Pilots lose guns.

“The Airline Pilots Security Alliance <http://www.secure-skies.org/> took the opportunity to claim that an average of one in five airline pilots allowed to carry guns in the cockpit has lost his or her gun in the last two months. "In the last 60 days, we believe 300 weapons have been misplaced," (Me: that’s 5 per day!!!) Dean Roberts, spokesman for the Airline Pilots Security Alliance, told Denver's 9News.com. Specific cases accounting for all 300 of those alleged losses were not listed.

The TSA has not confirmed the number of lost guns but will investigate them. "Obviously, something might be wrong with the program," said the TSA's Melendez.”

Well, duh?

Story says Southwest Airlines and the Transportation Security Administration are investigating the disappearance of a Federal Flight Deck Officer's semi-automatic pistol stowed in his luggage aboard a flight from Las Vegas to Oakland. Seems an officer’s weapons have to be in checked baggage when they are deadheading. But instead of picking up their gun/luggage from the cargo area, they often find it on the carousel with the rest of the passengers' bags!!

<http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/207-full.html#186852>

this post got shuffled around a little, so I am giving it a little kick in case it was missed.

thanks,

:hi:

Lunabush

air travel so much safer....

"The pilots blame the TSA's insistence that the weapons be checked in baggage, when they are deadheading, for the disappearance of the guns. Pilots say that instead of picking up their gun-laden luggage from the cargo area, as the rules state, they often find it on the carousel with the rest of the passengers."

FWIW, the baggage carousel is where my handgun containing baggage shows up when I travel. In the case of a regular passenger, that would not meet the airline definition of "misplaced" I can assure you.

"'When you separate the pilot from his gun, whether you put it in a lockbox or whether you make him put it in some other area, then you lose that security.'"

Now, if by "deadheading" they mean drinking dandelion wine and dropping acid, well by all means these pilots should be separated from their guns!

even when you read the entire story...

Certainly no successful ones.

..by armed pilots???

deterrence.

and counting...

...arming pilots?

I want the pilot to concentrate on flying the damn plane ... nothing else.

Fly wherever they want? Like into the Sears Tower? Maybe the Empire State Building? How about the Golden Gate? The Space Needle? Kings Island amusement park? How about the Capitol?

like so many have recommended...

...but what would you do if you were a pilot and terrorists were slitting the throats of your crew and passengers? I would certainly want to be able to turn the controls over to my co-pilot and stop the madness with my gun.

Rambo fantasies seem to abound in every preposterous RKBA argument....but the reality always turns out to be something like the 300 lost guns...

...if I were a pilot I would just hide in the bathroom and wet myself.

P.S. Wild fantasy? Terrorists were just slitting throats less than three years ago. The pilots only option then was to open the door and let them take control of the plane. We all know how well that turned out.

What do you suggest?

I suggest you not try to drag September 11 in to try to justify these 300 lost guns...especially since we don't know what really went on on those planes, or why the FAA was so slow to notice they'd been hijacked.

...LIHOP or MIHOP guys are you? :tinfoilhat: Speaking of wild fantasy.

who thinks it's preposterous and disgusting to try to excuse 300 lost guns at airports now with some half-assed fantasy about September 11.

..."try to excuse 300 lost guns at airports"?

Maybe someone should look in the thread titled "Pilots lose guns" that deals with the 300 lost guns at airports.....

...but I'll ask you again: Where EXACTLY did I "try to excuse 300 lost guns at airports"?"

the "let's arm the pilots" program was idiotic from the get-go, for reasons that are all too obvious at this point..

...and explain the obviousness of it to me, please.

Those who take the Authoritarian stance don't need solutions.

and horseshit...

Authoritarians wish to violate those rights.

By the way, who was that trying to limit the rights of crime victims? Oh yeah, that would be the gun lobby.

We're talking about airplanes. Feel free to start another thread.

and we're not talking about airplanes. We're tralking about the 300 guns lost at airports under this imbecilic program.

your post about lawsuits. :hi:

"rights"...I just pointed out that it was the gun nut side trying to curtail them.

You made the post about RKBA types, which clearly refers to the RIGHT to Keep and Bear Arms.

such folks are trying to peddle....

the swamp wouldn't stink....

And if the RKBA cause wasn't rotten from stem to stern, it wouldn't have scumbags like Tom DeLay and Larry Pratt pushing it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

about facts not in evidence.

