(Photo courtesy of Paul Keleher)As of July 15, 2009, TSA implemented security enhancements to the process that allows state, local, territorial, and tribal Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) to fly armed.
When LEOs need to fly armed, they will now obtain a unique identifier code from the TSA via a secure law enforcement network. This new system is replacing the old method of clearance via written authorization from the officer's police department.
The beautiful thing about the security enhancements is that they use an existing infrastructure, so no additional costs are incurred while security is strengthened.
So now, in order to fly armed, a LEO will need to present their credentials along with their unique identifier code when traveling through a TSA checkpoint.
Why are we updating security procedures? As you can imagine, allowing somebody in the aircraft cabin with a weapon has to involve the most secure of check-in process. These enhancements to the process allow us to ensure that only properly credentialed LEOs with a need are flying armed.
Law enforcement officers flying armed serve as a deterrent aboard commercial aircraft. To date, due to support from our law enforcement partners, the rollout has been extremely smooth.
Law Enforcement Officers who meet the requirements can go here to get more info.
No additional costs + enhanced check in process + added security for passengers = WIN!
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
99 comments:
Please explain why anyone would ever need to fly armed.
The fact that a LEO no longer needs written clearance from his department worries me. This strips away any due diligence that might be done regarding an officer's disciplinary history. Given that it seems every day a police officer is shown to have pulled a gun on someone/shot someone/otherwise hurt someone unjustifiably, the likelihood of a rogue officer pulling a gun (or shooting!) someone unjustifiably in a closed environment such as a plane seems greater than any possible reward that an armed LEO could take down a hijacker.
It will not shock me at all when a LEO shoots someone in a plane and claims he thought he was shooting at a hijacker, when the passenger was performing some innocent action that "startled" the officer.
Isn't it interesting how a new thread pops up when the previous thread becomes too controversial.......
They could be transporting a prisoner, which does happen on commercial flights, or escorting a VIP/official
Anonymous writes:
This strips away any due diligence that might be done regarding an officer's disciplinary history. Given that it seems every day a police officer is shown to have pulled a gun on someone/shot someone/otherwise hurt someone unjustifiably, the likelihood of a rogue officer pulling a gun (or shooting!) someone unjustifiably in a closed environment such as a plane seems greater than any possible reward that an armed LEO could take down a hijacker.
Forgive my ignorance here (and I'm fairly sure I'm ignorant) ... but if a LEO can't be trusted with a gun on a plane, should they even be a LEO at all?
Could you explain the role "tribal Law Enforcement Officers" have in the US justice system? I have never heard of one before.
Air Marshals use a frangible bullet that is hoped will not travel through a person and hurt someone else or exit the aircraft.
Will these armed LEO's be required to replace the bullets in their weapons with similar ammo?
RB/// You are so good at proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
FAMS do not use frangible bullets.
You are funny.
From the post: Law enforcement officers flying armed serve as a deterrent aboard commercial aircraft.
A deterrent to what?
Anonymous said...
RB/// You are so good at proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
FAMS do not use frangible bullets.
You are funny.
September 30, 2009 1:16 PM
................
Please support your claim Anon.
"...if a LEO can't be trusted with a gun on a plane, should they even be a LEO at all?
There are many LEOs that shouldn't have weapons. Google "police misconduct" or "police incompetence". Breeze through You-Tube videos. If any LEO can carry a firearm on a plane, then any passenger with a firearm license should.
How could this possibly be a good idea!?
Highly trained Federal Air Marshals are one thing. Any old city cop with a gun? Tribal police officers who have god knows what training? My god. This is ridiculous, asinine, and just plain stupid.
You can't just have them check the gun in a bag?
Must have been some serious pressure from the police unions.
So that I understand, TSA detains infants that bear a name similar to a person on a watch list while people of an occupation known for a high rate of violent suicide .walk to their flight armed with deadly weapons? The line between comedy and tragedy gets finer all the time.
Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
The fact that a LEO no longer needs written clearance from his department worries me. This strips away any due diligence that might be done regarding an officer's disciplinary history. Given that it seems every day a police officer is shown to have pulled a gun on someone/shot someone/otherwise hurt someone unjustifiably, the likelihood of a rogue officer pulling a gun (or shooting!) someone unjustifiably in a closed environment such as a plane seems greater than any possible reward that an armed LEO could take down a hijacker.
It will not shock me at all when a LEO shoots someone in a plane and claims he thought he was shooting at a hijacker, when the passenger was performing some innocent action that "startled" the officer.
September 30, 2009 12:23 PM
--------------------------
Uh, did you actually read the article?
Before, any LEO could simply type up a letter on letterhead paper (available on about any desk at just about any dept in the US)to say he was "legit" to fly armed.
Now they have to go through channels in the dept to have a request generated and all their info put into the central system.
See...
RB
Support your own claim. I am not going to spend my time doing your homework. You made the claim that FAMS use frangible bullets. I called you on it. You speak of what you know not. Your mouth runneth over with generalizations and sloppy facts.
Prove me wrong.
Anonymous said...
RB
Support your own claim. I am not going to spend my time doing your homework. You made the claim that FAMS use frangible bullets. I called you on it. You speak of what you know not. Your mouth runneth over with generalizations and sloppy facts.
Prove me wrong.
September 30, 2009 4:18 PM
...............
Anon, it would be helpful if you showed a little backbone and used some means of identification so we would know which anon you are.
Secondly, you said I was wrong so prove it. I stand by my remarks as first offered.
Oh wow... part of their training includes a "slide presentation". Exciting stuff.
So let me get this straight... I cannot take my bottle of water through a checkpoint, but Officer Bob Smith Jones from the Hazard County Sheriff's dept can take his gun if he goes through a slide presentation?
Can you explain a little more about this? Will the officer/LEO still need permission from the chief/head of agency?
This scares me more than the risk of terrorism. Why on earth do we need more guns inside an aircraft cabin? One is too many.
Also any old police officer can't just hop on a plane with a gun. He has to have a purpose to be their like escorting a prisoner or something like that. We get armed LEO's all the time here in Ketchikan usually escorting prisoners up north where the main prison system is. They also have to get approval from DHS and the airline. Responsibility for this process is soley up to the supervisors, TSO's never deal with the armed LEO's other then informing the STSO that there is one coming up.
Where can the rest of us go to meet requirements to travel armed, or are only officers of the government trusted?
RB said...
"Anonymous said...
RB/// You are so good at proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
FAMS do not use frangible bullets.
You are funny.
September 30, 2009 1:16 PM
................
Please support your claim Anon."
