Unpleasant experience at airport


PDA






Gun Wielding Maniac
January 8, 2006, 02:42 PM
I've been sitting on this for a while. I told it to a few friends, who recommended that I post this here to see what you guys think.

Over the Christmas holidays, I typically fly out to Arizona to stay with family. It isnt quite as traditional to have the christmas tree up in such warm climes, but I put up with it to get a break from the drab weather in KY for a few days. My stepfather is a member of a local gun club near Phoenix and we often go shooting together while I was there. I brought with me an FN High Power, which I was going to take up to Don Williams, near Prescott, to have customized while I was there. I'd also brought my XD-9 for bang-bang fun. The following incident happened while I was preparing to board the plane. It just goes to show what can happen in our ridiculously risk averse bureaucracy.

I was checking two bags to go to Arizona. Inside one of the bags I had a locked combination case with two pistols. As is customary, I went to the terminal and while checking the bags told them I needed to declare a couple of firearms. The lady had me open up the box and show the guns were unloaded. While she was rooting around in there, she found my little bottle of mace. Now, I've carried this locked away in this box on several airplane flights before this with no problems. But today, this corpulent lady told me I wasnt allowed to have it. I asked if she could mail it back to my place and she shook her head, saying she'd have to dispose of it. I guess the look on my face told her how I felt about that, cause she asked me if there was a problem. I told her no, take it, cause I didnt have anyone who could take the mace back home with them. So, I got the firearms declared and carried them over to the X-ray machine. She told me I could go, since the pistols were declared, but I knew that sometimes the TSA guys like to open the lock boxs again, despite the declaration. If you arent there to give the combo, they'll break it right open.

Sure enough, they called me over. They had a young lady look through my lock box. She called over her foreman and pointed to soemthing in the box. He picked up his radio and started calling people. I asked if there was a problem and she said "we've found a round. You can't have that." I pointed out to her that it was quite allright to have ammunition with the guns, provided they were not IN the guns. Further, I'd been quite sure that there were no loose rounds rolling around in the case. I asked to see what she'd found. She picked it up and showed me. It was a snap cap.

A snap cap is a plastic or aluminum dummy round, lacking any powder, primer, or indeed, any separate pieces. This one was milled of solid aluminum and was clearly marked snap cap on the bottom. I told her this was a dummy round and she didnt know what I was talking about. When her foreman came back, I told him the same and he said "We'll let the professionals make that assertion." I blinked. Wasnt he the professional?

Shortly thereafter, the Louisville Police Department came over to take a look. Yep, the TSA called the cops on me :B The cop, a middle aged man with a gut, looked at the snap cap for a few seconds, rolling it over in his hands and saying, "We're going to have to confiscate this. Its a prohibited item." I just stood flabbergasted for a few seconds. I told the cop it was a dummy round, a snap cap, totally lacking powder and he just looked at me blankly. They took the round and told me I could seal the box, after fumbling with my items inside.

As you can imagine, I was quite turned off by this and even more so at the sight of the woman who had confiscated my Mace STILL holding and twirling it around on her finger as I walked by. Obviously, she had no intention of destroying it and likely, it ended up in her purse :b.

The irony of the situation is this. I'd carried ammunition and the mace as well as a good knife in my lockbox before with no problems whatsoever. More irony, the idiotic TSA people and the cops BOTH failed to look in the the speedloader I had sitting right next to the pistols. Inside was a Browning High Power magazine loaded with 13 rounds of Speer 124 grain +P 9mm ammunition. Quite the thorough search, there.

To add insult to injury, as I was waiting to board the plane, with only a few minutes left before it took off, my name was publically annouced over the intercomm, requesting me to come back to the security check point. I rushed back there, wondering what the hell they were going to steal from me now. Turns out they wanted to fill out a POLICE REPORT on the incident and needed my ID, phone number, contact info, etc. I barely made it back to my plane.

I have to say that this incident has turned me off from flying. I caution those of you who fly with firearms to be discrete and dont carry anything that might give the people there an excuse to steal.

