Question Volunteer Air Marshals or, What Do We Do With A Sober Mutant?

So, we have the (Whateley Universe) United States' take on paranormal volunteer Air Marshals ("The Case of the Poisonous Patent")

“I trust you won’t need to beat me about the head and shoulders anytime soon, so leave it in its keeper, please,” the agent chuckled.  “Ok, let’s deal with the paperwork: ticket and permits please.”  These were produced and quickly run through a reader on his side of the counter.  “Alright, Loophole, you’ve flown from Hartsfield before, so you know the drill.  For form’s sake I’m offering you the choice of checking this weapon or serving as a volunteer Air Marshal as I see on record you’ve passed Paranormal Law, Rights and Responsibilities of Good Samaritan Law Enforcement and received a passing grade on your Citizenship and Government class, and you’ve been signed off on by the Range Master at Whateley.  What is your choice?”

Doc sighed.  “Ah’ll volunteer for this flight.”

Do other countries do the same, or have similar programs? As a airline passenger my response to having Soeur Justice volunteer would likely be "I'll take two, please!", but not everyone might feel that way.

Personally my brother is an ex air Marshall and he moved up the federal cop chain to higher office.

I have to totally suspend my belief in laws every-time I hear or read the 'Loophole' character being an 'air marshall' at under 18YO and not trained for months to do the job and know the regs+ laws!
Heck you can't even be a 'beat cop' till age 21! That one I know as fact, can't bust someone in a bar...if you are too young to go in!!!! lol

But I have never heard of a 'volunteer' air marshall EVER. Maybe local sheriffs and PD? But never a Federal position that crosses international borders, because sending an untrained person might be REAL bad deal!

But from what I have heard, other nations do some of the same thing and then there is Air El AL en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al...that has even more training of course!

Minimum age for Florida Highway Patrol and Miami-Dade County Police is 19.

The drinking age limit is for alcohol consumption, not for enforcing the law.

lighttech wrote: I have to totally suspend my belief in laws every-time I hear or read the 'Loophole' character being an 'air marshall' at under 18YO and not trained for months to do the job and know the regs+ laws!
Heck you can't even be a 'beat cop' till age 21! That one I know as fact, can't bust someone in a bar...if you are too young to go in!!!! lol

Well, you really don't need to suspend your disbelief, because it can happen in OUR world.

In the Army, the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) code for a Military Police Personnel (MP) is 31B. MPs go through OSUT (One Station Unit Training) of 20 weeks. This includes the 8 Weeks of Basic Training leaving 12 weeks of Training to be an MP in law enforcement, shoot don't shoot, etc. That's 3 months by the way.

MPs have jurisdiction on all military bases and other federal property or place where Federal Law applies. (That would include airplanes, BTW)

The minimum age to enlist, with Parental Permission is 17. So yes, you could encounter a 17 year old armed MP on a domestic flight who would have law enforcement jurisdiction.

That is our world, now let's look at Whateley Academy. In the 'real world' an amendment to the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 raised the minimum age to possess a purchase or possess a handgun to 21. In the Whateley Universe this amendment was defeated and not attached to the bill so in that universe the age is still 16, just like long guns.

That universe also has a Federal Concealed Carry permit, the course work of which the Academy also teaches, covering basically the same material taught to an MP over the same amount of time, a semester or about 3 months. The Whateley Ranges are accredited to provide and certify the instruction required of the Federal Concealed Carry Permit, and it's option to be sworn and preform as a 'volunteer Air Marshall'.

null0trooper wrote: Minimum age for Florida Highway Patrol and Miami-Dade County Police is 19.

The drinking age limit is for alcohol consumption, not for enforcing the law.

And I am sure that for a long time Florida's drinking age was 18??? because it was back in 1984 the last time I was there.

But in cali--21 or not a cop

E.E. I can see a MP having jurisdiction over a military base----but on a United jet going to anywhere? Never heard of one telling a civi what to do and if not for a gun on his belt? I would never listen to one...I am not 'in service' and not under UCMJ at all.

I'll ask my brother the federal expert on that one. He knows those laws inside and out.

Specifically the branch is referred to as Aviation Law. It draws it's roots from the Laws of the Sea and Admiralty, but basically aircraft in flight are governed by Federal Law and only Federal Law Enforcement Agents (Military Police included) have jurisdiction. There is an excellent article at Wikipedia if you're interested, but the relevant quote is:

Wikipedia wrote: In the U.S., states cannot govern aviation matters in most cases directly but look to Federal laws and case law for this function instead. For example, a court recently struck down New York's Passenger Bill of Rights law because regulation of aviation is traditionally a federal concern.