--------------------
Once again RB opens mouth and inserts foot...
RB makes a claim, someone disputes it, and RB says they have to prove their claim. But RB does nothing to prove his/her claim.
Why the double standard RB?
Anonymous said...
"Please explain why anyone would ever need to fly armed."
Many LEO's, wether federal or state, are required to travel as part of their job. They must keep their weapon on them at all times.
These LEO's do not just show up. Their agency, be it the F.B.I. or a local police department, sends in a request to TSA with all the important info, and so on. The LEO is issued a specific number for a specific flight.
They do not just show up as some of you suggest.
What is being done here is sort of the same thing as the paperless boarding pass.
It actually helps to ensure that the LEO does not have fake papers when they arrive. Go onto ebay or other places and see if you can't buy a LEO's badge from somewhere, you figure it out...
And by the way, armed LEO's have always flown. This had been brought up before on various parts of this blog. The fact that they do fly armed should not be a surprise to those of you who have come here for any length of time.
I have training and a state certified license to carry a concealed weapon.
Why am I not allowed to travel armed?
Anonymous said...
Please explain why anyone would ever need to fly armed.
-------------------------------
A single armed person on 9/11 could have prevented it.
Anonymous said...
RB said...
"Anonymous said...
RB/// You are so good at proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
FAMS do not use frangible bullets.
You are funny.
September 30, 2009 1:16 PM
................
Please support your claim Anon."
--------------------
Once again RB opens mouth and inserts foot...
RB makes a claim, someone disputes it, and RB says they have to prove their claim. But RB does nothing to prove his/her claim.
Why the double standard RB?
September 30, 2009 8:40 PM
.......................
No double standard anon.
You or another spineless anon made a claim that what I stated was incorrect.
It is not up to me to validate that claim.
If you think I am wrong then just prove it.
TSOWilliamReed said...
Also any old police officer can't just hop on a plane with a gun. He has to have a purpose to be their like escorting a prisoner or something like that. We get armed LEO's all the time here in Ketchikan usually escorting prisoners up north where the main prison system is. They also have to get approval from DHS and the airline. Responsibility for this process is soley up to the supervisors, TSO's never deal with the armed LEO's other then informing the STSO that there is one coming up.
September 30, 2009 5:05 PM
............
Are you as sure about this as you were about Nexus cards not being a valid ID?
LEO's have been flying armed for decades with out a single negative incident ocurring while one was on board. If you have flown on a plane in the last 10 years, chances are, someone on the plane was a LEO carrying a loaded firearm.
Everybody hates a cop until they need one. We understand that. Seriously, we get it. We're not asking to be loved. Just don't lump the majority of us who serve with pride and dignity in with the morons that screw up.
Stop for a minute and think. What if just one armed LEO had been on one of the highjacked planes on September 11, 2001. How many lives would he/she have saved?
I'll leave you with a thought. Everyday, tens of thousands of people in the US wake up, put on a badge and go to work. Those same people will run, litteraly run, in the direction of a crazed gunman while most other run away. They will put themselves in harm's way for people they don't know. They do this knowing full well that those perfect strangers will most likely never appreciate it.
Isn't it interesting how a new thread pops up when the previous thread becomes too controversial.......
Isn't it interesting that in every other blog people reply based off of the topic but here at EoS people reply based off of every experience they've gone through an airport or seen rather than stick to the topic?
It will not shock me at all when a LEO shoots someone in a plane and claims he thought he was shooting at a hijacker
If that's the case than the said LEO better have a darn good reason. LEO's as in police officers not FAM's aren't being brought into the plane armed to help out. TSA Is just allowing them to enter & fly armed.
Remember some agencies such as Secret Service, ICE, CBP, CIA etc must carry they're gun when they fly through depending on work conditions. Granted, they're not permitted to just casually bring they're gun on a plane on they're day off.
Oh yes, let's trust the same people who don't even know what ID's are acceptable at their checkpoints to approve cops carrying guns on planes! Genius!
For the record, LEOs have been allowed to fly armed ever since screening for firearms was implemented in the 1960s. Current regulations may be found at 49 CFR 1544.219 "Carriage of accessible weapons". We have a track record of 40+ years of LEOs flying while armed, not sure why some people seem to be getting their knickers in a knot over this strengthening of the system.
Another Anonymous Poster said:
"I have training and a state certified license to carry a concealed weapon.
Why am I not allowed to travel armed?"
You are not a trained and certified Law Enforcement Officer, traveling on official business or while on duty. Thats why.
Anonymous said... Isn't it interesting how a new thread pops up when the previous thread becomes too controversial... September 30, 2009 12:28 PM
--------------
This always comes up. When a blog post is ready to be posted, we post it. That’s it.
--------------
Jim Huggins said... Forgive my ignorance here (and I'm fairly sure I'm ignorant) ... September 30, 2009 12:44 PM
--------------
My thoughts exactly, Jim. (Not that you're ignorant...)
--------------
Sebastian M said... Could you explain the role "tribal Law Enforcement Officers" have in the US justice system? September 30, 2009 12:44 PM
--------------
Sebastian, Tribal Law Enforcement Officers are supported by the Department of Justice and are responsible for patrolling more than 55 million acres of land held in trust by the U.S. for Indian tribes or individual native persons.
--------------
Anonymous said... So that I understand, TSA detains infants that bear a name similar to a person on a watch list while people of an occupation known for a high rate of violent suicide .walk to their flight armed with deadly weapons? September 30, 2009 3:59 PM
-------------
No infant has ever been detained by TSA. You are correct that their name may have matched a name on the watch list and raised a red flag, but to say they were detained is a stretch. Also, please read on this blog as well as TSA.gov about secure flight. Secure flight will solve 99.9% of situations where a name matches a name of somebody wo is on the list.
-----------
Ayn R. Key said... Where can the rest of us go to meet requirements to travel armed, or are only officers of the government trusted? September 30, 2009 7:03 PM
------------
Ayn, are you a Law Enforcement Officer? Do you meet the requirements laid out in 49 C.F.R. § 1544.219?
-------------
Anonymous said... I have training and a state certified license to carry a concealed weapon. Why am I not allowed to travel armed? October 1, 2009 8:08 AM
---------
Are you a Law Enforcement Officer? Do you meet the requirements laid out in 49 C.F.R. § 1544.219?
----------
RB said... Are you as sure about this as you were about Nexus cards not being a valid ID? October 1, 2009 9:15 AM
----------
RB, Mr. Reed made a mistake. He has acknowledged his mistake. We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license. But, even though Mr. Reed already stated this elsewhere, here is what he or any other TSO would do if they were presented with an ID card they did not recognize. They would look it up, or they would call their supervisor.
