TexasCHLforum.com

FAA/TSA-approved -- how much does this holster make you say not for me ?

I swear on my mothers grave, if it weren't true, I wouldn't believe it.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbc ... 95814/1002
and
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2007/12/ts ... f-air.html

It's a DHS rule. If the gun is not locked up, the pilot might hurt the terrorists.

yeppers, or might hurt then self

Texasdoc wrote:yeppers, or might hurt then self

More likely to shoot a hole in the plane.

longtooth wrote:More likely to shoot a hole in the plane.

Was I the only one who saw that Mythbusters? Or did their test/methodology get debunked/shredded and I didn't get the memo?

JT

thejtrain wrote:

longtooth wrote:More likely to shoot a hole in the plane.

Was I the only one who saw that Mythbusters? Or did their test/methodology get debunked/shredded and I didn't get the memo?

JT

Well, the bullet did puncture the skin of the aircraft according to the linked article, thus "shooting a hole in the plane"...

txmatt wrote:

thejtrain wrote:

longtooth wrote:More likely to shoot a hole in the plane.

Was I the only one who saw that Mythbusters? Or did their test/methodology get debunked/shredded and I didn't get the memo?

JT

Well, the bullet did puncture the skin of the aircraft according to the linked article, thus "shooting a hole in the plane"...

Sorry, should have expounded on that a bit. It did puncture, but it was nowhere near catastrophic like most GFWs imagine when they think (or are told by the anti's) about a gun being fired on board an airliner. Not that I'm trying to say longtooth is a GFW, I think he was just pointing out that... er... where's that smiley that shows me digging a hole deeper and deeper?

'Course, they didn't test fragmenting ammo either, which is (I believe) what pilots & sky marshals carry (and if they don't, they probably should, just in case).

JT

thejtrain wrote:'Course, they didn't test fragmenting ammo either, which is (I believe) what pilots & sky marshals carry (and if they don't, they probably should, just in case).

Why? A half inch hole in the airframe is not going to cause the special effects you see in the movies.

holster and pics

boomerang wrote:

thejtrain wrote:'Course, they didn't test fragmenting ammo either, which is (I believe) what pilots & sky marshals carry (and if they don't, they probably should, just in case).

Why? A half inch hole in the airframe is not going to cause the special effects you see in the movies.

holster and pics

Besides, they were below 10,000 feet, where there is much less pressurization, anyway.

Getting back to the holster issue...

I find the design and implementation once again to be dumber than a bag of hammers...You might as well provide a lock box in the front office for what its worth...

Just looking at it makes me believe this is either the biggest put on, or some people in the government think we are just that stupid to believe this is something any self respecting gun owner, and person who takes their self defence seriously enough to sport carrying a holstered firearm with a tumbler style lock running through the holster and "trigger guard" to somehow make it "safe" to carry???

Why have a holster like that???

What I have a concern with is this may actually become another way that the gun control crowd will want "us" to carry some day...If we are allowed to do so as a compramise in some political battle...

If it were me, I would almost lean on the side of "why bother"...If I have to jump through the hoops to become a FFDO, and then only be allowed to carry in this rediculous manner while onboard an aircraft in that capacity...

Hard to believe the solution has come to this pathetic conclusion, after years of deliberating and half-measures to appease both sides of the issue...

geesh...

stevie_d_64 wrote:If it were me, I would almost lean on the side of "why bother"...If I have to jump through the hoops to become a FFDO, and then only be allowed to carry in this rediculous manner while onboard an aircraft in that capacity...

I believe you've just hit on the reason. The folks administering the FFDO program never really wanted to allow pilots to carry - that's why there's so few of them out there - they make it unbelievably hard to actually get qualified. Mandating this holster is just the next logical step of that.

JT

I was thinking the same thing, On my flight home from Richmond Va. 2 weeks ago the flight crew and I where talking as he saw my Laptop as it has Kimber and Colt pictures on the background and we started to talk about the FFDO program and he told me that he and the Co Pilot went thru it and both carry but its got harder to get thru TSA as they have to Unload it and then reload it when they get in to the ready room for the flight.

this crew was like why carry if they have to do all this, he also told of other pilots and crews having real problems in Chicago and New york with them leaving the airport with the handguns and going back thru TSA in these citys.

So I think you hit the nail on hte head with :"stevie_d_64 wrote:
If it were me, I would almost lean on the side of "why bother"...If I have to jump through the hoops to become a FFDO, and then only be allowed to carry in this rediculous manner while onboard an aircraft in that capacity..."

When I saw the picture of the holster, I thought it was some kind of internet Photoshop joke.

But apparently, the joke is on us, the travelling public.

From what i understand wen leaving the plane and then returning the holster has to be locked, but during the flight they unlock it in the cockpit,I think it was possibly the attempt at locking or unlocking the gun in the holster that caused the gun to fire.Here you have professonal pilots that have to go through a firearms course to carry,and the retards at TSA treat them like idiots,my question is why doesn't TSA make LEO lock their guns while in the terminal,it makes about as much sense to me

Everybody knows that operating a firearm is much more complicated than flying a 747!