[fastbolt]

Unsurprisingly, this idea has come up among cops quite a bit in recent years. If done properly, it would seem to make sense.

Bureaucracy can become a Byzantine maze from within which to make something happen for the right reasons, though.

How about this, too? "... and possess an annual medical clearance ...

I don't know about the rest of you, but I didn't have that sort of thing during my career before I retired. And now for retired/LEOSA qualified?

The flying while armed class is very basic, simple and easy to take.

It's the annual medical 'clearance' comment that puzzles me. It's not required to fly, and it's not required for LEOSA. Is it a fed or FLEOA thing?

Also, for retirees, does that mean that the agency from which the cop retired, and/or the one certifying LEOSA requirements have been met annually, will be forwarding the NLETS message containing a Unique Identifier whenever the retiree decides to they want to fly armed on a domestic flight? How about the time & cost involved for that little qualification, let alone the willingness of any particular agency to provide that support for a retiree?

Good idea in its basic premise, though.

It's the potential difficulties of being able to achieve workable implementation and inevitable bureaucratic snags that makes me somewhat skeptical that something like this would ever get off the ground.

Then, there's the politics ...

I dislike the modern commercial flying experience, anyway.

[Wilkes1811]

Originally Posted by hikerpaddler

And that manual is correct. If they are federal LE, any flavor, they can. Same for carrying off duty. There's no authority issue, no legal issue. As previously noted, there are 100 different iterations of Federal law enforcement, from 1811 to uniformed police officer and everything in between. There are a number of them who may have policy restricting carrying off duty or in-flight, or even pretend that their authority is something different than it is. Even those misguided shops change their tune when the heavenly fathers or operational needs dictate they be real.

FLEO's ability to carry off-duty on board commercial aircraft is different than regular off-duty carry (i.e. carrying around town). I stand behind my statement that not every FLEO is permitted to carry off-duty on board commercial aircraft. Again i'm speaking *off-duty*, as on duty is a whole other animal. As far as I know those folks have had the same restrictions for ages.

[lawman800]

I don't really care about carrying on a plane if I am not acting in an official capacity. However, I don't like the checking in firearms procedure and the inherent risks in having your weapon mixed in with regular baggage.

I've worked for an airline before as an agent and I have worked in the baggage service area with baggage handlers. I've seen things that make me fly only with a carry-on only unless it is overseas and I have to use check bags in.

I would propose something in the middle where we can check in our unloaded firearms in a locked container, hand it over to the counter agent, who then secures all of the firearms in their own locked container and then they put it in a secured area on the plane such as inside the cockpit with the captain. When we offload, we can meet the arrival agent to retrieve our firearms separately from the baggage.

I have no problems with that and any extra time it takes if it means my firearm will not be thrown around in the underground baggage service area and mixed in with regular baggage.

[blueiron]

I gave up flying years ago. I only broke it recently when I flew to Israel.

After flying El Al, the domestic carriers are all a joke. I wouldn't trust them to properly handle and transport a single shot .22 rifle.

[lawman800]

I would trust a rookie run of the mill security guard from EL AL over the best trained TSA agent/operator with a HK keychain.

[Bill Lumberg]

No disrespect Wilkes- but hiker is right. I would have thought the same as you a few years ago, but even those places that attempt to neuter their LE, those guys, and we're talking about federal LE, can and do carry, even on airplanes, even off duty, with full legal authority to do so. Just less frequently than others.

[Bearcat06]

Originally Posted by lawman800

Therein is the key. Feds are good to go, period. We have the official duty, full-time, NCIC, etc. rigamarole.

It's going in the right direction with using NLETs..... but it could be better.....

I do think there should be ID Standards for all LEOs...and a place to call the see if they are good to go....that includes retired and active LEOs... Whether it be at the State or Federal level.....

Just me....

[Wilkes1811]

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

No disrespect Wilkes- but hiker is right. I would have thought the same as you a few years ago, but even those places that attempt to neuter their LE, those guys, and we're talking about federal LE, can and do carry, even on airplanes, even off duty, with full legal authority to do so. Just less frequently than others.

I personally know some FLEO's that are not permitted to fly armed while in an off-duty status. Since LEOSA is not in the picture on this matter, it does break down to two things....federal law and agency regulations (which CAN be stricter since you must follow agency regulations *see below* in order to fly armed). Although it may be written that federal LEO's can, certain agencies have regulations that bar or severely restrict it (not to mention restrictions based in the federal CFR).

CFR 1544.219 includes this wording:
In addition to the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the armed LEO must have a need to have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. The need to have the weapon accessible must be determined by the employing agency, department, or service and be based on one of the following:
(i) The provision of protective duty, for instance, assigned to a principal or advance team, or on travel required to be prepared to engage in a protective function.
(ii) The conduct of a hazardous surveillance operation.
(iii) On official travel required to report to another location, armed and prepared for duty.
(iv) Employed as a Federal LEO, whether or not on official travel, and armed in accordance with an agency-wide policy governing that type of travel established by the employing agency by directive or policy statement.

Here is the CFR relating to the topic:
http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title49...0.3.10.14.html

I'm not trying to argue, rather I don't want someone to needlessly get themselves jammed up, not to mention undue other possible side issues with TSA and possible negative media exposure if it came to light.

[Ryobi]

Pretty much what lumberg said. Legal, but some are resticted by agency policy.

[Bearcat06]

Originally Posted by Ryobi

Pretty much what lumberg said. Legal, but some are resticted by agency policy.

Problem is that a lot of those FLEOs not supposed to fly armed by agency policy still do because no one knows they are doing it...... Airlines/TSA has no clue who is and isn't supposed to fly armed agency wise.....