---------
Anonymous said... LEO's have been flying armed for decades without a single negative incident.... October 1, 2009 9:15 AM
---------
Anon, thanks for your service as a Police Officer. We also have bad apples at TSA that make the rest of us look bad from time to time. Unfortunately as you are well aware, it’s human nature to remember the bad experiences more often than the good ones.
-------
JB said... Oh yes, let's trust the same people who don't even know what ID's are acceptable at their checkpoints to approve cops carrying guns on planes! October 1, 2009 9:53 AM
---------
JB, two totally different situations here. One involves a single TSO and the other involves the Law Enforcement Community and the TSA. One involves recognizing an ID that they hardly ever see and the other involves verifying a unique identifier and credentials.
I have read here that officers have refused NEXUS cards in the past. I have no way to validate these claims, but if it does happen to you or if it has happened in the past, I strongly encourage you to use Got Feedback so you can let TSA at that airport know an officer rejected an approved form of ID.
I have done this in the past, but I’ll send this along to our training department and suggest a refresher for our TSOs.
Thanks,
Blogger Bob
TSA Blog Team
Bob said in part....
"RB, Mr. Reed made a mistake. He has acknowledged his mistake. We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license. But, even though Mr. Reed already stated this elsewhere, here is what he or any other TSO would do if they were presented with an ID card they did not recognize. They would look it up, or they would call their supervisor."
................
Bob the problem as I see it is a continuing pattern of TSA employees who just don't know their jobs.
How many TSO's have said on this blog that having more than $10,000 cash was illegal? Several if I remember corretly.
How about the TSO that said OTC medicines could not travel?
Or the TSO Supervisor that tossed (confiscated) gel packs that were meant to keep a babies milk cold?
How many times do we have to hear about acceptable ID's that some TSO's don't know are acceptable? There have been reports of passport cards, nexus cards and others.
How many other incidents have been reported here and they just keep on happening?
No, the problem is TSA and the lack of effective training its employees are provided or the ability to get certified for a job without really being qualified.
Something is very wrong at TSA.
Why not try fixing it!
ps: Did you get signs at SLC fixed?
Bob said...
RB, Mr. Reed made a mistake. He has acknowledged his mistake. We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license. But, even though Mr. Reed already stated this elsewhere, here is what he or any other TSO would do if they were presented with an ID card they did not recognize. They would look it up, or they would call their supervisor.
------------------
Thank you Bob, and as Bob said I did acknowledge my mistake and corrected the misunderstanding. Please read the previos blog to find my responses.
TSA says his name appeared on watch list By Gene Apodaca(12/31/05 - KTRK/HOUSTON) (KTRK) --
There was a surprise for a Houston woman when she found out one of her family members was on a terror watch list. Now he's not able to fly until he follows a precise checklist put forth by the government. But there's a twist to this story.
Edward Allen's parents say there is no way their son's a terrorist. He doesn't own a gun and has no allegiance to a foreign government. On top of that, he's only four years old.
And by all accounts, Edward is a typical four-year-old child.
Bob, I think it's pretty clear by my question that I'm not a law enforcement officer. My question explicity asked when the REST OF US can travel armed. The phrase "rest of us" indicates that I am discussing that portion of the population that does not consist of law enforcement officers.
So now that I've responded to your non-answer, will you be kind enough to give an answer?
Bob said...
We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license. But, even though Mr. Reed already stated this elsewhere, here is what he or any other TSO would do if they were presented with an ID card they did not recognize. They would look it up, or they would call their supervisor.
____________________________
Bob,
Forgive me being overly direct, but that statement is patently false.
Only once have I ever had a TSO call for a supervisor without me insisting they do so, and that was at CVG.
Approximately 75% of the time I use such an ID, it is outright rejected, and I am requested to dig through my carryon for a DL.
TSO's rarely see NEXIS/SENTRI cards because travellers have decided they are virtually useless to travel with, unless one creates a scene and demands a supervisor. Most travellers won't do that.
Bob said...
We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license
_______________________________
Bob, why is it easier??? Maybe because NEXUS/SENTRI holders have given up?
Do you really think a tattered Alabama or Delaware or New Mexico Driver's License is any easier for a TSO in Alaska to recognize than a DHS issued "TRUSTED TRAVELER" ID with a little commercial airliner laser etched into it?
Or is it another gap in training?
I imagine a large contingent of TSOs have never seen drivers licenses from all 50 states, yet they are all accepted.
The bar required by DHS to obtain a NEXUS/SENTRI ID is well above that needed for a DL in any state, yet the TSA more often than not refuses to accept the ID issued by their own governing department for secure travel.
Is the TSA ID check really about security, or just going through the motions with the little UV "magic" light?
If it is about security, these IDs should be applauded at a security check, not scorned.
I am not the anon in the discussion RB but with only 30 seconds of a google search I found this from 2006.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jun/13/20060613-123248-2105r/
Quoted from the article:
"Federal Air Marshal Service Director Dana Brown is reviewing the agency's use of a .357-caliber handgun and Speer Gold Dot .357 SIG round, nonfrangible ammunition, said FAMS spokesman Conan Bruce.
Mr. Bruce said air marshals used to use frangible ammunition but switched weapons and ammunition after researching testing by outside groups. The change was approved by former FAMS Director Thomas Quinn, a former Secret Service agent."
If you notice it says used to use but they switched. So they currently (as of the date in the article) do not use frangible ammo.
Unless someone else has more up-to-date info.
Mark
Law enforcement officers kill more Americans every year than terrorists.
Anonymous said...
I am not the anon in the discussion RB but with only 30 seconds of a google search I found this from 2006.
................
Did you read page two? Towards the bottom.
Yes I did see that Air Marshals are saying TSA is not being truthful about this either.
However TSA seems to be saying that they did go back to a less penetrating round.
"In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed."
RB,
I think you need to reread that article. The policies your quote are referring to had nothing to do with the ammunition:
" The House investigation said in its report released last week that policies dictating dress and boarding procedures in sight of passengers undermine the marshals' anonymity and suggested that any marshal who initiated changes fell victim to retaliation.
In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed. Air marshals who spoke to panel lawyers disagreed with the TSA's claims in interviews with The Washington Times."
Bottom line, you were wrong. It is an easy mistake to make, nothing wrong with owning up to it.
Ayn R. Key said...
Bob, I think it's pretty clear by my question that I'm not a law enforcement officer. My question explicitly asked when the REST OF US can travel armed. The phrase "rest of us" indicates that I am discussing that portion of the population that does not consist of law enforcement officers.