Source.

just got the bro on this and he is the BIG federal expert on this one.
His creds
Ex MP....state trooper...air Marshall....FBI...now does consulting on anti terror or officer involved shootings for states and feds on both.

his text back to me on this.

Any military police ONLY has jurisdiction on base (not even off base). Once a person leaves the base the MP usually has to have some sort of local cop to basically operate under their authority and it would be the local cop to make any kind of arrest and such and then hand over the person to the military police.

Now, with an airliner - no, the military police do not have any sort of jurisdiction on a plane. There's a lot of ins and outs on it, but it's covered over Special Maritime Jurisdiction that was originally created to cover US ships at sea. Only a federal officer has jurisdiction and it's primarily the FBI and Air Marshals that do that (basically the Air Marshals do actions in place of the FBI and then turn over the bad guy once they land).

No military police officer should ever be allowed to carry any firearm on a plane without department authorization (it can happen with any local PD). If something happens on the plane then they could take action because they would basically be doing it until the FBI takes over. Any officer flying armed on a plane has to take specialized airline training (basically a Powerpoint class) I've never seen an MP with a gun on a plane and would be immediately suspicious (this does not include NCIS, OSI, CID, DOD police etc.)

But in our WA world anything goes that is canon...who needs jets ---"I can fly!"---lol

I think this sums up where MPs can act.

MP have authority to take appropriate action with persons subject to the UCMJ. This authority is not limited to military reservations or federal property. All active duty military personnel are subject to the provisions of the UCMJ. It also pertains to some retired members and other personnel enumerated in Article 2, UCMJ.

FM 19-10 Chapter 5

lighttech wrote:

null0trooper wrote: Minimum age for Florida Highway Patrol and Miami-Dade County Police is 19.

The drinking age limit is for alcohol consumption, not for enforcing the law.

And I am sure that for a long time Florida's drinking age was 18??? because it was back in 1984 the last time I was there.

It was, about that long ago, and was a two-tier age limit at that. However, the rules in 2017 are that local and FHP officers need to be 19.

lighttech wrote: E.E. I can see a MP having jurisdiction over a military base----but on a United jet going to anywhere? Never heard of one telling a civi what to do and if not for a gun on his belt? I would never listen to one...I am not 'in service' and not under UCMJ at all.

You might not be charged under the UCMJ, but on-base civilians still need to comply with Federal law and with base regulations whether they are older than the MP stopping them or not. Civil Service employees on-base likewise are responsible for following DoD directives.

--

The nature of the Whateley Universe does complicate matters because you now have a class of citizens who cannot be disarmed without incapacitating them or killing them. It also overlaps with the set of people liable to hijack an aircraft.

But in both cases, the U.S.A. isn't the only sovereign country on the planet, and other laws can apply.

E.g., I'm putting my officially 14-y.o. and not-a-U.S. citizen onto a British Airways flight to Gatwick, following on to Trondheim, return flight is out of Copenhagen. Let's say he's completed the qualifying coursework. His MMID has a classified WIZ code, but there's reason to believe that his pistol is somewhat less dangerous than his magic. What is likely to happen?

null0trooper wrote:

lighttech wrote:

null0trooper wrote: Minimum age for Florida Highway Patrol and Miami-Dade County Police is 19.

The drinking age limit is for alcohol consumption, not for enforcing the law.

And I am sure that for a long time Florida's drinking age was 18??? because it was back in 1984 the last time I was there.

It was, about that long ago, and was a two-tier age limit at that. However, the rules in 2017 are that local and FHP officers need to be 19.

lighttech wrote: E.E. I can see a MP having jurisdiction over a military base----but on a United jet going to anywhere? Never heard of one telling a civi what to do and if not for a gun on his belt? I would never listen to one...I am not 'in service' and not under UCMJ at all.

You might not be charged under the UCMJ, but on-base civilians still need to comply with Federal law and with base regulations whether they are older than the MP stopping them or not. Civil Service employees on-base likewise are responsible for following DoD directives.

--

The nature of the Whateley Universe does complicate matters because you now have a class of citizens who cannot be disarmed without incapacitating them or killing them. It also overlaps with the set of people liable to hijack an aircraft.

But in both cases, the U.S.A. isn't the only sovereign country on the planet, and other laws can apply.

