In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Is bureaucracy stalling armed-pilot legislation?
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Is bureaucracy stalling
armed-pilot legislation?
Some suggest Magaw opposes guns in cockpits due to competition with new air-marshal program
Posted: June 28, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Why has John Magaw - head of the new post-Sept. 11 agency charged with making America's skies safer - chosen to build a vast new bureaucracy of air marshals rather than to arm commercial pilots?
The Transporation Security Administration's stated task is gargantuan: "To protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." Given the American public's zeal for travel, as well as the scope and horror of the 9-11 assault, the agency has its work cut out.
But some officials and aviation experts are wondering aloud whether Magaw - whose last job was as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the Clinton administration, and before that was head of the Secret Service - is too much of a career bureaucrat, busy feathering his nest, rather than concentrating on and adopting ideas that are more efficient, less costly and faster to implement.
Specifically, critics wonder why Magaw is opposed to the idea of arming commercial pilots - an idea that would put armed protectors on virtually every plane in the sky, given the appropriate legislation, in short order. Plus, it's an idea the public overwhelmingly supports.
Bureaucracy-building?
But instead, it appears as though Magaw has chosen a more bureaucratic solution: To greatly expand the federal air marshal program - one that, by some estimates, could eventually involve more personnel than currently is authorized for the U.S. Marine Corps, (175,000 officers and men for FY 2003), according to one official.
"From the numbers that have bandied about," said one GOP staffer, "the air marshals' program would be larger than the FBI, the DEA and all the federal agencies that have agents combined."
And in Washington, some say the amount of turf you control determines the amount of power you wield.
"Director of Transportation Security Magaw . is, by amazing coincidence, the actual individual who will gain enormous power and influence as head of the sky marshal program," said one retired United Airlines pilot, who requested anonymity.
Magaw and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta - also a Clinton holdover - "don't want to see the private airlines or the private pilots do anything for themselves," said Jeff Deist, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "They're bureaucrats, and they see themselves as indispensable, and they want to grow."
"This is a guy who used to be head of BATF," said Deist. "So his hostility for firearms in anyone's hands other than the government is hardly surprising."
"I guess I can't look deep into his soul and figure out his motivation, but I know that he does not have a clear understanding or belief in the free market, private property and the Second Amendment," said Paul in an interview with WorldNetDaily.
A staffer in the office of Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who has sponsored a bill that would allow pilots to fly armed and take the authority for deciding the issue away from the TSA, added that the question of whether Magaw and Mineta were bureaucracy-building was "interesting."
"But to be honest, we haven't had much contact with Magaw and Mineta," the staffer said, noting that Smith has requested meetings with both "that have been ignored."
"We have no idea what the motives are over there regarding the bad decisions they've made," he said. "We only know what's going on by reading news reports."
"I think definitely there is a turf and power struggle involved," said Capt. Bob Lambert, a spokesman for the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, a group that favors arming pilots.
Lambert also said he believes federal arrogance and opposition from the airlines are two factors preventing pilots from being armed.
"Many feel that unless one is a through-and-through fed, one must never have a weapon in the public arena," he said.
Last week, the Washington Post - in a story detailing some of Magaw's spending thus far - reported, "With its plush carpeting, mahogany stained doors, crown molding and state-of-the-art conference room equipped with $109,000 worth of audio equipment, it has struck some visitors as 'a little bit over the top.'"
"There is no question that the agency so far has been without a clue, and they are out of control," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., on the House floor.
Last week, the House Appropriations Committee called Magaw in to give testimony regarding his request for $4.4 billion in supplemental funding for his agency. Members raised questions about each line item, forcing Magaw to explain - among other things - why he is paying new air marshals a starting salary of $45,000 a year, and why an inordinate amount of new hires are already making over $100,000 a year.
Details secret
Deirdre O'Sullivan, a spokeswoman for the TSA, seemed surprised by a separate Post report last week that said new air marshals would be paid $45,000 a year - a figure she would not confirm. She said she was only "authorized" to provide a salary range, which she said "begins at $31,100." She would not disclose a top-end salary.
Asked why Magaw decided to pay federal air marshals more than the $22,000 average starting salary for other federal law officers also mentioned in the Post report, O'Sullivan declined to speculate about the pay scales of other federal agencies.
The Smith staffer said he had not heard what Magaw will be paying air marshals, but added: "I've heard it's very good."
