It's funny to find this thread. I was just this morning reading an article, and I kept having this dread that someone would suggest arming the TSA.

Thankfully, no one that counts has made such a suggestion that I've seen.

I would argue that introducing more guns into the airport environment would make things more dangerous. Accidental shootings, the higher possibility of a service weapon going "missing", etc. That being said, when I've seen LEO's deployed at checkpoints, they're never paying attention....always looking down with a glazed, bored look. If there had been an LEO at the checkpoint, I imagine he or she would have been the first target.

Very true, but I believe the qualification standards are about the same.

I read a CNN article yesterday where mention was made of police officers being bored with checkpoint duty. The author cited instances where they read books, check e-mail and use their cell phones, implying they could not give 100% attention to the checkpoint when their attention is distracted. I haven't seen a police officer at an SFO checkpoint in years, though they are very visible throughout the airport, including on segways and bicycles. Sounds like LAX has the same strategy in place.

I think we're looking at some new armed security branch within the TSA down the line. That branch will provide armed guards at the checkpoints in place of local law enforcement and be responsible to TSA management versus the airport manager/police chief. I don't think they'll go the police officer route because of the training involved at that level (minimum 15 week academy on the federal side, much more if you use a local/regional academy here in CA). Maybe just the security guard route with a few weeks of training to keep their costs down. They'll also cost a lot less than police officers and could be funded by the TSA.

I'm not going to bother digging for a cite - it's easy enough to find, maybe on CNN. The LE staffing at LAX had been shifted very recently, apparently partly in response to complaints from LEs stationed at the sterile side of the checkpoints who were complaining about being bored. There were reports that they were often seen texting or reading. They were reassigned to roam around in the terminal instead.

I don't think they ever expected to be called upon to do anything more than arrest a pax found with a weapon, drugs or large sum of $ at the checkpoint - or possibly one who was accused of showing attitude to a TSO.

I've already seen discussion about the need to up the weaponry the police carry, perhaps arming them with AR-15s so they won't be outgunned.

AFAIK this prohibits arming the screener.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

I don't think the government should provide them with firearms. However, they are in a concealed carry state that allows anyone to carry a gun in public by applying for a permit, then I don't see why TSA staff should not be able to apply for a concealed carry permit and use it in the landside area. For example, at ATL, anyone with a Georgia concealed carry permit can carry a gun in the terminal up until the checkpoint. If a random guy who came to drop off his friend can carry a gun, why can't a TSO?

No it would not. That law applies to the military. TSA screeners are not military. There are plenty of armed Federal LEOs that perform very similar duties to TSA i.e US Capitol Police. Posse Comitatus forbids the military from acting as a civilian police force.

Beacuse the random guy isn't responsible for the safety and security of anyone except himself. He isn't going to use his weapon on somebody because they are arguing with him. He doesn't have to safeguard his firearm whilst he checks through somebody's belongings.

Frankly the only thing more alarming than the TSA being openly armed (and trained appropriately) is the idea of TSOs carrying whatever weapons they can fit in a holster - and carrying them concealed into the secure area.

That (second paragraph becoming reality) would be unfortunate.

LAX already has one of the largest (if not the largest) armed police forces at an airport, of any airport in the country.

Armed Feds can't enforce state laws.

DC isn't a state.

Armed federal LEOs do help enforce state laws. This comes up even with some CBP interactions involving state/local alcohol rules.

+4

Normally, I am against arming people unless absolutely necessary. But given the gun situation in the US, where everyone and their moms can carry guns around wherever they want with minimal restrictions, I don't think it's fair to the TSA to place special restrictions on them. I don't consider the TSA to be a particularly trustworthy agency, but the same concealed carry standards that apply to everyone else should apply to them.

There are armed federal LEOs all over the country, not just in DC. They only enforce federal laws. Posse Comitatus prevents the military from acting as law enforcement, it does not preclude federal law enforcement.

Sounds more like you are for arming people even when not absolutely necessary.

Why should employers be forced to allow all employees to conceal carry while working on the employer's clock?

More people have been killed or injured in the US in flight accidents this year. This is a non issue and arming those idiots would have caused more damage than it would have prevented.

As I said upthread - and for the same reasons as you - I don't have a problem with armed personnel securing airports, especially in a gun rich society such as the USA. There clearly is a risk of a mass shooting incident occurring, especially around security checkpoints which are a dense gathering of non-screened people.

However I don't think that TSOs are the people for the job. I don't think that anyone should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon into the secure area of the airport because, once inside, they could hand the weapon to somebody else for use in flight. This could, of course, happen with an un-concealed weapon but it is likely that somebody will notice that the person who should have the weapon doesn't.

Obviously there must be some exceptions, such as bodyguards for VIPs and FAMs, but these people are highly skilled and ruthlessly background checked. Unfortunately the TSA is notorious for inadvertantly employing criminals and I personally believe that there is strong potential for a terrorist attack to be carried out via a TSO carrying the weapon into the secure area and handing it to the perpetrator.

The other problem with allowing TSOs with concealed weapons permits to arm themselves is that few if any of them (realistically only former LEOs/military) have the skills to effectively engage an attacker without posing a risk to bystanders. You're also assuming that they have appropriate weapons and that these weapons are well maintained.

Finally any TSO with a weapon is vulnerable to having that weapon stolen by the person they are screening and used against them - admittedly more unlikely with a concealed weapon than with one openly carried on the hip or wherever. This means that the TSO will have to constantly safeguard the weapon which will distract them from their main task of screening.

