Not considered LEO off duty?

Coop de Ville

New member
Just spoke with police at Reagan National in VA. I'll be flying to Cleveland next week and wanted to carry my off-duty with me. Their policy requires that LEO be on official business (with letter) AND have their duty weapon... not off-duty weapon. Otherwise it has to be checked.

I'm not comfortable checking it, for a couple reasons.

Are most airports like this?

Best- Coop
 
I believe this is Airline SOP, rather than Airport or TSA generated. Also believe it to be pretty much airline wide. Letter from your superiors required.

If you do get that, don't be surpirsed if TSA still hassles you. Most of them don't get to play with guns and many get real jealous real easy. After all, they're in "the front lines" of the War on.....which war is it, now? I've lost track. :D
Rich
 
Thanks for the reply.

I called continental first and they told me that all I needed was a letter. I went to my commander and was informed I needed to check with airport security because each airport is different.

At this point I'm gonna forget it... cause it sounds like a hastle I don't feel like dealing with.

I'll pack a blade and hope all goes well.

Best,

Coop
 
Do they make any attempt to verify the letter or your ID? Can anyone with fake LEO credentials and a letter on official-looking stationary get a prohibited weapon onto a plane?
 
Not only can the airline set their own rules, they allow the pilot to set his as well. Even a pilot can nix a weapon (on your person or in your carry on). Last year, two of our detectives flew to Florida to extradite a murder suspect, and went through hell and hassle with all the red tape. One det. told me he had looked forward to the trip (even took his golf clubs :D ), but afterwards said he'd never do it again unless ordered to go. I've been told that weapons checked in baggage are safe and give extra security, but I'm a little nervous about checking them too.
 
Forgive my ranting...

The thought process is beyond me. Even in my own Dept. it's borderline retarded. On duty, I'm trusted to save the world, but at checkoff I become an incompetent fool. Fact is, I'm pretty sure my Commander wouldn't sign it anyway.

I was talking to a friend on the job and we thought of something scary. We could see our Dept. making us keep our weapons at work. After roll call you pick up your vehicle keys and sign out a weapon....

After his service, my father flew with Pan American for 30 years before they went under, he and a lot of the pilots back then were former military... some were gun nuts, too. They would welcome armed carry. Today, I don't know where most pilots come from... if it's still military or not. I do hear it's much more political though.

Best, Coop
 
We could see our Dept. making us keep our weapons at work. After roll call you pick up your vehicle keys and sign out a weapon....
Think the Brady Center and its minions won't sign on to this in a heartbeat when the time comes that they think they can win it? Think again. Your guns are no less distasteful to them than mine.
Rich
 
The thought process is beyond me. Even in my own Dept. it's borderline retarded. On duty, I'm trusted to save the world, but at checkoff I become an incompetent fool. Fact is, I'm pretty sure my Commander wouldn't sign it anyway.

Why would they want to sign on for additional civil liability? Also, I would not want to go on an airplane that allowed any off-duty cop on board who felt like it to have a gun. I know plenty of cops who shouldn't have a gun on duty, let alone off duty on an airliner. They don't have the time or resources to screen every cop who feels like carrying a gun on the airplane to determine if he's competent to fire a gun proficiently at all, let alone in the confines of an airliner.
 
Honestly, Frank, if a cop can't be trusted not to shoot on an airliner, how can he be trusted to have the sense to know when not to shoot on the street? Your arguement seems to be to disarm cops across the board. Interesting.

Personally, any weapon that I'm currently qualified with is a duty weapon. On some years, that's included 6 pistols, ranging form .45 acp to .38Spl to 9mm to .380 acp, and from a Government model to a 6" Officer's Model Match to a J-frame 5-shot revolver to a P3AT.
 
Honestly, Frank, if a cop can't be trusted not to shoot on an airliner, how can he be trusted to have the sense to know when not to shoot on the street? Your arguement seems to be to disarm cops across the board. Interesting.

Many cops absolutely, positively can NOT be trusted to have the sense to know when not to shoot on the street. That's the point. On the street there are other options that I can take to protect myself and my family from someone like this. On an airplane at 30,000 feet there are very limited options. I say keep the cops with guns off of airplanes unless there are extenuating circumstances, like a prisoner escort.

Flying makes some people nervous. Some cops are nervous flyers too. Some are so nervous about flying that they might have to to into the bathroom at the airport before the flight to rock up. Would you like THIS officer to have a gun on the airplane while you and your family are crusing at 600mph at 30,000 feet?

