petaluma1

Article on why terrorists are drawn to airports and the after effects:

http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/wh...so-frequently/

TWA884

The topic of this thread is "How will TSA respond to FLL baggage claim shooting?", not TSA uniforms or why terrorists target airports. If you wish to discuss those subjects, please start new threads.

Thank you,

TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

Boggie Dog

Coming full circle the shooting event at FLL doesn't involve TSA. Baggage claim is outside the sterile area, a concern for the local law enforcement agencies. I don't believe we need more federal involvement in our local community and state affairs. Look at what the feds gave us, TSA!

TWA884

Posts discussing TSA uniforms and badges, and whether TSA employees/screeners should be called "officers" were moved to the following thread:
TWA884
Travel Safety/Security co-moderator

WillCAD

It's my understanding that at present, the only armed TSA employees are federal air marshalls, who do not wear uniforms - they work undercover on aircraft and are required to blend in with the other passengers.

However, this incident may well renew calls from both TSA and a panicked public to arm TSOs, despite the absolute uselessness of such a move.

Armed TSOs could not have prevented the FLA attack, any more than the armed police who were actually there were able to prevent it. In fact, TSOs do not routinely patrol baggage check areas, so they wouldn't have been able to respond to the shooting at all. Armed TSOs would be useless at the c/p as well, since there are already armed local PD in every terminal. My local airport, BWI, doesn't even rely on their roving patrols for the c/p, but has a podium at every c/p which is staffed at all times during screening operations by one or two armed MD Transportation Authority police officers.

FYI, any armed uniformed officer, of either TSA or local PD, would be wearing body armor as part of the uniform, as pretty much every uniformed cop in the US has since the 1970s, so yes, their uniform actually *IS* far more bullet-proof than my t-shirt or your blue uniform shirt.

Of course, given TSA's track record of utterly ridiculous, useless, stupid, counterproductive, or even dangerous policies, it would not surprise me if part of TSA's response to the Ft Lauderdale shooting was to create a corps of armed TSOs, but fail to provide them with any body armor or enforce any physical fitness standards on the corps. I wouldn't put it past TSA management in DC to pronounce the 'PS' on the end of the word 'corps', either - doubly ironic in this situation.

Batmanuel

This whole topic is silly. Except for in 7 states and the District of Columbia, open carry / concealed carry is legal in the public side of all airports. Baggage claim, ticket counter, welcome lobby, wherever. The only place firearms can't go is past security. TSA can't do anything about firearms in the lobby anymore than they can do anything about someone smoking a cigarette in one.

Section 107

Which are the 7?

catocony

There are no airports in the District of Columbia.

You want to go where?

There are helicopter landing pads!

Open carry is illegal in the District, period. Doesn't matter whether it is a non-existent airport, a shopping mall, or a city street. Concealed carry is by permit only, issued by the District of Columbia. DC does not recognize the permits of the 50 states. That seems only fair as the 50 states don't recognize the right of DC to have representation in Congress. Federal law regarding guns on Federal land within DC is even more restrictive.

caburrito

A locked gun is to prevent TSA from directly accessing the firearm. You sign an affidavit stating that you are submitting an unloaded firearm into checked baggage and the only person who has the ability to unlock the locked case is you. You're not even allowed to use a TSA approved lock. After that, the gun is treated no different than underwear.

Not sure how nuclear arms compares to this Ammunition generally does not explode, unless they're forced into a tight chamber like the barrel of a gun (which shouldn't be the case, because you signed a tag that says it isn't). Even then, you would need massive amounts of heat to set off the gun powder, absent of a primer strike. Loose ammo will simply fall apart when thrown in a fire. Lithium batteries would actually be more dangerous in the cargo hold than a bunch of ammo in everyone's bag.

WillCAD

Actually, most ammo can and will cook off if thrown into a fire. The result is not quite as dangerous as a round fired from a gun, but there is still danger. The shell casing, not being confined in a gun, will be propelled away from the projectile, which is heavier, at a high rate of speed. Not being as heavy as the projectile or as aerodynamic, the shell casing won't hit the same velocity as a fired bullet, but it's still dangerous, as Mythbusters found out when they tossed ammo into a fire and found at least one shell casing embedded itself in a 1/4" plywood cutout placed near the fire.

So no, although ammo won't explode like a bomb or fire like it does from a gun when placed in a fire, it will not simply disintegrate harmlessly, either.

It poses no danger in the cargo hold of an aircraft, though. If there's a fire big enough to cause ammo cook-off in the hold, the aircraft has far bigger problems than some shell casing whizzing around.

gsoltso

There are other armed components within TSA as well. Not many of them, but there are some (Investigative, LEO, etc) that are armed as well.

Armed TSOs most likely would not have prevented the beginning of this event (without a serious stroke of right time right place with an armed TSO). However, an armed TSO may have given a quicker response time to the incident - they also have about an equal chance that they would not. Some may clamor for an armed TSO position separate from the standard TSO position, and they have some valid points they will make. I do not think that the ones clamoring for the positions to be created will have enough juice to get the incoming administration to see this as a net positive.

The largest position I have seen put forward consistently from the groups pushing for an armed TSO position, have been calling for an armed presence in the checkpoint areas. This position is not described as a regular TSO, but more of an armed guard position, where it is purposely kept separate from TSOs (due primarily to 4th Amendment concerns). In many cases, this would be seen as a replacement for the local LEOs being an armed presence in the checkpoints at some locations, and an augment in others. I can not see a situation (short of outright war in our streets on a national level) that would make the federal government arm TSOs on the whole.

Section 107

The states cannot recognize, let alone grant, a right under federal law that the federal constitution does not itself recognize nor grant. The individual states could allow a representative from the DofC to be recognized in their own legislatures, if they wished....

Section 107

Yes, there are helipads in DC but only for specified medical facilities (and authorized aircraft), law enforcement and specified government agencies. There is no general aviation for helicopters in DC.

You want to go where?

Of course the states can. Have you forgotten that there is an amendment procedure to the Constitution?

They could also admit a new state to the Union and shrink the Federal enclave still further.

Heck, they could even return most of the District to Maryland in the same way that they did the Virginia portion.

Perhaps you failed to notice my wink at the end of my post. It was intended to be humorous, not to be taken seriously or literally.