Firearms on a commercial airplane.

[Tony2X]

Active LEO’s can fly armed under some circumstances. I think all active or retired LEO’s should be able to carry if they passed the Air Marshal qualification course. (Yes, it’s difficult)

I was in MPI while stationed in Hawaii, we did MANY prisoner transports to the mainland armed wearin civies.

 

[Bear44]

A crowded airplane is not the same as a crowd on the street.

But why isn't it the same? I'm not busting your balls. I'm taking the other side of the argument so when it inevitably comes up for real we'll have a solid response

 

[GAK9]

But why isn't it the same? I'm not busting your balls. I'm taking the other side of the argument so when it inevitably comes up for real we'll have a solid response

Ok, again, I’m not going play 500 questions with you. It’s already been posted. Too easy to hit an innocent bystander, it’s like getting into a firefight in a crowded elevator.

 

[BHPSteel]

Another way of looking at it:

Rule 4. Always Be Sure of Your Target and What’s Beyond It​

There's always a degree of uncertainty when you deploy a firearm when it comes to rule 4. In some situations, the potential ramifications of breaking this rule are so great, and the liklihood of those ramifications occurring are going to make other parties want to restrict your ability to discharge a firearm.

It's entirely understandable, and it's fortunate that there's a way to satisfy everyone.

1. The airline has the right to decline your business, just as a bakery has the right to not bake you an NRA Cake.
2. You are not being forced to fly with that business in a manner where you feel incapable of defending your life.

The difference between an aircraft, a bus, a crowded room, (or a submarine for that matter) is the level of risk created by you being armed vs the level of risk of someone else being armed and intent on doing harm to you, and the ease with which you can make other arrangements.

It's important to emphasize that your right to self defense is no more important to another person than their right to associate - or disassociate with you.

 

[Glock 21]

Yes you should be allowed to carry anywhere anytime unless your safety is guaranteed. Caveat being people should have to pass a test similar to law enforcement to carry because even though protecting yourself and family is your God given right their are way to many people carrying that have zero idea of what they are doing.

If carrying was normalized it wouldn’t even be a thought just like putting on a watch or remembering to grab your cellphone. That is why I am pro open carry even if it can be tactically unsound, getting people use to seeing guns that don’t magically jump out and kill everyone is a good thing

 

[BHPSteel]

Your safety can never be guaranteed.

You have no right to impose tests upon people who simply want to exercise a constitutional right.

Firearm training to meet the level required of law enforcement is certainly no guarantee of competency; many police officers see maintaining competency with a firearm as a chore.

 

[gh1950]

You have no right to impose tests upon people who simply want to exercise a constitutional right.

.

Yes I do,

Stand in my living room and exercise your First Amendment right in a way I think is inappropriate, and I'll throw your ass in the street.

 

[BHPSteel]

That's on your own property. Your property, your rules.

 

[Bear44]

That's on your own property. Your property, your rules.

True, but the way it's looked at now for aircraft is "Your property, the government's rules."

 

[GAK9]

Your safety can never be guaranteed.

You have no right to impose tests upon people who simply want to exercise a constitutional right.

Firearm training to meet the level required of law enforcement is certainly no guarantee of competency; many police officers see maintaining competency with a firearm as a chore.

Do you carry a firearm inside a courthouse? What about openly carrying inside a courtroom? If not, why not? Why don’t you exercise your constitutional right to carry?