You might want to read Heller. The Supreme court has indicated therein that the 2nd amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I'm familiar with Heller, and nobody here is challenging the 2nd ammendment, the individual or collective right to keep and bear arms, the US constitution, or the court's decision. I own several firearm safes myself, each full of handguns, shotguns, rifles, and so-called "assault weapons," including Class III firearms. I hold multiple carry permits, have carried professionally, and continue to carry firearms in various capacities.
I'm one of the last that anyone has need of preaching to regarding firearms use, ownership, or the rights thereof.
Firefly asserts that all firearms laws are illegal. This can be immediately discounted as idiotic. 100-1/2 asserts that a militia can't be regulated. Also clearly in error and contrary to the wording of the 2nd Ammendment itself.
Neither of these assertions, nor the remainder of the sentiment attached to those posts address the topic of weapons and 135 crewmembers.
I understand if you are outside the airplane, but if its a "9/11" type of attack, any pilot with his gun in the holster is at a huge tactical disadvantage. There is no way to defend yourself from a gun, or any weapon when you are flying--no matter what your side arm is.
There certainly is a way to defend, though it may cost one one's life. This isn't particularly significant, however, as in such an attack one's life is over if one doesn't defend. No attack is a sure foregone conclusion; defense is absolutely necessary, as you know, to the death, or conclusion of the fight.
When one comes under attack, one might always be said to be under a tactical disadvantage. This works both ways, however. One who is focused on an attack is also at a disadvantage, and has dedicated himself or herself to the act not only of attacking, but becoming a target. Never lose sight of that.
So far as operations under 135, few hijackings of charter aircraft in the US have occured in flight. Many have occured prior to the flight, when the pilot was approached on the ground. Far better to prevent the aircraft from being airborne, and possession of a weapon is or can be an advantage in preventing the aircraft from becoming available to someone who should not have it.
I have been involved in two situations, one a holdup and one a carjacking, either enroute to the airport or from it during 135 operations, when a firearm was central to my being here to type this.
In another unrelated case, while moving from one city to another (being transferred by a Part 135 operator, in fact), I had an occasion to use a firearm defensively when by coincidence I was confronted by an individual with a rifle in the apartment complex. The individual with the rifle had exited an apartment in pursuit of an unarmed person, and saw me in the passage way. He stopped his pursuit and aimed the weapon at me, forcing me to act. I wasn't operating under 135 at the time, though I was making the move due to employment with a 135 operator. Regardless, I'm a very big proponent on adequate, continual weapons training, ownership, carriage, and where necessary, use.
I submit that when one is faced with a large bull next to one's aircraft during the unloading of a patient into one's Part 135 airplane, it matters little whether the threat is an angry muslim or an angry bull. It's still a threat, and having been in that situation where the safety of not only myself, but my nurse, my patient, the ambulance crew, my aircraft, and the ambulance itself were at stake, the ownership and legal carriage of a firearm was not only instrumental in a successful outcome of the flight assigment, but to our collective wellbeing. One example among many legitimate ones in which carriage of a firearm is appropriate, and right.
From an airline perspective, the only use of the firearm is defense of the cockpit. The scope of 135 operations is considerably broader and presents far more unique situations in which carriage of a firearm is appropriate. Whereas a 09/11 style attack hasn't yet been forthcoming in modern 135 operations, other situations have occured in which possession of a firearm by a trained and prepared crewmember may have made a difference.
A fairly recent event involved the hijacking of a helicopter. The pilot was alble to make a run for it to preven the helicopter from being used, at the same time a tactical team was setting up. The pilot took gunfire in the back from the perpetrator, who was then shot by law enforcement. One might postulate that the pilot may have had a better chance from the outset while armed, though it's impossible to say with a certainty.
The fact remains that whether it's an individual surprising people in the night who are siphoning avgas from airplane tanks (a problem, locally...particularly with the economy) and running into trouble, a hijacking, or a dog pack, many applications exist in which possession of a firearm is warranted and certainly recommended. If one flies in locals such as Alaska, it's formerly the law, and regardless, a darn good idea.
I worked for a company years ago that did a large number of tours. During one of the tours, one of our pilots was confronted by a passenger with a knife. The passenger didn't attack the pilot, but attempted to kill his wife during the flight. The flight took place in a light airplane with no cockpit doors or barriers. Had the pilot been armed, the pilot would have had an opportunity to intervene decisively. Another example of an airborne 135 application of a firearm.
The list of possibilities is extensive for reasonable, legal ownership, carriage, and even use or employment of that firearm.
I flew for one company that had it's own FFL, or Federal Firearms License to deal and sell firearms. One could approach the parts counter in the shop to check out an Aeroquip mandrel to fabricate a fuel line, or one could approach the parts counter to select, purchase, and order a handgun...and every one of us did both. It wasn't uncommon for people during a lunch break when working in the shop to travel to the far end fo the runway and shoot targets on the airport fenceline. I did so on many occasions.
Heller affired what most of us already knew, and didn't improve or take away rights for most of us in free states. It made a difference in places that are restrictive, such as Washington DC where the suit took place, and it was a positive decision. It didn't change the application of the 2nd Ammendment nor discount the wording or requirement for a well regulated militia, but simply reinforced the individual freedom to keep and bear arms...exactly as per the wording of the Ammendment.
As for those who assert that firearms laws are illegal...think it all you want. If you intend to do something about it, then seek to change the view of the courts by legal means (ala Heller, Emerson, or Parker). Until then, you're obligated and have a duty to uphold and support whatever legislation, codes, laws, and regulations apply...whether you think them legal or not.