If you enjoyed reading about "Unpleasant experience at airport" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sindawe
January 8, 2006, 02:49 PM
Be thankful we don't live in a police state. :rolleyes:

Its dren like this that has caused me to swear off flying.

georgeduz
January 8, 2006, 02:58 PM
they did steal your mase,they do that all the time,they help themselfs to whatever they like.they dont destroy anything it goes home with them at the end of the day.

beaucoup ammo
January 8, 2006, 03:05 PM
Under the gun by the Feds to get Airport Security in place by a certain date, private contractors went scampering about across the country..hiring to make quota.

As you experienced first hand, they hired some idiots.

My wife had mace in her purse 10 years ago, which was snapped up..so thats old news.

But you jumped through the required hoops to put your weapons in the "belly", as dictated by law, and it seems the chuckle heads made something out of nothing.

That's why we drive as well.

Take Care

HankB
January 8, 2006, 03:05 PM
It's the sort of thing that makes you want to pack some "special" ammo handloaded to produce 150,000 PSI. When they "confiscate" it and use it in their own pistol over the weekend, they'll end up combing shrapnel out of their hair.

YankeeRebel
January 8, 2006, 03:08 PM
Some say that TSA stands for Too Stupid for ARBY'S.

Stickjockey
January 8, 2006, 03:11 PM
George-

Just to whom are you referring by "them?"

TSA=Too Stupid for Arby's I gotta remember that one.

TSA= Thousands Standing Around

obm
January 8, 2006, 03:51 PM
kind of messed up that we are resorting to calling our fellow americans thiefs and idots just because they work for the TSA or the airlines.

not very high road.

everyone's lives were made a bit more difficult since 9/11. one of the sacrifices we make as citizens during a time of war is enhanced security measures. imperfect as these measures are, they are as good as it gets considering the scale at which they must be deployed.

i believe everyone has a right to bitch about bad service, but making unfounded allegations of instutitionalized theft is just wrong.

grimjaw
January 8, 2006, 03:54 PM
"We'll let the professionals make that assertion."

LMFAO!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Rosco.jpg

It's things like this that have made me distrust all authority.

jmm

GRB
January 8, 2006, 03:56 PM
I can understand your frustration. I have traveled armed before in the line of duty. I have been given a hard time then, being told that I could not carry a pocket knife onto an aircraft while at the same time carrying a loaded 9MM pistol with 4 spare magazines. I was flying as an Air Marshal. Yes the people who work for TSA have, in my opinion, rather terrible training. It took two supervisors and a mention of impeding a federal officer before the TSA guys let me go to my flight. I had a good laugh or two over it later but was pretty upset that day. I was mad not so much because the guys were less than professional and obnoxiously stubborn and ignorant, I was mad because had I missed my flight and it was takemn down by a terrorist the fault would have all been because of some illinformed TSA employee. I have also been hassled with personal firearms. It may seem a little ridiculous when they take a snapcap or call the polce to check things out. Been there, done that in essence. Laugh about it now, next time carry a copy of TSA and airline regulations (for the specific airline you are flying) with you. Show it to the TSA people if they hassle you again. Before you condemn them though, are you absolutely that a snap cap is not a forbidden item? There could have been some technicality that made it a forbidden item, I know this maybe ridiculous if in fact true, but if those are the rules, then their actions were not so far fetched. I am ot defending TSA, had too many run ins myself, just wondering if for some reason a loose piece of even 'artificial' ammunition would be prohibited.

Now on another issue from your experience - the mace. I do not care one bit to hear how many times you violated the law and FAA regulations by bringing mace onto an aircraft in the past, that does not justify you doing it again. You have absolutely no right to bring mace onto an aircraft, not even in checked luggage. Pepper Spray is another story as certain amounts in checked baggage are ok, but mace is absolutely forbidden on a commercial aircraft that carries passengers. The airline and or TSA has every right to confiscate it from you. To assume that the woman behind the counter was going to steal it is a bit far fetched. She gets brownie points for finding it and turning it in. Sometimes, when they discover a role player with a forbidden item, they get a nice sized chunk of cash as a reward (at some airports). She probably had to wait for a supervisor or TSA person to come to get it from her, therefor the twiddling with it as you walked by.

