Not considered LEO off duty?

[FrankDrebin]

You speak derogatorily about "desired demographics" in context of "integration" and the resulting "crack-head cop" percentage, Frank.

Don't hold back....tell us exactly what you mean by that.
Then again, perhaps you shouldn't. I, for one, clearly see where you're coming from. I need hear no more, thanks.
Rich

I'm telling you where the department's priorities lie when demographics are held up next to the desire to hire and retain (or not) qualified vs. unqualified people.

Correct, Frank. I don't think .gov can keep all terrorists from getting weapons on a plane.
That's why I'd prefer to see all sworn officers (and potentially Law Abiding Citizens) be allowed to carry rather than the current farce.

Do you think that the government can even keep HALF the terrorists of Middle Eastern origin from bringing guns on board without violating the constitutional rights of Americans with Arab surnames or accents?

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Do you think that the government can even keep HALF the terrorists from bringing guns on board

Can you make that a Multiple Choice Nonsense question rather than a True/False Nonsense question?

I think my head is gonna explode.
Rich

 

[Long Path]

I'm in favor of CCW by people who show a proficiency with their gun, and an ability to make sound decisions. But not on airplanes with a few exceptions.

So CCW requirements are more stringent than police requirements?

How about on a bus? Should a cop carry on a bus full of people? How about CCW carriers?

Here's the thing-- there ARE times when a man with a gun can stop a tragedy on an airplane. If a cop can't be trusted not to shoot and pierce the skin of the plane (which I assume is your concern-- more on that later), then how can we trust him not to just randomly shoot, say, in a crowded theatre?

As for the bizarre post about the off-duty Detroit crackhead officer, what of it? Should she have been disarmed, arrested, and fired? Absolutely. Funny, sounds like that's EXACTLY what happened. Did she slip through the cracks? Yep, and it's a damn shame, but life is imperfect. The good part is, though, that she'll never be a peace officer again, anywhere, for the rest of her life. Hey, we had one (deputy constable) down here, too, but his taste was meth. He was caught, and we of the local LEO community were utterly shocked and angered. The fact is, though, it's news because it's so rare. Frankly, what's more common is the cop who can't climb out of the bottle. I've seen two examples of this. Both officers, though they had long carreers, were fired (NOT asked to resign).

Does this mean most cops are bad or untrustworthy? Obviously not. Does this mean that the presumption must be that cops are unsafe? No. (Who am I telling this to?) Good screening and good discipline should weed out the problem cops that show up, like that NYPD officer the other day who ran while his partner was being pumped full of holes.

But it sounds to me like you're proposing a British bobby system, in which NO ONE --even the street cops-- are allowed to be armed. Oopsie, sometimes the bad guys forget to follow those rules. Wouldn't it be nice if AT LEAST the people we put our trust in to make lawful arrests and keep the peace, who have received a minimum of firearms training and who are required to carry safely on a day-to-day basis, could carry the means to deal with a tragedy-maker? If the street cop isn't trustworthy enough, who do you trust? I'll bet we could dig up dirt on screwups by TSA enforcement officers, FBI, DEA (famous one with film footage, we know), Federal Marshalls, Secret Service, etc, etc. Dang, it's just too dangerous for ANYONE to be armed. Maybe we should just park the plane.

What about the pilot? I mean, he knows what the plane's capable of. He's at the controls anyway. From the time that he enters the cockpit to the moment the turbines stop at the terminal, he literally holds the lives of all aboard in his hands. Cant' HE be armed?

As for the dire consequences of putting a bullet through the skin of a 737, I've done some reading on this, and the consensus is... that there's no real consensus. Most feel that, while the cabin pressure would lower, the plane would be plenty controllable, and the worst that would happen is that the passengers would get to use the 02 masks while the pilot descended to 12,000 feet. The movies have exagerated the concept of Explosive Decompression so frequently that it's taken as gospel as a plane-wrecker.

And what if it were a high risk? What of that? Tell me this-- wouldn't you have rather all of the flights on 9-11-01 have gone down like the one in Pennsylvania, if they had to go? If another plane goes down, I want to know that Americans were on board, fighting and winning at preventing a terrorist's target from being hit. Give them the chance to win their lives, too, please.

 

[FrankDrebin]

So CCW requirements are more stringent than police requirements?

