It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

H.R. 3484: Airport Security Act of 2013 - The Arming of the TSA

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   
The Airport Security Act of 2013. In light of events in LAX, it seems a bill has been introduced that states the following.

The Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security (Transportation Security Administration) shall establish and carry out a program to prohibit, except as provided in paragraph (3), any individual from possessing a firearm at a covered airport, including any individual who enters the airport, or who exits public transportation at the airport, for the following purposes:

(A)Air travel.
(B)Meeting another individual.
(C)Picking up cargo.
(D)Employment at the airport

So, in other words, you CANNOT bring a firearm to an airport. Now, the part that I do not get is the following if you look at exceptions. This is where it gets interesting and I think how they will arm the TSA without any other laws to be passed. It is not in the wording of the bill but it is there in plain sight.

Individuals authorized to carry a firearm
An individual who, by regulation, is authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to carry a firearm at the covered airport.

(B)Travelers
An individual who possesses a firearm, if—

(i)the firearm is unloaded, carried in a hard-sided container that is locked, and the key or combination to the lock is in the exclusive possession of the individual; and
(ii)the individual—
(I)is carrying a ticket in the name of the individual for a flight that is scheduled for departure from the covered airport within 24 hours or that has arrived at the airport within the preceding 24 hours; or
(II)communicates the intention to obtain a ticket for departure referred to in subclause (I) at the covered airport and obtains and carries such ticket or does not obtain such ticket for a compelling reason.
(C)Individuals shipping firearms
An individual who possesses a firearm in a capacity relating to the shipment of the firearm in air commerce and who, by regulation, is authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to possess the firearm at the covered airport in such capacity.

(D)Law enforcement officers
An on-duty law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the Federal Government, who is authorized to carry a firearm.

(E)Certain individuals on public transportation
An individual passing through an airport on public transportation.

(F)Additional authorized individuals
An individual who is otherwise authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to possess a firearm at a covered airport.

So, if you are a private citizen you can bring a 'unloaded' firearm and fly with it or ship it which, in effect, means nothing once you get to where you are going unless you can buy ammo. So, this is one way to prevent us from travelling with ammo to a destination.

Second - Read (E) "Certain individuals on public transpo" and (F)"An individual authorized by the FAA or the Assistant Secretary.". There it is..... The ability to arm the TSA folks. The ability for the government to, meaning DHS, arm those they want and disarm those they choose. Infringement on the 2nd Amendment and making a precedent.


What are your thoughts?

LINK TO BILL - Link



Congressman Johnson said the recent shooting at LAX prompted the legislation. "It defies logic that we would allow anyone other than law enforcement officials to carry a loaded gun within an airport,” he said.

The union representing TSA agents switched its position on carrying guns and now says some agents should be armed. U.S. Attorney Eric Holder says "given what happened in Los Angeles," the issue should be examined.

Johnson's measure has nearly a dozen co-sponsors, all of them House Democrats, including Henry Waxman of Los Angeles. The bill's been sent to the Homeland Security Committee.

A similar bill was introduced in the Democratic-led Senate three years ago. The measure died before ever getting a committee hearing.


LINK


edit on 11pm30pmfu2013-11-18T22:58:45-06:001045 by matafuchs because: sp




posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 


All that "E" is referencing is any individual riding public transportation (i.e. a bus or subway) passing through the airport area. Seems pretty self-evident to me.

The other bit about excepting those authorized to be armed would apply to pilots, air marshals, etc...

I guess it could apply to TSA as well but then TSA staff would have to be specifically "authorized" legally to be armed. This bill wouldn't do that. NOt saying any subsequent bill (or executive order -- cue foreboding music...) couldn't or wouldn't do so, but this specific one doesn't.
edit on 18/11/13 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
You've never been able to carry a firearm into an airport, even with a permit to carry, with a few exceptions. So this is just another law added onto that one, adding in a few other areas to it.



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by 35Foxtrot
 


"I guess it could apply to TSA as well but then TSA staff would have to be specifically "authorized" legally to be armed. This bill wouldn't do that. NOt saying any subsequent bill couldn't or wouldn't do so, but this specific one doesn't. "

exactly....paving stones that build the roadway...one at a time

X



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Xcouncil=wisdom
reply to post by 35Foxtrot
 


"I guess it could apply to TSA as well but then TSA staff would have to be specifically "authorized" legally to be armed. This bill wouldn't do that. NOt saying any subsequent bill couldn't or wouldn't do so, but this specific one doesn't. "

exactly....paving stones that build the roadway...one at a time

X


Not really. This bill doesn't really do much that previous bills didn't do already. As Zaphod stated. I really think any bill attempting to authorize the TSA staff currently employed as screeners to be armed would face SIGNIFICANT opposition in either house. Either that, or require much more stringent hiring and training standards on par with other federal law enforcement as a prerequisite to even considering such authorization.
edit on 18/11/13 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 


It says the firearm has to be unloaded, it says nothing about carrying ammunition within the container transporting the unloaded firearm and it also says nothing about carrying the ammunition separately. Am I mistaken, am I reading this wrong?

It seems to me a bit of common sense that one should not be boarding a plane with a loaded weapon. If it were to be fired by intention, misadventure or plain accident, one little hole in the fuselage or wing, can bring the plane down pretty fast.

Don't get me wrong, I am pretty much all-for everyone CC'ing firearms, or open carry for that matter, but in a situation where one mistake can kill 200-400 people and bring down millions of dollars in hardware, plus the effects on the ground from a major crash, I don't think loaded firearms are a good idea on planes. So, if there are no major restrictions on carrying your ammunition in a locked box either with or separate from the firearm, I don't see a big problem.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   
this should already be in place.

Law enforcement officers excluded. No one is to carry firearms.

