July 16, 2011, 11:20 AM

Would carrying guns and getting groped by TSA be a good thing?

I'll stick to my truck, I can smoke, I can carry my gun, and I don't get groped.

spodwo · July 16, 2011, 11:27 AM

The assumption is that 8 hours is ENOUGH training....

I frankly don't trust some people that can carry...the correct mental attitude is not present.

You would have to have a pretty good resume backing you up to qualify to carry on a plane. If you were incredibly good at hitting a target in a stressful situation - ie - combat experience with SEAL, Ranger training, etc. But for Joe Public?

Nope. There is just a wee bit too much "Dirty Harry" mentality without the "Dirty Harry" assuredness...

BGutzman · July 16, 2011, 11:39 AM

Quote:

You're not talking about making me a Federal Air Marshal, right?

No.. not an Air Marshall, simply a citizen enjoying the right to carry.

X_shooter · July 16, 2011, 11:39 AM

It sounds convenient but I predict major hassle. Domestic flights could urgently land or layover in states that don't reciprocate or even have concealed carry. Then what? Unload your weapon and hand it to the flight attendant for safekeeping until you take off or case it appropriately to comply with the local laws? I could also see the TSA making it so restrictive that the hassle factor would be way high. Mag max capacity, max caliber, holster type retrictions, number of firearms, ect.

I could see them make you wear a special tag to identify you to the crew which would negate the concealed portion of the carry. Sorry if my pessimism is showing.

It would be way cool to be able to fly and have a firearm at one of the top places on my list that I would like to carry.

ClayInTx · July 16, 2011, 12:23 PM

Quote:

by kraigwy:
I'll stick to my truck, I can smoke, I can carry my gun, and I don't get groped.

I do the same but am trying to find a way to adhere to only the first three.

TheNocturnus · July 16, 2011, 12:35 PM

I voted yes but only if training happens often. Think about it, you are in a pressurized environment. If you draw a gun and shoot at Mr. Terrorist and miss, you risk opening a very large hole in the aircraft, or hitting another passenger.

The average height a commercial plane flies is 32,000 feet in the air, that's more than 6 miles up. This is an excerpt from an article at this website: http://news.discovery.com/human/sout...ng-110408.html

"Fortunately, incidents like these are extremely rare. Holes most often appear in military aircraft that have been struck by bullets or explosives, though there have been civilian examples. In 1988, for example, Aloha Airlines flight 243 lost a large section if its roof at 24,000 feet. One flight attendant was blown out of the plane and died.

In events like these, the sucking force originates from a difference in pressure between the cabin environment and the outdoor one. Aircraft are generally kept at an air pressure similar to what you’d find between 6,000 and 8,000 feet above sea level. At a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet, pressure outside of the plane is about two and a half times lower than what passengers experience on the inside."

Scary stuff...

**Aguila Blanca** · July 16, 2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nocturnus 31

I voted yes but only if training happens often. Think about it, you are in a pressurized environment. If you draw a gun and shoot at Mr. Terrorist and miss, you risk opening a very large hole in the aircraft, or hitting another passenger.

No, you risk making a very small (typically .355" or .45") hole in the aircraft. A bullet hole or three will NOT result in a catastrophic depressurization, a la Goldfinger.

The Aloha Airlines case you mention was not caused by a bullet hole, it was cased by extensive metal fatigue. The skin was cracked, and when it failed the whole roof peeled off the fuselage. Think "convertible 737" and you get the picture.

There no more danger shooting in a plane than there is in a bus or train. (Also no less, I acknowledge.)

rdf.hack · July 16, 2011, 01:05 PM

I think a training course is acceptable requirement, but I think there should be at least 2-3 carrying people per flight in that case, not just one, because in case one happens to be a wacko, the other one or two can subdue him. I think another acceptable requirement to carry during flight is that you have a valid CC permit, and after taking the course they simply update your clearance, so that if any questions are asked at security tehy can run your license to make sure you have the qualifications. Also, if a law allowing this was to be passed, it should also allow any person carrying on a flight exemption from state/local laws regarding CCW, as long as they are in the airport. If they leave the airport in a state/locality where it is prohibited, then they must discontinue CCing until returning.

GoOfY-FoOt · July 16, 2011, 01:21 PM

I'm assuming that this is all based on the possibility of a future National Carry law. I do wonder if the OP has heard or read something or if this is all just for S&G's...Is the 8 hr thing an arbitrary number or something else?

Quote:

There no more danger shooting in a plane than there is in a bus or train.

