FLEOA urges President Obama to authorize all LEO to carry aboard aircraft.

[Denny347]

Thanks, Denny, for clarifying your position.

Blessings,
Bill

No problemo. Sometimes this medium does not lend itself to clear communications. Speaking with Jeremy, we have determined that we indeed see eye to eye. It is the same issues that we have with the nationwide LEO carry. While the "non-LEO" in me has a problem with the unfairness inherent it this law and the States Rights issues, the LEO in me is thankful that I now have the ability. It truly is a tug of war from within.

 

[jeremy]

What Denny said! That and I had a pretty short fuse and my sarcasm was all used up yesterday...

But I am better today, maybe...

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Yeah, we can already carry on a plane if we take the class and have a letter from the Chief stating that we are carrying as part of our duties...flying on business or something like that. This legislation would just eliminate the letter.

Denny if you don't mind me asking, when did you last fly armed? I believe they have changed the rules a bit. A letter from the Chief doesn't cut it anymore, they decided that was too easy to fake. Now the Chief has to contact DHS and they issue a number if they deem it necessary, that has to be called in when you get to the airport to verify. And just flying on LE business doesn't cut it now either, I think you have to be either escorting a prisoner or have an official reason to be armed as soon as you hit ground ie you will be on duty as soon as you land. Except for some of the Fed agencies but everyone knows they are better than the locals.

frangible ammo

Rounds will easily penetrate soft fleshy objects but then break up into a lot of small pieces when they come in contact w/ anything harder then the bullet itself.

Air marshals don't carry frangible, they carry hollowpoints. I can't remember exactly but I think +p gold dots.

Air Marshalls receive extensive training in the area of shot placement so they don't shoot a hole in the plane which could make for a really fast depressurization.

Believe me that I am all for citizens being able to carry weapons because it is a deterrent to the criminals out there and everyone should be able to protect themselves and their family but, To say all citizens should be able to carry on airlines could make a bad situation even worse. The average citizen is not trained in weapons retention,Dealing with a high stress situation etc. My opinion is that anyone in Law Enforcement should have to pass the same test Air Marshals do before they can carry on planes. Just my thoughts. I am not belittling anyone here. Just my opinion.

Explosive decompression from a bullet or 2 (or even a bakers dozen) is a myth and has been proven to be one. Planes are designed to be "leaky".

And couldn't the rest of your argument be applied to just about everyplace else? Couldn't the average citizen who is not trained in weapon retention/high stress situation/mindset make a bad situation worse in a robbery at Micky Ds? Or a mugging on a subway? Or anyplace else you can imagine. Please don't take this as bashing. I'm honestly interested in why you feel the how you do.

 

[Shadownick]

I'm sort of neutral on this position... I like the idea of having a good, armed, police officer onboard, but think about this. If a shot happens to go off, misses, goes straight through the plane, bam. There goes cabin pressure. And after a large commercial jet loses cabin pressure, it's going to be extremely hard to restableize. Many people onboard could simply pass out or even (mainly the elderly) die from lack of oxygen at such a high altitude after a large pressure differation. It's not really worth the chances. Better to simply wrestle down the hijacker and keep him in custody until landing at the nearest airport.

Just my .

 

[jeremy]

I'm sort of neutral on this position... I like the idea of having a good, armed, police officer onboard, but think about this. If a shot happens to go off, misses, goes straight through the plane, bam. There goes cabin pressure. And after a large commercial jet loses cabin pressure, it's going to be extremely hard to restableize. Many people onboard could simply pass out or even (mainly the elderly) die from lack of oxygen at such a high altitude after a large pressure differation. It's not really worth the chances. Better to simply wrestle down the hijacker and keep him in custody until landing at the nearest airport.

Just my .

WRONG!!!

You would literally have to fire hundreds of rounds though the side of a passenger liner for this to even be a concern... This is only a concern in Hollywood and not real life. Cabin decompression or explosive cabin decompression from bullets is completely a myth.

 

[Denny347]

Bullet hole will not harm anyone, just **** the mechanics off who have to replace that are of the inner/outer skin.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Bullet hole will not harm anyone, just **** the mechanics off who have to replace that are of the inner/outer skin.

Yep. And once you have the terrorist down... just take one of those cute little white bags and put it over the bullet hole to stop the air escaping till you get to the ground.

No, I don't know if that works or not... but it sounds good!

 

[jeremy]

Yep. And once you have the terrorist down... just take one of those cute little white bags and put it over the bullet hole to stop the air escaping till you get to the ground.

No, I don't know if that works or not... but it sounds good!

That's more plausible than explosive decompression...

 

[Dogman]

Or use the terrorist to plug the hole and see how much of his body gets sucked out of the plane before the decompression stops.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Or use the terrorist to plug the hole and see how much of his body gets sucked out of the plane until the decompression stops.

I thought about that, but I figured the terrorist would be kinda heavy, and the bullet hole would likely be a little too high on the cabin wall.

Although... if we're carrying firearms, I suppose the whole "security theater" would be gone and we'd be able to carry knives, with which we could carve off a piece or two. Not like the SOB is going to feel it.

Too, I'm curious: Has anyone seen any tests done (a la Box o' Truth) to see if hollow points filled with bacon grease would still expand?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Dogman]

I thought about that, but I figured the terrorist would be kinda heavy, and the bullet hole would likely be a little too high on the cabin wall.

Although... if we're carrying firearms, I suppose the whole "security theater" would be gone and we'd be able to carry knives, with which we could carve off a piece or two. Not like the SOB is going to feel it.

Too, I'm curious: Has anyone seen any tests done (a la Box o' Truth) to see if hollow points filled with bacon grease would still expand?

Blessings,
Bill

Height wouldn't be a problem, the suction from the decompression would help lift them up.

