As in the NPRM, under Sec. 460.53, a space flight participant may not carry on board any explosives, firearms, knives, or other weapons.The FAA has released its rules for tourists in space. And per the AP, if you wish to travel, you have to "promise not to sue the government." They issue a license, you sign a "waiver of claims" (Sec.440.17). So a Citizen would presumably have no standing if they wanted to challenge a ruling by unelected bureaucrats on Constitutional grounds. Pretty nice to be able to mandate yourself not responsible, that is, irresponsible, for that which you are, in fact, responsible.
XCOR inquired whether the FAA had the authority to impose security requirements under its statute and the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'' This right is not unfettered. Nearly every statute restricting the right to bear arms has been upheld. For example, in 1958, Congress made it a criminal offense to knowingly carry a firearm onto an airplane engaged in air transportation. 49 U.S.C. 46505. Additionally, nearly all courts have also held that the Second Amendment is a collective right, rather than a personal right. Therefore, despite the Second Amendment collective right to bear arms, the FAA has the authority to prohibit firearms on launch and reentry vehicles for safety and security purposes. [Emphasis added-DC]
The FAA reports to the DOT, and Secretary Peters reports directly to the President. It is inconceivable that she would allow policy directives to be issued against his will.
It looks like they didn't consider my comments when they crafted the final set of rules, but that's OK. Could I have some more Republican Kool-Aid, please?
----------------
I just sent the following to Laura Montgomery, Senior Attorney, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration:
Of course I will post any reply...