Requirements for police to carry a gun, or qualify to be the police? Not sure what you're asking, but I think the current fairly low requirements to be a police officer should at least be adhered to as they now exist.

How about on a bus? Should a cop carry on a bus full of people? How about CCW carriers?

I think the police or any CCW holder should be allowed to carry on a bus.

Here's the thing-- there ARE times when a man with a gun can stop a tragedy on an airplane. If a cop can't be trusted not to shoot and pierce the skin of the plane (which I assume is your concern-- more on that later), then how can we trust him not to just randomly shoot, say, in a crowded theatre?

I couldn't care less about the police poking holes in the airplane. I care about the individual police officer, having God knows what kind of training, coming from a department with God know what kind of hiring standards, making shoot/don't shoot decisions and using a gun in the confines of an airplane and poking holes in me or my family. Also, allowing anyone with a CCW to carry on a plane will increase the number of terrorists bringing guns on planes, in my opinion. I feel I have better odds the way things are, or by allowing the flight deck crew to carry.

As for the bizarre post about the off-duty Detroit crackhead officer, what of it? Should she have been disarmed, arrested, and fired? Absolutely. Funny, sounds like that's EXACTLY what happened

What was bizarre about it? Rich said he wouldn't have a problem allowing the colleagues of any TFL readers who are armed off-duty cops to carry on airplanes. I posted that situation and asked him if he'd have a problem with that cop behind him on an airplane with a gun. Had nothing to do with her on the job status. I don't care if they promote her to chief.

The good part is, though, that she'll never be a peace officer again, anywhere, for the rest of her life.

Never say never. One female tested postive for cocaine at a random drug test. She claims her boyfriend put it on the end of his johnson prior to an act of .....you know.....She's a Lt. now I think.

But it sounds to me like you're proposing a British bobby system, in which NO ONE --even the street cops-- are allowed to be armed.

Can you cut and paste where I suggested anything remotely like that?

If the street cop isn't trustworthy enough, who do you trust?

I didn't say they weren't "trustworthy enough". My contention is they have no way of being vetted as to their qualifications, training or ability. The mere fact that they're the police is not good enough for me. Air Marshall's, the flight deck crew, or various cops who have been vetted somewhat and are in an on-duty status to carry on an airplane would be OK with me.

What about the pilot? I mean, he knows what the plane's capable of. He's at the controls anyway. From the time that he enters the cockpit to the moment the turbines stop at the terminal, he literally holds the lives of all aboard in his hands. Cant' HE be armed?

Were you asking me? I think I answered that one a few times already.

Tell me this-- wouldn't you have rather all of the flights on 9-11-01 have gone down like the one in Pennsylvania, if they had to go? If another plane goes down, I want to know that Americans were on board, fighting and winning at preventing a terrorist's target from being hit. Give them the chance to win their lives, too, please.

I would rather have had the pilots all armed and trained to use a pistol than seeing any of the airplanes go down at all. That's all it would have taken as far as I can tell. No need to be required to allow anyone who can qualify with the very weak requirments to get a CCW to carry a gun on an airplane.

 

[Vanguard.45]

Are you a local, state, or Fed LEO?

Coop De Ville?

If you are a local or state LEO, I believe TSA policy requires the legitimate NEED to have the firearm WHILE ON THE AIRCRAFT before you could be allowed to carry. This need is very difficult to establish and very few local/ state departments are willing to accept the risks of liability inherent in allowing their officers/ agents to carry on aircraft. As well, TSA is often very hesitant to allow individuals who have not gone through Federal training in such matters to carry even with a letter from a supervisor (who probably has no training in such matters either).

If you are a Fed LEO and your agency's policy grants you the authority to carry your firearm on the aircraft (typically accompanied by an agreement between that agency and TSA), then you can carry.

If you are local or state, then you have probably not received any specific training at your agency/ department regarding the responsibilities and tactics of an armed LEO while on an aircraft. Without this specific training, you are likely to create more problems than you would solve.

Tactics on an aircraft are both specific and standardized among Federal Agencies granted the right to carry on aircraft. This way, they don't mistake each other for the bad guys and keep all of the weapons pointed in the right directions.

Vanguard.45

 

[Long Path]

But it sounds to me like you're proposing a British bobby system, in which NO ONE --even the street cops-- are allowed to be armed.