SUSPENSION

On Thursday, May 26, 2005, Police Officer Doe, Badge XX,

assigned to the Ninth Precinct, was suspended without pay by Chief of Police

Ella M. Bully-Cummings.

On May 25, 2005, the Internal Affairs Section was notified of an allegation

of misconduct on the part of Officer. More specifically, the allegation of

misconduct concerned the illegal use of a controlled substance, possession of

a firearm while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or controlled

substance, and remaining on the property of another without permission.

Based on the foregoing, the Internal Affairs Section initiated an

investigation, which revealed the following:

On May 24, 2005, at approximately 11:15 p.m., officers from the Inkster

Police Department were on patrol in the 26006 block of Michigan Avenue, in



the city of Inkster. They were flagged down by a witness who advised them

that there was a police officer sitting in a vehicle in the rear of the

establishment without permission, who the witness observed smoking crack

cocaine. Upon investigation, the driver of the vehicle was identified as off-duty

Detroit Police Officer Doe. The Inkster police officers smelled the odor

of intoxicants about Officer Doe’s person and requested that she exit the

vehicle. At that point, the officers observed that she was in possession of a

firearm. A Preliminary Breath Test was subsequently administered with a

result of .15.

Officer Doe’s vehicle was impounded and an inventory search

conducted. During the inventory search, the officers recovered a brown paper

bag containing one (1) piece of chore boy, which is commonly used to filter a

crack pipe; one (1) metal rod, which is commonly used to clean a crack pipe;

and two (2) pieces of plastic containing a white color residue, which was sent

to the lab for testing, the results of which are pending. Officer Doe was then

transported to the Inkster Police Department, where she was met by members

of the Detroit Police Internal Affairs Section. Upon leaving the Inkster Police

Department, a pipe commonly used to smoke crack cocaine fell from Officer

Doe’s pant leg.

Officer Doe was transported to the Concentra Medical Center for a

just cause drug screening. The results are pending.

Also, on May 25, 2005, the Inkster Police Department submitted a warrant

request to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office. The warrant request is

currently pending.

Based on the above circumstances, it is recommended that Officer

Doe be charged with, but not limited to the following violation of the Detroit

Police Department Rules and Regulations:

CHARGE: CONDUCT UNPROFESSIONAL; CONTRARY TO THE

LAW ENFORCEMENT CODE OF ETHICS, THIS BEING IN

VIOLATION OF THE 2003 DETROIT POLICE

DEPARTMENT MANUAL DIRECTIVE 102.3-5.7,

CONDUCT UNBECOMING AN OFFICER, COMMAND 3.

Unless contravened by this Commission, the above

suspension without pay will stand.

There were no contraventions to the suspension without pay.
 
Many cops absolutely, positively can NOT be trusted to have the sense to know when not to shoot on the street.
Sounds to me like the same argument used to disarm All Americans...."there's some that can't be trusted". Also sounds to me like a reason to get rid of a whole bunch of cops; not a reason to disarm the rest in the travel conveyance that our government has indicated its gravest concern.

To the rest of the LEO's here:
I personally would have zero problem with any of you (or your colleagues) sitting (armed) behind me in a jet, train, boat, plane or automobile. Then again, I'd have zero problem if the entire passenger list was armed at their discretion.

Rich
 
Sounds to me like the same argument used to disarm All Americans...."there's some that can't be trusted". Also sounds to me like a reason to get rid of a whole bunch of cops; not a reason to disarm the rest in the travel conveyance that our government has indicated its gravest concern.

There's a LOT who can't be trusted. And it IS a reason to get rid of a whole bunch of cops. And it's also a reason to keep a whole bunch of people gunless on commercial airplanes. Unless you can tell me how to tell who is or is not trustworthy with a gun on an airplane in the short amount of time you have to screen them.

To the rest of the LEO's here:
I personally would have zero problem with any of you (or your colleagues) sitting (armed) behind me in a jet, train, boat, plane or automobile.

You would have no problem with the armed officer in the above case, high on crack cocaine sitting next to you on an airplane? Can I have some other opinions please? Anyone else mind an armed, stoned-on-crack-cocaine police officer with a gun and 46 rounds on them sitting behind you on an airliner?
 
You wouldn't have any problem with a police officer who is high on crack cocaine sitting next to you with a gun in his or her pants on an airplane?
Well, Frank, if I'm willing to take the chance that the pilot might be high on crack cocaine, I guess I'd be willing to take the chance that a sworn officer might be.

See, the alternative is allowing the government to disarm only the law-abiding.....like they did on 9-11. I do not have a problem with people being armed if they do not have a problem with suffering the consequences for stupidity or worse.