I'm not so sure. No brakes vs. no flaps or flat tire vs. no landing gear, etc... And I'd rather be in a bus that's leaking fuel than an airplane. I think guns on trains is the safest, least dangerous of the three....

mrvco · July 16, 2011, 02:03 PM

I'll leave the guns with the guys in the cockpit (or the air marshalls).

Besides, isn't the course for pilots to get certified to carry in the cockpit two weeks?

JWT · July 16, 2011, 02:06 PM

The pilots and air marshals don't need to be confused on who is legal and who is not legal carrying on an airplane. Leave the carrying to them.

Master Blaster 2 · July 16, 2011, 02:17 PM

Right... Silly fantasy

Mike0001 · July 16, 2011, 02:30 PM

I say give every adult an unreloadable single use 5 shot gun with rubber bullets. It may not kill, but knowing your going to get shot a couple hundred times with them will deter most everyone from trying to get into the cockpit.

silentargus · July 16, 2011, 02:30 PM

I'd take it even if I only "carried" in the sense of stashing my gun in my carry-on baggage. I absolutely hate allowing strangers to handle my guns. I do not trust airline baggage handlers; I've had things stolen from checked luggage in the past and I do not put valuables in checked luggage unless there is no other option (guns and knives) and I must fly to my destination. If there were a way to legally bring my CCW into the cabin with me, I would definitely spring for it.

Hell, even if it were some manner of convoluted "check in with the air marshal before boarding" crap, I'd still do it. It'd be worth it to be able to maintain possession and control of my hardware through the entire trip instead of spending that whole time wondering if it will land at the same airport I do.

Glenn E. Meyer · July 16, 2011, 03:02 PM

I'm voting No, despite my support for carry in most circumstances.

I think airliners are an unusual one such that I would prefer pilots and marshals only.

Why?

1. It is nice to think you will win the gunfight in such a crowded environs. But without more training and practice an 8 hour course is not enough.

2. There are very few folks who would carry on the plane. It would have to be on flights to and fro destinations with reciprocity.You would probably have to go through a very prolonged check in. Thus, the actual number of good guys would be low.

3. Here's my main scenario concern. I could easily see a 'good' citizen like Major Hassan or a group of 'good citizens' getting the permit and the training and killing folks and/or bringing down a plane.

With a jumbo, you could have easily 8 armed terrorists. Could they get through to the cockpit - maybe? You gonna beat with by yourself as the odds of you being alone and armed are high.

I would prefer that if 8 guys get up with nonfirearms weapons they face hundreds of folks with flying laptops and tactical pens. 9/11 happened with those three planes as folks didn't resist. The PA plane showed that they could be fought (even though the plane went down, it saved many). Now, you see nuts being tackled.

So, I think planes are special and folks who aren't highly trained aren't a solution if that proposal allows sleepers or nuts with guns on the plane.

**Aguila Blanca** · July 16, 2011, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrvco

Besides, isn't the course for pilots to get certified to carry in the cockpit two weeks?

Yes, but when they complete the course the pilots are Federal Flight Deck Officers. As such, they are the legal equivalent of Air Marshals -- they are sworn, Federal law enforcement officers, with full power of arrest.

That's why I asked my question about air marshals, above.

BGutzman · July 16, 2011, 04:40 PM

Quote:

I'm assuming that this is all based on the possibility of a future National Carry law. I do wonder if the OP has heard or read something or if this is all just for S&G's...Is the 8 hr thing an arbitrary number or something else?

I dont see a national carry law coming so much as a potential SCOTUS ruling that greatly narrows the areas that the government can place off limits to carry.

Jake Balam · July 16, 2011, 05:04 PM

The last thing I want to happen on a flight is for the cabin to depressurize and the plane crash into the ground. If I'm gonna die on a plane because of terrorists I want to die fighting, not screaming as my plane hurtles to the ground.

There's a reason marshals use special rounds

B. Lahey · July 16, 2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

cabin to depressurize and the plane crash

You must watch a lot of action movies. They are not documentaries.

Quote:

There's a reason marshals use special rounds

Nothing "special" about Gold Dots as far as I'm concerned.

langenc · July 16, 2011, 05:21 PM

35% of gun people dont mind INFRINGEMENTS!!!!

No wonder it costs several hundred$$$, 6 month waits, all kinds of
CEZs and rules that many lawyers dont understand. Read the rules 3 times and get 3 interpetations in the 49 states that have some kind of carry.

Thank you 35%

With a jumbo, you could have easily 8 armed terrorists. Could they get through to the cockpit - maybe? You gonna beat with by yourself as the odds of you being alone and armed are high. Copiedfrom #17

Who said youd be alone. Id hope there would be 10 or more others carrying.

