• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Conceal Carry on Comercial Aircraft.

Should we be allowed to CC on Commercial Aircraft


  • Total voters
    74

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
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!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,854
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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...
 

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
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:

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,957
Location
Gone
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,854
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,854
Location
Free, Colorado, USA
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.
 

protect our rights

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2011
Messages
290
Location
Fort Wayne, Indiana
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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

waapl01

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2010
Messages
49
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States
Wepons on acft oc/cc

!!!! 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.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
@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.
 
Top