Originally Posted by jkhuggins

For the record, I'm against the idea. But let's play "devil's advocate" here for a moment.

The stated reason that the TSA union wants some of its members to be deputized LEOs is so that they can carry firearms and defend themselves and each other at the checkpoint. Fair enough.

But, unless I'm grossly mistaken, becoming a federal LEO would require:

• Meeting minimum educational standards. (Those reading pizza boxes need not apply.)
• Meeting minimum fitness standards. (Those used to eating from pizza boxes need not apply.)
• Extensive training in various human aspects of law enforcement: how to apply the law, knowing what LEOs can and cannot do without probable cause, and so on.
• Extensive training in the use of non-lethal force alongside firearms training.

It seems to me that if such a proposal were to be enacted, very few TSOs would qualify to become firearm-holding LEOs. Furthermore, those few who do qualify would be substantially better trained than current TSOs. And, perhaps most importantly, that gap in qualifications and training might serve to highlight what many folks here have been saying all along: there's a big difference between a TSO and a LEO.

Wouldn't this be a good thing?