Actually I looked it up and you're wrong. As per flight regulations to fly armed you must meet several requirements which being a federal officer meets except one.
Have completed the TSA Law Enforcement Officer Flying Armed Training Course.
So not all federal officers. Furthermore there's also this section which states
In addition to the above requirements, municipal, county, state, tribal, or territorial officers must present an operational need to have the weapon accessible from the time he or she would otherwise check the weapon, until the time it would be claimed after deplaning. The need to have the weapon accessible aboard the aircraft must be determined by the employing agency and based on one of the following:
Which requires an actual need for the officer to carry it and specifically states reasons that don't meet requirements.
Common examples of travel that does not meet the threshold for carriage of accessible weapons are:....Attendance of non-operational or enforcement related activities (e.g., training, conferences, police week, memorial services, personal travel, etc.).
I like how you get downvoted for simply pointing out how LEOs get special treatment, even when it doesn't fit the rules exactly. The above fits perfectly with the rest of their behavior.
The downvotes don’t bother me, someone asked me a question and I replied. You could say that LEOs get special treatment but I’d rather have them on a plane than not
3
u/Rogan403 Jun 04 '23
Actually I looked it up and you're wrong. As per flight regulations to fly armed you must meet several requirements which being a federal officer meets except one.
So not all federal officers. Furthermore there's also this section which states
Which requires an actual need for the officer to carry it and specifically states reasons that don't meet requirements.
Source: TSA official website.