EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane
Obama secretly ends program that let pilots carry guns
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Washington Times Story Link

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.

Since Mr. Obama's election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers - the pilots who have been approved to carry guns - indicate that the approval process has stalled out.
Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration. Pilots who act in any way that causes a “loss of confidence” in the armed pilot program risk criminal prosecution as well as their removal from the program. Despite these threats, pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officers program have raised real concerns in multiple interviews.

Arming pilots after Sept. 11 was nothing new. Until the early 1960s, American commercial passenger pilots on any flight carrying U.S. mail were required to carry handguns. Indeed, U.S. pilots were still allowed to carry guns until as recently as 1987. There are no records that any of these pilots (either military or commercial) ever causing any significant problems.

Screening of airplane passengers is hardly perfect. While armed marshals are helpful, the program covers less than 3 percent of the flights out of Washington D.C.'s three airports and even fewer across the country. Sky marshals are costly and quit more often than other law-enforcement officers.

Armed pilots are a cost-effective backup layer of security. Terrorists can only enter the cockpit through one narrow entrance, and armed pilots have some time to prepare themselves as hijackers penetrate the strengthened cockpit doors. With pilots, we have people who are willing to take on the burden of protecting the planes for free. About 70 percent of the pilots at major American carriers have military backgrounds.

Frankly, as a matter of pure politics, we cannot understand what the administration is thinking. Nearly 40 House Democrats are in districts were the NRA is more popular than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. We can't find any independent poll in which the public is demanding that pilots disarm. Why does this move make sense?

Only anti-gun extremists and terrorist recruits are worried about armed pilots. So why is the Obama administration catering to this tiny lobby at the expense of public safety?

Federal Officials Deny Report That Obama Seeks to End Pilot Gun Program
Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is attempting to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.
By Joshua Rhett Miller
FOXNews.com
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

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.

"It's inaccurate, this program continues to grow," Payne told FOXNews.com of the editorial. "TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training."

Payne said TSA officials have recently opened a training center for FFDOs in Atlantic City, N.J., with others planned to open in Texas and other states. She declined, citing security concerns, to say how many federal flight deck officers are authorized by the agency, citing security concerns.

"We have thousands of FFDOs right now and we add thousands each year," Payne said.
Representatives from The Washington Times did not return a request for comment. A White House spokesman declined to speak on the matter, saying it was being handled by TSA officials

In a statement issued Tuesday, the Airlines Pilots Association International -- the world's largest airline pilot union, representing nearly 52,250 pilots in the U.S. and Canada -- said the Times editorial "couldn't be further from the truth."

"ALPA representatives met with TSA executives this afternoon and were told in no uncertain terms that TSA embraces the FFDO program, that there are no plans to reduce or restrict its growth, and that in fact the agency fully intends to grow and expand the program," the statement read. "Government representatives acknowledged that the program needs additional funding to achieve these goals, and that they are actively seeking same."

TSA officials are currently training up to 1,500 pilots annually for the program, which was instituted after the Sept. 11 attacks, according to ALPA's statement.

"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 [Tuesday] as 'an important layer of defense.'"

According to TSA's Web site, the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "demonstrated the need for a multi-layered approach to securing commercial airlines -- and in particular the cockpit -- from terrorist and criminal assault."

I heard this on the Quinn & Rose show this morning too. They also said the Obama admin. was planning to investigate Sheriff Joe Arpaio in AZ for how he runs his camps. wtf.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) told CNSNews.com he is going to invite Maricopa County (Ariz.) Sheriff Joe Arpaio to testify in his committee about alleged abuses by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in its enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. But a spokeswoman for Arpaio told CNSNews.com that the sheriff -- who has not yet received an official invitation to testify -- currently has “no intention” of appearing before Conyers’ committee.

The spokeswoman said, however, that Arpaio “welcomes” a Justice Department investigation into the way his sheriff’s office has handled enforcement of federal immigration laws.

As CNSNews.com reported last week, Acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Loretta King sent a letter to Sheriff Arpaio on March 10 informing him that the Justice Department was initiating an investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO).

The investigation, King wrote, will “focus on alleged patterns or practices of discriminatory police practices and unconstitutional searches and seizures conducted by the MCSO, and on allegations of national origin discrimination, including failure to provide meaningful access to MCSO services for limited English proficient (LEP) individuals.”

The announcement of the Justice Department investigation followed a Feb. 12 letter that Conyers sent to Atty. Gen. Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano requesting an investigation of Arpaio and the MCSO.

