- Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com) - The Libertarian Party says
President George W. Bush, not the anti-gun liberals in his administration,
is directly responsible for why America's commercial airline pilots remain
defenseless against terrorists.
-
- "The president puts whoever he wants in cabinet
agencies and they answer to him," said Libertarian Party spokesman
George Getz.
-
- "So if the president wants pilots not to carry guns,
it doesn't matter if he's got [Transportation Secretary] Norman Mineta
or [National Rifle Association Executive Vice President] Wayne LaPierre
or [Gun Owners of America Executive Director] Larry Pratt in that job,
the guns are going to get banned," he continued.
-
- Second Amendment rights supporters and pilots groups
have criticized Mineta for his public opposition to arming commercial airline
pilots.
-
- "I don't feel that we should have lethal weapons
in the cockpit," Mineta said at a March 4 press conference with Undersecretary
for Transportation Security John Magaw, the former director of the Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
-
- While Libertarians acknowledge Mineta's anti-gun history
in Congress, they say the transportation secretary cannot be solely faulted
for the administration's inaction.
-
- "It's telling only half the story to blame this
on the cabinet secretary," Getz contended. "This is President
Bush's opinion. If he doesn't like what Mineta is doing, he can fire him."
-
- Libertarians say the fact that Mineta was not fired,
or any kind of correction issued regarding the statement, proves that Bush
supports it.
-
- "He's chosen gun control over terrorist control,"
Getz added.
-
- Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge and Federal Aviation
Administrator Jane Garvey have also publicly stated their disapproval of
arming pilots.
-
- A comment Wednesday by White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe
supports the Libertarians' contention that Bush opposes the move, as well.
-
- "We don't need to have a potential for handguns
getting loose on airplanes," he said, claiming arming pilots "could
create more danger than it eliminates."
-
- Bush Being Doubly Hypocritical
-
- Getz believes Bush, who signed the legislation allowing
thousands of law-abiding Texans to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense,
is being doubly hypocritical.
-
- "He's cruising around on Air Force One. He's surrounded
by armed Secret Service agents," he argued. "But he tells everyone
else they shouldn't have the same right to fly in safety."
-
- The decision over whether airlines may allow their pilots
to be armed could be taken out of the hands of everyone in the administration
except President Bush, if some congressmen have their way.
-
- CNSNews.com reported Wednesday that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)
and John Mica (R-Fla.) have introduced legislation to force the creation
of a voluntary armed pilots program.
-
- The bill would require the Transportation Security Administration
to establish a program to deputize qualified, volunteer pilots as "Federal
Flight Deck Officers" within 90 days after its enactment. Within 120
days of enactment, 500 such pilots must be deputized under the act, and
all volunteer pilots who meet the requirements must be deputized within
two years.
-
- The proposal would also provide training and background
checks for the pilots similar to those undergone by Federal Air Marshals.
-
- 'Too Much Of A Government Program'
-
- That bill has the support of the major airline pilots'
unions, but not of the first member of Congress to suggest arming pilots
after the September 11th attacks.
-
- Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) says Congress simply needs to
acknowledge the constitutional right of airlines to allow their pilots
to carry firearms on the airlines' private property, nothing more.
-
- "Just like any other industry that has [armed] guards
and security all the time, I don't think the airlines should be any different.
The Young-Mica bill," he says, "is too much of a government program."
-
- None of the major airlines has come out in support of
any "armed pilots" proposal, but industry insiders say the Young-Mica
legislation is more palatable to the airlines because it shifts the liability
for mistakes from them to the federal government.
-
- But Paul sees that as another of the problems with the
Young-Mica bill.
-
- "I wanted [liability] to fall on the business that
has a responsibility to protect its property. I wanted to just legalize
their right to do so," he explained.
-
- The airlines, Paul says, should have the same liability
that any other business would have if an armed employee of the business
improperly used his or her weapon.
-
- "Hopefully we live in a civilized society that,
if we're being attacked by terrorists and we shoot them, that we would
have enough sense not to put the people doing the shooting in jail,"
he added.
-
- On September 17, 2001 the Texas conservative introduced
H.R. 2896, "to provide for the safety of United States aviation and
the suppression of terrorism." The proposal has the distinction of
being one of the shortest bills ever introduced.
-
- After four sentences of "findings" about the
terrorist attacks, it states: "Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no department or agency of the Federal Government shall prohibit
any pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement
personnel specifically detailed for the protection of that aircraft, from
carrying a firearm."
-
- The bill has 19 co-sponsors and was immediately referred
to the House Subcommittee on Aviation, which Mica chairs. No further action
has been taken since.
-
- 'A Lot Of Responsibility To Go Around'
-
- Paul acknowledges that Bush, himself, has not come out
against arming pilots, but says the evidence is obvious.
-
- "You have to infer from the neglect and lack of
enthusiasm," the congressman observed, "that he is not on our
side on this issue."
-
- Libertarians are less forgiving, placing responsibility
squarely on Bush, and issuing a warning.
-
- "If another hijacking occurs, we're going to lay
this at George W. Bush's feet," Getz concluded. "He has to accept
responsibility for what he has done."
-
- But Paul says pilots are only still flying unarmed because
of a cultural and educational failure.