Most airports of international standards in the u.s. have a county or airport police dept.

So why would you take a security guard...Pinkerton..etc..etc...someone not trained in Coercive force....and give them a gun!



Oh the potential for calamity!
What The Frack!

OK let's sit and watch!


Edit: it is in place. Just call your local airport authority! Mine is Pittsburgh... ask for Penrod!

edit on 19-11-2013 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)


Edit part 2: so this is happening..we're doing this...

Signed off on retirement less than a month..and this is going down...

Never thought I'd see the day some ex-Taco bell employee get to decide a fate by fire arm...

Ah.. no offense to current TB employees who serve my CHALUPAS. You work hard I know. But the grudge holders!

edit on 19-11-2013 by Bigburgh because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Any man that expects to grope my nether regions and live should be armed.

I don't blame them.




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Metallicus
Any man that expects to grope my nether regions and live should be armed.

I don't blame them.



He..hehe!...hahahaaaaaaa!




And that made my night.. thanks for a good laugh...


G'night ATS!



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:05 AM
link   
What amazes me is all the exceptions to the no gun at airport rule. Theres a ton of them.

Of course, the no crazy people with guns allowed rule is unwritten.

Those people don't care about the law anyway.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by matafuchs
 




It seems to me a bit of common sense that one should not be boarding a plane with a loaded weapon. If it were to be fired by intention, misadventure or plain accident, one little hole in the fuselage or wing, can bring the plane down pretty fast.


source of information

There will always be the risk of injury, but the level of risk is thought to be manageable.

There is the potential for gunshots to penetrate the cabin walls, but this is unlikely to lead to serious cabin decompression.

Unlike Hollywood's more lurid movies, it is not likely passengers would be sucked out of a plane to their deaths.

Even a missing window can be compensated for by the plane's air supplies, and pilots are trained to descend should cabin pressure be affected.

Aircraft must also carry enough fuel to divert to a nearby airport.

There is the risk that gunfire will hit critical systems, but air marshals are trained to watch the background behind their target.

They also use what is called 'pre-fragmented ammunition' which is designed to break apart on impact, not pass through the body.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:44 AM
link   

35Foxtrot
reply to post by matafuchs
 


All that "E" is referencing is any individual riding public transportation (i.e. a bus or subway) passing through the airport area. Seems pretty self-evident to me.

The other bit about excepting those authorized to be armed would apply to pilots, air marshals, etc...

I guess it could apply to TSA as well but then TSA staff would have to be specifically "authorized" legally to be armed. This bill wouldn't do that. NOt saying any subsequent bill (or executive order -- cue foreboding music...) couldn't or wouldn't do so, but this specific one doesn't.
edit on 18/11/13 by 35Foxtrot because: (no reason given)


Seems to give power to:


(F)Additional authorized individuals
An individual who is otherwise authorized by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Assistant Secretary to possess a firearm at a covered airport.


Whether or not they have that power already I'm not sure. Who are the security authorized by now? As they aren't police or TSA agents…



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   


So... ahh.. THAT guy up there is armed and keeping me safe? Seems to me it would be pretty simple to simply take a gun from a TSA agent.. asleep or not. I feel so damned safe now its incredible. Thanks Feds for making the world safer from terrorists and wackadoodles! We definitely need more authority figures with no education or much of anything else armed to the teeth who consider us all potential terrorists. YeeeeHAW!




posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by matafuchs
 


Ugh.... Absolutely not, and I cant stress that enough.

Gun control arguments are doomed from their inception simply because a person who is intent on breaking the law will do so, regardless of laws prohibiting said action.

As for the info about airports - If I remember right an individual can carry a concealed firearm into an airport so long as they don't try to go through to the secured areas (needs to be double checked,, it might vary by states).

Maybe if the Federal Government spent more time trying to fix things and less time creating knee jerk legislation that will make matters worse, we might not need some of the security measures put in place. A government that ignores its citizens is bad enough... When that government develops a paranoid mentality on top of that we are going to have more severe issues.

I would rather see the Feds get rid of the TSA and spend the money from that budget to hire more local law enforcement for airports.

Government overreach must be put in check... Remember to vote people.. Contact your representatives and voice your concerns to them.



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Good points from many of you. The TSA already has armed personnel. ASO's. My point to this is that once a precedent is set for who can or cannot arm themselves it is easier to interpret later on to restrict.

It does not state you cannot have ammo but I am sure that it will be enforced in that fashion. Why not, as it is open to interpretation and when you are leaving on a flight do you want to argue the point, get arrested or leave it?

If there were a few CWP holders at LAX they may have shot him sooner also....



posted on Nov, 19 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by yeaok
 


I agree that unless a critical component is hit, it should not be a major problem and that air marshals are trained to target correctly while examining their target background issues. I also agree that the use of "loose frag" rounds would more than likely be used in a close quarters environment to mitigate additional damage.

But, I can calculate the point in a plane that if a shot were fired in the correct direction, it is very likely a 9mmp, 357 or 44 would pass right through the fuselage and enter the wing tanks or an engine. I don't know if they are using kevlar in the walls of the cockpit (I believe it's in the doors) and if that is the case, the walls are easily penetrable with any firearm. Taking out the pilot and/or copilot plus possibly instrumentation would also create a highly critical situation. I will admit that it is unlikely, accident or misadventure would create either of those two scenarios, but a person carrying a gun and having a psychotic break (or by intention) might. I would prefer in this case to err on the side of caution.

So, guns and ammunition in locked boxes, you still get to take it all. I've got a little ammunition box here that could take a 9mmP and a 500 rounds and I would have no problem locking it and handing it to the captain if they wanted it that way or going through stowed baggage.

Cheers - Dave



new topics




 
5

log in

join