E.g., I'm putting my officially 14-y.o. and not-a-U.S. citizen onto a British Airways flight to Gatwick, following on to Trondheim, return flight is out of Copenhagen. Let's say he's completed the qualifying coursework. His MMID has a classified WIZ code, but there's reason to believe that his pistol is somewhat less dangerous than his magic. What is likely to happen?

He's not taking his gun with him on the flight, unless he wants serious hassle from the Brits.
We really dont like people wandering around with guns, even if they aren't loaded. And the security guys at London are armed and dont take chances. Norma procedure would be for the gun to be checked into the hold baggage.

Being a mage, they are much more comfortable with.

Astrodragon wrote:
Being a mage, they are much more comfortable with.

That would be funny

A gun is more dangerous than changing the plane into say a pumpkin!

lighttech wrote:

Astrodragon wrote:
Being a mage, they are much more comfortable with.

That would be funny

A gun is more dangerous than changing the plane into say a pumpkin!

The British get very unhappy about guns.
Mages they are used to (relatively)

Besides, if the mage turns the plane into a pumpkin he's still inside it. Pumpkins aren't terribly aerodynamic.

Astrodragon wrote: Besides, if the mage turns the plane into a pumpkin he's still inside it. Pumpkins aren't terribly aerodynamic.

But it would be a pumpkin, with wings!

And a frickin' laser on top, because lasers are cool.

"Excuse me, Mr. Terrorist? We, uhm, don't want to alarm you, but there might be a mage on-board. So if you have a plan that doesn't involve us ALL getting eaten with ketchup or curry because you annoyed them on holiday, NOW would be a good time to switch to that plan."

In other words, the existence of mutants makes already complicated situations even more complicated, so the powers-that-be patched it sloppily with a law, and that law will stand as long as it mostly works okay and isn't actively causing problems?

Arcanist Lupus wrote: In other words, the existence of mutants makes already complicated situations even more complicated, so the powers-that-be patched it sloppily with a law, and that law will stand as long as it mostly works okay and isn't actively causing problems?

How is that any different from the legislative process in the Real World? Oh, I know. In the Real World, the sloppily-patched law will stand even if it's actively causing problems. And sometimes, sloppy laws are passed for political reasons, even though everybody -- including the proponent of the law -- knows that it will cause problems.

Sir Lee wrote:

Arcanist Lupus wrote: In other words, the existence of mutants makes already complicated situations even more complicated, so the powers-that-be patched it sloppily with a law, and that law will stand as long as it mostly works okay and isn't actively causing problems?

How is that any different from the legislative process in the Real World? Oh, I know. In the Real World, the sloppily-patched law will stand even if it's actively causing problems. And sometimes, sloppy laws are passed for political reasons, even though everybody -- including the proponent of the law -- knows that it will cause problems.

The light goes on!


Ahhhh now it makes sense!
Just compare this whole thing to all the sloppy, patchwork, BS, do nothing, media hype, politically motivated, laws like we have right here in California!!!!!

NOW it truly makes sense!!!!

I have some limited experience with firearms and aircraft... The under-age volunteer air marshal is a NO-GO in the "real world" for a variety of reasons. But there are many (relatively speaking) people that can fly while armed. The most basic requirements are in the code of federal regulations. Essentially they come down to: you must be a LEO that is a direct government employee, be authorized to enforce criminal or immigration statutes, be authorized to have the weapon in question, complete the LEO flying armed course.

For non-federal officers you must "present an operational need to have the weapon accessible". Typically, that means you are assigned to a protective duty, conducting hazardous surveillance, prisoner escort, be available for immediate duty on arrival, acting as a federal officer.

There is one other section of law that authorizes armed travel, even on aircraft. Official government couriers are sometimes authorized to travel armed. This is seldom applicable these days however. We don't do much in the "hard copy, hand delivered, eyes only" type of business these days. It does still happen, rarely. Then, when it does happen, it is usually a short trip, not something that requires getting on an aircraft.

That being said, there are times that some government and military personnel are authorized to travel armed, even if it is by air. There are also times military personnel are not authorized to travel armed... Then there are the times when you get to see true government grade shenanigans... Like a group of Soldiers/Sailors/Marines/Airmen with M9's and M16's, but they have to turn over their nail clippers and pocket knives. I lost a nice Gerber that way, but I still had a M9 on my belt...pure government genius.