-
- "We've been badgered and brainwashed by our schools
and our media to be opposed to gun ownership. So it's Congress, it's the
regulators, it's our presidents, it's our society and our lack of respect
for the Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole," Paul concluded.
"There's a lot of responsibility to go around."
-
- http://www.cnsnews.com/View
-
-
- Comment
-
- From Robert E. Smith
Robert.E.Smith@state.tn.us
5-7-2
-
- Jeff,
-
- I just finished reading the subject article on your website,
and for nearly the first time, I had to make a comment on this particular
story.
-
- First, let's look at the basics of the question. By definition
a pilot is on board the plane to fly it from point A to point B. They have
to take it off, navigate the proper route, and safely land the plan at
it's destination. They are not there to get into a gun battle with possible
terrorists. The last I heard, that's what Sky Marshall's are for.
-
- Second, most pilots, even those who come from a military
background are not trained in small arms tactics or hostage rescue (eg
the passengers). Most military pilots may have training in escape and evasion,
but their small arms training is pretty much limited to one hour a day,
one week a year in familiariztion and qualification at a controlled pistol
range. An armed ametuer trying to suppress a hi-jacking is likely to get
himself and others killed unnecessarily......and again leave the plane
either without a pilot or turning to the plane over to a terrorist pilot.
Again, trained Sky Marshall's would seem the logical choice.
-
- Third, if keeping the pilots .... and the control cockpit....
safe from the reach of terrorist is the goal, why not seal off the cockpit
area completely. Every airliner I've been on has at least two doors, there
is no reason why passangers have to enter by the door closest to the cockpit.
It may take some retrofitting to accomidate lavatories and food storage,
but you have to chose your priorities.
-
- Finally, you have to look at the goals of the supposed
terrorist. If they are there to blow the plane up in flight, they are going
to do it. If they are there to take hostages, arming a couple of pilots
isn't the answer (surely there is some way to reduce air pressure in the
cabin until everyone passes out). Lastly, if they want to seize control
of the plan and commit another 9-11, they deny them the possibilty of even
being able to get close to the controls.
-
- Thanks,
-
- Robert E. Smith
GySgt, USMC (ret)
Knoxville, TN
-
-
-
-
- Comment
- From Anonymous User
5-9-2
-
- Alarm? What alarm? The only alarm I see is from a bunch
of gun-grabbing socialists on the other side of the pond who have a problem
with the U.S. Constitution.
-
-
- Alarm as US law officer restores right to own
guns
-
- By Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian - London
5-9-2
-
- The US justice department has told the supreme court
that gun ownership is guaranteed by the constitution, overturning the official
government position of the past 60 years.
-
- Legal experts say the statement could result in US gun
laws falling apart.
-
- A triumph for the gun lobby, the view was stated in footnotes
to two unsolicited briefs sent to the supreme court on Monday night giving
opinions in gun-ownership cases.
-
- They were written by the solicitor general, Ted Olson,
and deal with the second amendment to the constitution, which states: "A
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
-
- This made a lot more sense in the late 18th century than
it does today. And since a 1939 supreme court ruling, the government position
has been that the amendment only safeguards the right to a gun of those
called up for an officially sanctioned militia.
-
- Otherwise there was no constitutional right to gun ownership,
which left the issue open to government regulation.
-
- Mr Olson wrote that the second amendment broadly protected
the right of individuals, including those not engaged in military service
or training, to bear their own firearms, subject to reasonable restrictions
to prevent possession by unfit persons or restrict types of firearms that
are particularly suited to criminal misuse.
-
- The supreme court is not obliged to rule in line with
the advice, and the briefs do not ask it to take any action, but the Brady
Centre to Prevent Gun Violence said their real impact would be that government
lawyers would take this as official guidance when arguing gun cases.
-
- "It is truly perverse for the attorney general to
be instructing justice department lawyers throughout the country not to
assert the strongest argument in favour of the constitutionality of gun
laws," its legal director, Dennis Henigan, said.
-
- Experts say the briefs will encourage the National Rifle
Association to challenge laws restricting rights of ownership. Rules requiring
background checks before purchases and banning machine guns could be vulnerable.
-
- "If there's an individual right for the average
citizen, those types of regulations may very well be at risk," Franklin
Zimring, a legal scholar at the University of California, told the Los
Angeles Times.
-
- The NRA warmly welcomed the policy change, calling it
"a very good start".
-
- The attorney general, John Ashcroft, a lifelong NRA member,
promised a change in policy last May.
-
- In marked contrast to other aspects of the crackdown
on illegal immigrants and terrorist suspects after September 11, Mr Ashcroft
refused to let the FBI check its own records to find out if any of the
suspects had bought guns, although such records were stipulated by the
1993 Brady law on gun control.
-
- He said the records infringed gunowners' rights, and
ordered that they should be held no longer than 24 hours, and then destroyed.
-
- Mathew Nosanchuk, a legislative expert at the Violence
Policy Centre, a gun control group in Washington, said: "Here you
have an attorney general flouting decades of precedent to embrace an expansive
view of a heretofore unrecognised individual right to own a gun, and that
could put many gun laws at risk."
-
- * The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, who is increasingly
troubled by the increase in crime involving firearms, has announced a gun
amnesty, and says his administration will buy guns from residents for $100
each, with no questions asked.
-
- The policy will apply for the next 30 days.
-
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/usguns/Story/0,2763,712197,00.html
|
