Should A American Citizen With No Disqualifyers Be Able to Board a Train,Bus or Plane With a Gun?

[AlexanderA]

There is a direct correlation in timeline between the outlawing of privately carried firearms on airliners in the early 60's
and the rise in incidents of airliner hijackings in the mid to late '60's, through the 70s.

Unchecked guns in the cabin were outlawed, but this wasn't enforced. For example, in 1969, I remember big signs at the boarding gates warning that guns were prohibited, and mentioning the penalties. But there were no metal detectors or detailed inspections. A hijacker could easily get on a plane with a gun.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Dart allows you to carry on their public transit.

 

[Sistema1927]

I think that some here have forgotten that the Founding Fathers were in full agreement with "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem", specifically Thomas Jefferson who quoted it to James Madison.

 

[dogtown tom]

As an American? Yes, as the founders intended..

Oh please. The founders certainly didn't believe in "freedom" for all, for anything and everything.

As a socialistic American? Lets put qualifiers on our freedom.

Our founders sure as heck did.

That'll never end, but here we are, discussing what qualifiers we should put on freedom.

As has happened since the Constitution was written.

Most people believe in freedom, until they see it.

Most people who think freedom under our Constitution means being able to do anything, anytime or without regard to the wishes of others doesn't understand our system of government one bit.

Most people believe in free speech, until the hear it..

Most people don't understand the right to free speech is a restriction on government. You have no right to spout off your beliefs in church, in my business or in your neighbors living room.

 

[jstert]

i have no issue declaring and checking unloaded firearms as air carrier baggage. trains and buses, given their sketchier locales, are a different story.

 

[Necessary_Nutrient]

Per the 2nd Amendment the answer is yes.

Your answer, THR?

Airlines in particular need to offer a safe passage under vulnerable conditions. Forcing them to let, say, Jared Laughner fly with his 9mm loaded in the cabin is a ridiculous, willfully obtuse interpretation of the 2A

 

[The Night Rider]

i have no issue declaring and checking unloaded firearms as air carrier baggage. trains and buses, given their sketchier locales, are a different story.

I think he's talking about allowing passengers to carry

 

[shafter]

I'm fine with firearms required to be in checked luggage provided airports make this easy and hassle free and legal to carry once luggage is retrieved.

I'm fine with carry on trains and busses.

 

[George Dickel]

I don't know about trains or busses, but planes are too vulnerable. Letting people board with guns would, at best, bring back the "golden age" of hijacking. Buy a ticket to Chicago and end up in Cuba. At worst, you'd have a replay of 9/11. (Unless you issued everybody a gun as they boarded.) Seriously, no.

A few years back I read an article about a moron enter a gun shop, shoot a round into the ceiling and yell it was a robbery. The four, armed employees shot him dead. I really believe the same would happen if some idiot tried to hijack an airliner. Odds that there would be other armed passengers are pretty good.
Now, do I think it would be a good idea to allow guns on planes, probably not.
No guns were used in 9/11.

 

[George Dickel]

I voted YES but NO on a plane.

Don’t want to poke holes in a pressurized cabin.

Explosive depressurization only happens in movies. Passenger plane cabins are very low pressure. Air pressure drops and oxygen masks pop out, the pilot then drops to a lower altitude.

 

[AlexanderA]

A few years back I read an article about a moron enter a gun shop, shoot a round into the ceiling and yell it was a robbery. The four, armed employees shot him dead. I really believe the same would happen if some idiot tried to hijack an airliner. Odds that there would be other armed passengers are pretty good.

Here's the thing, regarding planes, if people were allowed to carry onboard. Even if allowed, few people would actually carry. But, those intending a hijacking (or worse) would certainly carry -- probably teams of them. So, you'd have "adverse selection" -- the law-abiding citizens would be outgunned by the wrongdoers. Imagine the bloodbath that would result, in the confined space, if everybody with a gun draws and starts shooting. This just boggles the mind.

 

[George Dickel]

Here's the thing, regarding planes, if people were allowed to carry onboard. Even if allowed, few people would actually carry. But, those intending a hijacking (or worse) would certainly carry -- probably teams of them. So, you'd have "adverse selection" -- the law-abiding citizens would be outgunned by the wrongdoers. Imagine the bloodbath that would result, in the confined space, if everybody with a gun draws and starts shooting. This just boggles the mind.

