As possession of handguns has become a badge of constitutional honor, the question remains whether, and how, to deal with our “carrying” brethren at the facility that generates the most attention and angst in America, the airport.
None other than J-dog, also known around Minneapolis as Joel Rosenberg, has emerged as the voice of reason in this AP article discussing the conundrum. But first, the hysterical view:
Some anti-terrorism experts say that is a glaring security loophole that could endanger airport workers, passengers and people waiting to pick them up or see them off. Some suggest that allowing guns in terminals is practically asking for them to be smuggled aboard a plane.
“If your airport is not secure, then the security of your airplanes is jeopardized,” said Rafi Ron, former security chief at Ben Gurion Airport in Israel who now works as an aviation consultant. “You cannot separate the two.”
But calmer voices suggest otherwise:
Other authorities say the nonsecure areas of the terminal are no different from other public venues and do not warrant special restrictions.
“It’s really not more of a concern than at a mall or a train station,” said Philadelphia police Lt. Louis Liberati.
So where does the big Dog lie down?
Joel Rosenberg, a firearms instructor in Minneapolis, said he regularly carries a gun to the city’s airport and has not heard of any problems caused by the policy.
“People who are law-abiding are going to be law-abiding whether they have a .38 snubby on their hip or not,” he said.
Guns don’t kill people. Bullet fired from guns kill people. People kill people. But having a gun makes it a whole lot easier, if you’re so inclined.
Seriously, the analogy between the mall and the terminal seems to me a good fit. The guns aren’t allowed beyond the security checkpoint and onto the plane, but why is an airport terminal any greater risk than any other place in America where large numbers of people congregate. We have a far greater sensitivity to danger at airports because of 9/11, but if another attack comes, and next time at a shopping mall, then our focus will shift to magnetometers at the door to Nordstrom. That’s just how appeasing/fanning the public fear works.
The article goes on to discuss the relative worth of toting a gun at the airport:
Gun rights supporters say law-abiding citizens with guns could fire back and cut short a gunman’s rampage. But Ron, the Israeli security expert, said the last thing airport security agents need is a hail of bullets and no idea who the bad guy is.
“That leads to chaos,” he said, “and that can lead to tragedy.”
But Joel tells me that the wise gun-carrier makes every effort to safeguard himself and his family first, and avoid whipping out the ol’ snubby at the first opportunity. If all gun-carriers were as reluctant to draw their weapon and insert themselves into a potential firefight as Joel, I might feel a whole lot more comfortable with the idea of plenty of regular folks walking down the street have a weapon hiding behind their gut.
Something tells me that Joel is a bit more thoughtful and trustworthy than most. But as long as they can carry the gun into the mall, there’s no rational basis to distinguish the airport terminal. Past the security checkpoint, of course, is an entirely different matter.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the major relevant difference between me and most permit holders is that I’ve got a larger belly. Alas; makes certain kinds of carry difficult.
I plead guilty to thinking about the issues more than most — given that I teach carry classes and have published a book on the subject of legally carrying a handgun, that ought to come with the territory. And while I’m all in favor of folks taking instruction of all sorts (I specialize in Advanced Cowardice, m’self), it’s worth noting, I think, that the apparently unworried Philadelphia PD Lieutenant Liberati works in a state where training is entirely optional; folks just walk into their local sheriff’s office with less than twenty bucks (much of it goes for the permit photo — we save money in MN by not putting pictures on the permits), a state-issued ID (usually a drivers license), fill out a form, and walk out a few minutes later with a carry permit; no training required.
Part of me thinks Yucko. You mean that they can get a carry permit without so much as ever getting instruction on either how to shoot a gun or how much trouble that they’re in if they do shoot somebody, even entirely justifiably?
But then I pour myself another cup of coffee, and remember that PA permit holders don’t seem to get into trouble, either, and remind myself that we’re talking about a right here, and that restricting folks’ rights seems to me to usually call for an exceptional demonstration of necessity, not simply fears. (As amply demonstrated by the Congressman’s shock to hear that people have lawfully carried in airports for years, and that, well, nothing bad has happened around that, leading to his threat of legislation to root out the nonexistent problem.)
The lack of eagerness to take the gun out? That’s awfully standard. (Not universal, but pretty close, although there are a fair number of folks who have been known to shoot . . . their mouths off. I tend to be kinda careful in what I say and write on the subject, by and large, and even spiked a piece called “Why I’m Not Going to Shoot You” some years ago, perhaps out of an excess of caution.)
When I got the call from the reporter for the story, we discussed what somebody like me would do in the (remarkably unlikely; we’re talking Lotto odds, except bad) possibility of being around some sort of mall-type shooting (and those, while horrible, are thankfully very, very rare), say, when I’m picking up friends at baggage claim.
Well, it was a short article, and I’m not quibbling with the quote of mine she used, but I kind of thought, “I hope I’ll be crouched down — preferably with any friends and family I’ve got with me — behind the nearest largest, solid piece of metal, like the coward that I am” had a certain ring to it.
I have a greater fear of that shirt Mr. J-dog is sporting than the fact that he elects to carry concealed or otherwise.
However, in order to help with your comfort level please let me share my experience.
In my neck of the woods, the folks I have knowledge of in the concealed carry realm have the same mindset as Mr. J-dog. Get yourself and family to safety first and stay there. Engaging an active shooter or any deadly threat as a civilian is a last resort and is vigorously avoided.
From my involvement in firearms issues, that seems to be the predominant thought. Are there people who think differently? Sure, but the people I know who take the time to obtain a concealed carry permit so they can carry legally, only want to keep themselves and their family safe.
Regularly carrying a concealed weapon lawfully, is a chore even it is a smaller easily concealed weapon. The folks who have the self-discipline to regularly carry a concealed weapon lawfully on their person and not leave it at home or in their vehicle generally have the self-discipline to employ common sense in the use of the weapon. At least that is what I have seen.
Lastly, does Mr. J-dog have a permit to carry that shirt? Shouldn’t it be concealed? 🙂
J-dog’s attire has certainly commanded an awful lot of attention. J-dog, are you listening?
Yes, in some discomfort. I had on a more . . . conventional shirt when I posed for the picture last week, but there was a problem at AP, and we had to, err, reshoot at the last minute, so I just wore what I usually, err, what I . . .
. . . I don’t know that I’m doing myself a lot of good in this. Fortunately, fashion crimes are, hereabouts, largely not even violations.
It really wasn’t fair for me to cast fashion stones. I also own and drape over my equator, brightly colored garb which could serve well to alert a rescue plane if ever I was stranded upon a desert island.
I retract my fashion critique.