EAA bans guns at OSH

[skidoo]

What concerned me a lot more was there were pilots who would not attend OSH because they wouldn't be allowed to carry.

Cool, nobody cares if you go to Airventure or the EAA museum at OSH really.

Sounds like you can't make up your mind...

What concerns me most is that too many pilots will accept this restriction and continue to go, while it leads to more and more restrictions in other areas until we no longer have rights. Same with the general public and TSA. Too many keep accepting what they dish out and then they become so strong no one has rights any more. Sometimes it is just a matter of principal. Yes, mine or a few others absence at OSH will not be noticed. But, it would be noticed if 80% or more of us were absent as a result. The destruction of our rights in this country will be on the backs of those who continue to patronize any system that restricts those rights.

I fear that you and many others will get exactly what you deserve within the decade...

 

[flykelley]

Hi Gang
I carry my pistol a lot, mostly because of the Greater Detroit area I work in. Around my home area I don't even think of it. Same as Oshkosh, I just don't feel threaten. With that said I don't have a problem if someone was carrying concealed at Oshkosh. If I know Im going into a rough area I will carry, if Im staying in a decent area I don't as a rule.


Mike

 

[Tom Gresham]

As a Federal LEO, I am authorized by law to carry a gun pretty much wherever I want, on or off duty. And since I'm on call 24/7, there are few times I don't have a pistol on me. Do I feel the need to carry at Airventur? No. Will I carry at Airventure? I can by law, but most times the answer is no. I will let you know that if you are carrying, something goes down, and you pull out your gun, you have a good chance of being shot by responding police. Exercising your right to CC comes with certain responsibilities. It is there to protect yourself or family from harm, not to get involved in something to be the hero. For those that are saying they would carry regardless, that it's "concealed", you are now breaking the law and I don't feel you should be able to exercise the right to CC. If you demand people respect your rights, you must in turn respect their rights.

I would be interested to hear of examples. I've heard law enforcement folks say this for years -- you have a good chance of being shot by the police.

More than 6,000,000 Americans have carry permits. Several studies have reported that self-defense gun uses number as high as 2.5 million times per year.

Do you have any examples of people with carry permits being shot by the police in the confusion of "who is the bad guy?" It seems to be a favorite scenario painted by LE -- especially when talking about carry on school grounds -- but with more than 20 years of history since Florida kicked off the modern carry movement, I've not heard of this happening.

If you could cite a few cases, that would be helpful.

 

[Anthony]

Tom,

That is a very good question, and I have also heard that a lot but have never scene any evidence either. I would think most incidents occur before LE is ever called or near the scene. As good as many of them are, they can't anticipate violent crime, and they can't be everywhere too protect you.

I've never felt scared nor threatened at OSH, but I've never felt either in my home or neighborhood, but we see hard evidence of lots of home invasions and violent crime in "nice neighborhoods" and "safe" events.

 

[Tom Gresham]

While it clearly is foolish for EAA to put up the "no guns" signs (because the law abiding will honor them, and criminals will continue to break the law) at the museum or any buildings they own, I am concerned at the prospect of them attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of people who are on public property (the airport).

I carry. Everywhere. Always. Well, almost always. There are exceptions I can't avoid, such as restricted areas like courthouses, post offices, etc.

Given a choice, I generally don't do business with a location that chooses to block my entrance if I'm exercising a constitutional right.

I love Airventure. It's sad to see that EAA has been taken in by the clearly disproven nonsense that putting up a "no guns" sign keeps out criminals. In state after state, when concealed carry has been approved, some businesses put up the signs. After a few years, many of the signs come down as the businesses realize they have been lied to. The "blood in the streets" predictions never come true.

I turn away from any business which has a "no guns" sign, even when I'm not carrying (rare). A location which guarantees that the only people carrying are criminals is a place which seems unsafe to me.

Since carrying a firearm is legal at the OSH airport outside of the secure area (think airline flights), how does someone who is renting the space claim the ability to block this legal activity?

Moreover, when a group such as EAA fights against the bogus claims of "dangerous little planes" so often, how can it not see the parallel here, and recognize the hypocrisy of this policy?

