Bush Choosing 'Gun Control Over Terrorist Control' By Jeff Johnson CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief 5-6-2

Capitol Hill (CNSNews.com)  The Libertarian Party says President George W. Bush, not the anti-gun  liberals in his administration, is directly responsible for why America's commercial airline pilots remain defenseless against terrorists.

The president puts whoever he wants in cabinet agencies and they answer to him, said Libertarian Party spokesman George Getz.

So if the president wants pilots not to carry guns, it doesn't matter if he's got [Transportation Secretary] Norman Mineta or [National Rifle Association Executive Vice   President] Wayne LaPierre or [Gun Owners of America Executive Director] Larry Pratt in that job, the guns are going to get banned, he continued.

Second Amendment rights   supporters and pilots groups have criticized Mineta for his public opposition   to arming commercial airline pilots.

I don't feel that we should have lethal weapons in the cockpit, Mineta said at a March 4 press conference with Undersecretary for Transportation Security John Magaw, the former director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.

While Libertarians   acknowledge Mineta's anti-gun history in Congress, they say the   transportation secretary cannot be solely faulted for the administration's   inaction.

It's telling only half the story to blame this on the cabinet secretary, Getz contended. This is President Bush's opinion. If he doesn't like what Mineta is doing, he can fire him.

Libertarians say the fact that Mineta was not fired, or any kind of correction issued regarding the   statement, proves that Bush supports it.

He's chosen gun control over terrorist control,Getz added.

Homeland Security Director   Tom Ridge and Federal Aviation Administrator Jane Garvey have also publicly   stated their disapproval of arming pilots.

A comment Wednesday by White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe supports the Libertarians' contention that Bush opposes the move, as well.

We don't need to have a potential for handguns getting loose on airplanes,he said, claiming   arming pilots could create more danger than it eliminates.

Bush Being Doubly   Hypocritical

Getz believes Bush, who signed the legislation allowing thousands of law-abiding Texans to carry a   concealed handgun for self-defense, is being doubly hypocritical.

He's cruising around on Air Force One. He's surrounded by armed Secret Service agents, he  argued. But he tells everyone else they shouldn't have the same right   to fly in safety.

The decision over whether airlines may allow their pilots to be armed could be taken out of the hands of everyone in the administration except President Bush, if some congressmen have their way.

CNSNews.com reported Wednesday that Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) and John Mica (R-Fla.) have   introduced legislation to force the creation of a voluntary armed pilots   program.

The bill would require the Transportation Security Administration to establish a program to deputize   qualified, volunteer pilots as Federal Flight Deck Officers  within 90 days after its enactment. Within 120 days of enactment, 500 such pilots must be deputized under the act, and all volunteer pilots who meet the   requirements must be deputized within two years.

The proposal would also provide training and background checks for the pilots similar to those undergone by Federal Air Marshals.

'Too Much Of A Government   Program'

That bill has the support of the major airline pilots' unions, but not of the first member of Congress   to suggest arming pilots after the September 11th attacks.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)  says Congress simply needs to acknowledge the constitutional right of   airlines to allow their pilots to carry firearms on the airlines' private  property, nothing more.

Just like any other  industry that has [armed] guards and security all the time, I don't think the   airlines should be any different. The Young-Mica bill,he says is too much of a government program.

None of the major airlines  has come out in support of any armed pilots proposal, but  industry insiders say the Young-Mica legislation is more palatable to the airlines because it shifts the liability for mistakes from them to the  federal government.

But Paul sees that as   another of the problems with the Young-Mica bill.

I wanted [liability]  to fall on the business that has a responsibility to protect its property. I   wanted to just legalize their right to do so, he explained.

The airlines, Paul says, should have the same liability that any other business would have if an armed  employee of the business improperly used his or her weapon.

Hopefully we live in  a civilized society that, if we're being attacked by terrorists and we shoot  them, that we would have enough sense not to put the people doing the  shooting in jail, he added.

On September 17, 2001 the Texas conservative introduced H.R. 2896, to provide for the safety of   United States aviation and the suppression of terrorism. The proposal  has the distinction of being one of the shortest bills ever introduced.

After four sentences of  findings about the terrorist attacks, it states: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department or agency of the Federal Government shall prohibit any pilot, copilot, or navigator of an aircraft, or any law enforcement personnel specifically detailed for the protection   of that aircraft, from carrying a firearm.

The bill has 19 co-sponsors and was immediately referred to the House Subcommittee on Aviation, which   Mica chairs. No further action has been taken since.

'A Lot Of Responsibility To   Go Around'

Paul acknowledges that   Bush, himself, has not come out against arming pilots, but says the evidence   is obvious.

You have to infer   from the neglect and lack of enthusiasm, the congressman observed,   that he is not on our side on this issue.

Libertarians are less   forgiving, placing responsibility squarely on Bush, and issuing a warning.

If another hijacking occurs, we're going to lay this at George W. Bush's feet, Getz concluded. He has to accept responsibility for what he has done.

But Paul says pilots are   only still flying unarmed because of a cultural and educational failure.

We've been badgered  and brainwashed by our schools and our media to be opposed to gun ownership.   So it's Congress, it's the regulators, it's our presidents, it's our society   and our lack of respect for the Second Amendment and the Constitution as a   whole, Paul concluded. There's a lot of responsibility to go  around.

http://www.cnsnews.com/View

Comment

From Robert E. Smith    Robert.E.Smith@state.tn.us    5-7-2

I just finished reading the   subject article on your website, and for nearly the first time, I had to make   a comment on this particular story.

First, let's look at the   basics of the question. By definition a pilot is on board the plane to fly it   from point A to point B. They have to take it off, navigate the proper route,   and safely land the plan at it's destination. They are not there to get into   a gun battle with possible terrorists. The last I heard, that's what Sky   Marshall's are for.

Second, most pilots, even   those who come from a military background are not trained in small arms   tactics or hostage rescue (eg the passengers). Most military pilots may have   training in escape and evasion, but their small arms training is pretty much   limited to one hour a day, one week a year in familiariztion and qualification   at a controlled pistol range. An armed ametuer trying to suppress a   hi-jacking is likely to get himself and others killed unnecessarily......and   again leave the plane either without a pilot or turning to the plane over to   a terrorist pilot. Again, trained Sky Marshall's would seem the logical   choice.

Third, if keeping the   pilots .... and the control cockpit.... safe from the reach of terrorist is   the goal, why not seal off the cockpit area completely. Every airliner I've   been on has at least two doors, there is no reason why passangers have to   enter by the door closest to the cockpit. It may take some retrofitting to   accomidate lavatories and food storage, but you have to chose your   priorities.

Finally, you have to look   at the goals of the supposed terrorist. If they are there to blow the plane   up in flight, they are going to do it. If they are there to take hostages,   arming a couple of pilots isn't the answer (surely there is some way to   reduce air pressure in the cabin until everyone passes out). Lastly, if they   want to seize control of the plan and commit another 9-11, they deny them the   possibilty of even being able to get close to the controls.

Thanks,

Robert E. Smith    GySgt, USMC (ret)    Knoxville, TN