As far a a hole downing a plane-many experts say it wont happen.

shortwave · July 16, 2011, 05:27 PM

I also voted no.

In an enviroment such as an airplane, with no where to escape or seek cover, could you imagine the total confusion and panic there would be in the case of a hijacking if there were multiple hijackers sitting throughout the plane.

With quarters being as close as they are, I could visualize mass casualties of innocent passengers very quickly.

Would seem to me , in that enviroment, air marshals and undercover professionals are the way to go.

Jim Watson · July 16, 2011, 05:41 PM

I see what Glen is saying. Since the TSA cannot "profile" passengers, they would have small chance of catching a party of fine upstanding mohammedans using the system against us.

As Jerry Pournelle says, just issue every passenger his own framing hammer.
Even when the wrong sort of person gets his hammer, it would not be much use against an armed pilot and not much use against a whole planeload of hammer carriers.

MLeake · July 16, 2011, 06:08 PM

Jake Balam... as a professional pilot for the last 21 years, I can assure you that if a bullet takes an airplane out of the sky, it won't be due to depressurization. Ian Fleming notwithstanding, it just won't happen.

There are already more leaks (by surface area) in any given pressurized hull than a bullet hole would create. Air gets out around door seals; air gets out around valves. This is why bleed air (or engine-driven compressor air, on older aircraft) is constantly pumped into the cabin. Shut off the supply of pressurized air, and the aircraft will have to descend, as it will gradually lose pressure.

Even a large bullet hole is significantly smaller than a dump valve; a dump valve will depressurize an aircraft quickly, but not catastrophically. It's typically used to clear smoke after an electrical fire.

Other valves routinely open, slightly, for pressure regulation. Over-pressurization can be every bit as bad as a loss of pressurization. Add a bullet sized hole to the fuselage, and those valves will open less frequently, to compensate.

No, the threat is not from explosive decompression.

The threat (to the aircraft as a whole) would be from fuel lines, hydraulic lines, and/or control cables. Or, possibly, from putting bullets into the pilot(s).

That said, I agree with Glenn E. Meyer on this one. It's easier for passengers, crew, and FAMs to handle improvised-weapon armed hijackers, than it would be for them to handle hijackers who have firearms and forged documents.

And ever since 9/11, people who have tried to storm the flight station have been stopped by the passengers.

View Poll Results: If federal laws allowed CCW on aircraft with a class of instruction would you do it?
No - Guns and planes dont mix	57	26.39%
Maybe depending on the hassle involved	34	15.74%
Yes but certification would have to be frequent for max safety	31	14.35%
Yes but only if certification was good for at least 3-5 years	94	43.52%
Voters: 216. You may not vote on this poll

July 16, 2011, 11:20 AM	#3
kraigwy Senior Member Join Date: June 16, 2008 Location: Wyoming Posts: 11,061	Would carrying guns and getting groped by TSA be a good thing? I'll stick to my truck, I can smoke, I can carry my gun, and I don't get groped. __________________ Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071

July 16, 2011, 11:39 AM	#6
X_shooter Senior Member Join Date: April 14, 2010 Location: Michigan Posts: 274	It sounds convenient but I predict major hassle. Domestic flights could urgently land or layover in states that don't reciprocate or even have concealed carry. Then what? Unload your weapon and hand it to the flight attendant for safekeeping until you take off or case it appropriately to comply with the local laws? I could also see the TSA making it so restrictive that the hassle factor would be way high. Mag max capacity, max caliber, holster type retrictions, number of firearms, ect. I could see them make you wear a special tag to identify you to the crew which would negate the concealed portion of the carry. Sorry if my pessimism is showing. It would be way cool to be able to fly and have a firearm at one of the top places on my list that I would like to carry. __________________ X_shooter

July 16, 2011, 12:35 PM	#8
TheNocturnus Senior Member Join Date: May 29, 2011 Location: Missouri Posts: 1,097	I voted yes but only if training happens often. Think about it, you are in a pressurized environment. If you draw a gun and shoot at Mr. Terrorist and miss, you risk opening a very large hole in the aircraft, or hitting another passenger. The average height a commercial plane flies is 32,000 feet in the air, that's more than 6 miles up. This is an excerpt from an article at this website: http://news.discovery.com/human/sout...ng-110408.html "Fortunately, incidents like these are extremely rare. Holes most often appear in military aircraft that have been struck by bullets or explosives, though there have been civilian examples. In 1988, for example, Aloha Airlines flight 243 lost a large section if its roof at 24,000 feet. One flight attendant was blown out of the plane and died. In events like these, the sucking force originates from a difference in pressure between the cabin environment and the outdoor one. Aircraft are generally kept at an air pressure similar to what you’d find between 6,000 and 8,000 feet above sea level. At a cruising altitude of 30,000 feet, pressure outside of the plane is about two and a half times lower than what passengers experience on the inside." Scary stuff... __________________ My EDC: Gun Wallet Brain (Use this one the most)

July 16, 2011, 05:04 PM	#20
Jake Balam Senior Member Join Date: January 14, 2011 Location: 360 Washington Posts: 160	The last thing I want to happen on a flight is for the cabin to depressurize and the plane crash into the ground. If I'm gonna die on a plane because of terrorists I want to die fighting, not screaming as my plane hurtles to the ground. There's a reason marshals use special rounds __________________ Patiently awaiting the zombie apacolypse.