Carving off a large enough piece might work unless you hit a large bone and didn't have a saw handy.

The problem with using bacon grease is that would most likely bring on a jihad and terrorist acts against us ...... oh wait!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I dislike laws that create, or rather reinforce, the feudal notion that LEOs are better than others (this unfortunate consequence is rampant in Indiana law).

I fail to see how a LEO with far less training than me gets to carry on the plane simply because of his gig.

I would support a rule change for allowing either anyone with a "CCW" license or minimum number of training hours, etc.

 

[jedi]

Plane travel these days is a b*tch and I just don't see the benefit of allowing Jo Schmo to carry on a plane. I KNOW I could responsibly handle it but I can't be sure about anyone else. Since I am confined to this small space with these multitudes of people I don't know or trust, and cannot easily escape, I would rather everyone be unarmed.

As far as someone trying to storm the cockpit, or light his shoe on fire, or blow up the plane with his underpants, flying lead is not going to help the situation. Beware of whats behind your target. That is one of four rules we must always follow as responsible gun carriers. Unless the target is floating on the ceiling, it's going to be tough to get a clear shot. A gun is, most likely, not the best way to deal with one of the situations above.
AJB

AJB can we have the address of your house since I would think based on your logic above that you don't lock your doors so as to DETER robbers from coming in and taking all your stuff.

Most are focusing on the narrow issue of "who" do we allow to carry firearms onto a plane but appear to be missing the bigger pic which we once had in this country. I can't find what date/year it occured but firearms WERE allowed on airplanes @ the start. Just like you could carry on trains as well. Somewhere along the line we deemed it "unsafe" due to our "fears" but in reality all we did was give ourselfs a false since of security.

Think like a terrorist or mad-women/man for 1 sec. You want to blow something up or cause chaos. OK what ways can you do it. many, right. But what ways are easier and will allow you greater sucess? Well you know planes don't have armed people so you have a higher sucess rate their. Hum you could walk into a school as well since that is also free of arms. It's the same concept as home robbers. If they see house A that has a security system and house B with no seucirty (noone home, etc..) they are going to hit the easier target. Just makes sence since they can get away. Now if they know Home A has $10K in GOLD then you bet they will plan more and eventalluy hit it. The point is no one is ever really safe. It's all about deterance and making it NOT worth the while for the terrorist, mad-men/women or criminal.

Airplanes & Guns:Myths and Reality

If the bad person knows that guns are now allowed on planes but does not know who will have them (if any) do you think they will try the plane hijack? Yes some still will but for the most part they will look for another way.

 

[Lex Concord]

WRONG!!!

You would literally have to fire hundreds of rounds though the side of a passenger liner for this to even be a concern... This is only a concern in Hollywood and not real life. Cabin decompression or explosive cabin decompression from bullets is completely a myth.

While explosive decompression is certainly a myth, planes are filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and miles of wires to fly them.

One would still do well to avoid overpenetration, in order to avoid damaging these systems and potentially impacting the ability of the pilot to safely fly the plane.

That said, shoot the SOB, just use frangibles

 

[jeremy]

While explosive decompression is certainly a myth, planes are filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and miles of wires to fly them.

One would still do well to avoid overpenetration, in order to avoid damaging these systems and potentially impacting the ability of the pilot to safely fly the plane.

That said, shoot the SOB, just use frangibles

Yup lots of fuel, mostly kept in the wings. Miles of wires and hydraulic lines usually located towards the center of the bird either directly over the cabin or directly under the floor.

Actually FMJ may be a better choice over frangible due to the same considerations you listed... Wires, and lines cut real easy...

 

[Ramen]

I am against any law saying who can and can't carry a gun on a plane. The owners of the planes should get to say who can and can't carry on their aircraft. The government should not be involved at all.

There is no reason for government involvement in the Airline Industry.

 

[tuckdog]

Obama wont ever let this happen.

 

[homeless]

While explosive decompression is certainly a myth, planes are filled with thousands of gallons of jet fuel and miles of wires to fly them.

One would still do well to avoid overpenetration, in order to avoid damaging these systems and potentially impacting the ability of the pilot to safely fly the plane.

That said, shoot the SOB, just use frangibles

Since when has GoldDot been frangible ammo? Because last I heard that is what Air Marshals run. Furthermore most of the field reports from .357 sig GD mention the spent round being found either caught in the clothes upon exit or within feet from the body. They are very well designed and do not have over penetration problems. And unlike frangible ammo they actually put targets down.

Furthermore unlike the movies shooting a tank of fuel wont blow it up, even Jet Fuel. It might cause a few leaks and shorten the flight time, but if you are shooting I am going to guess the pilot will start heading for the nearest strip.

As far as the avionic controls, some really smart guys at Boeing, Northrup, Airbus, and most of the other manufactures put some redundancy systems just in case.

Modern aircraft can take some serious damage before they fall out of the sky like rocks.

 

[evansvillethompsongunner]

Hey, I'm all for that. We should all be allowed to drive cars with red and blue lights. What makes the police so special that only they can have them? We should all be able to pull other drivers over and write them tickets. We should ALL have the power to deprive each other of our freedom (with due process of course). Police badges for ALL. There should be no difference between LEO's and non-LEO's. As citizens we should all have the same legal authourity. Then the world will finally be in harmony. Now where is that purple lettering when you need it?

I don't see a single sentence which would require purple. Citizens can be deputized, can arrest people on suspicion of crime (Citizens' Arrest)... any thing I'm not seeing here?

 

[jsgolfman]

I am against any law saying who can and can't carry a gun on a plane. The owners of the planes should get to say who can and can't carry on their aircraft. The government should not be involved at all.

There is no reason for government involvement in the Airline Industry.

^^^^This