As for the insulting premise that carrying a gun denotes some form of mental illness, one might want to present that idea to the people who have protected themselves and others from criminal attack with their personal firearms.

 

[Steve Foley]

I really wasn't personally concerned about people carrying. What concerned me a lot more was there were pilots who would not attend OSH because they wouldn't be allowed to carry. The former argument is one of debatable opinions both which have reasonable merits, the latter is just nuts.

Since my CCW is not recognized in WI, that argument is moot. However I don't agree with your characterization of my mental state based on a decision to protest a policy that I disagree with.

 

[Henning]

Put me in the just nuts category then. I'm a CCW holder and I refuse to spend my dollars with any business that colludes with the federal government to impede my 2nd amendment rights.

Yep, you're nuts, because there's no collusion with the Feds involved. This is a simple business decision and would be following local and state regs if anything. If you can't differentiate that from a government conspiracy to take your guns away, then you are one of the ones I question.

 

[Henning]

Since my CCW is not recognized in WI, that argument is moot. However I don't agree with your characterization of my mental state based on a decision to protest a policy that I disagree with.

You don't have to agree, just recognize that the opinion exists and people are as entitled to it as you are yours.

 

[Bob Noel]

You don't have to agree, just recognize that the opinion exists and people are as entitled to it as you are yours.

I hope you recognize the problems with opinions based on irrational fear.

 

[Henning]

I would be interested to hear of examples. I've heard law enforcement folks say this for years -- you have a good chance of being shot by the police.

??? Makes the news frequently enough people being shot by police for drawing a sandwich or toy gun, you don't hear about it when a real gun comes into play because nobody cares. Anybody carrying for any reason is fair game to be shot by a cop once that gun comes out of the holster.

The true reality is that outside of gang banging neighborhoods, you're pretty safe in the US. What drives the crime numbers in the US is the illegal drug trade, same as alcohol during the prohibition of that. The better cure would be to take those profits out of the hands of criminal organizations, corrupt politicians and Law Enforcement Agencies directly and pay them to the farmers and the FDA overseen process and ATF overseen distribution network with profits going to the US Treasury. That would pay for first rate Universal Healthcare for everyone.

Right now the Second Amendment is being perverted to protect the ability of abusers to wreak social havoc on our society to reap huge profits. The way it is now, instead of everyone getting a share of an industry that has existed since the dawn of recorded history, a few get rich.

 

[JB1842]

I would be interested to hear of examples. I've heard law enforcement folks say this for years -- you have a good chance of being shot by the police.

More than 6,000,000 Americans have carry permits. Several studies have reported that self-defense gun uses number as high as 2.5 million times per year.

Do you have any examples of people with carry permits being shot by the police in the confusion of "who is the bad guy?" It seems to be a favorite scenario painted by LE -- especially when talking about carry on school grounds -- but with more than 20 years of history since Florida kicked off the modern carry movement, I've not heard of this happening.

If you could cite a few cases, that would be helpful.

While I don't have examples of this happening, and don't really have the time to try to research this, we are trained on what to do if we come upon an active shooter situation. We are trained that if someone in plainclothes is in the act of shooting a gun or is armed, does not have anything identifying him as a possible LEO (badge, hat, duty gear) or does not immediately yell tou that he's a cop, you treat that person as a threat. That means you disarm them, cuff them, and then search for ID. In our use of force policy, if we feel that ours or someone elses lives are at risk, we do not have to give a warning and attempt you to put your gun on the ground before we open fire. What that mean, is if I am coming to the scene of a shooting, and a CCW holder is there with his gun out, does not immediatley follows my commands and disarm himself, you will get shot. While I agree that chances of this is slim, it can happen. It's the same a "friendly-fire" incident in combat. Stress is high, there is a lot of confusion, and decisions need to be made immediately. With something as big as Airventure, with a lot of people, an active shooter can cause widespread panic. Responding police will have enough on their hands without trying to figure out if you are a CCW holder or the threat. It's not worth the risk. While someones intentions may be good, situations can go south very quickly. There is too much risk to yourself and the public. I work in plainclothes all day, everyday. Me and a partner were working the streets one time when we saw some marked units roll up to a house. Guy in front started running, uniforms gave chase, we (in the car) drove around the block looking for the runner, he was running between houses. When we saw him 3 blocks later, we jumped out to help. At that time he was tackled by a uniform and 2 others were coming behind. One uniform saw us running up, put his hand on his gun, and started to confront us. We yelled out we were police, and lifted our shirts so he could see our badges. Could the situation gone down differently, yes. And not for the better.

