Skadoosh said:
There is a right way and a wrong to correct this problem. Although he did not break the law, this pilot exposed these security issues the wrong way and this is why his clearance revocation SHOULD be considered. The whistleblower act would have protected him in his endeavors to correct the issue had he chosen the correct way to bring up the security issues, but he chose to expose the flaws on Youtube. He did it for his own publicity.
It's arguable the pilot should have gone to his supervisor first. Work your way up the chain of command is usually the respectful thing to do. But this is different. Not knowing what exactly his supervisor has regarding to powers/responsibilities, I might say it was going to be a waste of time and resources. Another point is how do you know he didn't go to his superiors first?
As 2guns makes a point of it being a "permit", I also see it as the 2nd Amendment takes precedence to a degree. The agency issuing a permit has the burden on them to prove there was an actual violation of exercising the pilot's right under the 2nd Amendment. I think sticking stuff on Youtube is, for the most part (and lack of better terms), stupid. In this case, I see nothing whatsoever in the provisions of his permit stating he wasn't allowed to do what he did. He exercised free speech and went to the press to boot. I support, nay,
applaud the pilot for speaking his mind and exposing the truth behind TSA's abysmal so-called "security" measures. The guy stood on top of a mountain an shouted for the core reason why we're here.
I can give a rat's behind if he did it for his own vanity. I personally don't think he did. He wanted to remain anonymous as well as what company he flies for out of respect (and to keep his job). Shallow? I don't think so. In this day and age, not many companies allow continued employment when someone exercises their freedoms if it places the spotlight on them.
Doesn't sit well with me on the surface reports.
Me neither, Glenn. I do wonder why it's the state that issues the permits. I thought International Airports' properties are under different jurisdiction. Maybe because he's a resident of Cali? Still doesn't make sense. He doesn't need to CCW in order to transport on airport property, per se, in order to CCW on his assigned aircraft.
I hate to say this, but if he was deputized and the federal authorities are going to investigate, I think they have the right to confiscate his federally issued firearm. But that's IT. I know it sounds hypocritical since I don't think his CCW shouldn't be suspended. But the state issued that and my opinion is a federal entity shouldn't have the power to revoke a state issued permit at this time.
On a side note, I do agree with the pilot's assertion on the screening they have to go through compared to ground crews merely swiping a card. I know first hand experience on how right he is on this practice.
