Obama to End Pilot Carry Program - Why?

G

gretske

Moderator
According to a report in the Washington Times, the Obama administration is quietly ending the highly successful program to train pilots and flight crews for carry on planes. The program was launched after 9/11 and has been trouble free, save one AD. Not bad, considering that over 12,000 people are licensed and trained and carry handguns on thousands of flights.

If this story is true, it says two things. First, the Obama administration is going to pursue a blindly partisan anti-gun agenda, and, second, they are going to pursue this agenda in a stealth manner instead of honestly and openly.
 
Obama

If it is a useful program of course he wants to end it. Same as closing Gitmo and letting 250 terrorists go free, can't call them terrorists or killers anymore though not politically correct. Give the killers a group hug instead and then they will love us. Am on Obama overload.
 
..

The only people he wants carrying guns are those whose paychecks he controls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guess it's to be expected and unfortunately probably an indication of more anti gun activity moving forward. If true there should be a public outcry on this one since it's an anti terrorist safety issue.

Seems to go against his statement that "I won't take away your guns". Not that many believed that given his pro anti gun legislation history.
 
You're on the right track...

Plane crashes kill a lot more folks than negligent discharges. We ought to just end this whole air travel thing to avoid all these unbearable evils.

I have to agree with the OP - whoever is in charge of this move, it's bogus and ill- or un-reasoned. If we can't trust a guy with a sidearm, how can we trust a him with a 750,000 pound metal tube full of jet fuel travelling 600 miles per hour? I haven't seen many skyscrapers (or planes, for that matter) taking much in the way of structural damage from a 230 grain JHP.
 
“TSA’s got these pilots taking off and putting on their guns 10 times a day. It’s a recipe for disaster and that’s why no other agency does it.”
Click to expand...
That's a procedure that should've been criticized and changed awhile back. I'm not entirely sure I could scream negligence at a guy who was just following an arbitrary and stupid procedure.

Of course, it gives the administration a scapegoat to point at and say, "see what happens when you have guns on planes?" [Insert something about thinking of the children]

Thing is, I've only seen one actual reference to the abandonment of the FFDO program, and that's from a state newspaper. Does anyone have confirmation on this?

More to the point, has anyone heard from the administration on this? I'd like to hear how they plan on spinning it.
 
It's an editorial, not a news piece... Gotta dig deeper, fellas.

I found this lurking on some of the Pilot forums...It's an email some ALPA (airline pilot union) members received...

Sources here and here, but they are from other forum posts. It would be better if we can get a first-hand acknowledgment of the email below...

Can anyone here who's a member of this union verify this email?

Newsflash from ALPA International

TSA Reconfirms Commitment to FFDO Program
March 17, 2009

In stark contrast to an op-ed article in today’s edition (March 17, 2009) of the Washington Times, that claims “…President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology,” TSA officials reassured ALPA they are committed to the FFDO program and have plans for its expansion.

TSA’s leadership immediately contacted ALPA and requested a meeting to discuss this news report. ALPA representatives met with TSA executives this afternoon and were told that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program.

Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively pursuing sources of additional funding. These funds will be used to enhance the program’s management structure and oversight, which if implemented, will address an ALPA Board of Directors security priority.

TSA is currently training hundreds of pilots each year and plans to continue to train at least that number or more into the future. The size of the FFDO cadre has grown so large that additional resources are needed to provide greater structure and oversight to this important program, which TSA referred to today as “an important layer of defense.”

“ALPA is very pleased that the TSA was so proactive in communicating its concerns to the Association and we are likewise pleased that we are able to report this good news to the membership,” said ALPA President, Capt. John Prater. “ALPA values its relationship with the TSA, and it is obvious from the way the agency handled this event that the feeling is mutual.”
Click to expand...
 
I think some of you may have missed something in my original post. I said, "If this story is true,. . ." I have no way of knowing if it is or is not, but I would point out that many people said the same thing as some of y'all when Woodward and Bernstein published their original series on Watergate.

Now, as to whether it is a "news item" or "opinion," I challenge you to read most any daily newspaper today, for example the New York Times, and tell me which items are "news" and which are "opinion."

Why would anyone believe that Obama would do this? Well, just take a look at his gun control record, and while you're at it, look at Rahm Emanuel, Eric Holder, and Joe Biden, among others. Would a move like this, which was hotly contested by anti-gunners at the time, be hard to believe? Not for me!

I don't care what they say, I only care what they actually DO. Know how to tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving.
 
It seems to me the author of the editorial deemed to interpret the diversion of $2M from the FFDO program as Obama "quietly ending the federal firearms program" with no comment from either the TSA or the Obama Administration. This is hardly sound journalistic process. Hence the huge word "EDITORIAL" in the headline.

I'm not saying we should be complacent about what the current administration may do to our gun rights. We should always be aware. But in this heated political and economic climate, it's important to maintain some perspective, lest the fear mongering get the best of all of us.

Cheers,
CJ
 
Last edited:
Same as closing Gitmo
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right! The U.S. constitution doesn't mean anything! Allowing people a right to a fair trial and to be considered innocent until proven guilty?! You're right, that isn't what this country is about anymore, just thank George W. for that.
 
Please list one instance in US history where foreigners on the battlefield or anywhere else in the world were accorded US constitutional rights.

Unfortunately for you, every Supreme Court and President in history agreed with GW.

Osama bin Carterphobia is no worse than Wphobia.

EDIT: Invectives are forbidden here - Antipitas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to Fox News: "Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.

In an editorial published Tuesday in The Washington Times, the newspaper wrote that "President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology."

Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding..."

Appears Obama isn't actually trying to kill the program - still bears watching.
 
Kmar40 said:
Please list one instance in US history where foreigners on the battlefield or anywhere else in the world were accorded US constitutional rights.
Click to expand...

From Article Six:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
(my italics)

The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Constitution requires their provisions to be followed, which, I think, gives the latter the status of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. QED.

Until GW Bush and his pals came along, this was, for the most part, observed.
 
The United States is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. The Constitution requires their provisions to be followed, which, I think, gives the latter the status of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. QED.
Click to expand...

Signing the conventions does not require the US to follow them. They are treaties and must be ratified. The US has ratified several of the Geneva conventions, but has not ratified the two protocols added in 1977 because the US did not agree with them.

Care to guess who and/or what the un-ratified 1977 protocols cover?

Something defined as "unlawful combatants" and "terrorists".

You're right, that isn't what this country is about anymore, just thank George W. for that.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....guess you can't blame Bush for that one, eh?
 
Why should the taxpayers be footing the bill for private companies to have their private employees trained and certified to carry a firearm? Let the airlines foot the bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top