While you maybe were right to be upset about the TSA and police response to a snapcap, I don't think you had any right to be upset about the mace. Of course, getting angry over the snapcap incident would be enough to have it carry over to the mace for anyone. I am not faulting you for being upset, just pointing out that they were well within their rights to seize the mace, and that had they not done so after it was discovered, then they would have been guilty of negligence had the mace leaked and caused any problems in the aircraft. The contents of just one can of mace, even a small one, would be enough to screw over the cockpit crew if it gets into the ventilation system. Think about that before trying to get one on a plane in the future.

As for a statement like the following, from an apaprent troller: they did steal your mase,they do that all the time,they help themselfs to whatever they like.they dont destroy anything it goes home with them at the end of the day.Please don't lend credence to people who make such irresponsible and blatantly false statements. I have been in federal service for 26 years now, I have never helped myself to anything I have liked that belonged to anyone else. I also have seen airline personnel properly dispose of confiscated items before. My guess, and this is just a guess, is that a person who would make such a statement is projecting his/her own self image and experience, of how he/she does things, onto others. That self image would most likely be, in my opinion, one of: disrespectful attitudes toward others, poor upbringing, low morals, thieving lifestyle, low self esteem and so forth. Of course, as I said, this is a guess and it could be wrong but that would be my guess. Regardless of the overall character of the person who wrote that, the truth is that such a statement is, in my estimation, just little more than methane gas emanating from the brain of the writer - what was it that Andy Warhol called them - "brain farts", yes that is the term.

Below is just another example, in my opinion, of another brain fart:It's the sort of thing that makes you want to pack some "special" ammo handloaded to produce 150,000 PSI. When they "confiscate" it and use it in their own pistol over the weekend, they'll end up combing shrapnel out of their hair.Dah, yeh thet wood be KoOl woodunt it! Hank you should be really proud of yourself for even mentioning it.

taliv
January 8, 2006, 04:04 PM
maniac,

since they took a police report, i'd definitely demand a copy of it. if it documents their stupidity, i'd follow up with a letter to the TSA and demand to know why they wrongfully confiscated your property which was clearly not prohibited.

take care not to threaten or do anything overly beligerent, and cc: your state AG. (for no good reason)

file a complaint with the louisville PD

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 04:17 PM
everyone's lives were made a bit more difficult since 9/11. one of the sacrifices we make as citizens during a time of war is enhanced security measures.
:barf:
Nonsense.
Know the difference between what teenage boys do with porn and these security measures? A teenage boy has a little someting to show for his efforts when he's done.
These "security measures" do exactly nothing to stop a determined evildoer. It's feel good nonsense. Plain and simple. It's worse than ineffective. It actually endangers the public, by ensuring honest citizens are disarmed before boarding.

Before you condemn them though, are you absolutely that a snap cap is not a forbidden item? There could have been some technicality that made it a forbidden item, I know this maybe ridiculous if in fact true, but if those are the rules, then their actions were not so far fetched. I am ot defending TSA, had too many run ins myself, just wondering if for some reason a loose piece of even 'artificial' ammunition would be prohibited.

I have heard many stories of cartridge keychains and such being confiscated, so I suspect this may be the case here. However, as I understand, the TSA also has regulations enabling them to seize any object they deem a threat, even though it is not prohibited.

Standing Wolf
January 8, 2006, 04:18 PM
Jorge Bush has a plan; unfortunately, it includes keeping Mineta, a representative of the Democratic (sic) party, feeding at the federal trough.

I'm not sure a Republican would do any better, mind, but am very sure much of what's so outrageous about flying these days is directly attributable to Norman Mineta.