So now that I've responded to your non-answer, will you be kind enough to give an answer?
_____________________________
Ayn, your question demonstrates your ignorance of the subject. You can travel armed all you want as long as you abide by the law.
In most places a non law enforcement officer can't even drive across state lines with a loaded gun, not the TSA's fault its State law.
The language in 49 CFR 1544.219 comes from Congress, also not TSA's fault. If you don't meet the requirements, as Bob pointed out, then you don't fly armed.
Perhaps if you asked the right people the right question you would get the right answer.
If you don't agree with the law don't blame Bob. Try contacting your state and federal lawmakers who can actually change the law.
Or, feel free to become a cop.
"...she found out one of her family members was on a terror watch list. Now he's not able to fly...he's only four years old."
Maybe he got on the list while in the "terrible twos"?
;o)
RB: I think the policy that they changed is the one referencing the comment above it about dress and boarding procedures, by the way I interpret it and it says that the air marshals themselves disagreed with TSA's claims.
"The House investigation said in its report released last week that policies dictating dress and boarding procedures in sight of passengers undermine the marshals' anonymity and suggested that any marshal who initiated changes fell victim to retaliation.
In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed. Air marshals who spoke to panel lawyers disagreed with the TSA's claims in interviews with The Washington Times."
I Honestly think that the FAMS would be reticient in their duties if they released the exact type of ammo that they were using, I would think that would be "SSI" on their part.
Mark
Bob said...
RB, Mr. Reed made a mistake. He has acknowledged his mistake. We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license. But, even though Mr. Reed already stated this elsewhere, here is what he or any other TSO would do if they were presented with an ID card they did not recognize. They would look it up, or they would call their supervisor.
*******
Unfortunately Mr. Reed added insult to injury by posting that he did not need to get an up to date ID list for his station. The old and outdated list was sufficient.
I seem to recall past posts about TSO's refusing Passport cards, claiming they were not on the list. Additional statements were made that because they didn't see them very often this was part of the problem.
While suggesting that retraining needs to occur to the appropriate office might be taken seriously. One has to wonder how many other basic TSA policies that every TSO's should know are also claim as not valid.
There is clearly a larger issue that goes beyond Mr. Reed.
I'm not a LEO, but can I have permission to fly armed? It will make air travel more safe. In fact, let's just get rid of the security checkpoints altogether and have the airlines issue each passenger a firearm and ammunition. Not to mention the cost savings, what terrorist in their right mind would hijack an airplane knowing that 150 people onboard are armed. Better than trying to get law-abiding citizens to leave their shampoo in their checked bag; because the bad guys will find a way to get their weapons on board.
RB said...
"Anonymous said...
RB said...
"Anonymous said...
RB/// You are so good at proving that you don't know what you are talking about.
FAMS do not use frangible bullets.
You are funny.
September 30, 2009 1:16 PM
................
Please support your claim Anon."
--------------------
Once again RB opens mouth and inserts foot...
RB makes a claim, someone disputes it, and RB says they have to prove their claim. But RB does nothing to prove his/her claim.
Why the double standard RB?
September 30, 2009 8:40 PM
.......................
No double standard anon.
You or another spineless anon made a claim that what I stated was incorrect.
It is not up to me to validate that claim.
If you think I am wrong then just prove it."
******************************
RB, this is one of the more stupid things you have written, and you have typed some stupid things on this blog, to say the least.
I suggest you grow a back-bone yourself and take responsibility for your own claims. But I doubt you would actually do that.
Either your too much of a coward to try to support what you say, because you may find out you are wrong. Or (and I actually suspect this to be the case) you do not posses the intellectual capacity to do the research yourself, as suggested when you misquoted a news article, highlighted by Ryan62, who wrote:
"RB,
I think you need to reread that article. The policies your quote are referring to had nothing to do with the ammunition:
" The House investigation said in its report released last week that policies dictating dress and boarding procedures in sight of passengers undermine the marshals' anonymity and suggested that any marshal who initiated changes fell victim to retaliation.
In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed. Air marshals who spoke to panel lawyers disagreed with the TSA's claims in interviews with The Washington Times."
Bottom line, you were wrong. It is an easy mistake to make, nothing wrong with owning up to it."
So, since I no longer believe you can be trusted to reliably track down any information on your own with much success, I have found other sources for you, other than the article you misread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug
I will quote one sentence in particular from the section titled "Usage":
"Published reports indicate that Air Marshals are now issued SIG-Sauer P229 pistols with a 12 round capacity firing conventional jacketed hollow point ammunition in .357 SIG caliber."
Can you read that? The ammunition now issued to FAMs is "conventional", a 357 slug. Pretty powerful.
Or, as quoted from another article:
"It's one of the most high-powered rounds you can put in a weapon."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-07-air-marshals_x.htm
Hope you can understand that, but I doubt it.
We all know you hate TSA. Yeah, yeah, we get that. But maybe you should start to take responsibility for your own post, please.
TSOWilliamReed said...
Thank you Bob, and as Bob said I did acknowledge my mistake and corrected the misunderstanding. Please read the previos blog to find my responses.
********
"Read what I type please. Sorry the ID list at our checkpoint hasn't been updated in awhile but honestly it doesn't have to be."
************
I've read what you typed Mr. Reed, perhaps you should take a break from posting until you can correct all of your misunderstandings. If you continue to rely on the same outdated ID list this is going to happen again. One simple download from the internet would fix this.
Anonymous said...
RB said...
Either your too much of a coward to try to support what you say, because you may find out you are wrong. Or (and I actually suspect this to be the case) you do not posses the intellectual capacity to do the research yourself, as suggested when you misquoted a news article, highlighted by Ryan62, who wrote:
"RB,
I think you need to reread that article. The policies your quote are referring to had nothing to do with the ammunition:
" The House investigation said in its report released last week that policies dictating dress and boarding procedures in sight of passengers undermine the marshals' anonymity and suggested that any marshal who initiated changes fell victim to retaliation.
In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed. Air marshals who spoke to panel lawyers disagreed with the TSA's claims in interviews with The Washington Times."
Bottom line, you were wrong. It is an easy mistake to make, nothing wrong with owning up to it."
So, since I no longer believe you can be trusted to reliably track down any information on your own with much success, I have found other sources for you, other than the article you misread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug
I will quote one sentence in particular from the section titled "Usage":
"Published reports indicate that Air Marshals are now issued SIG-Sauer P229 pistols with a 12 round capacity firing conventional jacketed hollow point ammunition in .357 SIG caliber."