O'Sullivan also refused to disclose how many air marshals would ultimately be hired by TSA. "That's classified," she said in an interview. "We don't discuss many aspects of the federal air marshal program."
Asked to respond to complaints that Magaw may be opposed to arming pilots because it would diminish his air marshal program, O'Sullivan said he took into account his "25 years of law enforcement experience" when making his decision.
"He's concerned about the safety of passengers and crews in the air," she said. "We have just spent a great deal of effort taking weapons out of the airport. Arming pilots would put thousands more back in."
And yet, federal air marshals will fly armed.
"That's correct, but they've been trained to do so," she said.
Dave Schaffer, a spokesman for the House Transportation Committee, said lawmakers on the panel had not been told what federal air marshal salaries would be. He told WorldNetDaily he had "heard the same figures" mentioned in the Post story.
However, he did say the committee had been told how many air marshals would be hired, but he, too, refused to discuss figures.
"The reason is the [TSA] does not want a potential terrorist to know what the odds are they will face an air marshal on a flight," Schaffer said.
Some officials and pilot groups said they were under the impression the Bush administration's goal was to have an air marshal on every flight. Schaffer said that was never the plan.
Passengers at risk?
As certain facts, figures and timetables surrounding Magaw's office and his agency's job description continue to remain secret, however, one thing seems to be evident: American passengers remain vulnerable, at least while they're in the air.
Tom Powell-Bullock, a spokesman for Obey, had no comment on the question of whether Magaw and Mineta were more interested in building bureaucracy. But David Sirota, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said Obey supports the air marshal program.
Lambert said in April that his organization provided TSA Deputy Director Stephen McHale and others a detailed briefing regarding APSA's armed-pilot program. He said the plan calls for using only volunteer pilots who must first pass a federally approved or administered training program before taking a gun onto the flight deck. Upon completion, commercial pilots would be sworn in as federal flight deck officers.
Fiscally speaking, the program is a saver for taxpayers; not a dime of federal money would be used to compensate pilots after completion of the program, he noted.
McHale and others who attended the briefing "were impressed and asked a lot of detailed questions," Lambert said. Magaw did not attend.
"This is not a Second Amendment issue but an airline security issue," Lambert said. "And it's a national security issue."
Paul said he wasn't sure Magaw or Mineta were waging a turf battle as much as he believes there is a "philosophical war going on."
"Some people believe government should have the guns and not the people," he said. "But I believe the Constitution says the people should have them and, minimally, the government."
He said Sept. 11 proved there "is too much dependency on government" in terms of rules and regulations. "The FAA and other agencies said they'd take care of us," said Paul.
"Most homes are still defended - and not touched [by criminals] - by homeowners" with firearms, he said. "I think that principle should be applied to all private property - chemical plants, important locations and commercial airplanes.
"I think the people who are pushing the other way have no respect whatsoever for . the idea that that responsibility falls on the property owner, not government," Paul said.
Bills coming?
A pair of bills currently are wending their way through both houses of Congress, but one version - in the House - is much less favorable to those who support arming pilots.
The House measure, which passed the Transportation Committee on Wednesday, calls for the creation of a trial armed-pilot program. It would permit 250 volunteer pilots to be armed, followed by up to 2,000 pilots - or 2 percent of the workforce - in two years. At the end of that time, the TSA director could either continue the program as is, expand it or cancel it outright.
GOP members said the bill - initially sponsored by Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the Aviation subcommittee - was tempered to win Democratic support.
"I think Democrats will support this bill just to downplay the label that they are anti-gun," one Capitol Hill staffer told WorldNetDaily. "This is an election year."
But the Senate version, sponsored by Smith, calls for allowing pilots to be armed, takes away any liability from the airlines and removes the authority for deciding the issue from TSA.
Paul says he'll vote for the current House version when it reached the full floor - it passed the House Transportation Committee this week - but only because it's the best thing going, he said, not because it's the best possible bill.
"Magaw is no stranger to bureaucratic excess," the Texas Republican said.
In refusing to implement armed-pilot provisions passed last year in a law that, ironically, also created his office, "he believes that he, rather than Congress, will determine federal policy regarding armed pilots," said Paul.
"People ask us, 'How much will your bill cost?'" said the aide to Smith. "We reply, 'It's cost-saving.' If there were an armed-pilot program, we'd save money in the long run because we wouldn't need three air marshals on every flight."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28118
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
armed-pilot legislation?