 

[Dave Siciliano]

All said, I respect the right of a property owner to prohibit guns, including licensed guns on their premises. I don't like the policy and would try to avoid such a business, but do respect their right. We certainly all have different experiences in life and it's not my place to judge such a person.

I really don't carry much, although, permitted. Usually if I do, it's in the car or plane when traveling. There are times, it is appropriate and I want that right (to protect myself--not be a cowboy) just like other rights we have in this country. I don't always exercise those either, but am sure in the knowledge I can.

I would have to be threatened very directly and overwhelmingly to ever shoot someone (or be protecting someone from the same use of force against them like in the case of the Luby's shootings). I've taken lives before in military service and still live with thoughts that aren't pleasant about it. In that case, it was clearly an armed enemy, but it's still bothersome many, many years later. I would certainly rather err on the side of caution than ever hurt an innocent party or someone that just had too much to drink and a big mouth.

I would much rather law enforcement handle any hostile confrontation, but they can't always be where needed in a timely manner. If they are, I certainly defer to them. If they aren't, I want the right to protect myself until they can take control. LE also needs to understand this right and that there are folks that have as much or more experience and training with weapons as them, who are not cowboys, and who are entitled to self protection.

All that said, I can't imagine law enforcement wouldn't be highly responsive during the annual fly-in at OSH and I would feel no need to carry a weapon there as a casual visitor to the fly in. As a matter of fact, I deliberately wouldn't carry if there was ANY chance I'd be drinking, and I probably would want to try at least a few margaritas prepared by folks in the Beechcraft area (G).

Best,

Dave

 

[Henning]

LOL Dave, one thing I've noticed about the majority of people I meet who ALWAYS carry have never had to shoot someone.

 

[edcokpareke]

Why on earth is this even an issue? Are you so afraid of life that the idea of being without your gun prompts your outrage?

 

[edcokpareke]

Since my CCW is not recognized in WI, that argument is moot. However I don't agree with your characterization of my mental state based on a decision to protest a policy that I disagree with.

I'm always perplexed by this perpetual fear people have that the feds are coming to take their guns away. What actions have the federal government taken to breed this idea?

 

[wabower]

Since you're obviously a hermit, how do you get internet service to your cave?

I'm always perplexed by this perpetual fear people have that the feds are coming to take their guns away. What actions have the federal government taken to breed this idea?

 

[wabower]

I think that it's protection of life, liberty and a few other constitutional rights that are the cause of concern. It's not fear, and it's not outrage, but both of those emotions can come into play when you are somebody you care about is threatened with bodily harm or potentially fatal injury. Have you personally been in that situation?

Why on earth is this even an issue? Are you so afraid of life that the idea of being without your gun prompts your outrage?

 

[Tom-D]