I did say I didn't think it was a good idea.

 

[GEM]

Given the low number of folks who actually carry, the odds of having a good guy or gal on the plane are low. Take a large jet like a 380, 777, etc. Terrorists could easily put 5 or 6 folks on one, and there might be one person with a J frame. I'll pass on that.

 

[Tinman357]

Some of the things I've read here make me believe that almost everyone wants to be the only one with a gun.

To the OP. Yes.

We either support the constitution, or we don't. The government, in its entirety, (I'll write this part slowly) DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS RESTRICTING THAT RIGHT ENUMERATED IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

I don't care what the .gov says.
I don't care what SCOTUS says.
I don't care what anyone says, no matter how well intentioned.
I don't care how good a law is, if it restricts the 2nd.

ANY and ALL laws that restrict the 2nd amendment rights of ANY American Citizen, is unconstitutional at it's very core.

The Constitution is the very foundation and root of our nation. For better or worse, there it is.

The 2A isn't a permission slip, it doesn't allow anything. It restricts and prohibits the authority of the government to make laws that forbid any American to keep and bear arms in any way. Full stop.

Are some of the gun laws that exist a good idea? Yes. But, they too are unconstitutional. Even the ones I agree with. But I acknowledge the fundamental fact that the .gov does not have the authority to pass such laws.

These unconstitutional and illegal laws exist for 2 simple reasons.

1. We, as a people, allow it.
2. Our government will incarcerate or kill us if we don't.

If there is a better example of a "two edged sword" I have yet to see it.

I read it. I didn't see any exceptions to it as written. No doubt there will be a lot of arguments about all of it. Thats been going on for a long time. It says what it says. It boils down to one simple premise.

The government, in it's entirety, does not have the legal authority to pass laws that restrict any constitutional right. Any arguement in support of doing so is completely irrelevant.

 

[dogtown tom]

.........

We either support the constitution, or we don't. The government, in its entirety, (I'll write this part slowly) DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS RESTRICTING THAT RIGHT ENUMERATED IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

I don't care what the .gov says.
I don't care what SCOTUS says.
I don't care what anyone says, no matter how well intentioned.
I don't care how good a law is, if it restricts the 2nd.

Yet the Constitution says what about the role of SCOTUS?
You cant say you believe in the Constitution without also believing in the authority that same Constitution gives SCOTUS.

ANY and ALL laws that restrict the 2nd amendment rights of ANY American Citizen, is unconstitutional at it's very core.........

That's YOUR opinion. In matter of "Constitytionality" your opinion doesn't matter one bit. The opinion of SCOTUS does.

The 2A isn't a permission slip, it doesn't allow anything. It restricts and prohibits the authority of the government to make laws that forbid any American to keep and bear arms in any way. Full stop...........
....
The government, in it's entirety, does not have the legal authority to pass laws that restrict any constitutional right. Any arguement in support of doing so is completely irrelevant.

So.........you think inmates at the state penitentiary are being denied their rights?
Don't go saying they don't count, because that is exactly what you are advocating above.

 

[Mosin77]

Yep let’s do it. Everybody armed everywhere. I’ll take my chances with the hole in the fuselage, it’s pretty overblown anyway and I bet it never happens, just like fistfights virtually never happen on planes.

 

[Tinman357]

Dogtown Tom.

You made 3 points.

1. Yes. I support SCOTUS. That said, SCOTUS doesn't pass laws, Congress does. They do not have the legal authority to restrict/redefine the 2nd. Nothing for SCOTUS to decide. I.E. this law prevents 1 person from owning a firearm. That law is illegal.

2. Yes, it is just my opinion. It doesn't matter. Thats what my entire statement was. Just my opinion. I'm not elected to any office, I'm not King of America. I'm just a common man entitled to my opinion. Try not to get in a twist about it. I didn't challenge anyone.

3. Yes. That is exactly what I mean. They are being denied their rights, that's what incarceration is. Will there be problems? Yep, thats a certainty. But those problems won't last long.

