Flying armed

[KenW.]

who besides me at least for continental flights, thinks the government can lay off all the Air Marshals if they let LEOSA / HR 218 for trained and certified officers take to the skies? Why should we be permitted to fly armed on-duty, and not off-duty? For me, on-duty and off, is just a radio or cell call away. But you put me among airline passengers I can no longer be trusted? We need a bill in Congess. Who is game to write thier Congressman?

[billxdm]

Originally Posted by KenW.

who besides me at least for continental flights, thinks the government can lay off all the Air Marshals if they let LEOSA / HR 218 for trained and certified officers take to the skies? Why should we be permitted to fly armed on-duty, and not off-duty? For me, on-duty and off, is just a radio or cell call away. But you put me among airline passengers I can no longer be trusted? We need a bill in Congess. Who is game to write thier Congressman?

Then you would have to let military fly armed since they are on duty 24/7. I would go for it. I am no longer in but it would have been nice when I was in.

[KenW.]

If they were trained... .SURE!

Originally Posted by billxdm

Then you would have to let military fly armed since they are on duty 24/7. I would go for it. I am no longer in but it would have been nice when I was in.

But they're not on duty in that sense in the civilian arena.

[KenW.]

Then too, one must consider posse commitatus. Federal troops enforcing civil law. Not all hijackers are neccesarily foriegn combatants.

[Wired]

Originally Posted by KenW.

Then too, one must consider posse commitatus. Federal troops enforcing civil law. Not all hijackers are neccesarily foriegn combatants.

But they're violating federal law. I believe any crime that happens on an airplane is under federal jurisdiction.

[KenW.]

Federal law or not. Its not the Department of Defense's position to enforce laws.

[Wired]

Originally Posted by KenW.

Federal law or not. Its not the Department of Defense's position to enforce laws.

Right, but they are there to protect the citizens.

Originally Posted by KenW.

who besides me at least for continental flights, thinks the government can lay off all the Air Marshals if they let LEOSA / HR 218 for trained and certified officers take to the skies? Why should we be permitted to fly armed on-duty, and not off-duty? For me, on-duty and off, is just a radio or cell call away. But you put me among airline passengers I can no longer be trusted? We need a bill in Congess. Who is game to write thier Congressman?

So you want city/ county/ state LEOs to enforce Federal law, but don't want Federal employees to enforce Federal laws?

[texan_eagle_scout]

Different tasks.

I don't expect DOE to secure the airplanes, but they ensure the safety of the citizens at nuclear sites. Inside the US there should be enough LEO passengers to handle this. Make it part of the ticketing process. "I am checking in as a code A passenger." ("A" for armed).

From what I have read the Air Marshall service has (since 9-11) been a monumental waste of money. In total they have made only a handful of arrests, dispite their rather large budget under DHS.

[billxdm]

We can all dream can't we!