Guns in the sky

A congressman wants to arm pilots, crew and a sky marshal. Will that fly in our post-9/11 world?

By Jake Tapper

Sept. 20, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- There's nothing new about it. On one side are those who see salvation in the self-defense potential of owning a gun. On the other are those who argue that guns frequently end up being used for darker purposes. And yet, in our post-9/11 new world, those age-old debates are taking on unexpected forms.

On Friday, Sept. 14, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, introduced legislation that would take the concept of sky marshals one rather sizable step forward: allowing not only sky marshals, but pilots, copilots and navigators to carry a firearm onto a plane.

Federal Aviation Agency spokeswoman Alison Duquette said that while the FAA doesn't comment on legislation, Transportation Secretary Norm Mineta has two rapid-response teams on airplane and airport security planning to hand down recommendations by Oct. 1. Cockpit security will be one of the issues addressed, so "the right to carry weapons could be one of the recommendations," she said.

Gun control groups argue that such a move might actually make flights less safe. While voicing support for armed law enforcement personnel, such as sky marshals, Nancy Hwa, a spokeswoman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, says that allowing crew members to bring guns with them on planes is another matter.

"Certainly security needs to be beefed up on these airlines," Hwa says. "But we don't think that allowing a navigator or a member of the flight crew to carry a gun makes passengers safer. All you're doing is increasing the risk so that terrorists would have access to guns in the air, so even if they can't get one onto a plane, they can get it from the flight crew."

Mike Hammond, a consultant with Gun Owners of America, said that "presumably this would be in conjunction with a strong and consistently bolted door," though Paul's proposed legislation makes no mention of cockpit doors.

The Air Line Pilots Association isn't exactly leaping to embrace Paul's legislation, meanwhile. "At this point, given the situation, everything's on the table to be looked at," says ALPA spokesman Ron Lovas. "But that idea raises more questions than it answers."

Some of the sticking points for ALPA are: How would an armed pilot get through security and onto the aircraft safely? Who maintains the possession of the gun when it's not in use? Under what conditions would the use of the gun be authorized? How would a pilot be qualified to carry a gun? Which government agency would be point of contact, the FAA or the FBI?

Gun Owners of America's Hammond says that "most pilots -- at least most of the ones I know -- are former military trainees and as such have experience in using firearms. They are in a position where they could take command of the situation." ALPA's questions pale in comparison, he argues, with "the situation last Tuesday where hijackers were slashing throats of stewardesses and trained military personnel couldn't do anything to respond."

But ALPA's Lovas says that the idea that most pilots are former members of the military is fallacious. While ALPA doesn't have a database of military membership, the "corporate memory" around the office from a decade ago, during Desert Shield and Desert Storm, had approximately 50 percent of their members as either veterans, members of the National Guard or members of the Reserves. "We think that number has dwindled," Lovas says.

None of which is meant to dismiss the idea out of hand, Lovas stresses. "At this point we need to look at all the options."

Next page: Since attacks, grim gun-related events