Can you read that? The ammunition now issued to FAMs is "conventional", a 357 slug. Pretty powerful.
Or, as quoted from another article:
"It's one of the most high-powered rounds you can put in a weapon."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-12-07-air-marshals_x.htm
Hope you can understand that, but I doubt it.
We all know you hate TSA. Yeah, yeah, we get that. But maybe you should start to take responsibility for your own post, please.
October 2, 2009 12:44 AM
..................
Anon, thanks for the personal attacks. Shows your lack of character quiet well. You won't even use an aliase so we know which comments are yours.
I may have misread the article that was quoted but I didn't resort to using Wikpeida to support my position like you did.
Using Wikpedia is about for a source is about as strong as Francine using Google to make a legal point. Worthless!
I know two Air Marshals personally and will ask them what round their weapon is loaded with when I see them next. Don't know if they will say or not but I don't see why that info would be restricted.
As I understand the various positions there was concern that the frangible bullets might not penetrate body armor. That would be a valid point. The 357 Sig hollow point is a very fast round and should penetrate most body armor yet still deform after penetration and not exit the body. If this round exits the target body then it may not be suitable for close quarter use in an airplane. Collateral damage is a consideration that must be taken into account.
When the power of a round is discussed it is the impact power that is being measured.
A FMJ bullet may have high speed, penetrate body armor yet just travel straight through the body without causing killing damage and have little effective impact energy. On the other hand a bullet that deforms on impact will have far greater killing power when striking the target.
I may be wrong about the current bullet used by Air Marshals but it seems that they did use a frangible projectile at some point.
If I find out they are using a different round today over what they used in the past I will step up and admit same.
Fair enough?
Ayn sez - "Bob, I think it's pretty clear by my question that I'm not a law enforcement officer. My question explicity asked when the REST OF US can travel armed. The phrase "rest of us" indicates that I am discussing that portion of the population that does not consist of law enforcement officers.
So now that I've responded to your non-answer, will you be kind enough to give an answer?"
When you are able to meet the guidelines set forth in 49 C.F.R. § 1544.219 and are sponsored by a federal or state recognized Law Enforcement Organization. Period. Oh yeah, the exceptions are FAMS which fall under 49 C.F.R. § 1544.223 (I think that is the one that regulates the travel for them)
and FFDOs which fall under 49 CFR 1544.101.
West
TSA Blog Team
rb sez - "Did you read page two? Towards the bottom.
Yes I did see that Air Marshals are saying TSA is not being truthful about this either.
However TSA seems to be saying that they did go back to a less penetrating round.
"In its response to the committee, the Transportation Security Administration, which manages FAMS, said the policies have been changed."
It indicates that the policies have changed, but not the ammo. If you have a link providing new info on what ammo is currently being carried, I would like to see it. The last info published that I can find is the one from 06 indicating the .357 rounds.
West
TSA Blog Team
Anon sez "Maybe he got on the list while in the "terrible twos"?
;o)"
I can not believe that you beat me to that. Nice!
West
TSA Blog Team
Anonymous said...
Bob said...
We rarely see NEXUS cards because most people realize it is far easier to simply show their easily recognizable driver’s license
_______________________________
Bob, why is it easier??? Maybe because NEXUS/SENTRI holders have given up?
Do you really think a tattered Alabama or Delaware or New Mexico Driver's License is any easier for a TSO in Alaska to recognize than a DHS issued "TRUSTED TRAVELER" ID with a little commercial airliner laser etched into it?
Or is it another gap in training?
I imagine a large contingent of TSOs have never seen drivers licenses from all 50 states, yet they are all accepted.
The bar required by DHS to obtain a NEXUS/SENTRI ID is well above that needed for a DL in any state, yet the TSA more often than not refuses to accept the ID issued by their own governing department for secure travel.
Is the TSA ID check really about security, or just going through the motions with the little UV "magic" light?
If it is about security, these IDs should be applauded at a security check, not scorned.
October 1, 2009 2:31 PM
-------------
Actually I have seen every states drivers license and I have only worked here at this CAT 3 Alaskan airport for 1.5 years. I have even seen probably about 15 different countires passports as well. I have never seen a nexus card and have only ever once seen the fabled government issued brown american passports. I do see TWIC cards about 3 times a day.
So, if I understand this: An LEO can go through something like NCIC and get a clearance to fly armed. The officer needs no approval other than that of TSA, which has no idea of the officer, other than that it's an LEO.
Having seen many LEOs that work outside laws and been involved in drugs, arson, murder, I can't say that this idea improves public safety. Maybe it would help if you had people determining policy that had an understanding of how the world is.
Anon said… In fact, let's just get rid of the security checkpoints altogether and have the airlines issue each passenger a firearm and ammunition.
Your gun is not going to do a lot of good when the terrorist flips the switch on the bomb hidden in his/her shampoo bottle. Try to think before you make such silly decisions regarding my safety on an aircraft.
“Bob, why is it easier??? Maybe because NEXUS/SENTRI holders have given up?”
Not likely, it is a simple game of statistics. If my airport has 10,000 passengers come thru every day. 7,495 passengers will show the drivers license issued by their state. 499 will show the passport issued by their country. 5 will show a TWIC. That last passenger will show a NEXUS card. Most people have the common sense to realize that a state ID or a passport is going to be easily recognizable.
AynRkey said:Bob, I think it's pretty clear by my question that I'm not a law enforcement officer. My question explicity asked when the REST OF US can travel armed. The phrase "rest of us" indicates that I am discussing that portion of the population that does not consist of law enforcement officers. So now that I've responded to your non-answer, will you be kind enough to give an answer?
Are you seriously asking why someone who is not in law enforcement, can't carry a gun on a plane? It's been explained that the ONLY reason even a LEO can carry a gun is if he is on duty. I personally don't know every specific detail of any armed officers job and the procedures, but if they are not on duty, they check their gun just like everyone else. What is the purpose of having a regular Joe having his/her gun on board with them? NONE. It would serve no purpose whatsoever. There is already enough stupidity out there on the streets with guns owned by "regular Joe's" that it is rediculous to even think about letting them on a plane with one, even with certification. So tell me, why do you need your gun with you? Does it feed your ego or something to be able to say that you can?
TSO Jacob said...
"Not likely, it is a simple game of statistics...."
as an excuse for not recognizing a NEXUS card.
Using that same reasoning, we should have no expectations that a TSO would every recognize a real bomb....
Jannis said...
Your gun is not going to do a lot of good when the terrorist flips the switch on the bomb hidden in his/her shampoo bottle.
EXACTLY !!!