Again, just my opinion. I don't intend to gore anyones pet ox. This is a forum for ideas and opinions. Don't like it? It's ok man. Just scroll on through. I'm not challenging anyone.

 

[mjsdwash]

there comes a point where the inherent risk outweighs the benefit.
Even the skyjack/terrorist risk can't compare to the accidental discharge risk on a plane.
Image a bullet through hydraulic line, jammed in a jackscrew, the head of the pilot, or a fuel system part flying 500 miles in the pacific on the way to Hawaii.
Busses and trains maybe.

 

[mjsdwash]

Not only that, but the Heller opinion stated that guns can be banned from "sensitive places" such as schools, courthouses, government buildings, and (presumably) modes of transportation.

Ironically, a type of venue that typically bans loaded guns is (wait for it)....gun shows. If loaded guns can be banned from gun shows, they can surely be banned from airplanes.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't have as broad a scope as many here seem to think it has.

The first gun show I ever went to in Puallup Wa had a sign banning guns. This was at the end of the line at the admission point. I told them I had one and they only asked me to unload it in front of them. I wasn't required to hand anything over, they just asked me to keep it unloaded during the show.
They stated it was, like every other rule, because someone made it necessary.
Not just A.D.,.... They have alarm rings on some display, and people often set them off. Having a touchy guy draw down on some new 18 year old for picking up something without asking was a big worry.

 

[dogtown tom]

Dogtown Tom.

You made 3 points.

1. Yes. I support SCOTUS. That said, SCOTUS doesn't pass laws, Congress does. They do not have the legal authority to restrict/redefine the 2nd. Nothing for SCOTUS to decide. I.E. this law prevents 1 person from owning a firearm. That law is illegal.

Yet they do.

3. Yes. That is exactly what I mean. They are being denied their rights, that's what incarceration is. Will there be problems? Yep, thats a certainty. But those problems won't last long.

Being in favor of inmates being armed kinda sums up your rant.

Again, just my opinion. I don't intend to gore anyones pet ox. This is a forum for ideas and opinions. Don't like it? It's ok man. Just scroll on through. I'm not challenging anyone.

Please continue. It's entertaining.

 

[FL-NC]

I'll say this- on "admin" military transportation flights (meaning, not a combat infiltration to a mission) issued weapons are hand-carried and may not be loaded. Some helo units IN COMBAT allow fully loaded sidearms holstered, but long guns and machine guns will be loaded with an empty chamber- the bolt is cocked when the aircraft hits the ground. They claim this is for the safety of the aircraft.

 

[jonnyc]

So any untrained, undiagnosed Yabbo with a gun on a plane.....66.7% of you guys really scare me.

 

[gifbohane]

Yes, but only if there is not an ARMED law enforcement officer on duty on the plane.

 

[21H40]

Dogtown Tom.

You made 3 points.

1. Yes. I support SCOTUS. That said, SCOTUS doesn't pass laws, Congress does. They do not have the legal authority to restrict/redefine the 2nd. Nothing for SCOTUS to decide. I.E. this law prevents 1 person from owning a firearm. That law is illegal.

2. Yes, it is just my opinion. It doesn't matter. Thats what my entire statement was. Just my opinion. I'm not elected to any office, I'm not King of America. I'm just a common man entitled to my opinion. Try not to get in a twist about it. I didn't challenge anyone.

3. Yes. That is exactly what I mean. They are being denied their rights, that's what incarceration is. Will there be problems? Yep, thats a certainty. But those problems won't last long.

Again, just my opinion. I don't intend to gore anyones pet ox. This is a forum for ideas and opinions. Don't like it? It's ok man. Just scroll on through. I'm not challenging anyone.

Do you know how the other amendments are restricted?

The 1st is famously described as “it is not OK to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater”

The 4th doesn’t cover your trash can or smells emanating from your house or car.

Pretty much each one has limits of some sort.

 

[jonnyc]

Yes, but only if there is not an ARMED law enforcement officer on duty on the plane.

And how would one know that BEFORE they left for the airport???
And what about all the guys who will just shoot at anyone with a gun in-hand?
Very, very, very stupid and dangerous idea.