While I don't have examples of this happening, and don't really have the time to try to research this, we are trained on what to do if we come upon an active shooter situation. We are trained that if someone in plainclothes is in the act of shooting a gun or is armed, does not have anything identifying him as a possible LEO (badge, hat, duty gear) or does not immediately yell tou that he's a cop, you treat that person as a threat. That means you disarm them, cuff them, and then search for ID. In our use of force policy, if we feel that ours or someone elses lives are at risk, we do not have to give a warning and attempt you to put your gun on the ground before we open fire. What that mean, is if I am coming to the scene of a shooting, and a CCW holder is there with his gun out, does not immediatley follows my commands and disarm himself, you will get shot. While I agree that chances of this is slim, it can happen. It's the same a "friendly-fire" incident in combat. Stress is high, there is a lot of confusion, and decisions need to be made immediately. With something as big as Airventure, with a lot of people, an active shooter can cause widespread panic. Responding police will have enough on their hands without trying to figure out if you are a CCW holder or the threat. It's not worth the risk. While someones intentions may be good, situations can go south very quickly. There is too much risk to yourself and the public. I work in plainclothes all day, everyday. Me and a partner were working the streets one time when we saw some marked units roll up to a house. Guy in front started running, uniforms gave chase, we (in the car) drove around the block looking for the runner, he was running between houses. When we saw him 3 blocks later, we jumped out to help. At that time he was tackled by a uniform and 2 others were coming behind. One uniform saw us running up, put his hand on his gun, and started to confront us. We yelled out we were police, and lifted our shirts so he could see our badges. Could the situation gone down differently, yes. And not for the better.

The police must be very close by to see me shooting the perp. And if the incident is over, it's over and the gun will not be in view. In most cases the police simply clean up the mess.

 

[roncachamp]

Their mental state is not an issue, their perceived mental state by the overwhelming majority who do not feel the need to carry is what is at issue.

I don't feel the need to carry and I don't see any problems with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons. What do you perceive my mental state to be?

The majority of people taking their kid into the EAA museum would prefer that the other patrons not be armed.

What do you base that on? I've been an EAA member and a Fly-In attendee for over forty years, I've visited the EAA museum more times than I can count. I don't recall ever being asked about this, so where did you get your data?

 

[poadeleted21]

Why on earth is this even an issue? Are you so afraid of life that the idea of being without your gun prompts your outrage?

Why on earth is this even an issue? Are you so afraid of life that the idea of someone having a gun prompts your outrage?

 

[Steve Foley]

You don't have to agree, just recognize that the opinion exists and people are as entitled to it as you are yours.

I recognize the opinion exists. But when someone with an opposing viewpoint resorts to name-calling, I assume they've exhausted any valid arguments.

 

[battmain]

The reality is that having guns permitted keeps more family people away than it attracts, it's bottom line. Concealed Carry mentality is a minority mentality in this country. The VAST majority of people have no desire to carry and don't trust people who are so afraid they feel they need to carry a gun at all times. While the majority of CC people are not nuts, there is a significant number of total paranoid idiots who carry. It's not like you have to pass any kind of evaluation for mental stability; a lack of a felony conviction is all it takes. Anyone who felt the need for carry in the EAA museum in OSH I would determine to be unstable enough to want to keep out with a firearm.

That's like saying anyone who carries life insurance or any type of insurance is nuts. Don't you think? Sure there are nut cases out there, but preventing one from protecting themselves is nuts in itself. (IMO.)

Some of our worst mass murders were done where weapons were prohibited.

 

[Henning]

I don't feel the need to carry and I don't see any problems with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons. What do you perceive my mental state to be?



What do you base that on? I've been an EAA member and a Fly-In attendee for over forty years, I've visited the EAA museum more times than I can count. I don't recall ever being asked about this, so where did you get your data?

If you refuse to attend the EAA museum or Airventure because you can't carry a weapon regardless whether the concern is risk of violence and the need for self defense or whether you think it's part of a larger grab for the government to come snatch your guns, I'd perceive your mental state to be paranoid-delusional.


Only 4% or so of EAA museum visitors are EAA members.

 

[roncachamp]

If you refuse to attend the EAA museum or Airventure because you can't carry a weapon regardless whether the concern is risk of violence and the need for self defense or whether you think it's part of a larger grab for the government to come snatch your guns, I'd perceive your mental state to be paranoid-delusional.


Only 4% or so of EAA museum visitors are EAA members.

I perceive you declined to provide direct answers to my questions because you recognize your assertions to be baseless.

Have a nice day.

 

[fgcason]

Some of our worst mass murders were done where weapons were prohibited.

Resistance Free Zones.

They get to do what they want for much longer periods of time before resistance is met. Shoot someone at a busy gun range and it's a one, maybe two shot scenario before getting gunned down by the honest people defending themselves. Do it at a school or church or food establishment or park or big social event and it is several hundreds of rounds and extremely long periods of time at their own rate before anyone returns fire. Q.E.D.

