Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel Safety/Security > Checkpoints and Borders Policy Debate
Sign in using an external account

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 8, 12, 2:56 am   #46
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 105
went googling and found this

TSA HANDBOOK to MD 1100.73-5, EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONDUCT

N. Possession of Firearms or Other Weapons:
(1) No employee, while on-duty, or in TSA or General Services Administration (GSA) owned, leased, or controlled property, including while in a government vehicle at any time or while in a personal vehicle when on TSA/GSA owned, leased, or controlled property, may have in his or her possession firearms or other weapons unless authorized by TSA. Additionally, no on-duty employee may have in his or her possession firearms or other weapons while in an airport terminal, other airport building, or airport parking lot (including off site parking where employee parking fees are subsidized by TSA) unless authorized by TSA in accordance with this directive. These requirements apply regardless of any state law that may permit the carrying of firearms or other weapons.
FatherAbraham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 5:23 am   #47
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Thanks for bringing it back on topic.

So far, everyone seems to agree that TSAs cannot carry personal guns on duty, but no one has cited any federal or state law or regulation that prevents them from doing so. Anyone have a specific reference? I know it would probably be common sense, but it has to be somewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSORon View Post
+1

If its not actual Federal Property then there is only local and state laws that would prevent. TSA has a policy forbidding the carry of a firearm by non-LEO personnel while on duty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherAbraham View Post
went googling and found this

TSA HANDBOOK to MD 1100.73-5, EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONDUCT

N. Possession of Firearms or Other Weapons:
(1) No employee, while on-duty, or in TSA or General Services Administration (GSA) owned, leased, or controlled property, including while in a government vehicle at any time or while in a personal vehicle when on TSA/GSA owned, leased, or controlled property, may have in his or her possession firearms or other weapons unless authorized by TSA. Additionally, no on-duty employee may have in his or her possession firearms or other weapons while in an airport terminal, other airport building, or airport parking lot (including off site parking where employee parking fees are subsidized by TSA) unless authorized by TSA in accordance with this directive. These requirements apply regardless of any state law that may permit the carrying of firearms or other weapons.
Common sense has nothing to do with it, cbn. After all, we're dealing with a federal government agency here; common sense is antithetical to their modus operandi.

But it seems that Ron's statement and the paragraph that Father Abe found are in agreement, and those posts both fall in line with common weapons prohibitions in workplaces both government and private, all accross the country.

Every company that has ever employed me, from the Burger King where I worked in 1985 to the engineering firm where I work today, has had a workplace weapons prohibition in its employee code of conduct. Some specifically mentioned firearms, either prohibiting "guns and other weapons" or "firearms and other weapons", while some simply prohibited "weapons" without defining the word "weapons". It would seem perfectly in line with common business practice today for TSA to have a similar prohibition in place, which is why I'm inclined to accept both Ron's statement and the paragraph that Abe found at face value, and call this one settled. Or, at least, settled to my satisfaction.
__________________
Flying is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Anyone who says otherwise, just because the right to fly isn't enumerated in the Constitution, is full of beans.
WillCAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 6:47 am   #48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 17,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Thanks for bringing it back on topic.

So far, everyone seems to agree that TSAs cannot carry personal guns on duty, but no one has cited any federal or state law or regulation that prevents them from doing so. Anyone have a specific reference? I know it would probably be common sense, but it has to be somewhere.
The rules governing on-duty employee job conduct are employing agency work rules. Same as uniform, how many breaks you get, and all kinds of other stuff. They also generally specify what you can and cannot carry for personal items. This could include personal cell phones, firearms, and whether you can chew gum.

The real reason underlying all of this has little to do with firearms and everything to do with compensation. Federal laws and OPM rules dealing with employees who perform law enforcement functions (having nothing to do with their title) are entitled to certain pay scales, better retirement and other benefits as the result of their LEO status. Those rules definite what consitutes a "law enforcement officer" and one of the key indicators is that the individual is authoirzed or required to carry a firearm on duty.
Often1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 9:50 am   #49
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: DFW
Posts: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Thanks for bringing it back on topic.

So far, everyone seems to agree that TSAs cannot carry personal guns on duty, but no one has cited any federal or state law or regulation that prevents them from doing so. Anyone have a specific reference? I know it would probably be common sense, but it has to be somewhere.
Federal regs prevent most non-LEO's from carrying on commercial aircraft or in the secure area of a commercial airport, and most TSA employees are not LEO's, so why would they have any more right to carry than you do?

Last edited by StanSimmons; Oct 8, 12 at 9:56 am.
StanSimmons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 12:24 pm   #50
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Baltimore, MD USA
Programs: Southwest Rapid Rewards. Tha... that's about it.
Posts: 2,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Often1 View Post
The rules governing on-duty employee job conduct are employing agency work rules. Same as uniform, how many breaks you get, and all kinds of other stuff. They also generally specify what you can and cannot carry for personal items. This could include personal cell phones, firearms, and whether you can chew gum.

