It has been legal to carry guns and ammo in checked luggage for decades. This is the first incident like this I have heard of. Silly to make a law for a single incident.
people who don't understand guns tend to be ready to impose restrictions on gun owners that won't do any good but after you tell them that, they continue to push it because deep down, inconveniencing gun owners is an essential goal of theirs. Say I fly to Florida on a business trip and I have to go to some less than upscale environments. My CCW license is good in florida. SO under NORMAL circumstances here is what I do. I pack my SIG in a locked case and in another area of my suitcase, I have a 50 round box of Winchester JHP rounds. I declare that to the authorities I get to the airport, retrieve my luggage, get my rental car. Once in my car, I load my SIG and holster it. then proceed to take care of my business. Under the BM suggestions, I'd have to find a gun store, travel to it, buy some ammo and then go about my business. Pretty stupid suggestion - - - Updated - - - since it has been well established that harassing legal gun ownership is really the goal, such harassment is not really motivated by this isolated incident. Rather this isolated incident is used as a facade to camouflage the real goals of gun restrictionists
Not suggesting any legislation. Airline policy. Also shields them from liability. Again, I am open to hearing downsides. Nobody ever heard of using planes as cruize missiles till 9/11, and that spawned a ton of change. I am suggesting a policy which brings a minor inconvenience.
It requires more interaction, which is a chance tohuman evaluate. It removes the poor convenience of delivering all materials to a gun free zone where there is a large group of civilians in a gun free zone where they cannot defend themselves... Off the top of my head...
There are 7 Walmarts and 10 gun stores within 5 miles of the Fort Lauderdale airport. That's what, 30 more minutes?
You fail to see the point. All someone needs to do to shoot up a baggage claim is bring in a gun from the street.
I do not fail to see the point. I am aware it can be done, but A. that person has to be in whatever larger target area. Nobody is going to shoot up Bangor Maines airport, there is barely anyone there. They want to shoot up LAX or Dulles, which is looking for an external threat btw. and B. the security around the airport, the surveillance etc, is focused on exactly that... not an internal threat. How much money should we all spend so a few people are not inconvenienced by having to pick up ammo after landing? - - - Updated - - - And one more chance for a human to say "something is off here..."
You know, if you walked from the street into baggage claim, that would arouse suspicions and you would probably be watched closely. Never mind all the security you have to go through just to get into that area.
You do. Your idea will do nothing to prevent someone from shooting up an airport. Thus, there's no reason to implement it.
Exactly. Again, don't get me wrong... it can be done. This is an issue of mitigating risk, not eliminating it. It seems silly to DELIVER guns an ammo to people in a gun free zone... and no legislation whatsoever is needed. The airlines would just have to decide that they do not wish to own that particular liability anymore, and as private companies it is within their rights to determine that which they will transport. - - - Updated - - - So your argument is "nuh uh". Well played.
I walk into the baggage claim from the parking garage at DTW ~4 times per year. No suspicion, no security, no one watches. The baggage claims are in the unsecured part of the airport, where people are free to come and go as they please. - - - Updated - - - My argument is there's no sound reason to implement a restriction that will not prevent the action it is intended to prevent. But, you know this.
How many people that have FBI contact are going to go on to kill innocent Americans? That seems far more dangerous to me than one guy legally owning and transporting a firearm; even if said firearm was later used in a criminal act. By my count at least 80 innocent Americans have been murdered by people known to or investigated by the FBI. Trump can't take office soon enough...
A determined shooter will either shoot up his nearest airport or if he has a particular airport targeted, he will just go buy the ammo as you suggest. No interaction will stop him unless he is acting really stupid, this doesn't seem to be the case in this instance given his entire history with law enforcement. You won't stop an airport shooting in the baggage area by implementing your suggestion. For me and hundreds of other competitive shooters, this wouldn't work. No one sells the specific load that I make myself. Also, as an instructor, my schedule is such that I fly in to an area on late Friday night for a two day class that starts at 8:30am Saturday. There are many instructors that operate the same way.
Because you cannot see reason, does not mean there is none. I just gave you reasons. What sound reason is there to allow the transport of ammunition? It saves you 30 minutes? I don't care. I am also for open/concealed carry at every unsecured section of an airport in all 50 states. That is a good solution too. I wish more people would participate. Would be a safer world. Barring that, I think the airlines disallowing the transport of ammo would add a mitigating risk factor. The real problem here is of course that there is no infrastructure for the mentally ill in this country. That SHOULD be the story, but as this is... I have given my .02. You get to disagree.
You sir are not the arbiter of sound reason. Nor have you even attempted to provide any sound reason why the airlines should transport weapons accompanying ammunition to a gun free zone. I'll wait.
Your premise is based on a fallacious appeal to emotion. As such, it must be unsound as sound premise cannot be based on a fallacious argument. I don't need to, as i do not seek a change in a policy in place since the inception of air travel. To my knowledge, this is the first time tis has ever happened; to argue that the policy needs to change is a knee-jerk appeal to emotion.
I invoked no emotion, nor is an argument appealling to such on its face fallacious, that is a logical non-sequitur and quite rightly one reason you are not the arbiter of sound reason. Still no sound reason to supply passengers with guns and ammo in a gun free zone I note.
The entire argument stems from an emotional reaction -- "this is terrible, how can this happen. we need to change this!" To my knowledge, this is the first time this has ever happened; to argue that the policy needs to change because of this incident is a knee-jerk appeal to emotion. Thus, fallacy.
There are thousands of people doing that, and there is no security. At DIA, access from departures to arrivals is via a totally unsecured escalator.