Can you cut and paste where I suggested anything remotely like that?

Too much information on this thread to post the general gist: You don't trust street cops not to shoot. You don't trust the standards of another. You'd rather take your chances unarmed even among cops. Strangely, you're okay with the cop making a shoot/don't shoot around a group of people in a bus, but not in a plane, though you say the holes in the skin are not your concern. Oh, wait-- I get it; only the rabble ride busses. Your family would not be a risk. Got it.

We agree that standards should be high and should be enforced among cops. We agree that there have been some cops who have slipped through the extant standards. We seem to disagree on how to deal with being armed on a plane. Last time I checked, armed cops on planes was not the problem.

As for flight deck officers being armed (and I agree that they should be if they wish to be), why are they better at shoot/don't shoot decisions than cops? Consider that flight deck officers don't carry a pistol on their person day in and day out. (Yes, I know there's a strong contingent here of non-LEO citizens that carry more than most cops, but they're actually quite the minority.)

As an aside, my last flight included a pilot carrying a pistol in his pocket. [Although, he did put his hand on my knee-- maybe he was just glad to see me...?]

 

[Rich Lucibella]

As an aside, my last flight included a pilot carrying a pistol in his pocket. [Although, he did put his hand on my knee-- maybe he was just glad to see me...?]

Why son, I resemble that remark.

I think that conversation went something like this:
"Have you ever seen the inside of a cockpit?"
"No, sir"
"Have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
"Whew, I picked a helluve a day to give up methamphetamines!."
Then I put my hand on your knee!


[Best Michael Jackson Voice]
It was knee touching. Just knee touching!
[/Best Michael Jackson Voice]

Never mind all. Private joke. We return you now to your regularly scheduled program.
Rich

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Tactics on an aircraft are both specific and standardized among Federal Agencies granted the right to carry on aircraft. This way, they don't mistake each other for the bad guys and keep all of the weapons pointed in the right directions.

Vanguard.....many of us understand the difference betweeen a shootout in a empty parking lot and one in an elevator. I also understand the righteous concerns about bullets flinging around in aircraft.

But let's put this in perspective:
Midst of a stadium riot.
Midst of a shopping mall shooting spree.
Midst of a 7-11 holdup.
Midst of a bus hijacking.
Midst of a subway murder spree.
Midst of a motel drug sting gone bad.
Midst of a terrorist aircraft hijacking.

Why, exactly, is it that the last in the list requires some extraordinary, uber-tactical, Federal only training that is not required in the first six scenarios? (BTW, I argue that proper training is required in ALL six....but none is that far different from the others.)

Seems to me, in today's environment, the last on the list is the one in which those being hijacked pretty much have the least to loose....ie: they're far more likely to die without intervention than in the first 6.

Rich

 

[BreacherUp!]

I think that conversation went something like this:
"Have you ever seen the inside of a cockpit?"
"No, sir"
"Have you ever seen a grown man naked?"
"Whew, I picked a helluve a day to give up methamphetamines!."
Then I put my hand on your knee!

Come on, Rich, Airplane was one of the best movies ever!

 

[FrankDrebin]

As for flight deck officers being armed (and I agree that they should be if they wish to be), why are they better at shoot/don't shoot decisions than cops?

Because it seems that the rationale for passengers having guns on airplanes is to save the airplane from being taken over by terrorists. Pilots with guns will address this contingency sufficiently. I never said they would be better at "shoot don't shoot" situations. As far as trusting "street cops", what's a "street cop"? A guy who goes from run to run in Mayberry taking reports and who hasn't had any reason to take his gun out of the holster outside the range? A guy who goes to three armed robbery runs per day? Something in the middle? "Street cop" is way too generic a term for me.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

"Street cop" is way too generic a term for me.

As is "Law Abiding Citizen", evidently.

However, if you're a Pilot we know you have the mettle.

Don't get me wrong, Frank. If they'd arm the pilots and, if I knew the pilot(s) of my flight were armed, that'd be good enough for me.

But you beg the question:
What makes them so much more qualified than the average cop or Law Abiding Citizen? Pilots are yearly terminated for poor judgment, drug dependency or plain incompetence, the same as the cops. After all, "integration" and "demographics" occurred in the airlines, too, you know.