Some suggest Magaw opposes guns in cockpits due to competition with new air-marshal program
Posted: June 28, 2002
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jon Dougherty
c 2002 WorldNetDaily.com
Why has John Magaw - head of the new post-Sept. 11 agency charged with making America's skies safer - chosen to build a vast new bureaucracy of air marshals rather than to arm commercial pilots?
The Transporation Security Administration's stated task is gargantuan: "To protect the nation's transportation systems to ensure freedom of movement for people and commerce." Given the American public's zeal for travel, as well as the scope and horror of the 9-11 assault, the agency has its work cut out.
But some officials and aviation experts are wondering aloud whether Magaw - whose last job was as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for the Clinton administration, and before that was head of the Secret Service - is too much of a career bureaucrat, busy feathering his nest, rather than concentrating on and adopting ideas that are more efficient, less costly and faster to implement.
Specifically, critics wonder why Magaw is opposed to the idea of arming commercial pilots - an idea that would put armed protectors on virtually every plane in the sky, given the appropriate legislation, in short order. Plus, it's an idea the public overwhelmingly supports.
Bureaucracy-building?
But instead, it appears as though Magaw has chosen a more bureaucratic solution: To greatly expand the federal air marshal program - one that, by some estimates, could eventually involve more personnel than currently is authorized for the U.S. Marine Corps, (175,000 officers and men for FY 2003), according to one official.
"From the numbers that have bandied about," said one GOP staffer, "the air marshals' program would be larger than the FBI, the DEA and all the federal agencies that have agents combined."
And in Washington, some say the amount of turf you control determines the amount of power you wield.
"Director of Transportation Security Magaw . is, by amazing coincidence, the actual individual who will gain enormous power and influence as head of the sky marshal program," said one retired United Airlines pilot, who requested anonymity.
Magaw and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta - also a Clinton holdover - "don't want to see the private airlines or the private pilots do anything for themselves," said Jeff Deist, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. "They're bureaucrats, and they see themselves as indispensable, and they want to grow."
"This is a guy who used to be head of BATF," said Deist. "So his hostility for firearms in anyone's hands other than the government is hardly surprising."
"I guess I can't look deep into his soul and figure out his motivation, but I know that he does not have a clear understanding or belief in the free market, private property and the Second Amendment," said Paul in an interview with WorldNetDaily.
A staffer in the office of Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who has sponsored a bill that would allow pilots to fly armed and take the authority for deciding the issue away from the TSA, added that the question of whether Magaw and Mineta were bureaucracy-building was "interesting."
"But to be honest, we haven't had much contact with Magaw and Mineta," the staffer said, noting that Smith has requested meetings with both "that have been ignored."
"We have no idea what the motives are over there regarding the bad decisions they've made," he said. "We only know what's going on by reading news reports."
"I think definitely there is a turf and power struggle involved," said Capt. Bob Lambert, a spokesman for the Airline Pilots' Security Alliance, a group that favors arming pilots.
Lambert also said he believes federal arrogance and opposition from the airlines are two factors preventing pilots from being armed.
"Many feel that unless one is a through-and-through fed, one must never have a weapon in the public arena," he said.
Last week, the Washington Post - in a story detailing some of Magaw's spending thus far - reported, "With its plush carpeting, mahogany stained doors, crown molding and state-of-the-art conference room equipped with $109,000 worth of audio equipment, it has struck some visitors as 'a little bit over the top.'"
"There is no question that the agency so far has been without a clue, and they are out of control," said Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., on the House floor.
Last week, the House Appropriations Committee called Magaw in to give testimony regarding his request for $4.4 billion in supplemental funding for his agency. Members raised questions about each line item, forcing Magaw to explain - among other things - why he is paying new air marshals a starting salary of $45,000 a year, and why an inordinate amount of new hires are already making over $100,000 a year.
Details secret
Deirdre O'Sullivan, a spokeswoman for the TSA, seemed surprised by a separate Post report last week that said new air marshals would be paid $45,000 a year - a figure she would not confirm. She said she was only "authorized" to provide a salary range, which she said "begins at $31,100." She would not disclose a top-end salary.
Asked why Magaw decided to pay federal air marshals more than the $22,000 average starting salary for other federal law officers also mentioned in the Post report, O'Sullivan declined to speculate about the pay scales of other federal agencies.
The Smith staffer said he had not heard what Magaw will be paying air marshals, but added: "I've heard it's very good."