But hey, if you want to pretend Chairman Mao has something to do with this issue, go ahead. It sure is a laugh and a half.

...dragging the NRA into a discussion about knives.

(btw -check your in box)

And the protection of possibly thousands of lives when she just has to concentrate on flying. Flying the plaine is her own only responsibility right?

:eyes:

...but it's really hard to concentrate on flying the plane with a box cutter to your throat.

The intent of the FFDO program isn't to have pilots playing law enforcement, or even security. Keep in mind that if you are on a flight that is hijacked, and the bad guys succeed in breaching the cockpit and gaining control of the plane, the next step is that your flight WILL BE INTERCEPTED AND SHOT DOWN. This means you're dead.

As pilots, we feel that we should have one last line of defense to defend that cockpit before we're shot down or the airplane is flown into a building. Without a weapon, if a bad guy is trying to force his way into the cockpit, guess what? We both won't be focused 100% on flying the airplane anyway! We'll be trying to keep that cockpit secure.

Another point to keep in mind is that if the bad guys know that on at least some flights, (but they don't know which) the pilot is packing, they will be less likely to see commercial aviation as such an easy, attractive target.

av8rdave

I know the flight crew has enough to deal with. The pilot is already charged with the safe transport of his or her passengers - I just think that security should be handled by someone else.

If everything else fails, and the bad guy is smashing the cockpit door (we'll never have air marshalls on every flight) it would be nice to know that at that point, you have one option left before the National Guard copilot you flew with last week is forced to blow you out of the sky.

FFDOs don't touch their weapons in the cockpit for any reason other than the above scenario.

av8rdave

Well, if there haven't been any, do we need the armed security people if the current screening is so successful?

Your question is interesting if you flip it: How many hijacking attempts were there BEFORE 9/11?

Short answer, damned few.

In looking around, you have to go back 18 years to the Reagan administration to find a hijacking of an American flagged carrier hijacking when a Pan Am (remember them?) 747 was hijacked in Pakistan. Here's a link if you are curious.

<http://www.emergency-management.net/airterror_hijack.htm>

OK, if you’re transporting a weapon in checked luggage, don’t you have to identify is as being there during your check-in? (I don’t know the policy, but it seems logical.) If it is identified and checked, don’t they identify it in some form to add a little extra security and go out of their way to make sure it gets to the guy that actually owns it? You would think they would, especially when there is so much theft by the damn baggage handlers (I’m speaking of a story here in Wash., DC where it was the subject of a major sting by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and local police a couple of years ago).

Why wouldn’t the government, who knows the security limitations of checked baggage, have come up with a better system? Why not let these “trusted” persons carry their weapons on themselves when they are dead-heading? What’s the purpose of having a special school to screen and train these guys, and then not trust them? Why not treat them as you would off-duty cops?

Seems like the government did not think through this at all.

...and I may be wrong, that when a passenger checks a gun in as baggage they slap a big old sticker that says 'Gun Inside' or some such.

Every airliner has a different type of special label to indicate a gun is in the bag - but they're supposed to be non-telling (as per FAA, er, I mean, TSA regulation). I would think that you'd have to be a new, or possibly "moran", bag handler to not know what all of the various tags were.

I'm not aware if the Pilot's bags have to follow this rule.

This article was clearly written as an effort by this pilot's group to get the baggage handlers to keep their bags seperate from everyone else's - that they chose to do so using such an alarmist headline grabbing way will eventually come back to bite them in the ass.

an on duty pilot needing to be moved to another location, usually to cover another flight. In this situation, pilots cannot consume alcohol. They are still an on duty pilot.

I am assuming those in the FFDO program have even more restrictive conduct standards when their weapon is in their possessions.

Having an FFDO's weapon go to baggage claim is a problem, since he/she is not a revenue passenger. The intent is for them to be able to retreive their weapon at the cargo bin, keeping it inside the secured area of the airport.

This is important for nonarmed deadheading pilots as well - we usually need our bags and flight gear right away, as we usually have a flight to work in a short period of time.

av8rdave

Do you want a pilot to be able to defend themselves as a last resort, or not?

The fact that some pilots may have been careless and misplaced their weapons is certainly cause for concern, and corrective steps should be taken.

This has nothing absolutely no bearing on the original question, however.