To summarise I can certainly see a need for openly armed personnel at security checkpoints and other areas of the airport. But they need to be dedicated personnel who are extensively background checked, properly trained, appropriately armed and not involved in the screening process.

No. The TSA shouldn't even exist.

At many airports, it will be a problem if you want to restrict the firearms to the landside area.

TSOs have posted in the past that it's impractical for them to be required to leave their cellphones in a break- or locker room because these facilities are often in the sterile area, too far away to conveniently access during a break.
You'll have the same issues if you try to exclude TSO firearms from the sterile area - there's no secure place (unless each airport builds it) landside to store the gun if an armed TSO wants to access facilities inside the secure area.

How many guns, even on licensed government workers, do you want to introduce into the sterile area?

There is a difference between arming people and allowing people to carry guns on their own initiative. As I said, I don't think the TSA should provide firearms. However, I also don't think the TSA should ban their employees from carrying firearms if state law and airport policies allow it.

As I said, TSA staff should be held to the same standard as anyone else applying for a concealed weapon permit. If the state sees fit to issue permits to random people without a skills/safety test, then why not the TSA? Of course, my personal opinion is that concealed carry permit standards in most states are far too lax, and at a minimum, safety exams should be required for everyone. But if they are not, why should they be required for TSA?


Agreed, the logistics would have to be worked out. If any TSO were carrying a gun, he/she should not be permitted to enter the sterile area. Finding a place to leave it landside might be a hassle, but it's his/her choice whether it is worth it.

But don't you think they are already power mongers now? But yeah, as I said, getting them armed will probably make them worse than they already are...

True, you raised a good counter-point. Although one can argue those were isolated incidents that don't reflect the general trend of police enforcement.

But probably a bigger reason would be those with "god" mentality at the TSA would be made worse with guns...

Uh no. They already lack good judgement and you want to arm them?

Not true - fast food workers get fire if they are surly or screw up on the job.

No. This was an isolated incident. No need for knee jerk reactions. TSA agents are arrogant enough as it is, I can't imagine if you put a gun on their hip.

Absolutely not. Airport security is the responsibility of the local jurisdiction. The last thing we need is more gun toting people in airports. The only way to prevent guns getting in is another perimeter x ray check. Then you would need one to protect that perimeter. It could go on forever. Bottlenecks are target rich. I wonder what set him off.

A quote from tonight's CBS Evening News:

I bet we hear a lot more about this proposal in the weeks to come.

Clearly the topic is related to airline/airport security so please follow it to the apt Travel Security forum. Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.

Remember a few years ago when Pistole was talking about building a mega-million dollar TSA Academy? Did anyone really think it was going to be to train agents to recognize NEXUS cards and rearrange bins?

Pistole is FBI. Rest assured he will try to milk this for more budget. Better leave it to the locals. We don't need more Feds at the airports than we already have.

The TSA screens about 1.8 million passengers a day (TSA website). In 11 years that's over 7 billion served.

Odds of someone killing a TSA agent 1:7,000,000,000. The odds of being killed by a meteor in your lifetime are more likely.

This over reaction to an isolated event is typical and will be exacerbated by the US media. The story will be played over and over again until it becomes all consuming and it seems like everyone should be afraid. I'm more afraid of the single story media than random nut jobs.

One thing about the 9/11 WTC attack is we didn't have to hear about Chandra Levy anymore. I believe NASA killed Anna Nichole Smith. The story about the diaper wearing astronaut started to get foothold then Anna died and that became the new story du jour. If NASA ordered the hit, then the diaper wearing astronaut story would go away.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

Absolutely 100% NO!!

I'm so happy and relieved to see that people here think the same as I do: NO GUNS FOR TSA AGENTS... EVER!

Should the Barista at Starbucks in the Departure Hall get a gun as well?

Because from where I see it TSA Agents are in no way more involved or qualified to take down an attacker at a public place than any other bystander. It has gotten better but 70% of these people are complete Bozo's and shouldn't carry anything sharper than a pencil or they would do significant damage to themselves and others.

I would argue that the odds of being shot are even much less than that. The shooter in this case wasn't a passenger on a plane (though some reports suggest he was holding a boarding pass); there are janitors, visitors to the airport, ticketing agents, taxi drivers, LEOs, restaurant workers, delivery personnel, airline pilots, flight attendants, ground personnel, and TSA agents themselves.

It's much more dangerous working in a printshop than working at the airport. In my hometown there was this in 2012: Shooting.

I would suggest that we arm all workers at printshops before we arm TSA agents.

Is there any study/evidence that ordinary, untrained and uneducated (note: uneducated - means not aware of responsibilities and consequences to one's actions) people's responsibility increases when they are given firearms?

Somehow Stanford Prison Experiment comes into mind...

Pistole's wanted the same thing since before he even got into his TSA office.

I think the assumption is that they would be given firearms only after being given appropriate training, and this training would improve their responsibility.

LEOs generally are more responsible than TSOs because they are better trained, not because they have guns.

Training and being responsible are not related.

No reason to arm checkpoint screeners. The threat is so low that doing so is an unneeded act.

At the moment, they're turned loose on the public after what the TSA calls "appropriate" training.

I'll have to issue a vote of "no confidence" on the TSA being able to "train" their current crop to "appropriate" levels concerning firearms.

After all, they've got an abominable record just over how it's "illegal" to photograph anything/anyone at the checkpoint.

No.

Any other questions?