Criticize the system and bye-bye permit?

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.news10.net/news/article.a...=top&catid=188

This pilot critiques the checks for airline staff and because of that he loses his gun that he carries as a pilot.

He also loses his state CCW permit.

Seems to me that this is a case that on the surface is a clear violation of his rights. Perhaps the federal removal might necessitate the removal for the investigation but why does the state act?

Do the state laws allow such?

Doesn't sit well with me on the surface reports.

[MLeake]

Haven't seen the video, but having read the article I agree with the points the pilot made.

Saw the same crap when I was flying regional jets.

TSA is a farce.

[HarrySchell]

I can't see how this is legal, given how obvious the points are.

This is not leaking classified information, a la Wikileaks.

And take his state issued CCW? What?

Does this not deprive the man of his livelihood?

No wonder Big Sis thought she could chastise the reporters who aired the Border Patrolman's family comments about her appearance at his funeral. Power has gone to the heads of these petty people.

EPA is going to take over issuing air permits in TX, and do via regulation what Obama can't have in legislation. Sebelius is going to arbitrate private health insurance rates from her castle in DC, just issued a 136 page "rule". Not part of ObamaCare, but since no one said she couldn't, yet, she has decided she can.

See a pattern?

[BILLtheDJguy]

The fact that miltiple agencies showed up in unison, speaks volumes.

Someone needs a chicken sweater, to keep their plummage in order.

[Sefner]

I wish the TSA and other local law enforcement agencies could work together and respond to actual threats so quick!

It's fairly obvious what is going on here, a pilot said the wrong things and the government can't have that. It's government being government and nothing more. Some people might cry Nazi Germany, Pol Pot, Soviet Russia, or whatever, but they are kind of missing the point. When we allow governments to have this kind of power they are going to do things like this with it. I, for one, am sadly not surprised.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Worrying about an armed pilot is one of the most asinine, non-sensical things I've ever heard of.

If a pilot wants to kill people, they can:

1)Uh.... push the stick forward?

2)Um.... maybe no one has noticed but.... there's AN AXE MOUNTED ON THE COCKPIT WALL!!!


When I worked for TSA I personally apologized to every pilot that I had to screen. Got me in trouble. Supervisor told me I couldn't do that. I said, "Obviously, I can, since I do.".... she said, "What I mean is you're not supposed to...", I said "Oh, well, when you show me a rule or regulation that says so, I'll stop.".

She never did, so I never did.

[Skadoosh]

There is a right way and a wrong to correct this problem. Although he did not break the law, this pilot exposed these security issues the wrong way and this is why his clearance revocation SHOULD be considered. The whistleblower act would have protected him in his endeavors to correct the issue had he chosen the correct way to bring up the security issues, but he chose to expose the flaws on Youtube. He did it for his own publicity.

[Aguila Blanca]

No, the whistleblower laws would NOT have helped or "protected" him. I won't go into details, but ... I know this for an absolute fact.

They not only pulled his gun and CCW permit, they also searched his home. Looks to me like a MASSIVE 1st Amendment violation, not to mention 4th Amendment. I hope he gets a good lawyer and cleans house.

[Doc Intrepid]

Originally Posted by Skadoosh

"The whistleblower act would have protected him in his endeavors to correct the issue had he chosen the correct way to bring up the security issues, but he chose to expose the flaws on Youtube. He did it for his own publicity."

Possibly true.

...but wait until someone loses their CCW over some remarks they make on an online forum that the government disagrees with.

Where along the line between complaining to your supervisor and calling a news conference do you lose your right to publicly comment without dire consequences?

[2guns]

Herein lies the problem with the entire concept of licensing the "right" to bear arms.

"To license a right is a restriction of said right."
MURDOCK -V- COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA (City of Jeannette)
319 US 105 (1942)

When one submits to the permit or licensing of firearms or the carry of same one then becomes subjected to any abuse of authority as seen in this case.

I will say for the record, that I have a carry permit because I choose to try to avoid any hassles with LEO's but it is an act of pragmatism and it does not sit well with me.

[Skadoosh]

No, the whistleblower laws would NOT have helped or "protected" him. I won't go into details, but ... I know this for an absolute fact.

Spare us the details. But do tell us how this would not have protected him.

[Skadoosh]

Where along the line between complaining to your supervisor and calling a news conference do you lose your right to publicly comment without dire consequences?

But you missed the point. He never went to his supervisors! He took a video and posted it on Youtube instead! He was reckless and possibly created a bigger problem by posting on the world wide web than if he had gone to his supervisors and had the issue corrected internally. That, sir, is jumping over a big thick line.