They're smart bad guys. They know to do what they want to do, it's better to do it where the honest people are unarmed and can't return fire.

Most of the time it's not really about carrying or not. It's about the ability to carry or not. If there is any self preservation, even temporarily, in a deranged person, they're going to pick the place that the chances of avoiding return fire is better than 50/50. From their viewpoint, no restrictions puts it at 50/50 or worse. Restrictions limit the possibility of return fire to near zero with the exception of another hooligan or the random chance of the police being in the room at the time.
All a resistance free zone does is tells the bad guy where the least resistance is and guarantees an increased body count of innocent bystanders if shooting starts.

I wonder how many anti-gun establishments or anti-gun people are willing to put up a sign on their door saying "Notice to all hooligans: Come shoot people here. There is no chance of anyone in this building returning fire until the police arrive in 45 minutes. Have a nice day." That's essentially what the drawing of a gun with the circle and slash tells people.

 

[Everskyward]

I don't feel the need to carry and I don't see any problems with law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons.

Same here. This reminds me of the threads where people scream about their "free speech" being restricted on some web board. But the government is not restricting free speech, it's the web board owner. Similarly, it's the EAA's museum and event.

 

[Anthony]

The only people these signs restrict, and any gun law for that matter are people whom abide by laws. These are NOT the people to be worrying about.

I will abide by any property owner's wishes when I step onto their premises, as well as abiding by gun laws, but then again, I have no ill intent. Those that do, won't care what restriction, nor laws exist. Sometimes these people show up where you least expect them knowing that others will not be armed. I hope, and pray that never happens at OSH (or anywhere else for that matter).

 

[JB1842]

The police must be very close by to see me shooting the perp. And if the incident is over, it's over and the gun will not be in view. In most cases the police simply clean up the mess.

Putting the gun away is smart, we are taught to put the gun away and have our creds in hand/badge displayed if we are in a shooting. But if the police are close enough to see you shoot somebody, they still may mistake you for perp. As long as people understand that and the responsibility that gun ownership/CC entails, go for it. I'm all about 2nd amendment rights. If the government were to outlaw guns and force people to turn them in, I would be the first to turn in my badge and tell them to try to take my guns. And everybody who says that if a CCW holder was around there would be no incidents like Virginia Tech, maybe. But remember, most of those nut jobs have more guns and bullets then you do. And in high stress, the vast majority of your shots will not hit your target. It just seems stupid to boycott someplace because they don't agree with your way of thinking. The great thing about our country is that you have that right to agree or disagree with something. Just because you don't agree with someone/something, doesn't make you any more right than they are.

 

[edcokpareke]

That's like saying anyone who carries life insurance or any type of insurance is nuts. Don't you think? Sure there are nut cases out there, but preventing one from protecting themselves is nuts in itself. (IMO.)

Some of our worst mass murders were done where weapons were prohibited.

Never heard of an insurance card being used to kill.

 

[Tom-D]

Putting the gun away is smart, we are taught to put the gun away and have our creds in hand/badge displayed if we are in a shooting. But if the police are close enough to see you shoot somebody, they still may mistake you for perp.

If the police see me shoot the perp, why didn't they save me the trouble?

If the police are that close is a big IF.

Most of the time the perp is here and now, and the police are a phone call and 15 minute drive away.

Believe me, If I have a choice, I'd rather the police do the job. But when you need help now, depend upon your self, not the police.

 

[JB1842]

If the police see me shoot the perp, why didn't they save me the trouble?

If the police are that close is a big IF.

Most of the time the perp is here and now, and the police are a phone call and 15 minute drive away.

Believe me, If I have a choice, I'd rather the police do the job. But when you need help now, depend upon your self, not the police.

Just becuase they are close enough to see you shoot, doesn't mean they are close enough to get a clear shot themselves. They may be 30-40 yards away, coming at a run, with people running across their line of fire. I would think that most cops in this scenario would recognize that you are friendly, but I know and work with some complete morons who might make the situation worse. And before we go off and say that those people shouldn't be cops, I agree, but it happens. Those guys get perimeter security when we take a door.