Also, what about the pilots who, like you, would rather leave the job to someone "more qualified"? Most will not arm.
Rich

 

[F350Lawman]

Back too the original question

Check the gun, it's safe (everythings relative). I have done it multiple times.
Yeara ago I showed my ID, one cop was goign to let me board, his parner said no. Then they were going to ask the pilot. At that point I just offered to check it.

A heads up baggage clerk, instructed me to fill out the form that gets slapped on your baggage stated FIREARMS, but SAID NOT TO STICK IT ON THE BAG. He said it's better(safer?) without it.

The gun need to be in a locked, hard side container. I drilled a hole in the plastic case it came in, and threw a padlock through the hole.

If you're worried take your "beater" pistol.

 

[FrankDrebin]

But you beg the question:
What makes them so much more qualified than the average cop or Law Abiding Citizen? Pilots are yearly terminated for poor judgment, drug dependency or plain incompetence, the same as the cops. After all, "integration" and "demographics" occurred in the airlines, too, you know.

Also, what about the pilots who, like you, would rather leave the job to someone "more qualified"? Most will not arm.
Rich

Because they're up front in the cockpit and far less likely to have anyone between them and the gunmen if it comes time to shoot.

I didn't say I would rather leave the job up to someone "more qualified" than, me, or more qualified than you or joe blow for that matter. I want to make sure UNQUALIFIED people like the crackhead in my example are not free to bring guns on airplanes. I also do not want to essentially ALLOW terrorists to bring guns on board airplanes. Because, in effect, that's what you will be doing by allowing anyone who can get a CCW to bring guns into airplane cabins.

 

[sm]

Because, in effect, that's what you will be doing by allowing anyone who can get a CCW to bring guns into airplane cabins

I am a John Q. Public, no military, no LEO background whom has been thru State and Federal backround checks for both my Resident and Non-Res FL CCWs.

<scratches head>

I do not recall the terroists of 9/11 having gone thru such background checks, unless somewhere other than where I live it is required for box cutters.

I'm just a regular guy that believes "criminals" are wired differently than the law abiding citizen, hence the reason we call them "criminals". I am also of the opinion there should be no gun control - period. I believe all persons have the right to carry all the time. Now folks like me have to abide by "Statutes" enough already on not carrying into hospitals, state or .gov bldgs. in my state.

The criminals know these restrictions, so they attack folks b/t hospitals and parked cars. I was confronted b/t a .gov bldg and my vehicle.

Armed Society is a Polite Society. I'd feel more comfortable if the playing field was leveled.

Last Plane I was in, was a private plane. I sat up front, and was armed- So was the pilot. Only problem we encountered / concerned ourselves with-was if the Folger's coffee can was gonna tump over upon landing.

I recall a time when pilots were armed, nobody cared. I cannot find the cite, there has been a few times where armed pilots back in the day did stop hi-jacking. They may not have had to use the firearm, the fact the behaviors did not require a shot fired is not important. What is - is the fact the passengers were quoted as being thankful someone armed was on board.

This before all the media bia, media spin and liberal agendas to Control. It is not about just guns - It is about control.

There have been armed LEO ,military back in the day that did make matters safer for all on board. Nobody wants to remember those days. Nobody ever brings up all the guns that used to be onboard in flights, and all these fears the liberals, the .gov, Hollywood portrays ...etc., never occurred.

 

[Destructo6]

There was a TSA revision on November 14, 2001 regarding armed LEOs aboard planes. There is now 4 criteria:

• 1) sworn officer (federal, state, or local)
  2) authorized by the employing agency to be armed
  3) completed TSA LEO flying armed training program
  4) valid need to fly armed

That's straight from the TSA's "flying armed" training program.

 

[Long Path]

I want to make sure UNQUALIFIED people like the crackhead in my example are not free to bring guns on airplanes.

Airplanes being different from the street... how?

Airplanes being different from Rich's examples... how?

I note that your crackhead example was not from Mayberry S.O., but from the large Detroit P.D.

Frank, one thing you've made imminently clear to me, and to some others here, is that you have a distinct distrust in the concept of anyone enjoying the same liberties and privelidges that you have, unless they have been okayed by you beforehand. I understand "jaded cop," believe me. In some ways I've fit that description at times, and I live amongst them as I have my entire life. But Type A general mistrust is different from inability to let others protect themselves.