Stoker

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They should just shut up and take their sidewinder up the tailpipe like a good little flyboy. As we all know having an entire plain full of civilians shot down is far better than having an evil gun in the cockpit.

People keep forgetting that the policy is that if you are hijacked and cannot quickly regain control of the aircraft, Bushies pilots will shoot your ass down, passengers and all, (and they won't check to see what your stance is on the 2nd amendment either). It's not something many people want to talk about, but we all know damn well that it's there.

As far as the missing guns issue goes, I'd like to hear a little more about it before I can have a reasonable point of view.

That is a lot of hardware to disappear in a relatively short time and a few weeks ago I had read that they only had a few hundred pilots qualified to carry on board. Does anyone know how many pilots actually qualified so far?

There have been some loud spokepeople, from Mineta on down, that are aggressively opposed to the Pilots with guns issue. It wouldn't be the first time that a press release or news story fit an agenda better than the facts, but I'll wait to see.

This:
"They should just shut up and take their sidewinder up the tailpipe like a good little flyboy. As we all know having an entire plain full of civilians shot down is far better than having an evil gun in the cockpit."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"As far as the missing guns issue goes, I'd like to hear a little more about it before I can have a reasonable point of view. "

Me too. Like you said that's alot of missing guns for so few armed pilots. A solution: I'd rather see the pilots just keep their guns on them at all times. (I would actually prefer an armed air marshal on every flight but apparently that isn't going to happen.)

How is a pilot who lost his gun any help at all?



"This has nothing absolutely no bearing on the original question"
What? The original "question" is that so far 300 guns have been lost at airports...which certainly doesn't make air travel a damn bit safer in any way.

assuming facts not in evidence.

even if you want to pretend otherwise...

Of course they are lost. I wasn't referencing them.

I don't see any reason to pretend otherwise...

If not, I'll explain tomorrow.

Save it.

How is a pilot who lost his gun any help at all?

None at all. But this has nothing to do with the question, "Should pilots be allowed to be armed?"

Firearm loss is a separate, unrelated issue.

Stoker

"But this has nothing to do with the question, "Should pilots be allowed to be armed?" "
Surrrrrrrrrrre......actually it shows in spades what an idiotic idea it was from the git-go.

All I know is if I had a choice between picking a flight where the pilot was armed, vs. a flight where the pilot wasn't armed, all else being equal I'd fly on the flight with the armed pilot.

Which would you choose?

Stoker

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

All I know is if I had a choice between picking a flight where the pilot was armed, vs. a flight where the pilot wasn't armed, all else being equal I'd fly on the flight with the armed pilot.

Which would you choose?

Mr. Benchley, please answer the question.

Stoker

...whether the pilot is armed or not?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

They sure don't have any facts....

I wonder myself why somebody is so desperately trying to divert attention from five guns a day getting lost at airports due to this idiotic GOP scheme...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...why somebody is so desperately trying to divert attention from five guns a day getting lost at airports due to this idiotic GOP scheme...or would try to pretend that pilots would be toting guns to airports (and losing guns there at the rate of five a day) without it.

"It's very interesting that when all the rhetoric and debate boils down to a simple question, the anti-gun crowd becomes silent."
It's even more interesting that the RKBA crowd keep pushing crap from right wing shitheels like Wayne Allard.

I find 5 guns a day very hard to believe.

I've spoken at length with several people in the program. To a person they were all very impressed with the training, safeguards and the professionalism of all involved.

I would guess that the vast majority of them believe that deadheading crews having to put their weapons in the cargo bin is not a great idea.

av8rdave

can jump past the first thread....

And if we want to talk about what people say, we've had "enthusiasts" here spout that passengers should be allowed to tote popguns on planes...

...I'd choose the airline witrh the most effective on-ground security measures intended to keep weapons off the damn plane in the first place.

...the airlines don't handle the security measures the; TSA does.

Do you have a problem with an air marshal being on a flight?

...

Let the pilot fly the damn plane.

Hey, if you can guarantee an air marshal on every flight, then I agree - there is really no need for a pilot to carry a weapon (though I would not be opposed to it even so).

But, since there aren't air marshals on every flight, why not let pilots have the option of some kind of defense should another 9/11 situation arise on their plane?

I mean, it sounds nice and all to say that the pilot should just concentrate on "flying the damn plane", but obviously in a 9/11 scenario there are more important issues to take into consideration than just flying the plane. Obviously just flying the plane didn't help much on 9/11.

