DA Gascón carried guns on planes, then whistle-blower was fired, suit says

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | December 9, 2018 | Matier & Ross

[2CAVTrooper]

Well it is Californistan, and the TSA we’re talking about.

So anything is possible, besides it’s a democrat, and we all know how well democrats obey the law.

[2CAVTrooper]

Some DA’s carry badges.

[SkyDancer]

So that gets them through TSA I guess. I don’t know if DA’s go through a psychological exam like we have to but just because you have a badge and a CWP doen’t grant you boarding privileges. If I knew he was on my plane I sure would have seen him give up the gun or have him tossed.

[Okeydoker]

This dirtbag is a corrupt as they come in my view. He gives far left wing a run for its money. A real slimeball

[Flick Lives]

He looks like Jeff Flake’s older brother.

[Robert DeLong]

Question is, how was he able George Gascón repeatedly get past TSA with his gun?

[PapaBear3625]

Cops cannot simply "flash a badge" and take a gun on a plane. They need to be certified by their department that a firearm is necessary on the plane for that specific trip, and the officer must have completed TSA aircraft firearm training.

I would imagine that the DA would have a friendly enough relationship with the Chief of Police that the required paperwork would be issued as a courtesy.

[Polynikes]

“Even with a concealed carry permit, how did he get it past TSA?”

He didn't. He's an officer of the court. What's more interesting is that he even has a ccw. Flying armed is not uncommon for “special” people.

Anyway he would walk up to the exit lane at a check point and present an ID. A TSA supervisor would come up and escort him in to the police kiosk. His ID would be confirmed and he would be logged in as flying armed. Weapon and CCW info would logged then off he would go to the boarding gate.

[Svartalfiar]

Not against the law if you have a letter from the department saying it is necessary for you to carry on the airline.

As he was head of the department, he could have issued a letter for himself.

Totally legal.

If a subordinate tried to get his boss in trouble for a legal activity, as well as put him in danger by revealing he usually carried, the subordinate may well have been legally fired.

Is it totally legal? What was the basis for the necessity for him to carry? That it's more convenient for him that way? I doubt they can just hand these letters out willy-nilly, I'm sure they have to have an actual reason for it.

[marktwain]

I think posts 27 and 28 cover it pretty well.

[Svartalfiar]

I think posts 27 and 28 cover it pretty well.

Not really. The give the how, but not the why. Why do they need to receive a privilege the common folk aren't afforded?

[Big Red Badger]

“Is This where I kin get me
One of them Huntin’ licenses?”

Elmer Fudd

[RetiredTexasVet]

Whistleblower or scorned lover?

[2CAVTrooper]

I agree with you about being bounced, and IMO he should be placed on the no fly list.

As far as taking a psych eval, I would have to say the guy would probably fail.

[marktwain]

Not really. The give the how, but not the why. Why do they need to receive a privilege the common folk aren't afforded?

That is a philosophical question. It is equivalent to saying "why do we have government?".

Government officers are allowed to do things the rest of us are not allowed to do, because we created a structure, through the Constitution, legislatures, and court system that allows them to do it.

Up to 100 years and more ago, those things were very limited. They still are limited. But being armed when everyone else is disarmed goes back to the aftermath of the Civil War (War between the states).

It is the old conundrum of "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?", or "Who will guard the guards themselves?"

[Svartalfiar]

It's not just philosophical, it's has practical and legal implications as well.

Government officers are allowed to do things the rest of us are not allowed to do, because we created a structure, through the Constitution, legislatures, and court system that allows them to do it.

Yes, some are more equal than others. However, oftentimes when they want to exercise their special rights, they can't just do it. By the law that allows them to do this, they have to have an articulateable reason to exercise those special rights. If you read Texas penal code (what I'm most familiar with), you will find many exceptions to weapons and firearm carry laws for LEOs. Most of which state they have to be carrying out official duties, in uniform with the firearm in plain view, on the way to/from home and work, or such. Simply being a LEO doesn't grant them special rights. On my phone at the bar, but a quick bit of duckduckgo finds this summary article of 49CFR1544.219, which gives the requirements for LEOs to fly armed, including needing to have a department-valid reason for it. They can't just do it cause they want to (although everyone should be able to anyway).

The need to have the weapon accessible must be determined by the employing agency, department, or service and be based on one of the following:

The provision of protective duty, for instance, assigned to a principal or advance team, or on travel required to be prepared to engage in a protective function.
The conduct of a hazardous surveillance operation.
On official travel required to report to another location, armed and prepared for duty.
Employed as a Federal LEO, whether or not on official travel, and armed in accordance with an agency-wide policy governing that type of travel established by the employing agency by directive or policy statement.
Control of a prisoner, in accordance with Title 49 CFR § 1544.221, or an armed LEO on a round trip ticket returning from escorting, or traveling to pick up a prisoner.

...Damn all this html on a phone. Pain in the fingers!