Pilots ok'd for guns since JFK, but Bush cancelled July 2001

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

hmmm..copied from email May 22 2002

cant remember where i copied this from....must have been
copied from another DU post.


----------------------------



Stunning factoid

Pilots could always optionally carry a side arm on the plane, since JFK created that exception to the FAA regs by executive order during a hijacking scare in the early '60s. Every president allowed that EO to remain in place, including the gun law advocating Clinton for his entire 8 years.

After all presidents had seen fit to keep it, for nearly 40 years, it came to an abrupt end in July, 2001, by order of George W. Bush.

This order goes entirely against common sense, against the consensus of presidents of both parties, and against the otherwise consistent pro 2nd amendment, pro NRA position the administration always takes.
You'd never guess Bush or Ashcroft would restrict guns in any way. This is completely inexplicable.

Unless they wanted to avoid the possibility of someone's running into armed pilots for some unknown reason.



Begala made this point one night on CNN's Crossfire.
The gun in the cockpit is NOT the last line of defense.
The last line is the F-16 shooting the plane out of the damn sky.

I'd much rather trust the pilot with a gun than "F" with an F-16.

[Flying_Pig]

1. This is VERY interesting. This story should be highlighted, and

added to the other MIHOP/LIHOP evidence. It just stinks more all the time. It looks like Bush recinded it, so BFEE's Saudi agents would have an easier time talking control of the planes. I say this, because I am convinced that 9/11 was the work of the BFEE, in conspiracy with Pakistani and Saudi government agents.

Less and less, am I feeling the need to put on the tin-foil helmet. It appears those who buy the administration's version of 9/11 events, may need one more than I.

[TacticalPeek]

8. Maybe Abdurahman Alamoudi advised aWol to rescind it.

With the concurrence of KKKarl and Grover, of course.

:evilgrin:

'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' for Oct. 23
http://www.msnbc.com/news/984616.asp

[fla nocount]

14. Not one, but two, 110 story buildings fell within their own footprints.

Might as well view a California red wood reposing as a pile of wood chips and blaming it on termites. Take off that tom-fool, tin-foil hat, do you realize how silly it looks?

[leesa]

2. Well, how would they pull off 9-11 if the pilots were armed or if the

F-16s were aloft? Is there another possible reason why bush would rescind this regulation?

[stevedeshazer]

3. Jeez,

Is there any link for this? This is great political fodder if it can be shown true.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

4. i dont have it, but maybe another DUer does

This was discussed at length here at DU.

I recall there was a DU pilot who was posting here at the time.

(or maybe it was at bartcop, dont remember)

[stevedeshazer]

6. Whoa, found this (from May 2002)

A 40-year-old Federal Aviation Administration rule that allowed commercial airline pilots to be armed was inexplicably rescinded two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, leading aviation security experts to lay at least some of the blame for the tragedy at the feet of airlines, none of which took advantage of the privilege while it was in effect.

The FAA adopted the armed pilot rule shortly after the Cuban missile crisis of 1961 to help prevent hijackings of American airliners. It remained in effect for four decades.

But in July 2001 – just two months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks –the rule was rescinded. According to FAA officials, the rule required airlines to apply to the agency for their pilots to carry guns in cockpits and for the airlines to put pilots through an agency-approved firearms training course.

<snip>

The FAA failed to return numerous follow-up phone calls requesting to know why the rule was rescinded, who was responsible for the decision, whether a particular incident spurred the decision and whether the aviation agency believes the airlines share some culpability for never taking advantage of it in the first place.

But the source is WorldNetDaily *sigh* :-(

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27647

on edit: notice how WND blames the AIRLINES for this??

[kwolf68]

9. Who the heck is World Net Daily?

And if they have any credibility then why dont we hear about this. My Gosh....Two months before...if someone can tie up all the loose ends I am afraid of what we may actually find.

[stevedeshazer]

11. They are a wacky bunch

of radical right nuts. However, in the continuum of things, they sometimes are right. I just wish I knew where they sourced this particular story.

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

10. FAA To Rescind Federal 'Crew Carry' Rule

FAA To Rescind Federal 'Crew Carry' Rule

Pressed to reveal just what kind of firearms program was indeed approved by the Administrator ("Feds: Airline Employees May Pack Heat," 09-18-01, ANN), a source close to the regulators has said that the FAA plans to make it clear that there is no "course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator," as required by 14 USC 108.11.

That fact is to become policy on November 14, we're told by a reliable source. No one, as far as we've been able to find out, ever has been so authorized; and no one, apparently, ever will be.
Just how the FAA would rescind part of the United States Code was not explained; the FAA probably doesn't really have to -- all it has to do is ignore the implied mandate in the law.

The Conservative News Source tends to confirm what we have, in a Jeff Johnson piece, that says, "A new Federal Aviation Regulation scheduled to take effect in November of this year would take away the right of pilots, co-pilots, and navigators to carry firearms and other weapons for self-defense. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) spokesman Paul Takemoto acknowledged Thursday that flight crews have been authorized to carry firearms for the past 20 years. 'That will change on November 14,' he said. 'The new rule will not include authorization (to carry firearms) and crew members will no longer be allowed to carry arms.'"


Ref: TITLE 14--AERONAUTICS AND SPACE
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Continued)
Sec. 108.11 Carriage of weapons.
(a) No certificate holder required to conduct screening under a security program may permit any person to have, nor may any person have, on or about his or her person or property, a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed, accessible to him or her while aboard an airplane for which screening is required unless:
(1) The person having the weapon is--
(i) An official or employee of the United States, or a State or political subdivision of a State, or of a municipality who is authorized by his or her agency to have the weapon; or
(ii) Authorized to have the weapon by the certificate holder and the Administrator and has successfully completed a course of training in the use of firearms acceptable to the Administrator.
...(5) The certificate holder--
(b) No person may, while on board an airplane operated by a certificate holder for which screening is not conducted, carry on or
about that person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This paragraph does not apply to--
(1) Officials or employees of a municipality or a State, or of the United States, who are authorized to carry arms; or
(2) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the certificate holder to carry arms.

New legislation, introduced last Friday by Rep. Ron Paul, M.D. (R-TX), HR 2896 would provide that, "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." It's certainly worth a look. After all, if a flight crew can handle nearly a million pounds of potential 'weapon of mass destruction,' like a full-up 747, it should be able to operate something as tiny and as simple as a gun. Who's the enemy here?
FMI: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/get-cfr.cgi?TITLE=14&PART=108&SECTION=11&YEAR=2001&TYPE=TEXT




This is G o o g l e's cache of http://www.frontsight.com/news.asp?Action=ViewNews&ID=56.
G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:Zc0NoYhfg9QJ:www.frontsight.com/news.asp%3FAction%3DViewNews%26ID%3D56+executive+order+gun+pilot+rescind&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[protect freedom impeach bush now]

7. found this from JFK executive order. but still cant find it

Executive Order 11090

ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD

http://resource.lawlinks.com/content/legal_research/executive_orders/jfk%20years/1963/governmental/executive_order_11090.htm

[Langis]

5. Link, or a source for this information?

This is very interesting, but I would like something to back it up before I buy into it.

[Fescue4u]

12. I've heard this from pilots before

Shortly after 9/11

That said, rescinding the rule had no practical effect because no airlines had pilots flying armed.

Personally, they should all be armed but I know this scares some people.

[goforit]

13. Well.....You can't screw up Bush's new plans of hijackin!!!

Pilots with guns would interfere!!!

[DeepModem Mom]

15. Documentation, anybody?