Could one start an airline in the US that didn't ban passengers from carrying guns?

[jlbraun]

Legally, that is? Does the FAA regulate airline policies such as this?

I was thinking like an intrastate airline that flew between 2 cities in Colorado or Nevada or something.

And would you ride on such an airline?

 

[geekWithA.45]

I believe it's FAA regs that prohibit armed passengers, with a bunch of exceptions for LEO like activities.

As to how that would apply to intrastate hops, well, you'll be butting up against the expansivist interpretations of the commerce clause. I'm fairly certain you'll need FAA L & I to run any commercial airflight biz, and I'm sure that following regs is a condition of maintaining licensure.

 

[michaelbane]

GW45 is right on all counts. In addition, it's actually in the United States Code. And don't forget the state level limitations in CCW laws. Some states exclude passenger terminals.

However, my understanding of FAA regs is a private jet service (like the ones flown by CEO's and celebrities) has the option of allowing weapons. Those types of air carriers are called "Part 135", because that's the part of the FAA regs that apply to them.

Now to the cheap plug. Don't forget my Armed Passengers Project! GW45 helped me out on the quote on the main page. Thanks again, GW45.

 

[NukemJim]

No, for the above reasons

Yes if it was available.

NukemJim

 

[PPGMD]

There is no prohibition under part 91. I am pretty sure there is a prohibition under part 121, not really sure about part 135.

So yes for a part 91 charter, maybe under part 135, and no under part 121.

Almost all scheduled airlines operate under part 121, air taxis that are on demand operate under part 135, part 91 covers only a small part of commercial operations (I forget the exact restrictions I haven't kept up on the commercial side of aviation).

 

[Skibane]

NRA Air?

(Motto: "The only airline where the passengers are actually hoping to be hijacked...")

 

[Frog48]

Even if you could, extra-legal considerations would make it very tough. For starters, getting the corporation insured would be nearly impossible.

 

[Geister]

Starting an airline is tough to begin with. I think most carriers nowadays have been bankrupt at least twice.

 

[Psssniper]

I can see it now........

GunAir

 

[tnieto2004]

There may be a way .. But they could not compete with the airlines currently in business .. Can you imagine the fear especially post 9/11 .. No way would that ever go over with the majority ..

 

[Lone_Gunman]

It is ok to carry firearms on private chartered planes, right?

Could the definition of "chartered" be manipulated? For example, what if me and 150 other people charter a 747 to fly from Atlanta to Los Angeles?

If that could be done, couldn't you avoid airport security entirely?

 

[kellyj00]

that's a good point. It seems like all the horrible stuff that happens in this country seems to occur where attackers know the victims will not be armed under law.

Airlines, the NYC attacks...
Colleges the VT incident...
High schools many mass shootings in the past decades...

I think this is a solid anti gun control debate.

 

[ShelleyB.]

Everything else aside, Grant48 is right about not being able to secure insurance.

 

[Flyboy]

Lone_Gunman, you could probably arrange a mass charter, but doing it more than once would start to look like scheduled service. As somebody who has personally arranged for the FAA to relieve someone of his certificate, I can assure you that the FAA takes a mighty dim view of trying to skirt or manipulate the regulations (and, being an administrative agency, they get to try you in their own courts, too).