I would hate to take action in the air....only to get fired by my agency later on.....

[4949shooter]

Originally Posted by blueiron

I gave up flying years ago. I only broke it recently when I flew to Israel.

After flying El Al, the domestic carriers are all a joke. I wouldn't trust them to properly handle and transport a single shot .22 rifle.

A few days after 9/11, when we flooded Newark Airport with NJSP personnel, one of the El Al security guards was overheard by some of our people saying something to the effect of that he wasn't used to seeing all the new uniforms, and if he were forced to open fire he would be indiscriminate with his targets. From what I understand, one of our guys said something to him to let him know we were the "good guys."

I can certainly respect the Israelis for their level of training and commitment, though I didn't appreciate the comment at the time nor do I now.

[KING-PIN]

Originally Posted by Bearcat06

Problem is that a lot of those FLEOs not supposed to fly armed by agency policy still do because no one knows they are doing it...... Airlines/TSA has no clue who is and isn't supposed to fly armed agency wise.....

I would hate to take action in the air....only to get fired by my agency later on.....

Personally, I feel that getting canned VS. Saving hundreds of lives, including your own doesn't even stack up. I'd be willing to bet they just might make some kind of an exception if it came down to that.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by KING-PIN

Personally, I feel that getting canned VS. Saving hundreds of lives, including your own doesn't even stack up. I'd be willing to bet they just might make some kind of an exception if it came down to that.

You don't know my agency too well. There are those who make a mountain out of a mole hill in just about any of those agencies. The mountain turns into one big pile of ugly stuff.

[dweer]

^^^ what he said...

[KING-PIN]

Originally Posted by Hack

You don't know my agency too well. There are those who make a mountain out of a mole hill in just about any of those agencies. The mountain turns into one big pile of ugly stuff.

Just a local county deputy here, Hack.

I guess im just used to a smaller, more atta-boy attitude here than what you fed types are accustomed to.

As you were.

[Hack]

Originally Posted by KING-PIN

Just a local county deputy here, Hack.

I guess im just used to a smaller, more atta-boy attitude here than what you fed types are accustomed to.

As you were.

He, he. We have a little of both, in our facility. Unfortunately it seems that with some in various fed agencies, the mountain makers, (out of molehills), seem to be numerous. Trust me that I am sure looking forward to retirement. There are times I wished I worked at the county level.

[Bearcat06]

Originally Posted by KING-PIN

Personally, I feel that getting canned VS. Saving hundreds of lives, including your own doesn't even stack up. I'd be willing to bet they just might make some kind of an exception if it came down to that.

Errr......When I worked for DOJ and if I hadn't gotten permission to travel armed from our SES....and I had to take action.....there is no doubt in my mind they would have canned me (or anyone else in my squad) in a heartbeat.....

[Bill Lumberg]

As stated ad nauseum, feds who are restricted are restricted by policy, not law. If you are confused in any way whether you can fly armed or whether you should fly armed, you shouldn't be flying armed.

[Polak]

Originally Posted by ctaggart

Also, if I were flying over NJ, won't they prosecute me for having hollow points?

Oh yes they will. We have radar to detect that sh**.

[opskmallory]

I think it's a good idea. Not so much because I want to carry on board, but so I don't have to check my fire-arm in, which is nice for when you aren't checking baggage.

Strengthen ID requirements. We just had to get new ID's issued to us which now include & require the dept. director's signature, as well as our own signature. I was told this had something to do with federal requirements for flying armed. But I don't know for sure. Regardless, certain ID requirements should be put in place.

Maintain requirements for an NCIC/NLETS message from the department;s ORI. Require that a response be sent with a confirmation code, which is then included on a letterhead letter from the dept. director/chief which also states the employee is currently in good standing with the department and is currently authorized to carry a firearm (not specific to flying, but carry a firearm in general). That letter is carried by the officer and presented at check-in and at the security gate.

Having said all that, I doubt Obama will make it happen. It will, literally, take an act of congress. And probably not our current congress.

[wprebeck]

Originally Posted by Bill Lumberg

As stated ad nauseum, feds who are restricted are restricted by policy, not law. If you are confused in any way whether you can fly armed or whether you should fly armed, you shouldn't be flying armed.

I can't.



(Just thought I'd throw that out there....)

[freeforever]

Originally Posted by Bearcat06

Problem is that a lot of those FLEOs not supposed to fly armed by agency policy still do because no one knows they are doing it...... Airlines/TSA has no clue who is and isn't supposed to fly armed agency wise.....

FACT: In order to fly armed a LEO (local/state/federal) must satisfy a certain requirement. For obvious reasons the specifics can't be stated on a public forum but even us feds must pass a certain test to gain entry into a sterile area that goes beyond flashing the creds.

[trifecta]

Originally Posted by freeforever

FACT: In order to fly armed a LEO (local/state/federal) must satisfy a certain requirement. For obvious reasons the specifics can't be stated on a public forum but even us feds must pass a certain test to gain entry into a sterile area that goes beyond flashing the creds.

Looks like the secret is out or the system is a little lacking. http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ksw...,7939304.story This is the fake US Marshal story from several days ago.

[freeforever]

Originally Posted by trifecta

Looks like the secret is out or the system is a little lacking. http://www.fox5sandiego.com/news/ksw...,7939304.story This is the fake US Marshal story from several days ago.

That incident happened before the new procedures were put into place (very recently), and is probably the reason why the procedures were changed to begin with. No longer can a LEO simply flash a badge with creds to gain access to the sterile area of the airport.

[lawman800]

Never thought flashing the creds was good enough, even in the 90s.