The real reason underlying all of this has little to do with firearms and everything to do with compensation. Federal laws and OPM rules dealing with employees who perform law enforcement functions (having nothing to do with their title) are entitled to certain pay scales, better retirement and other benefits as the result of their LEO status. Those rules definite what consitutes a "law enforcement officer" and one of the key indicators is that the individual is authoirzed or required to carry a firearm on duty.
That's a load.

The "real reason underlying all of this" is that TSOs are NOT law enforcement and do NOT carry out law enforcement functions. It has nothing to do with whether or not the gubment wants to compensate them for being Big Men With Guns - it has to do with the whole reason for being of their agency, which is security screening, NOT law enforcement. There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any reason whatsoever for airport security screeners, whether government or private contractors, to be armed or to have any sort of law enforcement powers, because they have no law enforcement responsibilities. They're civilian screeners. That's all, nothing else.

And therein lies the biggest, most pervasive problem with the entire agency - John Pistole comes from an FBI background. He's a law enforcement professional whose entire carreer was built upon the search for and apprehension of criminals. Yet he's been given directorship of a federal agency which has no such mandate, responsibility, or authority, and he has been attempting to turn that agency into a law enforcement agency because the administrative search doctrine allows TSA to avoid pesky little annoyances like "civil rights" and "the Constitution" when they search people en masse.

The end result of this is that we now have an agency of 65,000 civilian screeners with no law enforcement responsibilities, powers, or authorities, who wear paramilitary uniforms and badges, and whose official job titles include the word "officer", who have been brainwashed into thinking that they are part of the "think blue line" that protects us all from the evils of drug smugglers and non-custodial kidnappers and people carrying too much money. They think they're cops.

As on so many other topics, they think wrong.
__________________
Flying is a RIGHT, not a privilege. Anyone who says otherwise, just because the right to fly isn't enumerated in the Constitution, is full of beans.
WillCAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 1:51 pm   #51
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles
Programs: Marriott Plat, Conited Gold (and falling)
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearcat06 View Post
The ones at MCI were.....



The ones at MCI worked there (along with the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Airport LEOs) based on a Governor order. If Jay (Current MO Gov) wanted them to be there....he could certainly call them up and do it.




Yes they can in certain circumstances.
Regarding Kansas City, you confirmed, at the time, that they did have live ammo in their magazines, and the ready to fire without needing to pull the charging handle first? From what I saw, they had a clip of live rounds in a pocket, with probably an empty clip - or one with just a few rounds - in the rifle. And they were never locked and ready to fire.

As far as the governor sending Guardsmen to the airport, after 9/11 that was possible because the Army paid for them to be there. So, if the governor of a state wanted them there now, it would come out of state budgets.

As for active-duty, non-LEO military carrying weapons on a civilian airliner, can you cite an example?
__________________
"March 3, 2012, a date that will live in infamy...."
"I was an over-entitled 1K. Now I'm an ambivalent Gold"
catocony is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 4:54 pm   #52
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by FatherAbraham View Post
went googling and found this

TSA HANDBOOK to MD 1100.73-5, EMPLOYEE RESPONSIBILITIES AND CONDUCT

N. Possession of Firearms or Other Weapons:
(1) No employee, while on-duty, or in TSA or General Services Administration (GSA) owned, leased, or controlled property, including while in a government vehicle at any time or while in a personal vehicle when on TSA/GSA owned, leased, or controlled property, may have in his or her possession firearms or other weapons unless authorized by TSA. Additionally, no on-duty employee may have in his or her possession firearms or other weapons while in an airport terminal, other airport building, or airport parking lot (including off site parking where employee parking fees are subsidized by TSA) unless authorized by TSA in accordance with this directive. These requirements apply regardless of any state law that may permit the carrying of firearms or other weapons.
Perfect, that's what I was looking for. Thank you.

Since this from the TSA Handbook and not a government regulation, would I be correct in saying that a TSO who brought a gun to work would not be violating any law, and just an employer's policy? If that is the case, then it is not a crime and the police couldn't do anything because it is legal under state law, but the TSA could discipline/dismiss the employee.
cbn42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 6:58 pm   #53
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Since this from the TSA Handbook and not a government regulation, would I be correct in saying that a TSO who brought a gun to work would not be violating any law, and just an employer's policy? If that is the case, then it is not a crime and the police couldn't do anything because it is legal under state law, but the TSA could discipline/dismiss the employee.
I've long since lost track of the hypothetical here ...

Many states have laws that prohibit non-LEOs from carrying firearms on airport property, even if the firearm is otherwise properly licensed. In such a state, a TSO who brings a gun to work would be violating a law --- just as an airport food service employee who brings a gun to work would be violating a law. The TSO's employer would have no bearing on the case.

But, if you're in an airport that has no such prohibitions ... then I don't think there's any legal liability incurred. (But I would gladly defer to those more knowledgeable than I ...)
jkhuggins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 8:21 pm   #54
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Perfect, that's what I was looking for. Thank you.