So what did Bob mean when he included this in his post: Law enforcement officers flying armed serve as a deterrent aboard commercial aircraft.
A situation where a gun may stop or prevent something from happening is very remote. Usually the outcome is not what is intended.
TSO Jacob said...
Most people have the common sense to realize that a state ID or a passport is going to be easily recognizable.
And most people have the common sense that ID does NOT equal security.
Besides that, if the ID is approved and on TSA list, then agents of TSA should KNOW what ID's are accepted. Anything less is incompetent.
The last info published that I can find is the one from 06 indicating the .357 rounds.
West
TSA Blog Team
October 2, 2009 11:20 AM
................
West, as I undertstand the round is a 357 SIG. A much different round than the old 357 magnum.
Essentially the 357 Sig is a necked down .40 S&W cartridge.
Anonymous said… “Using that same reasoning, we should have no expectations that a TSO would every recognize a real bomb....”
Wrong again. We train with IED stimulants and bomb components EVERYDAY. We literally see dozens of images of bombs and guns every single day we work. We can recognize a wide variety of bomb components and understand how different components can be utilized to create the maximum effectiveness of the device.
In short, TSOs see simulated bombs everyday so that when the real thing comes thru we won’t have any trouble recognizing it.
Law Enforcement Officers carrying guns IS a deterrent to people who want to try to hijack the plane. The person I was responding to stated that they wanted all passengers to be allowed to carry guns so that all passengers could carry their shampoo bottle on the plane. This is a foolish idea because the shampoo bomb would make the guns entirely useless. That does not mean that having a highly trained person on the plane to deter hijackings is a bad idea. That is all part on that layers concept.
Also, are guns the only thing that the armed Officers carry. Don’t they carry stun guns or tasers to tame unruly or crazy passengers, like that guy that hijacked that plane in Mexico not to long ago.
TSO Jacob writes:
Most people have the common sense to realize that a state ID or a passport is going to be easily recognizable.
So people who choose to exercise their rights, under TSA regulations, to use an ID card on TSA's approved lists that isn't a state ID or passport, lack common sense? Oy vey.
Stop blaming passengers because they choose to follow TSA's rules, and ask that TSOs do the same.
RB sez - "West, as I undertstand the round is a 357 SIG. A much different round than the old 357 magnum.
Essentially the 357 Sig is a necked down .40 S&W cartridge."
I don't really have THAT much info on it, the last info I had was quoted out of USA Today (by a FAM spokesperson) that indicated the following "Published reports indicate that Air Marshals are now issued SIG-Sauer P229 pistols with a 12 round capacity firing conventional jacketed hollow point ammunition in .357 SIG caliber. "
I am pretty good with firearms, but the last time I carried a SIG it was a 9mm and I was much younger. Hollow points tend to deform on contact and even can frag out some especially if they contact bone. That is the best info I can give you on it RB, sorry I don't have better info.
West
TSA Blog Team
West, I think it's pretty clear by my question that I'm not a law enforcement officer. My question explicity asked when the REST OF US can travel armed. The phrase "rest of us" indicates that I am discussing that portion of the population that does not consist of law enforcement officers.
So now that I've responded to your non-answer, will you be kind enough to give an answer?
If you do not mind law enforcement offices carrying weapons on the ground, why in the world would you mind them carrying them in the air.
Do people not understand that many officers are required to carry their firearms even while off duty? Do they think that just because they are on a plane that they would somehow behave differently? Ridiculous.
Actually RB, the intent of the .357 SIG round was to create a round that could easily feed in automatic pistols yet had the same ballistic performance as a .357 magnum.
To wit:
A .357 Sig 125 grain load is 125 grains at 1450 feet per second generating 584 ft lbs of muzzle energy.
A .357 magnum 125 grain load (which if you are familair with the Marshal study you are aware is one of the most effective defensive rounds available)
is 125 grains at 1440 ft per second generating 575 ft lbs at the muzzle.
So, I can't see the case that they are very different at all, at least not from the perspective of use in an airplane.
an armed LEO could take down a hijacker that is for sure, but I think these updates are essential and rational
Anon sez - "EXACTLY !!!
So what did Bob mean when he included this in his post: Law enforcement officers flying armed serve as a deterrent aboard commercial aircraft.
A situation where a gun may stop or prevent something from happening is very remote. Usually the outcome is not what is intended."
The main situation that Bob was referring to is when LEOs are transporting prisoners. If I am handcuffed, or travelling under the control of someone with a gun, I would tend to be much more likely to do what I was told, and not generate a ruckus. It also adds another element of non-control for someone with ill intent by providing that unknown factor. If you are going to do womething bad on a flight, you also have to consider whether there are armed LEOs on the same flight, as well as an armed FAM or FFDO. So in general terms, it is another deterrent to someone intending to do something bad on the plane.
West
TSA Blog Team
As I have stated before, the ID a select few desire to use is not a problem but it might take a little longer to clear. A previous post stated that people have given up trying to use the Nexus card because it took TSA a little additional time to clear the ID. I simply pointed out that most sensible people would prefer to use a regular state ID or a passport because they are easier and quicker to clear, that is common sense.
GSOLTSO said...
RB sez - "West, as I undertstand the round is a 357 SIG. A much different round than the old 357 magnum.
Essentially the 357 Sig is a necked down .40 S&W cartridge."
I don't really have THAT much info on it, the last info I had was quoted out of USA Today (by a FAM spokesperson) that indicated the following "Published reports indicate that Air Marshals are now issued SIG-Sauer P229 pistols with a 12 round capacity firing conventional jacketed hollow point ammunition in .357 SIG caliber. "
I am pretty good with firearms, but the last time I carried a SIG it was a 9mm and I was much younger. Hollow points tend to deform on contact and even can frag out some especially if they contact bone. That is the best info I can give you on it RB, sorry I don't have better info.
West
TSA Blog Team
October 3, 2009 11:38 AM
.............
West, I think there is a small confusion factor here.
A .357 Sig is the caliber of a round, not a direct reference to a manufacturer.
A Sig (Sig-Sauer) (Sig Arms)usually refers to the manufacturer. For example I carry a Sig P245 which is chambered for 45 ACP. Other Sigs like the Sig P229 is chambered for .40 S&W, .357 Sig and 9mm.
Don't confuse the brand name Sig Sauer with the round designation. In this case they are two seperate things.
RB sez - "West, I think there is a small confusion factor here.
A .357 Sig is the caliber of a round, not a direct reference to a manufacturer.
A Sig (Sig-Sauer) (Sig Arms)usually refers to the manufacturer. For example I carry a Sig P245 which is chambered for 45 ACP. Other Sigs like the Sig P229 is chambered for .40 S&W, .357 Sig and 9mm.