A very valid point JG, which is why I specified "real world" in the comment. In the context of the Whateley Universe it makes more sense, and the story did include something of a training requirement which does conform to the precepts of both the "real world" and the Whateley Universe. However, and I may be wrong (it does happen much to my shame, I am not infallible), my understanding is that the appointment was based on keeping the weapon on her person, not the power set itself. After all, in several other stories powered individuals still fly without weapons but while still having powers or abilities. Which I would liken to the TSA confiscating a service members pocket knife while the service member still had a rifle or pistol. Namely, requiring the disposal or checking of a less dangerous item while allowing them to board with an item that was far more dangerous in terms of potential.

Didn't you just mention such things occurring, like, three messages ago?

But JG's point was that, since there is a class of people who can't be disarmed by any known means, safety procedures and regulations would end up being different than in the "real world." Not as much emphasis into prohibiting every nailclipper from entering the cabin (since there is much more dangerous stuff you can't possibly keep from the plane without forbidding a large number of innocent people from flying at all), and more into other countermeasures. Like enlisting suitable passengers as auxiliary personnel, so the risk/reward ration for potential hijackers becomes less favourable and less predictable.

Yeah, given the overall differences in the WU, it doesn't seem weird to me that there are methods by which a trained, responsible minor can fly armed. The Volunteer Air Marshal part of it does seem a little strange, but you do have to remember that they're only a Volunteer Air Marshal. They likely have very little actual authority. My take on it is that this is really more about controlling them, not empowering them. A screw-up while serving as a Volunteer Air Marshal likely has much more severe consequences than otherwise, and serving probably carries a number of obligations that normal civilians do not have.

With which I am in agreement. My first post was more directed at the real world parallels and requirements for flying armed to show that there are unusual situations that require non-standard solutions. My apologies for not making that fully clear. My personal opinion is that the only potential conflict I see with the parallel would be the age issue. But that would fall under the whole alternative universe set of rules.

Obviously, in a "real world" scenario, you would not see a high school student deputized into such a role. Though someone under the age of majority might still be required to fly armed (military or courier for example). The key difference there between "real world" and "Whateley world" is that the person would not be functioning as an air marshal, even though they would be armed. An emergency deputation /could/ happen in theory, and such a person would still be legally entitled to take action in a hijacking scenario even without being deputized. It would fall under "performance of official duty".

Again, to be clear, I have no objections to the concept. As I understand the story line and the past events of the Whateley Universe, I see it as being essentially parallel to someone flying armed while not being an air marshal. The Whateley Universe addressed the situation previously and the set up allows for the event. I was merely addressing the previous postings on the subject via examples of "real world" parallels for armed flying to show that such an event is not unheard of or impossible. Thus, once incorporating the concept of mutant abilities, I see it as a similar parallel.

As I previously stated, I may be wrong, but the appointment appeared to me to be more in regard to the carry of the weapon than as a result of the power set itself. Thus, I see a closer parallel to the "real world" examples I gave there. Then, if the appointment was based on having weapon access, I would see requiring the weapon to be checked instead of carried to be along the same lines as requiring a military member to check or turn in a pocket knife while they still had a far more dangerous item available. In the case of a mutant with powers, requiring the weapon to be checked would be along the same lines as the mutant could still have something far more dangerous and legal to fly with in their powers.

Kettlekorn, I think you might be onto something there as well. I worked security in Virginia for a little while when I got out of the Navy, in VA some security officers have powers that are nearly equal to those of the police while working on their site. However, at the same time, such security officers are required to operate under far more strict rules than say the average citizen with a concealed carry permit and in the event of acting improperly face far more severe penalties.

I do have to say I can see Astrodragon's point as to how the UK might see it.

I resembled one of those descriptions when I was in Faslane...I am of Scots-Irish descent (and some others, I am like Heinz, 57 varieties...) and I was most assuredly impaired by alcohol for a day or three...

The logistics of implementing some sort of coherent world wide "armed flyer" system would be utterly insane at a minimum. How each nation would determine their internal processes would obviously be a matter of their own culture, internal politics and laws. How they would establish procedures with their allies and other nations for dealing with international flights would be a huge mess to be sure, then when you got to where you were going you'd still end up under whatever the laws there were as well.

I can really only see the "volunteer air marshal" concept (or whatever other nations would call such folks) working on non-international flights...making it international would be a pain of epic proportions, the only other option I could see would be if the "air marshal" didn't go through customs but instead went directly to another flight, which would defeat the purpose of being a "volunteer".