GRB
January 8, 2006, 04:25 PM
These "security measures" do exactly nothing to stop a determined evildoer. It's feel good nonsense. Plain and simple. It's worse than ineffective. It actually endangers the public, by ensuring honest citizens are disarmed before boarding.So, since this thread specifically deals with the security measures that were taken involving confiscation of mace, are you in essence saying that people should abe allowed to arm themselves with mace while aboard a commercial passenger airliner? If that is what you are saying, please tell me about the effects of mace being let loose into the ventilation system of such an airliner while in flight at about 40,000 feet. Would that be a good tactical move, would it help to protect anyone from any threat on the aircraft - or would it be plain out and out a stupid thing to do? As I often fly armed, I really would love to hear a detailed reply to these questions with your data or references that support your answers. Thanks.

beaucoup ammo
January 8, 2006, 04:25 PM
...what's so outrageous about flying, and the reasons for the unpleasant experiances can be placed directly at the feet of George Bush.

Given the the crime wave oozing from the White House, I doubt ANYTHING the Republicans might do would be in the interest of the average American.

Take Care

obm
January 8, 2006, 04:27 PM
These "security measures" do exactly nothing to stop a determined evildoer. It's feel good nonsense. Plain and simple. It's worse than ineffective. It actually endangers the public, by ensuring honest citizens are disarmed before boarding.

er, have your read your dale carnegie quote in your signature lately?

;)

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 04:32 PM
So, since this thread specifically deals with the security measures that were taken involving confiscation of mace,

Actually, it involves the confiscation of mace and snap caps. Not just mace.
The confiscation of mace makes perfect sense to me, since an aircraft is a sealed environment, and any discharge of mace would affect any passengers on the plane. That's not what I'm refering to. Not allowing mace on an aircraft is a sensible safety precaution.
However, perhaps you can tell me how the confiscation of knitting needles from old women, toenail clippers from everybody, and a medal of honor from a WW2 veteran makes us safer. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any safety precautions for boarding an aircraft. I'm saying the ones we have are ludicrous, and a disgraceful affront to the American people.
That said, the American people put up with it, so I'm sure things will continue as they have.

TexasRifleman
January 8, 2006, 04:36 PM
.

meef
January 8, 2006, 04:36 PM
...what's so outrageous about flying, and the reasons for the unpleasant experiances can be placed directly at the feet of George Bush.

Given the the crime wave oozing from the White House, I doubt ANYTHING the Republicans might do would be in the interest of the average American.
:rolleyes:

Oh brother......

TexasRifleman
January 8, 2006, 04:41 PM
Most of you are completely wrong about mace/pepper spray in checked baggage. It is NOT a prohibited item at least in the latest document from TSA. This is dated 4-1-05

Here I quote the following from TSA documents, and a link:

One 118 ml or 4 Fl. oz. container of mace or pepper spray is permitted in checked baggage provided it is equipped with a safety mechanism to prevent accidental discharge.

http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Prohibited_English_4-1-2005_v2.pdf

Correction, looked again and the list was updated 12-22-05. Mace/pepper spray are still OK.

http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_NEW.pdf

beaucoup ammo
January 8, 2006, 04:42 PM
And avoid the grief. Told to me by a guy who can afford it. I can't. Sadly, that's what it's come to.

The average John and Joan are going to have to put up with the security hoops if they are going to fly...while those who can afford it(and I certainly don't begrudge them the fact) will be half way to their destination by the time Joe is opening his first bag of peanuts waiting to take off.

I've strayed from the topic, however..the mace snagging has been going on at least 10 years.

Take Care

trickyasafox
January 8, 2006, 04:43 PM
dont feel bad. i have five pounds of inert brass confiscated. when i told the tsa guy that it was inert, and showed him, after declaring it, he said he'd call the cops up if i didnt drop it. i told him he could throw it out, it wasnt a big deal. he then photo copied my drivers liscense. im sure im on a great list for that one. i made sure to tell him that he was probably the stupidest most ignorant person i had met, and that now that he stoped todays act of terrorism im sure he can go home with a sense of pride in his otherwise useless life. i was furious. the fact that their was NO curtosey. im fine with doing your job. i understand that, what i am not tolerent of is people in positions of authority who lack competence.

best part is the took the brass in my checked bag, but left the two dissassembled magazines in my carry on.

darwin would be proud.

beaucoup ammo
January 8, 2006, 04:48 PM
"Most of you are completely wrong about mace/pepper spray in checked baggage. It is NOT a prohibited item at least in the latest document from TSA. This is dated 4-1-05"

Perhaps we'd all better check the volume of our mace spray. According to Post#1, the Security people aren't aware of the change..or not schooled in the amount allowed.