Don't confuse the brand name Sig Sauer with the round designation. In this case they are two seperate things."
Sarc off Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was not up to speed on the types of ammo. I stick with plain old ball rounds for target shooting and hollowpoints for home defense. I don't know grain counts or the various types of ammo they have now, but I know what works in my guns and I honestly appreciate the distinction you explained.
West
TSA Blog Team
Sarc off Thanks for clearing that up for me, I was not up to speed on the types of ammo. I stick with plain old ball rounds for target shooting and hollowpoints for home defense. I don't know grain counts or the various types of ammo they have now, but I know what works in my guns and I honestly appreciate the distinction you explained.
West
TSA Blog Team
October 5, 2009 5:33 PM
.....................
Most welcome.
I agree that standard ball is fine for target practice.
For self defense any number of rounds are acceptable. Which ever type you go with be sure your weapon if a semi-auto will cycle reliably. Some brands/loads work better than others in even the same brand/model of weapon. Not so much a problem with a revolver.
So be sure to run a few home defense rounds through before calling it a day.
RB said...
Anonymous said...
RB said...
Either your too much of a coward to try to support what you say, because you may find out you are wrong.
October 2, 2009 12:44 AM
..................
Anon, thanks for the personal attacks. Shows your lack of character quiet well. You won't even use an aliase so we know which comments are yours.
I may have misread the article that was quoted but I didn't resort to using Wikpeida to support my position like you did.
I know two Air Marshals personally and will ask them what round their weapon is loaded with when I see them next. Don't know if they will say or not but I don't see why that info would be restricted.
I may be wrong about the current bullet used by Air Marshals but it seems that they did use a frangible projectile at some point.
If I find out they are using a different round today over what they used in the past I will step up and admit same.
Fair enough?
October 2, 2009 11:00 AM+
.................
OK, I had the opportunity to discuss this with a FAM.
I was wrong. Sorry to disappoint you anon but I willingly admit my mistakes.
While we didn't get into great detail on the round they use it was clear that they do use the 357 Sig round. They do not currently use a frangible bullet and may never have.
My guy has been with FAM for a some years so I have to accept his call on these points.
Ayn R. Key asked:….
West, I think it's pretty clear by my question that I'm not a law enforcement officer. My question explicity asked when the REST OF US can travel armed. The phrase "rest of us" indicates that I am discussing that portion of the population that does not consist of law enforcement officers.
----------------------
I can clear that up for you Ayn.
You cant. Unless you meet the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 1544.219 you are not allowed to carry a weapon on board a commercial aircraft.
RB said...
Anon, thanks for the personal attacks. Shows your lack of character quiet well. You won't even use an aliase so we know which comments are yours.
I may have misread the article that was quoted but I didn't resort to using Wikpeida to support my position like you did.
Using Wikpedia is about for a source is about as strong as Francine using Google to make a legal point. Worthless!
I know two Air Marshals personally and will ask them what round their weapon is loaded with when I see them next. Don't know if they will say or not but I don't see why that info would be restricted.
As I understand the various positions there was concern that the frangible bullets might not penetrate body armor. That would be a valid point. The 357 Sig hollow point is a very fast round and should penetrate most body armor yet still deform after penetration and not exit the body. If this round exits the target body then it may not be suitable for close quarter use in an airplane. Collateral damage is a consideration that must be taken into account.
When the power of a round is discussed it is the impact power that is being measured.
A FMJ bullet may have high speed, penetrate body armor yet just travel straight through the body without causing killing damage and have little effective impact energy. On the other hand a bullet that deforms on impact will have far greater killing power when striking the target.
I may be wrong about the current bullet used by Air Marshals but it seems that they did use a frangible projectile at some point.
If I find out they are using a different round today over what they used in the past I will step up and admit same.
Fair enough?
-----------------------
Your welcome for the personal attack - I took a page out of your book.
Wasn't it you that called someone as "spineless", and suggested that another who post before was also spineless? How in the world is that not a personal attack? Sure, many people post annonymously, and you don't like it because you can't track what they say, but PLEASE explain how calling them spineless is not a personal attack in your book?
If you don't like personal attacks, and think that those who do them lack character/ethics, I suggest not to do it yourself.
Feel any way you want about Wikipedia. Personally, I do not feel it is a great place to find accurate information, but my personal feeling about it are pointless. However, as I am sure you are aware, such sites are becoming more acceptable as a means to start research.
On the first page of my google search regarding the relevancy of wikipedia, I found this site, for Carelton College, and I quote directly:
http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/library/for_faculty/faculty_find/wikipedia/
"The best use of Wikipedia might be as a starting point at which to gain contextual information about a topic before moving on to more detailed or more reliable information sources."
If you read over what I wrote, that is exactly what I did. The second article I cite was found THROUGH wikipedia. But I guess in your book, that means the 2nd article is not reliable either?
Now to the topic:
I actaully do not care about what bullets FAM's use. I too know a few of them, and I run into many every week. I could ask them what they use, but I will not. Its pointless.
My point in responding to you is to highlight that you have a terrible habit of expecting others to do what you will not. It is VERY hypocritical of you.
You say now you will support you claim. I am not going to say "good for you". Its what you SHOULD have done from the start.
However, I will not believe anything you say unless it comes from an independant peer-reviewed study detailing what bullets FAMs use.... ;)
Thank you Ron for admitting there is one law for our lords and masters and another law for us lowly peons.
Ayn R. Key said...
Thank you Ron for admitting there is one law for our lords and masters and another law for us lowly peons.
------------
Tin Foil Hat time again folks.
Thats not the way it works Ayn (and you know it), if you want to become a certified LEO you can. Your choice. No law against it. In fact, I'd encourage it. It would give you a significantly different perspective. Those laws apply to every single citizen of this nation, and they can each take advantage of it if they choose to do so. Even the folks with belief's like yours.
Ah, so Ron has to wear a tinfoil hat when he types comments to this blog. Now I understand his rather ... unusual ... attitude.
During 2008 and 2009 I have routinely traveled through airports throughout the U.S. using a federal employee/contractor ID known as a PIV. When I first started using one for travel, fewer than 10,000 had been issued government-wide.
I never once was delayed AT ALL due to the alternate ID. Frankly, I expected to be, but it was always accepted without question.
Thank you TSA for doing your job and doing it well.
Quoted:
" Ayn R. Key said...
Thank you Ron for admitting there is one law for our lords and masters and another law for us lowly peons.
October 7, 2009 12:27 PM"
--------------------------
Uh, That's called "Government" and that's how it's always been.
The whole idea of this program is to prevent some one with fake police credentials, badges,and uniforms from boarding a plane while carrying a real gun.
T.S.A. wants to verify that police officers are who they say they are and not just an imitation trying to commit a crime.
Ok, I've read all of the critics of LEO's flying armed, people writing that this might help bring down a plane, and such, and I can't help but apply what some of these people have said about TSA's shoe policy.
Other nations allow people to fly with their shoes on and we don't see planes falling about of the sky, so why does TSA have its shoe policy.
Ok, fine: if LEO's have been flying armed for DECADES, why all of a sudden would this cause planes to crash or why would passengers be shot suddenly when this has never happened before?
Anonymous said...
The whole idea of this program is to prevent some one with fake police credentials, badges,and uniforms ......
T.S.A. wants to verify that police officers are who they say they are and not just an imitation trying to commit a crime.
Oh, kind of like the TSA with their phony official uniform, tin badges, and belief that they can perform LEO functions, and violate people's constitutional rights.
TSA fits the bill to a T.
While I am fully in support of, and clearly understand the need of the passenger security procedures, the process has basically ruined flying for me - to the extent that I'll drive if at all possible. By far, the biggest problem is the attitude and demeanor of the security employees. I don't mind going through the lines and putting my bags through the machine and so forth, but I would appreciate someone actually being pleasant to me - acting like they're glad I'm there, as silly as that may sound. But instead, most will glower at me as if they were the State Police about to administer a DUI test. It's just hard to feel like you're "flying the friendly skies" when you have to pass through a group of people that act like they don't like you, in order to get to the plane.
Just wanted to answer Sebastian M question: A law enforcement officer (also called peace officer), in North America, is any public-sector or authorized, government-contracted private-police officer, charged with upholding the peace, mainly police officers, customs officers, correctional officers, court officers, probation officers, parole officers, auxiliary officers, and sheriffs or marshals and their deputies. A security guard, however, is generally not referred to as a law enforcement officer.
That's awesome, because cops are NEVER corrupt. And no one could EVER fool a law enforcement agency or make a fake ID.
"No additional costs + enhanced check in process + added security for passengers = WIN!"
Potential physical injury + oppressive police state + power-mad incompetent government agency = HUGE FAIL.
1. LEOs have been flying armed for a very long time. This is nothing new
2. They need a reason to be armed not just "because".
3. Frangible ammo s*cks - FAMs know this - that's why they don't use it.
4. If your NEXUS card doesn't work 75% of the time - why use it? Move on man!
They could be transporting a prisoner, which does happen on commercial flights, or escorting a VIP/official
I don't see the argument against officer's flying armed.
No one is against having air marshals, and one person even commented that they are "highly trained".
According to the TSA.gov website, air marshals receive 15 weeks of training. Many police departments have 6 month police academies followed by 3 months or more of field training.
Somehow an officer who received 3 times as much training as an air marshal is considered a safety risk. It make zero sense.
I'm a US Marine. Can I fly while armed? Why not a person with a CCW permit? If frangible ammo is required (I don't know) that could be checked prior to boarding. It seems to me that the more good people (active duty military, LEO's, CCW holders, Sheep dogs in general) the better to keep the wolfs at bay. Does D.C. vs Heller have any affect on the issue of flying while armed? Remember active shooters target "gun free zone" because they know that they will be the only ones armed.
Wow and what a thread obviously creating a lot of emotion. I don't think despite everyones opinion that we would come up with an answer to why we should or should not allow Armed people to fly. The damage that may be caused by the wrong action or the wrong idea could be tragic but also, would armed officers have stopped the tragedy of 9/11? My idea would be to have martial arts experts on planes as our controllers. The ability of these people should never be underestimated and as long as the airport security does its job in making sure that no guns or other weapons get on the plane, a highly qualified martial arts expert should be able to control things. Just my thoughts...
I think it's a bad idea to have a loaded gun in the passenger section of an airplane, regardless of who brought it onboard. Just like officers going into the interegation room to question a suspect, they leave their guns outside. Suppose someone takes the gun away from the officer
Wow! Lots of emotion and even some adolescent high school like behavior, and all I did was Google if LEOs could carry guns on planes after watching the movie Executive Decision (1996)which shows an LEO, apparently off duty, carrying while on a flight and this was obviously pre 9/11. WOW!
I have been flying armed on commercial flights for well over 20 years now, both domestic and international. Prior to the implementation of the new requirements for flying armed, the general public should have been terrified at the thought of boarding a commercial aircraft.
Prior to these new requirements, I could have sat down at just about any PC or laptop attached to a decent ink jet printer, and within minutes, generated all of the documentation needed to board an aircraft armed. Even post-9/11, I was dumbstruck at how easy it was to fly with a firearm! Believe me when I say that these new requirements close a MAJOR hole in the security of commercial air travel. Now, as for TSA and other groups putting the procedures out on the web for all the world to see...well...probably not a good idea, but that's just my opinion.
To all the naysayers who wonder why it is necessary for LEOS to fly armed, let me offer this...
As a LEO with almost 30 years on the job, discharging a firearm inside a pressurized aircraft would be, at least for me, an absolute last resort. LEO's are trained to react. Whether armed or unarmed, we will react. At the onset of any critical incident ones training takes over. The threat is identified, the situation assessed, and a plan of action initiated. All of these things I've described usually takes place in a fraction of a second. We're required to make decisions in a matter of seconds; decisions that attorneys and the public who like to question our judgement would take days or weeks to make, if they made a decision at all. Once this action has begun, a LEO, armed with the tools of his trade, will stand the best chance of taking complete and total control of a critical incident before it escalates out-of-hand. So the next time you sit down, fasten your seatbelt, and start playing with your phone, IPod or IPad, take a look around at your fellow passengers. One of them just may be a FAM, FFO or LEO flying armed, that might mean the difference between your name being printed on your connecting boarding pass or engraved in a granite memorial next to the crater left behind by the impact of the airplane you have strapped to your ass!
Perhaps a moment of silence is in order to remember all of those lost in the last two years since this blog started; those shot out of the sky by the crazed, maniacal LEOS that were allowed to fly armed.
Are there LEOS that shouldn't fly armed? Sure there are. Just as there are surgeons who shouldn't have scalples and attorneys who shouldn't be in the court room. Most all LEOS that fly armed are well trained, seasoned veterans who have been well vetted by their command staff before being put in that position in the first place. Scenarios like the ones feared in this blog are also every commander's nightmare. They are career-enders!
Post a Comment