Look at this way: should a marine on the frontlines post a video of a hole in the perimeter wire for all to see?...or should he report it to his/her chain of command and have the problem looked into?

[TXAZ]

DHS is becoming an embattled joke that has lost focus of the problem.
"The system worked". "The system failed horribly." All I can say is thank God for alert passengers.
This is not the first time DHS or the administration has (IMHO) over-reacted, and violated Constitutionally protected rights. I believe this is another attempt to silence through harassment those that point out embarrassing oversights by DHS.

I've worked in Homeland Security & Airports since well before 911, and heard and saw nothing that the referenced video exposed that was not overtly discoverable by a casual observer, common knowledge, clearly unclassified, or otherwise legitimately sensitive information not currently in the public domain.

On the flip side, I formally noted to authorities multiple instances of a security discrepancy at a major US airport several years ago I was traveling through, that would allow most anyone with mal-intent to surreptitiously sneak 2-5 lbs of play-doh, switch-combs,*toy pistols or high energy liquids or powders. The reply I got back was a blowoff at best.

As of a month ago, the security holes were still there, no action taken. I really hope no one travels through this airport with play-doh.

If competence is a virtue, Big Sis must be a W****.

Maybe it's time to try an Archie Bunker solution

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Skadoosh

Spare us the details. But do tell us how this would not have protected him.

Simple. The whistleblower law, like so many laws, is a lie. The .gov pays lip service to protecting whistleblowers, but in reality they consider them to be nuisances and they treat them as collateral damage in any investigation that may arise out of their claims.

Been there, done that ... twice (I'm either a REALLY good guy or a REALLY slow learner). The first time it only cost me a good job. The second time, even though the prosecuting U.S. Attorney knew I was innocent and knew that I wanted anonymity, decided she needed my testimony ... so I was offered a choice: testify, or we'll charge you as an accomplice.

Please tell me more about how wonderful the whistleblower laws are.

[Wildalaska]

Perfect Sec 1983 case....o wait he lives in California

WildnevermindAlaska ™©2002-2010

[Shane Tuttle]

Originally Posted by Skadoosh

There is a right way and a wrong to correct this problem. Although he did not break the law, this pilot exposed these security issues the wrong way and this is why his clearance revocation SHOULD be considered. The whistleblower act would have protected him in his endeavors to correct the issue had he chosen the correct way to bring up the security issues, but he chose to expose the flaws on Youtube. He did it for his own publicity.

It's arguable the pilot should have gone to his supervisor first. Work your way up the chain of command is usually the respectful thing to do. But this is different. Not knowing what exactly his supervisor has regarding to powers/responsibilities, I might say it was going to be a waste of time and resources. Another point is how do you know he didn't go to his superiors first?

As 2guns makes a point of it being a "permit", I also see it as the 2nd Amendment takes precedence to a degree. The agency issuing a permit has the burden on them to prove there was an actual violation of exercising the pilot's right under the 2nd Amendment. I think sticking stuff on Youtube is, for the most part (and lack of better terms), stupid. In this case, I see nothing whatsoever in the provisions of his permit stating he wasn't allowed to do what he did. He exercised free speech and went to the press to boot. I support, nay, applaud the pilot for speaking his mind and exposing the truth behind TSA's abysmal so-called "security" measures. The guy stood on top of a mountain an shouted for the core reason why we're here.

I can give a rat's behind if he did it for his own vanity. I personally don't think he did. He wanted to remain anonymous as well as what company he flies for out of respect (and to keep his job). Shallow? I don't think so. In this day and age, not many companies allow continued employment when someone exercises their freedoms if it places the spotlight on them.

Doesn't sit well with me on the surface reports.

Me neither, Glenn. I do wonder why it's the state that issues the permits. I thought International Airports' properties are under different jurisdiction. Maybe because he's a resident of Cali? Still doesn't make sense. He doesn't need to CCW in order to transport on airport property, per se, in order to CCW on his assigned aircraft.

I hate to say this, but if he was deputized and the federal authorities are going to investigate, I think they have the right to confiscate his federally issued firearm. But that's IT. I know it sounds hypocritical since I don't think his CCW shouldn't be suspended. But the state issued that and my opinion is a federal entity shouldn't have the power to revoke a state issued permit at this time.

On a side note, I do agree with the pilot's assertion on the screening they have to go through compared to ground crews merely swiping a card. I know first hand experience on how right he is on this practice.

[hogdogs]

Although he did not break the law, this pilot exposed these security issues the wrong way and this is why his clearance revocation SHOULD be considered.