Stoker

All I know is if I had a choice between picking a flight where the pilot was armed, vs. a flight where the pilot wasn't armed, all else being equal I'd fly on the flight with the armed pilot.

Which would you choose?


As I said, all else being equal.

Since the TSA handles the safety for ALL airlines at an airport, presumably all the airlines have equally effective on-ground security measures.

So, I challange you again to answer the question.

Stoker

Security should be done on the ground - not by relying on a pilot's gun. Considering the fact that so many pilots lost their guns, relying on them to protect you may be a false hope.

You deflected it to another issue.

My question is below for your reference:

All I know is if I had a choice between picking a flight where the pilot was armed, vs. a flight where the pilot wasn't armed, all else being equal I'd fly on the flight with the armed pilot.

Which would you choose?

Stoker

...securuty needs to be done on the ground - not in the air. Let the pilot fly the damn plane - leave security to security personnel; on the ground, possibly with armed air marshalls.

But leave the flying to the pilot.

If the hijackers manage to bypass the other layers of security and are able to gain access to the cockpit, what then?

You'll find my answer there.

...call 911, the men with guns. In the air your solution is "we all must die".

I really don't get it CO. Why, must we all die because of your <fill in the blank> (fear, hatred, whatever) of guns?

Pilots have co-pilots who are totally qualified to fly the airplane while the pilot handles an emergency. An emergency in this scenario that means the life or death of hundreds of people in the air and who knows how many thousands on the ground. Pilots are like the captain of a ship; totally responsible for our safety. Most pilots are former military men with familiarity with guns. You trust them with your life whenever you fly. Why not trust them with a gun? Is there no level of traing that they could have that would change your mind?

Are you so entrenched in your <fill in the blank> (fear, hatred, whatever) of guns that you can't see this?

a response to my message #98. :eyes:

Sorry!

you'll notice he never did explain what made that Seattle paper "liberal."

:shrug:

You'll call the men with guns (police) for an emergency on the ground but if an emergency in the air happens too bad for all involved.

It was your "<fill in the blank> (fear, hatred, whatever)" in Post #98 that made it unworthy of a response. To me, it looks like you were trying to bait me. And I won't take the bait.

:P

You're solution on the ground is to call 911, the men with guns. In the air your solution results in "we all must die".

I really don't get it CO. Is it your entrenched position about guns that makes you feel this way?

Pilots have co-pilots who are totally qualified to fly the airplane while the pilot handles an emergency. An emergency in this scenario that means the life or death of hundreds of people in the air and who knows how many thousands on the ground. Pilots are like the captain of a ship; totally responsible for our safety. Most pilots are former military men with familiarity with guns. You trust them with your life whenever you fly. Why not trust them with a gun? Is there no level of traing that they could have that would change your mind?

(how's this?)

...but I'll say it again for your benefit, Roebear.

IMHO, aircraft security should be handled on the ground (by keeping weapons off the plane), or with armed air marshalls on the plane to handle situations that may arise. Let security professionals handle security, and let the pilots fly the damn plane.

I can't put it any simpler than that.

I agree that security on the ground should do everything that it can to prevent a terrorist from getting on the plane with a weapon (or a terrorist from getting on a plane at all). I agree that armed air marshals are a better choice than armed pilots. I agree that a pilot's first priority should be to fly the plane.

BUT... Pilots can not, I repeat, CAN NOT fly a plane if a terrorist has crashed the door to the flight deck. We all know, (and so do the terrorists) that there aren't nearly enough air marshals available to cover a significant percentage of flights as of now; or in the near future.

Why not have the additional deterrent effect of having armed pilots?

And again I'd like to ask you: Is there no level of training that a pilot could have to satisfy you?

Actually, several "why" questions.....

WHY do you have to resort to improbably extreme scenarios to support your pro-gun agenda?

WHY can't the air marshall PREVENT the cockpit from being breeched, eliminating the need for the pilot to be armed?

WHY are you and some of your fellow pro-gunners so all-out gung-ho about pilots packing heat? Is it part of a slippery-slope agenda to get guns in so many places that us pro-control folks will just give up and slink away?? (Believe me, that ain't gonna happen.)

And the biggest question of all.....

WHY can't you accept an answer I give you at its face value, without pick-pick-picking at it like a scab that won't heal?

:shrug:

(Edited to remove something I was wrong to include in the original.)

