J. Neil Schulman On I can't take it anymore ....
"J. Neil Schulman" <jneil@mediaone.net> wrote: <snip>
If you disarm the people -- if you make them give up their guns when they get on a plane, go into a post office, get taken out to the ball game -- then there will never be enough police officers to go around when the bad guys decide to strike, without warning, at a time and place of their own choosing.
The jetliners that took down the World Trade Center, a city of 50,000 daytime inhabitants, and that exploded into the very military headquarters of the world's only remaining superpower, were taken over by a few thugs with boxcutters.
If the airline pilots had guns this couldn't have happened.
If the flight attendants had guns this couldn't have happened.
If local police officers who fly were allowed to carry their guns with them, warned only to switch to frangible ammunition, this couldn't have happened.
But they are. On U.S. domestic flights they have merely to present themselves and acceptable credentials (which BTW the airline personnel are poorly trained to authenticate) and state in a form that they are traveling for LE purposes. There are other formalities that are followed, but overall they are not restricted from carrying. steve
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:28:24PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
But they are. On U.S. domestic flights they have merely to present themselves and acceptable credentials (which BTW the airline personnel are poorly trained to authenticate) and state in a form that they are traveling for LE purposes. There are other formalities that are followed, but overall they are not restricted from carrying.
I believe after a Washington Post expose a few months ago (or perhaps it was just concidental) this rule was changed. -Declan
At 10:01 AM 9/13/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
But they are. On U.S. domestic flights they have merely to present themselves and acceptable credentials (which BTW the airline personnel are poorly trained to authenticate) and state in a form that they are
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:28:24PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: traveling
for LE purposes. There are other formalities that are followed, but overall they are not restricted from carrying.
I believe after a Washington Post expose a few months ago (or perhaps it was just concidental) this rule was changed.
I was not aware. Thanks for the info. steve
This is what I vaguely recall -- I didn't write about it myself. I recall it was a GAO investigation that the Post wrote about. --Declan At 08:27 AM 9/13/01 -0700, Steve Schear wrote:
At 10:01 AM 9/13/2001 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
But they are. On U.S. domestic flights they have merely to present themselves and acceptable credentials (which BTW the airline personnel are poorly trained to authenticate) and state in a form that they are
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:28:24PM -0700, Steve Schear wrote: traveling
for LE purposes. There are other formalities that are followed, but overall they are not restricted from carrying.
I believe after a Washington Post expose a few months ago (or perhaps it was just concidental) this rule was changed.
I was not aware. Thanks for the info.
steve
At 10:28 PM -0700 9/12/01, Steve Schear wrote:
If local police officers who fly were allowed to carry their guns with them, warned only to switch to frangible ammunition, this couldn't have happened.
But they are. On U.S. domestic flights they have merely to present themselves and acceptable credentials (which BTW the airline personnel are poorly trained to authenticate) and state in a form that they are traveling for LE purposes. There are other formalities that are followed, but overall they are not restricted from carrying.
But why should it have to be "for law enforcement purposes"? Is the LEO somehow "less capable of handling his firearm properly" because he's not travelling to LGA to pick up a prisoner? D -- +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | dredd@megacity.org | "Conan! What is best in life?" | | Derek J. Balling | "To crush your enemies, see them | | | driven before you, and to hear the | | | lamentation of their women!" | +---------------------+-----------------------------------------+
At 11:15 AM 9/13/2001 -0700, Derek Balling <dredd@megacity.org> wrote:
At 10:28 PM -0700 9/12/01, Steve Schear wrote:
If local police officers who fly were allowed to carry their guns with them, warned only to switch to frangible ammunition, this couldn't have happened.
But they are. On U.S. domestic flights they have merely to present themselves and acceptable credentials (which BTW the airline personnel are poorly trained to authenticate) and state in a form that they are traveling for LE purposes. There are other formalities that are followed, but overall they are not restricted from carrying.
But why should it have to be "for law enforcement purposes"? Is the LEO somehow "less capable of handling his firearm properly" because he's not travelling to LGA to pick up a prisoner?
I can't speak to the why since those thoughts are rarely communicated outside the FAA. Perhaps its the Fed LEs themselves who reluctant to go through the paperwork unless they are traveling on business. steve
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Derek Balling -
Matthew Gaylor -
Steve Schear