O'Sullivan also refused to disclose how many air marshals would ultimately be hired by TSA. "That's classified," she said in an interview. "We don't discuss many aspects of the federal air marshal program."
Asked to respond to complaints that Magaw may be opposed to arming pilots because it would diminish his air marshal program, O'Sullivan said he took into account his "25 years of law enforcement experience" when making his decision.
"He's concerned about the safety of passengers and crews in the air," she said. "We have just spent a great deal of effort taking weapons out of the airport. Arming pilots would put thousands more back in."
And yet, federal air marshals will fly armed.
"That's correct, but they've been trained to do so," she said.
Dave Schaffer, a spokesman for the House Transportation Committee, said lawmakers on the panel had not been told what federal air marshal salaries would be. He told WorldNetDaily he had "heard the same figures" mentioned in the Post story.
However, he did say the committee had been told how many air marshals would be hired, but he, too, refused to discuss figures.
"The reason is the [TSA] does not want a potential terrorist to know what the odds are they will face an air marshal on a flight," Schaffer said.
Some officials and pilot groups said they were under the impression the Bush administration's goal was to have an air marshal on every flight. Schaffer said that was never the plan.
Passengers at risk?
As certain facts, figures and timetables surrounding Magaw's office and his agency's job description continue to remain secret, however, one thing seems to be evident: American passengers remain vulnerable, at least while they're in the air.
Tom Powell-Bullock, a spokesman for Obey, had no comment on the question of whether Magaw and Mineta were more interested in building bureaucracy. But David Sirota, a spokesman for the House Appropriations Committee, said Obey supports the air marshal program.
Lambert said in April that his organization provided TSA Deputy Director Stephen McHale and others a detailed briefing regarding APSA's armed-pilot program. He said the plan calls for using only volunteer pilots who must first pass a federally approved or administered training program before taking a gun onto the flight deck. Upon completion, commercial pilots would be sworn in as federal flight deck officers.
Fiscally speaking, the program is a saver for taxpayers; not a dime of federal money would be used to compensate pilots after completion of the program, he noted.
McHale and others who attended the briefing "were impressed and asked a lot of detailed questions," Lambert said. Magaw did not attend.
"This is not a Second Amendment issue but an airline security issue," Lambert said. "And it's a national security issue."
Paul said he wasn't sure Magaw or Mineta were waging a turf battle as much as he believes there is a "philosophical war going on."
"Some people believe government should have the guns and not the people," he said. "But I believe the Constitution says the people should have them and, minimally, the government."
He said Sept. 11 proved there "is too much dependency on government" in terms of rules and regulations. "The FAA and other agencies said they'd take care of us," said Paul.
"Most homes are still defended - and not touched [by criminals] - by homeowners" with firearms, he said. "I think that principle should be applied to all private property - chemical plants, important locations and commercial airplanes.
"I think the people who are pushing the other way have no respect whatsoever for . the idea that that responsibility falls on the property owner, not government," Paul said.
Bills coming?
A pair of bills currently are wending their way through both houses of Congress, but one version - in the House - is much less favorable to those who support arming pilots.
The House measure, which passed the Transportation Committee on Wednesday, calls for the creation of a trial armed-pilot program. It would permit 250 volunteer pilots to be armed, followed by up to 2,000 pilots - or 2 percent of the workforce - in two years. At the end of that time, the TSA director could either continue the program as is, expand it or cancel it outright.
GOP members said the bill - initially sponsored by Rep. John Mica, R-Fla., chairman of the Aviation subcommittee - was tempered to win Democratic support.
"I think Democrats will support this bill just to downplay the label that they are anti-gun," one Capitol Hill staffer told WorldNetDaily. "This is an election year."
But the Senate version, sponsored by Smith, calls for allowing pilots to be armed, takes away any liability from the airlines and removes the authority for deciding the issue from TSA.
Paul says he'll vote for the current House version when it reached the full floor - it passed the House Transportation Committee this week - but only because it's the best thing going, he said, not because it's the best possible bill.
"Magaw is no stranger to bureaucratic excess," the Texas Republican said.
In refusing to implement armed-pilot provisions passed last year in a law that, ironically, also created his office, "he believes that he, rather than Congress, will determine federal policy regarding armed pilots," said Paul.
"People ask us, 'How much will your bill cost?'" said the aide to Smith. "We reply, 'It's cost-saving.' If there were an armed-pilot program, we'd save money in the long run because we wouldn't need three air marshals on every flight."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28118
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878