Take Care

TexasRifleman
January 8, 2006, 04:49 PM
I carry a printout of that stupid list with me everywhere. I run into the same crap all the time.

It's always a good idea to have their rules printed out ahead of time when you carry any of these things. It's saved me many headaches.

4oz is a crapload of the stuff too.

The letter says 4 oz, not 4 fl oz. It also says that's the same as 118ml. So which is it?
Weight or volume? 4 oz is 113 grams. Either way my largest Key Defender only has a charge of 10 grams, so it can't possibly approach the limit.

4oz of pepper spray is PLENTY :)


And this is not a "change". 4oz of mace/pepper spray has been OK since at least Jan of '02, that's the oldest copy of that list I've been able to find.

The wording has not changed at all in at least 4 years.

mete
January 8, 2006, 04:59 PM
They are brainless .I read last week of another child ,aged 4, who was stopped from flying because he happened to have the same name as someone on the do not fly list !! A 4 year old terrorist ???

Devonai
January 8, 2006, 05:06 PM
But today, this corpulent lady told me I wasnt allowed to have it.

The cop, a middle aged man with a gut,

You got something against fat people?

ALASKACAJUN
January 8, 2006, 05:46 PM
This is a pretty good thread as I have a similar experience....

This was in 1995 I just completed a 1 year tour in Korea in the Air Force! Before I left I was presented with my "plaque" from my shop chief! It was a glass enclosed inert 30 MM A10 tankbuster round fully polished with blue inert tip. It has a burgundy background with a brass plate in the middle with my dates of service, rank, and job title... It has the Korean flag and American flag on either side and it measures approx. 18" x 18" by 4" deep...

I decided to physically carry it in it's box with me on the flight home so it would not get destroyed! I first flew from Korea to Yokota AFB Japan, then from there to LAX. I was checked through customs in Japan and LAX and all they did was look at the plaque and comment on how nice it was! Then I flew to Las Vegas and had a several hour lay over there at which point I had to have my plaque checked by the new airline! once again they just glanced at it and I was on my way. Then I got to the Dallas/ Fort Worth airport!!!! :uhoh:

I had been traveling at this point for more than 24 hours without much sleep. I needed to have the new airline check my carry on, I approach the counter and before I even pulled out the plaque I explained that I was military and home on leave then I presented my I.D. card to the person at the counter. I told them that I had my plaque from Korea and it would be the only thing I was carrying on the plane with me. The person was very nice until I opened the box at which point they exclaimed loudly " Oh my God a missle!" I smiled and explained that it wasn't a missle but a big bullet that didn't have gunpowder in it or even a primer... I presented the person with some customs paperwork that I was given in Japan! They said that they were calling security! Security shows up and wants to take my plaque apart with a "leatherman" and I strongly advised him against it! I told him he could contact my supervisor and CO and they could explain to him what I was carrying! I explained that I had flown to Japan, LAX, and Las Vegas and had went through their customs without a hitch! He was adiment about taking apart my plaque! :banghead:

The whole time I could tell everyone was very nervous! Finally after a few supervisors and other employees of the airline looking at it they said call "Joe" he was in the military! This kid who looked like he was the janitor comes up and says "aw cool you got a inert 30 MM on your plaque" at which point he answered their questions as to it being dangerous or not! They told me I would have to check it and put it in the belly of the plane from Dallas to Lake Charles, which I reluctantly did! I could not believe how unprofessional they were, or the way I was treated! I had a copy of my orders, military I.D., I think I was wearing my dog tags but it took the word of some kids with a mop to send me on my way.... I'm not knocking him but I would think that having an officer look at it would be more appropriate! Why take the word of someone just because he was prior military? They wouldn't believe me and I was active duty!!

