View Poll Results: Should we be allowed to CC on Commercial Aircraft

Voters
74. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    64 86.49%
  • No

    2 2.70%
  • Yes, with special Permit

    8 10.81%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: Conceal Carry on Comercial Aircraft.

  1. #1
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290

    Conceal Carry on Comercial Aircraft.

    Should you be allowed to CC on Comercial Aircraft? I believe that if this were legal 9/11 would have been a lot different (assuming people riding had actually had a firearm with them). Maybe even have a license add-on type of thing that allows you to carry on, so when you go through security with your gun, it shows that your name appears on the able o carry onboard list. Crime data shows that less then 0.1% of gun crimes are commited by law abiding gun owners. What makes them think that would suddenly change at 30,000 feet? Gun-free zones = unconstitutional zones!
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Actually, we should be able to OC with no permit.

    The bar on carry on airliners is based on some irrational fear, two in particular: (1) that a firearm going off on an airplane will bring it down and (2) that carry will allow a rogue passenger to take control of the plane.

    (1) It is almost impossible to take a plane down with bullets.

    (2) If only one person is (or only a small handful of BGs are) armed, then, yes, they could (and have) taken over airliners. However, if several GGs are also armed, then the BGs taking control is a lot less likely. The airplane may have a few holes. There may be a few casualties. However, the alternative creates the possibility of another 9/11.

    We should never allow BGs to ever take control of one of our airliners again. The best shot we have at preventing such a takeover is routinely armed citizens.

  3. #3
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Actually, we should be able to OC with no permit.

    The bar on carry on airliners is based on some irrational fear, two in particular: (1) that a firearm going off on an airplane will bring it down and (2) that carry will allow a rogue passenger to take control of the plane.

    (1) It is almost impossible to take a plane down with bullets.

    (2) If only one person is (or only a small handful of BGs are) armed, then, yes, they could (and have) taken over airliners. However, if several GGs are also armed, then the BGs taking control is a lot less likely. The airplane may have a few holes. There may be a few casualties. However, the alternative creates the possibility of another 9/11.

    We should never allow BGs to ever take control of one of our airliners again. The best shot we have at preventing such a takeover is routinely armed citizens.
    All very good points, wether it be WITH or WITHOUT a permit, I would love to see at LEAST this changed. Unfortunatly would be one of the largest hurdles against the excuse me "no-brain, Brady Campaign" They would be talking about gun battles at 30,000 feet. They refuse to look at statistics that say it would make flying a lot safer in post 9/11 days.
    Last edited by protect our rights; 02-19-2011 at 09:31 PM.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lebanon, VA
    Posts
    676
    A little late to the party :

    James M. "Jim" Mullins, Jr., Esq.
    Admitted to practice in West Virginia and Florida.

    Founder, Past President, Treasurer, and General Counsel, West Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
    Life Member, NRA

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I despise that video.

    It was designed by the ultra-left producers of that show to portray those who promote the RKBA as bumbling fools. That a rational argument is buried deep within the idiotic rambling is not a plus for the cause. It causes folks to think that that the one little gem is just more of the idiocy.

    It is bad enough that lefties produce this strawman (mostly) bilge. It is worse when those who would defend our rights continue to push this clip.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    330
    Quote Originally Posted by protect our rights View Post
    ... Crime data shows that less then 0.1% of gun crimes are commited by law abiding gun owners.....
    If they are law-abiding, how do they commit crimes? Not a poke at your thought, but at your wording.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Clearly the conclusion referred to folks who were law abiding prior to the gun crime.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    This is one that will never happen. The morons at tsa confiscate nail clippers. If carry was allowed, they'd be out of jobs. As their average IQ is 46, more welfare for the rest of us to pay...

  9. #9
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    This is one that will never happen. The morons at tsa confiscate nail clippers. If carry was allowed, they'd be out of jobs. As their average IQ is 46, more welfare for the rest of us to pay...
    No disrespect, I do see where you're coming from but....