Conyers was joined in signing that letter by three other members of the House Judiciary Committee: Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Immigration; Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Rights; and Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.

“Specifically, we would like to know what actions your Department will take to ensure that Hispanic residents of Maricopa County are not subjected to racial profiling, unequal treatment at the hands of Sheriff’s Department personnel, or violations of generally accepted standards of confinement,” the congressmen said in their letter to Holder and Napolitano.

CNSNews.com spoke with Conyers after a Capitol Hill press conference last Wednesday, where he had been joined by representatives of ACORN, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and other activists groups. The press conference had been called so the groups could present a petition carrying 35,000 signatures that called on the Justice Department and Homeland Security to investigate Sheriff Arpaio for alleged civil rights abuses.

When asked if he had been briefed on specific evidence of racial profiling by MCSO, Conyers said: “No, no I haven’t been briefed on it. We are getting ready to hold a hearing on it.”

When asked if he specifically knows whether Arpaio has done racial profiling, Conyers said, “Look, we are going to invite him to be a witness so we can clear up all the ambiguities in the world, and we’d like you to be there too."

Voice of John Conyers (D-Mich.)

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=45078

The director of media relations for the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Lisa Allen, told CNSNews.com that Sheriff Arpaio has “no intention” of testifying in Conyers’ committee.

“He has no intention of going to Washington at this point," said Allen, when asked by CNSNews.com about Conyers' desire to have Arpaio testify.

“We are not surprised by the initiation of hearings and so forth,” said Allen. “We knew when the administration in Washington changed, the likelihood of getting a much more sympathetic ear to a lot of these open-border activists would probably occur. We are not at all concerned about the hearings or about the Department of Justice investigation. We are confident that we are not racially profiling. We have trained and are cognizant of that type of criticism being levied against us all the time,” she said.

“We guard against any type of racial profiling either in the jails or on patrol in our human smuggling operations,” she said. “So, Mr. Conyers, we believe, is politically motivated by some of his Democratic, left-wing constituents, to kind of go after Sheriff Arpaio who is kind of the poster boy for the tough illegal immigration fight.”

“We don’t believe Mr. Conyers is particularly well-informed,” said Allen.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he is worried that Conyers’ intended hearing is an attempt to discourage enforcement of the immigration law.

"Some Democrats seem to have forgotten that in America, you're innocent until proven guilty,” Smith told CNSNews.com in a statement. “I’m concerned that this hearing is an attempt to intimidate other law enforcement officials and discourage immigration enforcement. Democrats need to stop trying people in the court of public opinion--where there is no evidence--and let the Justice Department do its job without political interference."

When asked if there’s anything wrong with Sheriff Arpaio enforcing the immigration laws under authority provided by the federal government, Rep. Nadler said: “Well, I’m not sure there’s anything wrong with enforcing the law under federal authority, but there’s a lot wrong with--in the name of enforcing the law--engaging in racial profiling, grabbing people without due process, without warrants and mistreating them.”

“I mean it’s exactly what the law prohibits. Section 1983 of the federal law prohibits anyone acting under color of law, depriving people of civil rights, and this guy seems to be doing that also,” said Nadler.

When Conyers was asked whether there was anything wrong with a local sheriff enforcing immigration laws under federal authority, he said: “Well, racial profiling is not legal even from a sheriff. We have laws against racial profiling. That’s the problem. You can’t harass people because you want to use race or language or appearance as a basis for enforcing the law, in my mind.”

In her letter to Sheriff Arpaio, Acting Assistant Att. Gen,King said: “We have not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that you and other Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) officials want to operate the MCSO consistent with the requirements of the Constitutional and Federal Law.”

“During the course of the investigation,” she said, “we will consider all relevant information, particularly the efforts the MCSO has undertaken to ensure compliance with federal law.”

The media relations office for the Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee declined to comment on this story.

Transcript of CNSNews.com interview with Judiciary Chairman John Conyers:

Nick Ballasy, CNSNews.com: What is wrong with the sheriff enforcing the law under federal authority?

Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.): Well, racial profiling is not legal even from a sheriff. We have laws against racial profiling. That’s the problem. You can’t harass people because you want to use race or language or appearance as a basis for enforcing the law in my mind.

Ballasy: Were you briefed on the specific evidence that he is indeed racial profiling?

Conyers: No, no I haven’t been briefed on it. We are getting ready to hold a hearing on it.

Ballasy: So, you’re just investigating it? We don’t know specifically whether he is or not?

Conyers: Look, we are going to invite him to be a witness so we can clear up all the ambiguities in the world, and we’d like you to be there too.