July 16, 2011, 10:54 AM	#1
BGutzman Senior Member Join Date: December 4, 2009 Location: Frozen Tundra Posts: 2,414	If law permitted CCW on Airlines with a 8 hour training course would you do it? If all federal and state laws were changed to allow CCW/CHL holders could carry on board national flights would you take such a course and carry on planes? For this scenario lets say the weapon had to be concealed and no open carry allowed. Would you be willing to take the course and carry? __________________ Molon Labe

July 16, 2011, 11:09 AM	#2
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,460	Maybe. But grudgingly. Let's face it. First, we have a Constitutional right to carry. Beyond that, I have taken qualification classes, and I hold multiple permits from a number of states such that I can legally carry in something like 32 or 35 states (haven't checked recently). So why should I need an 8-hour course to be allowed to continue my lawful carry onboard an aircraft? IMHO, a 45 minute familiarization with things like "This is where the control wires run, try not to shoot here" should be all that's required. Really ... what are they going to teach me in 8 hours? And why should I be required to take any more training than is absolutely necessary to clue me in to the particular concerns of possibly discharging a handgun in an aircraft? Remember, I'm not the pilot. You're not talking about making me a Federal Air Marshal, right?

July 16, 2011, 11:27 AM	#4
spodwo Senior Member Join Date: August 31, 2008 Posts: 839	The assumption is that 8 hours is ENOUGH training.... I frankly don't trust some people that can carry...the correct mental attitude is not present. You would have to have a pretty good resume backing you up to qualify to carry on a plane. If you were incredibly good at hitting a target in a stressful situation - ie - combat experience with SEAL, Ranger training, etc. But for Joe Public? Nope. There is just a wee bit too much "Dirty Harry" mentality without the "Dirty Harry" assuredness...

July 16, 2011, 01:05 PM	#10
rdf.hack Senior Member Join Date: June 7, 2011 Posts: 173	I think a training course is acceptable requirement, but I think there should be at least 2-3 carrying people per flight in that case, not just one, because in case one happens to be a wacko, the other one or two can subdue him. I think another acceptable requirement to carry during flight is that you have a valid CC permit, and after taking the course they simply update your clearance, so that if any questions are asked at security tehy can run your license to make sure you have the qualifications. Also, if a law allowing this was to be passed, it should also allow any person carrying on a flight exemption from state/local laws regarding CCW, as long as they are in the airport. If they leave the airport in a state/locality where it is prohibited, then they must discontinue CCing until returning.

July 16, 2011, 02:03 PM	#12
mrvco Senior Member Join Date: June 1, 2011 Posts: 214	I'll leave the guns with the guys in the cockpit (or the air marshalls). Besides, isn't the course for pilots to get certified to carry in the cockpit two weeks?

July 16, 2011, 02:06 PM	#13
JWT Senior Member Join Date: March 16, 2007 Location: Southern Arizona Posts: 3,888	The pilots and air marshals don't need to be confused on who is legal and who is not legal carrying on an airplane. Leave the carrying to them.

July 16, 2011, 02:17 PM	#14
Master Blaster 2 Junior member Join Date: May 29, 2011 Posts: 895	Right... Silly fantasy

July 16, 2011, 02:30 PM	#15
Mike0001 Junior Member Join Date: July 16, 2011 Posts: 1	I say give every adult an unreloadable single use 5 shot gun with rubber bullets. It may not kill, but knowing your going to get shot a couple hundred times with them will deter most everyone from trying to get into the cockpit.

July 16, 2011, 02:30 PM	#16
silentargus Senior Member Join Date: August 17, 2010 Posts: 146	I'd take it even if I only "carried" in the sense of stashing my gun in my carry-on baggage. I absolutely hate allowing strangers to handle my guns. I do not trust airline baggage handlers; I've had things stolen from checked luggage in the past and I do not put valuables in checked luggage unless there is no other option (guns and knives) and I must fly to my destination. If there were a way to legally bring my CCW into the cabin with me, I would definitely spring for it. Hell, even if it were some manner of convoluted "check in with the air marshal before boarding" crap, I'd still do it. It'd be worth it to be able to maintain possession and control of my hardware through the entire trip instead of spending that whole time wondering if it will land at the same airport I do.