:shrug:

Come on Co - you know the rules. You send me and RR an alert. If it is deemed worthy we act on it. If not, no action. PM me or RR if you aren't happy, re-explain to me, but don't take your complaint out on the board - we got a new mod crew, we are working out logistics, we've had a bunch of disrupters and hell, I've even had a life, (as pathetic as it is) despite watching this board from 8AM to 11PM.

I was just trying to be funny with the last "why" question. I didn't mean to violate the rules, so I edited that post while there was still time.

Again, my apologies.....

you were funny.


That reminds me, what did one cannibal say to the other after eating a shipwrecked clown?

wait for it


drumroll


"did that guy taste funny to you?"


Thanks, I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses, drive safe, and, for this crowd, keep your powder dry.

He was caught buttering up the teacher.

BA-RUMP-BUMP!!!!

But seriously, folks.......

butter? knife? bwaaahaaahaaa, hadn't heard that one, Co

now that I am responding to the right thread.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I go out to grab a burger and missed something.
Now I'll be wondering all my life "Why what?"

Why don't you stop over for a beer?

Why can't we be friends?

Why do clowns taste funny?

He's about as much help as the pilot who didn't have one in the first place!

av8rdave

"But instead of picking up their gun/luggage from the cargo area, they often find it on the carousel with the rest of the passengers' bags!!"


This is quite normal. I fly on average about twice a month and 90% of the time I bring my gun.

The gun is ALWAYS picked up on the carousel with the other luggage.

If TSA is calling this a "lost gun", then I suggest that terminology is very misleading.

Frankly, I would prefer to pickup my gun at a baggage counter and sign for it, but that is simply not option that TSA/Airlines have choosen for when I transport my firearm.

http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2001/07/24/p3s1.htm
24 July 2001
"As FBI woes deepen, Freeh gets more flak "

"Last week, in the latest revelation, the bureau reported it could not account for 449 guns and 184 missing laptop computers, four of which may contain classified information." I ownder who has the FBI's machine guns?

Maybe we shouldn't issue guns to the police any more since they keep losing weapons and shooting civilians by mistake.

:P

http://www.9news.com/storyfull.aspx?storyid=25089

Interesting how a different light is cast on the problem when you read the actual article:

"Pilots blame TSA policies that require them to check their weapons with passenger luggage when they deadhead, which means to fly as a passenger between routes they're scheduled to pilot."

In other words, this is not a problem with careless pilots forgetfully misplacing their guns, but rather, when they are forced to disarm and put their guns in baggage, the airline loses the baggage!

""It violates the original legislation passed by Congress that says pilots should not be separated from their weapons," said John Mazor of the Air Line Pilots Association. "The safest way to carry it is in a holster, on a person.""

Here is the simple solution to this problem.

"Instead of picking up their checked guns from the cargo area, as rules require, pilots have found their bags containing their loaded guns rotating on baggage carousels with passenger luggage."

Again, this thread has tried to paint those gun-toting pilots as careless threats to safety. The problem isn't the pilots. The problem is the baggage handlers, and the fact that the pilots are required to be separated from their weapons.

""When you separate the pilot from his gun, whether you put it in a lock box or whether you make him put it some other area, then you lose that security," said Sen. Wayne Allard R-Colo.

Allard said he is disappointed in the TSA for taking an approach he said was not intended by Congress."

Stoker

He's the sorriest excuse for a Senator I can think of.

...other than what was quoted in the article:

""When you separate the pilot from his gun, whether you put it in a lock box or whether you make him put it some other area, then you lose that security," said Sen. Wayne Allard R-Colo.

And that is spot-on.

Stoker

Allard's anti-reproductive choice all the way He's stood up for bigotry for his entire career, and was one of the prime movers for this unelected drunk's giveaway to the rich.

Another swell playmate for the RKBA crowd...

Because reproduction choice is not germane to the question at hand, which, by the way, you still have not answered.

I do not go look into the details of people for every single quote I read about a particular article. The quote speaks for itself.

Stoker

you don't much care who you line up with......

"The quote speaks for itself."
And what sort of scumbag said it speaks even louder.

Commercial airline pilots are actually not well paid.

Does anyone actually believe that *none* of those 300 missing guns was sold by its owner, who then conveniently had his luggage stolen from an airport carousel?

on edit -- I should have said that *some* pilots are not well paid -- not all pilots are senior captains employed by major airlines, and salaries in smaller outfits are quite low. I'd wonder where the guns are being lost, i.e. in which parts of the industry.