 

[Everskyward]

The only people these signs restrict, and any gun law for that matter are people whom abide by laws. These are NOT the people to be worrying about.

Truthfully I don't worry about either, but that's not the point. It's their museum. Heck, they inspect your bags when you walk into the Air and Space Museum at Dulles.

 

[Henning]

The only people these signs restrict, and any gun law for that matter are people whom abide by laws. These are NOT the people to be worrying about.

They are not the people that anyone is worried about. The problem is that there is no way to tell at a moments notice if you are or are not one of them. So, say you have a security reaction force in place; if you have a "no guns on premises" rule then Security will know that as soon as they see a gun, they know that that gun has 'bad intent' because law abiding people respect the sign that says no carry right? That was your assertion and it's a common one that I don't particularly disagree with.

Now, say that you allow carry, now your security force is handicapped in their reaction because they have to determine the intent of the weapon and the likelihood of an accidental death goes up.

I'd also like to know if EAA's insurer had something to that rule as well.

 

[Steve Foley]

Since my CCW is not recognized in WI, that argument is moot. However I don't agree with your characterization of my mental state based on a decision to protest a policy that I disagree with.

I'm always perplexed by this perpetual fear people have that the feds are coming to take their guns away. What actions have the federal government taken to breed this idea?

How did impute on me some fear that the feds are taking my guns from my assertion that I would protest the EAA museum restriction on the carrying of firearms?

 

[poadeleted21]

They are not the people that anyone is worried about. The problem is that there is no way to tell at a moments notice if you are or are not one of them. So, say you have a security reaction force in place; if you have a "no guns on premises" rule then Security will know that as soon as they see a gun, they know that that gun has 'bad intent' because law abiding people respect the sign that says no carry right? That was your assertion and it's a common one that I don't particularly disagree with.

Now, say that you allow carry, now your security force is handicapped in their reaction because they have to determine the intent of the weapon and the likelihood of an accidental death goes up.

I'd also like to know if EAA's insurer had something to that rule as well.

Isn't that the same problem we have with all these little planes, you never know if it's good ole law abiding Henning off to his next adventure or if's some psychotic guy with a barrell of 100LL in a Dakota heading for an IRS buliding. I think we should just ban all planes at OSH too. I mean it's the only safe thing to do and would make the event so much easier to deal with.

 

[Skylane81E]

Never heard of an insurance card being used to kill.

Fair enough, but the comparison is still valid, as I'm not using the gun to kill, but to end the threat to myself/others. If the bad guy dies he dies, but that will not have been the goal. I don't want to shoot anyone, but will if pressed.

I also feel that a proterty owner should have the right to keep anyone off of his/her land for ANY reason.

I should also be entilted to not patronize private establshments for ANY reason.

I don't eat at resturants that have no gun (OFCC calls them criminal protection zones) signs, even if I have no gun. I refuse to give my money to someone who wishes to see me dissarmed. It's that simple.

And FWIW I have yet to find someone, even among some of the extreme gun phobes I know, that will not go somewhere because there is not a no guns sign.

 

[weilke]

They are not the people that anyone is worried about.

This is the guy you have to be worried about, some fool who mistakes the right to carry a gun with the right to play cop:

 

[Henning]

Isn't that the same problem we have with all these little planes, you never know if it's good ole law abiding Henning off to his next adventure or if's some psychotic guy with a barrell of 100LL in a Dakota heading for an IRS buliding. I think we should just ban all planes at OSH too. I mean it's the only safe thing to do and would make the event so much easier to deal with.

Well, that's the same as the difference we see in pilot decision making and is part of my concern. Rather than seeing a complex situation and figuring the best path through, poor simplistic decisions are made and accidents happen, or nothing at all happens because there was no ability to figure out a way through.

 

[battmain]

Never heard of an insurance card being used to kill.

LOL, then you must not know about insurance fraud.

 

[Anthony]

Never heard of an insurance card being used to kill.

Never heard of a gun killing by itself.