- Clint

grimjaw
January 8, 2006, 06:02 PM
RE: the mace,

I asked if she could mail it back to my place and she shook her head, saying she'd have to dispose of it.

Glenn Bartley, you may disagree but I think the person at the counter made the wrong decision at that point. It's not illegal for him to own that item, nor do regs say he has to declare it at the counter as long as it meets the restrictions. If you can walk around the terminal with it legally, she (being an airline employee, not security) has no authority to confiscate it. It might have been better for the poster to declare it, but as long as the TSA and airline regulations say he can check it . . .

I've accidentally carried scissors and the like through the TSA security screeners, and I've always been given the option of giving them to someone not flying, having them mailed back or placed in my checked luggage. If TSA can do it, why can't the airline?

jmm

trickyasafox
January 8, 2006, 06:17 PM
what bugs me is they call the police in as "experts" but often in these matters police just arent very well informed:(

Mtnvalley
January 8, 2006, 08:32 PM
You got something against fat people?

I was wondering the same thing. I didn't note much use of other descriptive adjectives, and those used weren't exactly important to the recounting of the story. I'd suppose that points should be given for using "corpulent" instead of "lard-ass" or the like, though...

FWIW, I had to fly with two guns for the first time last month (to and from Frontsight), and was treated with much more professionalism and courtesy than I expected. No hassles, they just had me wait while the TSA inspected my luggage in case they had any questions or neede me to unlock 'em for further inspection.

As re: ammo--I did doublecheck before going, and one can carry up to 11 lbs. of it (on Delta) as long as it's packaged separately from the firearms, and in either wood casing or the original factory packaging (no loose rounds).

Otherguy Overby
January 8, 2006, 08:48 PM
The confiscation of mace makes perfect sense to me, since an aircraft is a sealed environment, and any discharge of mace would affect any passengers on the plane. That's not what I'm refering to. Not allowing mace on an aircraft is a sensible safety precaution.


Eh? Been watching movies, Grasshopper?

Your statement could lead one to think you also believe in explosive decompression from a stray round or two. Commercial airliners are NOT a sealed environment. Do some reading, ask some questions and then, and only then, please do form an informed opinion.

Current commerical aircraft have what might be called a controlled bleed. What this means is that what keeps them pressurized is more air is pumped into the cabin than leeks out (fresh air, what a concept). IOW a discharge of mace in the passenger cabin probably would not effect all the passengers, and, most likely would NOT effect the pilot/crew cabin area.

Could your information source be an uninformed internet source? :)

IndianaDean
January 8, 2006, 09:07 PM
[QUOTE=are you in essence saying that people should abe allowed to arm themselves with mace while aboard a commercial passenger airliner? /QUOTE]

People should be allowed to arm themselves with guns on airplanes. If the passengers on the 9/11 flights had been armed, those incidents never would have occurred.

We have the right to protect ourselves. No one should be allowed to take an individual's right to protect himself out of his hands and placed under someone else's authority. We should be allowed to be armed where ever we go, period. And I personally think that folks who don't think this should be so have very little faith in other people besides themselves. And I personally have faith in other people besides myself. If all of us here at THR for example flew somewhere together, I'd happily want all of us to be packing. Not to be stripped of our right for protection and herded onto the plane under the watchful eye of our loving, protecting government.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjolnirsson
The confiscation of mace makes perfect sense to me, since an aircraft is a sealed environment, and any discharge of mace would affect any passengers on the plane. That's not what I'm refering to. Not allowing mace on an aircraft is a sensible safety precaution.

Eh? Been watching movies, Grasshopper?

Your statement could lead one to think you also believe in explosive decompression from a stray round or two. Commercial airliners are NOT a sealed environment. Do some reading, ask some questions and then, and only then, please do form an informed opinion.

Current commerical aircraft have what might be called a controlled bleed. What this means is that what keeps them pressurized is more air is pumped into the cabin than leeks out (fresh air, what a concept). IOW a discharge of mace in the passenger cabin probably would not effect all the passengers, and, most likely would NOT effect the pilot/crew cabin area.