 

[FrankDrebin]

I do not recall the terroists of 9/11 having gone thru such background checks, unless somewhere other than where I live it is required for box cutters.

I'm sure getting a fake CCW would have been all but impossible with the financial resources of Osama Bin Laden behind them.

Airplanes being different from the street... how?

When someone is shot on an airplane, medical help is usually a LOT farther away, time wise, than when someone is shot on a bus. That's one example.

Airplanes being different from Rich's examples... how?

As I said before. When you allow any Joe Blow with a CCW to carry a gun on board an airplane, you are essentially ALLOWING terrorists and crazy people to bring guns on virtually unchecked. And given the number of people in the general population who will carry regularly on an airplane, it will be a lot easier for someone or an organized GROUP of people to take over an airliner, than it is now. I think you would agree than an airliner taken over by people with guns is more dangerous than a bus or any of Rich's other examples. THAT'S how they're different. And if you really need me to tell you why having gunshot victims on a "public conveyance", going 600mph at 30,000 feet is different than having them on a public conveyance travelling at 40mph on city streets, we probably should stop the debate here.

Frank, one thing you've made imminently clear to me, and to some others here, is that you have a distinct distrust in the concept of anyone enjoying the same liberties and privelidges that you have, unless they have been okayed by you beforehand.

You've made it pretty clear to me that you don't understand what you've read very well. Can you please cut and paste where I said I should be able to carry gun on a plane but you shouldn't? Can you cut and paste where I said that I should be able to carry on a bus, but you shouldn't? Please try to back up what you're saying with a little cutting and pasting. Exactly what rights do you think I'm reserving for myself that I contend shouldn't be granted to you? I store my gun in my checked baggage whenever I fly, just like I think you should be required to do under most circumstances.

 

[Rich Lucibella]

Frank-
You're reaching here. As a pilot, I can tell you that any jet anywhere in this nation at 30K feet can be on the ground in a matter of minutes...certainly less than 30. Probably quicker than the ambulance in most rural areas.

So the excuse about how "isolated" we are up there simply doesn't wash. Plane descends as ER crews roll.

The fact that a plane is so much more "dangerous" as a "weapon" in the wrong hands only points up their value as a target. Terrorists taking over without knowing how many firearms are on board or in which seats? Dodge City in the sky? I don't think so, Frank. Terrorists are crazy, not stupid. The Law Abiding Citizen is sensible, not crazy.

I realize that your "mileage" varies on these issues, but you've yet to name a group you actually trust....except maybe "The Pilot". Pretty tough to fly a jet liner AND fight one of them there runnin' reloadin' gunbattles in the aisles, Frank.

Pilots should be the LAST line of defense. Not the first.

I've repeatedly stated that I'm not necessarily in favor of all CCW's carrying on board. I've stated that's a better solution than the farce of protection that exists today. I'd settle for all sworn officers being allowed to carry....simple subset of LAC's, Frank. I recognize that you don't trust them. Me, I'll take my chances over today's passenger disarmament.
Rich

 

[FrankDrebin]

you've yet to name a group you actually trust....except maybe "The Pilot". Pretty tough to fly a jet liner AND fight one of them there runnin' reloadin' gunbattles in the aisles, Frank.

I said flight deck crew, not pilot. That would be at least the copilot and pilot, right? Isn't that enough people armed with at least two guns and a few hi capacity magazines to fight off the hijackers while the airplane, anywhere in the country, lands in a few minutes while the emergency crews roll?

 

[jburtonpdx]

I'm sure getting a fake CCW would have been all but impossible with the financial resources of Osama Bin Laden behind them.

If credentials were to be verified before allowing onboard then it would not matter. Not difficult to run an ID.... If it is valid not a problem, if not well then there will be an issue when it is run won't there...

Put it this way, if LEO were allowed to carry on an airplane as a general rule, would you trust that the TSA folks looking at Police ID and letting it go at that would be sufficient, or would you prefer that they verify its validity through there own resources.

If they were not being verified well then anybody with a little time and artistic ability could make any kind of ID they wanted to - heck they could even create a false Police ID, commission card, badges can be purchased on the internet, etc...