This is what separates you from me: I, personally, am far less worried about your actions, activities, mindset or IQ than you are about "mine". I tend to mind my own business. To do otherwise grants everyone the right to demand restrictions on the "other" guys. Oops, but that's where we started, isn't it? :D
Rich
 
Well, Frank, if I'm willing to take the chance that the pilot might be high on crack cocaine, I guess I'd be willing to take the chances that a sworn officer might be.

I didn't ask you if you were willing to take chance that the pilot or police officer with a gun might be high on crack, I asked you if you would have a problem with the real-life officer in my example having a gun on an airplane, because that officer DOES have a gun and IS a crackhead. That officer IS someone's colleague, so I'm inferring from your previous post that you would have no problem with her having a gun while sitting behind you and your family on an airliner.

To the rest of the LEO's here:
I personally would have zero problem with any of you (or your colleagues) sitting (armed) behind me in a jet, train, boat, plane or automobile.

People without the ability or judgement to properly shoot someone on an airliner should not have guns on airliners. Until you can come up with a way to screen for judgement and ability at the boarding gate, very few people, cops included, should be allowed to carry guns on airliners.
 
Trick question, there, Frank, since it didn't really address my original statement that I'd have no problem with Sworn Officers carrying in the seat behind me. That's a statement of Personal Policy. You ask the inevitable, "But what about the mini-fractional guy on the fringe? Omigosh. It would be tragic; unthinkable; barbaric.....why it would be 'unsafe'"

Have you ever considered writing talking point for politicians? Dianne Feinstein comes to mind as someone who might be interested in your logic and writing style. ;)
Rich
 
To the rest of the LEO's here:
I personally would have zero problem with any of you (or your colleagues) sitting (armed) behind me in a jet, train, boat, plane or automobile. Then again, I'd have zero problem if the entire passenger list was armed at their discretion.

+1

And for the record I have, and will continue to offer a firearm for a person to use for CCW that has recipricosity with AR that chooses to NOT go through the TSA hell and hassles.

Or a person for whatever reason/means of travel- bus, rail, or whatever conveyance- has a situation with firearms. Be they LEO, retired LEO, Civilian , or Military. Fly in to bust doves and need a CCW and shotgun? ...just get here and we will figure something out.

This same courtesy has been afforded me from PA to South FL.

Steve
 
People without the ability or judgement to properly shoot someone on an airliner should not have guns on airliners
Ummmmmm-
Who's to determine that ability, Frank?
TSA?
DoJ?
The Airlines?

It's the same argument used to deprive more and more classes of people of more and more choices for personal defense. It's a hollow argument, born of elitist mistrust of "the unwashed masses".

If we did it my way, Darwin would work the entire issue out in a very short few years. Witness the historical track record of airlines flying in and out of Alaska.

Rich
 
You ask the inevitable, "But what about the mini-fractional guy on the fringe? Omigosh. It would be tragic; unthinkable; barbaric.....why it would be 'unsafe'"

There are a few thousand members on the Detroit police Department. I couldn't tell you how many are crackheads, but it's easily in the dozens. That doesn't count the other several hundred who probably have no business carrying guns because of a lack of ability or proper judgement. Considering the number of themwho fly out of Detroit Metro Airport alone, there are far too many "mini-fractional guys on the fringe" to allow cops (or anyone else)blanket authority to carry guns on airliners just because they're cops.

Ummmmmm-
Who's to determine that ability, Frank?
TSA?
DoJ?
The Airlines?

They can't and that's why you put your gun in your checked luggage.
 
Why stop at planes, Frank?
If there are so many crackheads with guns in our society that you can't allow carry on public conveyance, why not extend that to parks, shopping malls, driveways, roads, supermarkets? Hell, why not eliminate them in the home where 98% of all that crack is consumed?

The obvious endpoint of your logic is total civilian disarmament, Frank. I suggest you lead by example. Get rid of your guns today. They're evil.
Rich
 
My personal opinion, no one should be allowed to carry armed on a plane unless you have gone through specific training to not only understand the laws (basic requirement now), but can tactically decide and shoot in a tubular environment. I have trained quite a bit in tubular assaults (planes, trains, busses) as well as undergo some FAM training. It is much different than shooting on a range. Weapon holds are much closer, tactics are different, and you have a lot of bystanders within inches of your weapon. It is a very specialized environment that reqiures specialized training. Additionally, you may have other FAMs or LEOs on board who are also going to react in a crisis situation. Everyone needs to be on the same sheet of music when the hat drops. Just my $.02.
 
Back
Top