.

from: http://secure.salary.com/jobvaluationreport/docs/jobvaluationreport/jobsellhtmls/guide-to-national-average-salary-range.html

A typical Captain/Pilot in Command (Large Jet) working in the United States earns a median base salary of $93,130, according to our analysis of data reported by corporate HR departments. Half of the people in this job earn between $83,869 and $108,152. Alternate job titles include: Airplane Captain (Large Jet). Job description is shown at the bottom of this page.

A typical Captain/Pilot in Command (Small Jet) working in the United States earns a median base salary of $88,573, according to our analysis of data reported by corporate HR departments. Half of the people in this job earn between $76,596 and $105,503. Alternate job titles include: Airplane Captain (Small Jet). Job description is shown at the bottom of this page.

A typical Captain/Pilot in Command (Small Non-Jet) working in the United States earns a median base salary of $64,996, according to our analysis of data reported by corporate HR departments. Half of the people in this job earn between $53,977 and $79,487. Alternate job titles include: Airplane Captain (Small Non-Jet). Job description is shown at the bottom of this page.

================================================
Doesn't sound bad

Here's another one:

http://www.apapdp.org/news/2003_05_14_1336.php


WORKERS' PAY LOSS

Average annual salary under old contract

CAPTAIN: $172,000
FIRST OFFICER: $105,000
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS (domestic
routes): $38,000
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS (international
routes): $48,000
RAMP WORKERS: $50,000*
MECHANICS: $75,000

Average annual salary under new contract

CAPTAIN: $132,440
FIRST OFFICER: $80,850
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS (domestic
routes): $32,072
FLIGHT ATTENDANTS (international
routes): $40,512
RAMP WORKERS: $42,000*
MECHANICS: $61,875*

*SALARY BASED ON 40-HOUR
WEEK

SOURCE: AMERICAN AIRLINES


Pay cuts like that might make one testy.

Nonetheless, I was assuming that the pilots who are armed don't all work for big outfits like this. I have a friend who negotiates for pilots in small outfits in Canada, and they absolutely do not make anything like the figures in question.

A typical Captain/Pilot in Command (Small Non-Jet) working in the United States earns a median base salary of $64,996, according to our analysis of data reported by corporate HR departments. Half of the people in this job earn between $53,977 and $79,487.

So 1/4 of these ones earn under $54,000 a year.

Of course, it isn't just the underpaid who are sometimes tempted by the prospect of a quick buck.

.

...but I think that the pilots provide their own weapon. Kinda takes the profit motive out of selling it.

If they provide their own firearms, and have no reason to sell them and report them lost, then we're left with the bizarre facts that (a) they tote their firearms around in checked luggage, for no reason that I can imagine (i.e. whatever the reason, it has absolutely nothing to do with security on board airplanes), and (b) there is a bizarrely disproportionate number of airline pilots having their luggage lost or stolen at airports (does any other occupational group lose its luggage in those proportions?).

Me, I just dunno.

I was curious, and checked some Canadian airline rules for travelling with firearms. Of course they have to be in checked opaque luggage, unloaded and locked or disassembled or otherwise disabled; ammunition has to be packed separately; and so on. But other than that, on they go and off they come, and yup, anybody could pick 'em off the carousel. That doesn't strike me as complying with what I imagine Cdn rules to be for possession of firearms -- handing them over to a third party which just chucks 'em around willy-nilly and makes them available to anybody on a sort of first-come, first-served basis at the carousel -- but it seems to be what they do. I'd have thought they might have to be picked up with ID at least, but apparently not.

.

interest in this program, to say the least..


The 300 number maybe high or maybe low, but the real issue behind the guns getting "lost" or misplaced is due to the fact pilots can't just carry them like the 60,000 other federal employes can.

Let Fidos carry guns in the same manner as other gov't agencies and there will be no issue in regards to lost firearms at airports.

We're talking about guns here. Don't go injecting reason into this debate. This is the gun dungeon for crying out loud.

:)


The cause of the problem is treating the FFDOs like "second class citizens" so to speak, in regards to the rules they must follow to carry.

They should be allowed to carry just like any other armed person can. If the F'ing postal inspector can carry on my airplane, then goddamnit so should I.