    If everyone thought the way you do, we wouldn't have ANY gun rights in America. I'm just saying it may seem unlikely, but then-again who would have thought we would come so far with our rights just 7-10 years ago? Keep a positive attitude, keep on your politicians and one day we may have ALL our rights that the 2nd Amendment says we should have.
    Last edited by protect our rights; 02-22-2011 at 07:41 PM. Reason: spelling
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  10. #10
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    In my lifetime... and not all that long ago, people carried guns on commercial aircraft w/o so much as a hiccup. I did it. It wasn't a 'thing'. To my knowledge... there was never an incident because of it either.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by protect our rights View Post
    No disrespect, I do see where you're coming from but....

    If everyone thought the way you do, we wouldn't have ANY gun rights in America. I'm just saying it may seem unlikely, but then-again who would have thought we would come so far with our rights just 7-10 years ago? Keep a positive attitude, keep on your politicians and one day we may have ALL our rights that the 2nd Amendment says we should have.
    No, that's not true. To win a battle you must have achievable expectations. I don't believe this is one. That in no way means I don't see other opportunities where a win is a real possibility as worth fighting for, and in fact I do. There are many affirmations of the 2A that we can and must get before we spend effort and resources on ones that just aren't going to happen. For me, Federal reciprocity is a real possibility and worth doing all we can to get. Carrying on a commercial aircraft just doesn't have the same imperative for me. Maybe down the road it will. But now, first things first.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonora Rebel View Post
    In my lifetime... and not all that long ago, people carried guns on commercial aircraft w/o so much as a hiccup. I did it. It wasn't a 'thing'. To my knowledge... there was never an incident because of it either.
    I don't recall CC of a handgun as being allowed. But broken down rifles were often in carry on. With the ammo. Not sure about cased handguns as it never was an issue for me, but wouldn't be surprised. When I flew to Clark from Travis on my way to the war, I had my Hi-Power with me. Told the AC, as required by AF regs, and he said don't shoot the coffee pots. Anything else, what the hell...he wouldn't hear it anyway.

  13. #13
    Regular Member protect our rights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Fort Wayne, Indiana
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    No, that's not true. To win a battle you must have achievable expectations. I don't believe this is one. That in no way means I don't see other opportunities where a win is a real possibility as worth fighting for, and in fact I do. There are many affirmations of the 2A that we can and must get before we spend effort and resources on ones that just aren't going to happen. For me, Federal reciprocity is a real possibility and worth doing all we can to get. Carrying on a commercial aircraft just doesn't have the same imperative for me. Maybe down the road it will. But now, first things first.

    I respectfully disagree with you. It IS achievable. Could happen in the next 3 years. All it takes is a growing movement, a lot of talking to our politicians. I don't believe like many in the federal reciprocity. More of the same, giving us our "privileges". We want to get states to slowly go towards constitutional carry. Fed. Reciprocity would actually make it harder to lose the restrictive laws that they have in place at the moment.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    700
    Why is there a poll for concealed carry in General Discussion on OpenCarry.org?

  15. #15
    Regular Member DevinWKuska's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Spanaway
    Posts
    300
    Quote Originally Posted by Curtis View Post
    Why is there a poll for concealed carry in General Discussion on OpenCarry.org?
    +1
    "So there I was between a rock and a hard place, when it hit me... What am I doing on this side of the rock?"

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Just treat the poll as being about carry in general. That's how I answered. I don't care how I carry. We just should be able to exercise our rights on an airplane.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Bowers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA
    Posts
    46
    !!!! But if you shoot in an airplane, it explodes, and puppies everywhere die! Everyone knows that!

  18. #18
    Regular Member Nevada carrier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    The Epicenter of Freedom
    Posts
    1,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Bowers View Post
    !!!! But if you shoot in an airplane, it explodes, and puppies everywhere die! Everyone knows that!