July 16, 2011, 03:02 PM	#17
Glenn E. Meyer Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 20,064	I'm voting No, despite my support for carry in most circumstances. I think airliners are an unusual one such that I would prefer pilots and marshals only. Why? 1. It is nice to think you will win the gunfight in such a crowded environs. But without more training and practice an 8 hour course is not enough. 2. There are very few folks who would carry on the plane. It would have to be on flights to and fro destinations with reciprocity.You would probably have to go through a very prolonged check in. Thus, the actual number of good guys would be low. 3. Here's my main scenario concern. I could easily see a 'good' citizen like Major Hassan or a group of 'good citizens' getting the permit and the training and killing folks and/or bringing down a plane. With a jumbo, you could have easily 8 armed terrorists. Could they get through to the cockpit - maybe? You gonna beat with by yourself as the odds of you being alone and armed are high. I would prefer that if 8 guys get up with nonfirearms weapons they face hundreds of folks with flying laptops and tactical pens. 9/11 happened with those three planes as folks didn't resist. The PA plane showed that they could be fought (even though the plane went down, it saved many). Now, you see nuts being tackled. So, I think planes are special and folks who aren't highly trained aren't a solution if that proposal allows sleepers or nuts with guns on the plane. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

July 16, 2011, 05:21 PM	#22
langenc Senior Member Join Date: August 19, 2007 Location: Montmorency Co, MI Posts: 1,551	35% of gun people dont mind INFRINGEMENTS!!!! No wonder it costs several hundred$$$, 6 month waits, all kinds of CEZs and rules that many lawyers dont understand. Read the rules 3 times and get 3 interpetations in the 49 states that have some kind of carry. Thank you 35% With a jumbo, you could have easily 8 armed terrorists. Could they get through to the cockpit - maybe? You gonna beat with by yourself as the odds of you being alone and armed are high. Copiedfrom #17 Who said youd be alone. Id hope there would be 10 or more others carrying. As far a a hole downing a plane-many experts say it wont happen.

July 16, 2011, 05:27 PM	#23
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	I also voted no. In an enviroment such as an airplane, with no where to escape or seek cover, could you imagine the total confusion and panic there would be in the case of a hijacking if there were multiple hijackers sitting throughout the plane. With quarters being as close as they are, I could visualize mass casualties of innocent passengers very quickly. Would seem to me , in that enviroment, air marshals and undercover professionals are the way to go.

July 16, 2011, 05:41 PM	#24
Jim Watson Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2001 Location: Alabama Posts: 18,539	I see what Glen is saying. Since the TSA cannot "profile" passengers, they would have small chance of catching a party of fine upstanding mohammedans using the system against us. As Jerry Pournelle says, just issue every passenger his own framing hammer. Even when the wrong sort of person gets his hammer, it would not be much use against an armed pilot and not much use against a whole planeload of hammer carriers.

July 16, 2011, 06:08 PM	#25
MLeake Senior Member Join Date: November 15, 2007 Location: Outside KC, MO Posts: 10,128	Jake Balam... as a professional pilot for the last 21 years, I can assure you that if a bullet takes an airplane out of the sky, it won't be due to depressurization. Ian Fleming notwithstanding, it just won't happen. There are already more leaks (by surface area) in any given pressurized hull than a bullet hole would create. Air gets out around door seals; air gets out around valves. This is why bleed air (or engine-driven compressor air, on older aircraft) is constantly pumped into the cabin. Shut off the supply of pressurized air, and the aircraft will have to descend, as it will gradually lose pressure. Even a large bullet hole is significantly smaller than a dump valve; a dump valve will depressurize an aircraft quickly, but not catastrophically. It's typically used to clear smoke after an electrical fire. Other valves routinely open, slightly, for pressure regulation. Over-pressurization can be every bit as bad as a loss of pressurization. Add a bullet sized hole to the fuselage, and those valves will open less frequently, to compensate. No, the threat is not from explosive decompression. The threat (to the aircraft as a whole) would be from fuel lines, hydraulic lines, and/or control cables. Or, possibly, from putting bullets into the pilot(s). That said, I agree with Glenn E. Meyer on this one. It's easier for passengers, crew, and FAMs to handle improvised-weapon armed hijackers, than it would be for them to handle hijackers who have firearms and forged documents. And ever since 9/11, people who have tried to storm the flight station have been stopped by the passengers.