I don't think the little things he pointed out are risks not seen by any person with awareness. I don't have nefarious intentions and I see these weaknesses in many so called "secure areas".

And why go to his bosses? They are in the business of flying folks thru venues they do not have any say in.

He simply pointed out that the whole deal is a farce...

Pilots get searched but ground crew can easily bring down an aircraft? I would be ticked off too!

Brent

[bob.a]

I don't know if he had previously tried to go thru proper channels to convey his concerns. Certainly I've heard before this that ground crew security ranges from lax to nonexistent. Of course ground crew jobs are much easier for someone to get, making the security hole even bigger.

Publicity of this nature is the quickest, and perhaps the best, way to bring his matter into public view for discussion and, hopefully, action.

However, large organisations tend to be "about" the organisation, far more than the mission. That's why "governmental efficiency" is an oxymoron.

Most intelligent people see TSA as little more than an extremely expensive boondoggle, with little hope of actually accomplishing it mission. But that's what the government does best; we're experts at fighting the last war, this time. Say it too loudly in public, especially with evidence, and expect to get pounded.

Same story, over and over, for the last forty or fifty years that I've been watching. I don't expect it to change, though I wish it would.

[Shane Tuttle]

Certainly I've heard before this that ground crew security ranges from lax to nonexistent. Of course ground crew jobs are much easier for someone to get, making the security hole even bigger.

Make no mistake. Depending on the airport and the airline you wish to be employed, you're gone over with a fine tooth comb. It isn't like a would-be terrorist can walk right on up and be a Ramp Rat without any hitches in the get-along...

[TXAZ]

PHP Code:

Make no mistake. Depending on the airport and the airline you wish to be
 employed, you're gone over with a fine tooth comb. It isn't like a would-be
 terrorist can walk right on up and be a Ramp Rat without any hitches in the 
get-along... 


I would disagree with this statement. A knowledgable attacker / a studious observer will likely find several successful approaches to getting a job in airside operations, ultimately allowing them to "walk right up and be a Ramp Rat". This has happened in the past. TWIC cards may help in some ways but there are still substantial holes.

The only good news is most of the 'terrorist' the US has encountered in the last several decades haven't been the brightest crayon in the box.

[Al Norris]

I've read several news articles. Here's what I think I know, from putting the various agreeing facts together.

The Pilot was deputized as a Federal Flight Deck Officer (FFDO), with arrest powers, etc. The gun that was confiscated was an issued service firearm. Hence it can be confiscated by the issuing authority. In this case, the TSA.

The pictures/videos that were posted included many areas that the TSA claims are sterile areas. Therefore, according to the TSA, he violated national security. Because of this, his issued firearm and his status as an FFDO have been revoked. He is currently under investigation for those breaches.

The CCW permit was issued by a CA Sheriff, who can revoke or suspend the permit for almost any tangible reason. His permit was revoked, pending the TSA investigation.

That's the legal status of what's happened. All "above board."

This is security theater at its finest. Just move along, folks. Nothing to see here..... :barf:

[Shane Tuttle]

The only good news is most of the 'terrorist' the US has encountered in the last several decades haven't been the brightest crayon in the box.

And how many terrorists have been employed by an airline to perform duties of a baggage handler only to successfully perform a terrorist act?

Then that explains the hot water he's in, Al. I wondered but never bothered to post the question if his photos/videos were compromising national security. And his CCW permit being suspended pending investigation of breaching national security would arguably make sense.

[Crosshair]

Security through obscurity is no security at all.

Once again people who supposedly care about the constitution and the 2nd amendment are all to eager to shoot the messenger and throw them off a cliff and totally ignore the merits of the message.

That the TSA is a total joke and there are holes big enough to drive a truck through are no big secret.

[MLeake]

Civilians go through the "secure area" all the time. It's anything inside the TSA checkpoints. I have never seen a photography prohibition in a terminal, so I am not so sure about TSA's assertion.

Meanwhile, I don't know of any ground crew terrorist cells, yet. However, for Shane Tuttle, google drug smuggling or weapons smuggling along with Florida airport, and you should find at least two major busts within the last year. Drug smuggling via ground crew at Orlando, and weapons smuggling via ground crew at either Ft Lauderdale or Miami, IIRC.

So much for screening, eh?

Nothing the pilot posted could not have been found by searching mainstream media (Orlando Sentinel, Miami Herald, etc).

[publius42]

Originally Posted by Antipitas

This is security theater at its finest. Just move along, folks. Nothing to see here...:barf:

Thanks for summarizing, Al. Simple lessons here: try not to live in California of course, and if you have a security clearance and see what a farce the whole thing is, go along and do your job if you wish to keep it.