    You forgot to mention the children, think about the children!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    49

    Wepons on acft oc/cc

    Quote Originally Posted by Bowers View Post
    !!!! But if you shoot in an airplane, it explodes, and puppies everywhere die! Everyone knows that!
    @Bowers, at altitude i believe it implodes due to outside pressure. If and when the acft loses interior pressurization, outside air pressure causes the fuselage to crumble at high altitudes. I could be wrong tho.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by waapl01 View Post
    @Bowers, at altitude i believe it implodes due to outside pressure. If and when the acft loses interior pressurization, outside air pressure causes the fuselage to crumble at high altitudes. I could be wrong tho.
    It is unbelievably unlikely that bullet holes will cause this. However, the commonly accepted fear is explosive decompression. Of course, if decompression occurs explosively, it is entirely possible for the process to go to far, resulting in a reversal of relative pressures, which might cause a reactive implosion.

    The explosion would be far larger than the implosion, and any resultant destruction of the aircraft would likely immediately follow the explosion and, at most, be exacerbated by a subsequent implosion.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by waapl01 View Post
    @Bowers, at altitude i believe it implodes due to outside pressure. If and when the acft loses interior pressurization, outside air pressure causes the fuselage to crumble at high altitudes. I could be wrong tho.
    Pressure decreases with altitude. Things are sucked out of the higher pressure cabin into the lower pressure ambient air. A bullet hole would make noise, that's about all even at 35,000'. You could plug it with a napkin.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    It is unbelievably unlikely that bullet holes will cause this. However, the commonly accepted fear is explosive decompression. Of course, if decompression occurs explosively, it is entirely possible for the process to go to far, resulting in a reversal of relative pressures, which might cause a reactive implosion.

    The explosion would be far larger than the implosion, and any resultant destruction of the aircraft would likely immediately follow the explosion and, at most, be exacerbated by a subsequent implosion.
    You can never have lower air pressure inside an aircraft than outside atmospheric. No implosion is possible. The most rapid decompression conceivable would only equalize pressures.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by protect our rights View Post
    I respectfully disagree with you. It IS achievable. Could happen in the next 3 years. All it takes is a growing movement, a lot of talking to our politicians. I don't believe like many in the federal reciprocity. More of the same, giving us our "privileges". We want to get states to slowly go towards constitutional carry. Fed. Reciprocity would actually make it harder to lose the restrictive laws that they have in place at the moment.
    I sincerely hope you're correct. But, I'm a pragmatist even more so than a realist. I just don't see somethings happening. If I believed the slave states could achieve ConCarry, that would be the best route, period. Failing that, I'd be thrilled with Federal law forcing reciprocity, even if in a modified form at first.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Gunslinger View Post
    You can never have lower air pressure inside an aircraft than outside atmospheric. No implosion is possible. The most rapid decompression conceivable would only equalize pressures.
    As I said, the scenario is highly unlikely. However, explosions do create a relative low pressure which will create a reactive implosion. It is like pushing a child on a swing. The push from up top causes the child to move towards equilibrium, and then past equilibrium, causing the child to move back towards equilibrium.

    Explosions typically create (or result from) a high pressure that causes matter to fly towards the lesser pressure. Should this process go to far (as in a child on a swing going past equilibrium), a reversal of the process will be caused, i.e. the movement of matter away from the explosion could cause a low pressure, resulting in some of the matter moving back towards the explosion.

    Likely the resultant implosion will be tiny compared to the explosive decompression, especially if the rupture is not massive and the movement of matter takes a good deal of time, but it is entirely possible.

    The point I was making was that such a resultant implosion would be occurring in the space once occupied by a now obliterated aircraft. That implosion will be inconsequential.

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    (2) that carry will allow a rogue passenger to take control of the plane.
    lol, ask a pilot what they think about that notion.

    Truth be told, we don't need guns on planes for the reason I'm alluding to. Now that the pilots know better, there will never be another 9/11.

    Nevertheless, I fully support the right of people to be armed on whatever commercial carriers may elect to allow it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •