Major cuts in the 2013 budget to the FFDO program....

ClydeFrog

Moderator
CNN reported that the FFDO(federal flight deck officer) program will have major budget cuts and see about a 50% reduction in funding.
Many of the offical details are classified for security reasons but fewer pilots & crew members will be armed.
To my knowledge, the FFDOs trained in the program used the HK USP LEM format in .40S&W but a few were switching to the SIG Sauer P250 in .40S&W like the FAMs(air marshals).
The FAMS will see minor cuts too in 2013. They used the SIG P229R .357sig but they may convert to P250 compacts as well.

The pilots & labor groups dispute this new budget cut but I've stated before in forums that the airlines & DHS(homeland security) should allow armed sworn LEOs to augment the FFDOs/FAMs.
Retired cops & trained military service members who meet the DHS standards or are in the FLEOSA(federal le officer safety act) program can fly with concealed weapons. It can be done if legal & civil liability regs can be met.

ClydeFrog
 
Retired cops & trained military service members who meet the DHS standards or are in the FLEOSA(federal le officer safety act) program can fly with concealed weapons.

I don't see why they should be the special ones. LEOs and military are not generally themselves trained in these kinds of situations. There's no reason why these groups should be allowed to carry on an airliner if regular law abiding citizens cannot obtain the desired training and clear a background check and carry as well.
 
ClydeFrog said:
Retired cops & trained military service members who meet the DHS standards or are in the FLEOSA(federal le officer safety act) program can fly with concealed weapons. It can be done if legal & civil liability regs can be met.
???

The FEDERAL Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act? Are you referring to the law that was enacted a few years ago as HR 218, now known as the LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act)? That was not specific to Federal LEOs and did not include "Federal" in its title. I don't think it included anything that applied only to retired or off-duty Feds as opposed to all retired and off-duty LEOs. And I don't think it provides any authorization for retired or off-duty LEOs outside of their home jurisdiction to carry firearms when flying.

Do you have a citation for this law you think allows this?
 
Stress, LEOSA, FLEOSA....

AB;
Dont stress out over my posts. ;)
It's not anything to have a panic attack over.
I am refering to the LE Officer's Safety Act which as a bill was called HR218.
I've seen it called the FLEOSA and the LEOSA.
Atty David Wong has wrote articles providing details about the new federal laws.
I for 1, see the LEOSA program has a practical way to increase the armed security on domestic US flights.
If retired or former sworn LE officers or qualified US military service members(CID, OSI, Security Forces, MPs, MAAs, etc) can fly armed then it would improve the US security measures IMO.

ClydeFrog
 
ClydeFrog said:
If retired or former sworn LE officers or qualified US military service members(CID, OSI, Security Forces, MPs, MAAs, etc) can fly armed then it would improve the US security measures IMO.
If they could do so I would agree with you. (Our security would also be increased if I could legally fly armed.)

However ... they can't. (And I can't.)

Here's the law:

LEOSA said:
18 USC § 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.​

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—

(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;
(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency which could result in suspension or loss of police powers;
(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.​

(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

(e) As used in this section, the term “firearm”—

(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
(3) does not include—

(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).​

(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.


18 USC § 926C - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.​

(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified retired law enforcement officer” means an individual who—

(1) separated from service in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;
(2) before such separation, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;
(3)

(A) before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B) separated from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;​

(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;
(5)

(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);​

(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.​

(d) The identification required by this subsection is—

(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(2)

(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met—

(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.​

(e) As used in this section—

(1) the term “firearm”—

(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
(C) does not include—

(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and​

(2) the term “service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer” includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.​


Note that the law exempts LEOs from the laws of any state or political subdivision. It does NOT exempt them from Federal laws, and the laws pertaining to carry of firearms (and the prohibition thereof) are Federal laws.​
 
LE & Retirees: I don't see why they should be the special ones.

It's not about being "special" its about free or cheap labor. When I was in LE we were required to carry off duty by state law and dept policy.

We also had "take home cars" and were encouraged to drive these cars in our normal (off duty) activities. It wasn't about being special, it was because the city "free police service).

Per policy we couldn't turn in for overtime unless our off duty police activity went over 30 minutes. Even then few officers turned in for over time.

The only time I turned in overtime was if I was "called out" and in EOD Call outs, which didn't happen unless there wasn't a bomb tech on duty.

Another reason for the "special treatment" for off duty and retired LE is because some of the people we dealt with in our past didn't like us.

An example is the Seattle Cop who visited Sturgis during bike week. Apparently in the past he worked undercover and was responsible for the arrest of several Hells Angles. While at Sturgis he ran across some HA's who recognized him and a fight ensued. Because of the LEOSA it was legally able to protect him self.

As to airplanes I don't keep track of the rules because I don't fly much any more. It use to be weird. Seems like no one really knew the policy, if there was on.

I carried my retired ID in a badge case with my "retired" badge, given to me when I retired. My revolver is in checked baggage but when I empty my pockets to go through the scanner, some Security People see the badge, and tell me to walk around the scanner, some tell me they have to check with the pilot, some tell me I have to check my firearm. I just tell them I'm not carrying and go on about my business.

Its the no smoking policy that keeps me from flying now days, not the "no gun".
 
Another reason for the "special treatment" for off duty and retired LE is because some of the people we dealt with in our past didn't like us.

There's more than enough trouble out there that doesn't come with a grudge attached, and even if it does, one by no means needs to be a retired LEO to have some thug with an axe to grind.

Sorry, I still don't see why retired LEOs should be treated differently under the law. I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to carry. I'm saying everybody else should too.
 
sworn LEOs, retired-disabled, LEOSA/HR218, armed citizens...

I disagree with part of the last post in this topic.
From a training & standards standpoint, it'd be much faster & easy to qualify a retired or disabled(someone who left full service only due to a documented line of duty injury) sworn LE officer/former federal agent who meets a PD's guidelines or the LEOSA conditions.
As long as they qualify on a regular basis and meet airline/FAA guidelines(no alcohol, no medications, no sleeping w/o formal relief, etc).

I did a recent security detail with a uniformed police officer for my area(pop: 800,000; PD: 800+ sworn LE officers). The LE officer explained to me that retired LE officers(from the agency) can work armed & in uniform(with their last rank; LT, Sgt, Captain, etc) as long as they qualify with PD issued weapons and meet all PD standards(weight, fitness, hearing, vision, etc).

That to me would be fair & practical way to increase the armed security in CONUS air travel.
Could private citizens or armed license holders act as reserve FAMs? Maybe but the legal or civil/insurance issues would never allow it like a retired LEO(LEOSA member).
ClydeFrog
 
I disagree with part of the last post in this topic.
From a training & standards standpoint, it'd be much faster & easy to qualify a retired or disabled(someone who left full service only due to a documented line of duty injury) sworn LE officer/former federal agent who meets a PD's guidelines or the LEOSA conditions.

Disagree all you like.

There's no shortage of current LEOs who can't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside. There's no shortage of current LEOs who have problems understanding the laws regarding use of force and the rights of the citizenry. And that's with current training.

None of these things will be fixed when they retire.

We don't currently have a huge security issue due to lack of federal air marshals; you'll note the general lack of successful hijackings in recent years. Therefore, if we're just going to let people carry in order to increase security yet more, there's no justifiable or logical reason to limit it to LEOs. There's plenty of regular folks out there with every bit as much capability and understanding of the law who can do the same thing, and by your logic, by expanding the pool yet more, we'd be even more secure.

Just because a person wore a badge for a time does not entitle that person to any more or less rights than anybody else.
 
Secretary Napolitano testifies on the budget

Janet Napolitano was questioned by Representative Chip Cravaack from Minnesota on the FFDO program.

Listen carefully to the testimony - it begins at 50:20


http://www.c-span.org/Events/Secretary-Napolitano-Explains-DHS-Funding-Request/10737428328-1/


The program costs something like $15.00 per participant but that's the best place to make cuts...

According to Secretary Napolitano, the country's last defense will be the cabin door. :mad:


Un - Fricken - Believable


.
 
Back
Top