Since this from the TSA Handbook and not a government regulation, would I be correct in saying that a TSO who brought a gun to work would not be violating any law, and just an employer's policy? If that is the case, then it is not a crime and the police couldn't do anything because it is legal under state law, but the TSA could discipline/dismiss the employee.
Nope. It is possible for for conduct to be both a violation of employee conduct rules and against the law. The two things are separate. The arresting LEO wouldn't arrest the TSO for violating TSA employee rules, they would charge the TSO for violating specific criminal laws. TSA, on the other hand, would discipline the TSO for violating employee conduct rules.

I am very curious about your motivation for asking this question and making this type of conclusion.

castro
castrobenes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 8:32 pm   #55
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by castrobenes View Post
Nope. It is possible for for conduct to be both a violation of employee conduct rules and against the law. The two things are separate. The arresting LEO wouldn't arrest the TSO for violating TSA employee rules, they would charge the TSO for violating specific criminal laws. TSA, on the other hand, would discipline the TSO for violating employee conduct rules.
But I thought we established that it isn't a criminal matter provided they are landside.

Quote:
Originally Posted by castrobenes View Post
I am very curious about your motivation for asking this question and making this type of conclusion.

castro
It's out of curiosity mostly, triggered by what I overheard at the airport (see OP).
cbn42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 8:55 pm   #56
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: PHX
Programs: UA *Alliance
Posts: 3,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
But I thought we established that it isn't a criminal matter provided they are landside.
I thought we established that it depended on the local ordinances be they city, county, or state.
SWCPHX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 12, 10:28 pm   #57
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: CP-ASEL-IA in Tucson, Arizona, United States
Posts: 1,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
Since this from the TSA Handbook and not a government regulation, would I be correct in saying that a TSO who brought a gun to work would not be violating any law, and just an employer's policy? If that is the case, then it is not a crime and the police couldn't do anything because it is legal under state law, but the TSA could discipline/dismiss the employee.
I believe that this thread started with regards to a Phoenix TSO. I earlier posted the relevant Arizona law that the TSO would be violating if he or she took the gun past the checkpoint.
tlglenn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 12, 2:33 am   #58
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlglenn View Post
I believe that this thread started with regards to a Phoenix TSO. I earlier posted the relevant Arizona law that the TSO would be violating if he or she took the gun past the checkpoint.
Thanks for posting that.

In case I wasn't clear, my question has to do with TSOs carrying guns outside the secure area. Past the checkpoint, federal law is very strict on who can carry. However, there appear to be no federal regulations for the non-sterile areas of the airport, and Arizona law appears to permit it.
cbn42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 12, 7:20 pm   #59
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Stuttgart Germany
Programs: UA/Hyatt/Marriott/Movenpick/Hilton
Posts: 594
Quote:
Originally Posted by catocony View Post
Regarding Kansas City, you confirmed, at the time, that they did have live ammo in their magazines, and the ready to fire without needing to pull the charging handle first?

Yeap....'cause I watched some jackwagon forget to clear her weapon properly outside the station (Guard did that crap we didn't) and shoot into the clearing barrel.....causing several of us to dive out of the way.....


Quote:
Originally Posted by catocony View Post
From what I saw, they had a clip of live rounds in a pocket, with probably an empty clip - or one with just a few rounds - in the rifle. And they were never locked and ready to fire.


Once again, all depends on what Airport you were at.... Every Guard Unit is ran differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by catocony View Post
As far as the governor sending Guardsmen to the airport, after 9/11 that was possible because the Army paid for them to be there. So, if the governor of a state wanted them there now, it would come out of state budgets.
Right after 9/11, they were activated for State Duty and assigned the Airports and other places (like Electrical Plants) for a while. All that money came from the Feds.

If Jay wanted to do that now, it would come out of the State Guard budget...


Quote:
Originally Posted by catocony View Post
As for active-duty, non-LEO military carrying weapons on a civilian airliner, can you cite an example?
--Escorting High Risk prisoners from Point A to a Brig/Prison
--K9 Teams Supporting USSS on Presidental Missions that are going on duty as soon as they arrive....

Paperworking is done well in advance so that TSA/Airlines/Military are all on the same sheet of music.
Bearcat06 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 12, 11:09 pm   #60
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Dulles
Programs: Marriott Plat, Conited Gold (and falling)
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bearcat06 View Post
--Escorting High Risk prisoners from Point A to a Brig/Prison
--K9 Teams Supporting USSS on Presidental Missions that are going on duty as soon as they arrive....

Paperworking is done well in advance so that TSA/Airlines/Military are all on the same sheet of music.
Ok, but in both of those cases, they are acting in the capacity of a LEO, either in chaser duty or as bomb sniffing dog handlers (which is largely MP/SP work these days anyways).

Readers on here need to understand that in 99.99% of the cases, military traveling, in uniform, have the same rights as us. I guess they get to leave their boots on when going through security, unless that has been revoked now with all of the NoS around. But, again, Specialist Combat Jack can't tote an M240 on the plane with him when he travels commercially.
__________________
"March 3, 2012, a date that will live in infamy...."
"I was an over-entitled 1K. Now I'm an ambivalent Gold"
catocony is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:27 pm.