Could your information source be an uninformed internet source?

Mmmm, sorry, brain fart. I don't know why I said sealed. I didn't mean sealed, as in no airflow in or out. What I was refering to was the recirculation of air. As in your ground car is a "sealed" unit. Fresh air does get in and stale air is let out, but it isn't like pepper spraying someone outdoors, or even in a large venue. The air circulates throughout the area. If you've ever been in a patrol car with a peppered suspect, you know what I mean. The irritant doesn't stay where it's put(although pepper is better in that regard than mace). Just seems like a bad idea for folks to be carrying OC on a plane, since we never know who's going to be affected by it.
As I said, I can see the case being made for prohibition of OC on planes. Doesn't mean I agree with it. Hope I didn't come off that way.

fjolnirsson
January 8, 2006, 09:14 PM
People should be allowed to arm themselves with guns on airplanes. If the passengers on the 9/11 flights had been armed, those incidents never would have occurred.

Precisely.

kjeff50cal
January 8, 2006, 09:39 PM
Wait for your fines..... http://studenttravel.about.com/od/planyourtrip/qt/aiportsecurity.htm

kjeff50cal

Wllm. Legrand
January 8, 2006, 10:10 PM
Be thankful we don't live in a police state. :rolleyes:



I like the sarcasm.:)

acdodd
January 8, 2006, 10:32 PM
Wait for your fines..... http://studenttravel.about.com/od/planyourtrip/qt/aiportsecurity.htm

kjeff50cal
That information is outdated.
Matches are prohibited as are lighters.

Sindawe
January 8, 2006, 10:38 PM
Eh? Been watching movies, Grasshopper? HEY! Thats MY line on this forum! :neener: People should be allowed to arm themselves with guns on airplanes. If the passengers on the 9/11 flights had been armed, those incidents never would have occurred.+100 The ONLY requirement I can reasonably see would be for the ammuntion in passengers firearms to certified by an independent NON-GOVERNMENT body as Airframe Safe, perhaps non-sparking frangable ammo. And ONLY at the behest of the airline in question.

Lupinus
January 8, 2006, 10:52 PM
Typical stupidity that is totaly uncalled for. This is the kind of crap I simply couldn't put up with I would turn around go home call the airline and inform them why I and my closest friends would not be flying agian unless they fired their idiot employee. If I can drive I prefer too. Mor expensive with the gas sometimes, and a car rental ontop of that sometimes...but much less hassle and BS.

To hell with taking guns. You want safe issue one gun and two loaded mag to everyone getting on the plane like 3D glasses at a 3D movie.

mountainclmbr
January 8, 2006, 11:23 PM
I have been transporting firearms on airlines for over 25 years. I am convinced that the current crop of airline employees and TSA employees are in their current positions only because they were too stupid to get a job at McDonalds. It is disgraceful and embarrassing. It is also an encouragement to terrorists who will get a free pass because TSA is too busy searching grandma.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 8, 2006, 11:49 PM
Hmmm... for some reason, people on this thread think I have a problem with fat people. The answer to that is no. I have a problem with stupid fat people. Mostly just stupid people. However, when someone pisses me off, I'm more inclined to pick out their particular flaws then I would otherwise.

Another person said that I violated the law and FAA regulations by carrying the Mace and just because I got away with it before doesnt make it right. Ok, whatever. But the obvious point here is that I carried the Mace in plain view along with the ammunition in a locked, padded security box along with the gun. When the gun was declared all of these items were inspected before they were placed on the airplane. All this means was
a.) All of the other TSA personnel were ignorant of TSA regulations.
b.) The TSA personnel didnt care about TSA regulations.
c.) TSA regulations are so hard to understand that they didnt KNOW whether it was a permissible item or not.

These two websites, both operated by the TSA, contradict each other on the pepper spray issue.
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Prohibited_English_4-1-2005_v2.pdf
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_NEW.pdf

The mace I had was in one of the small palm sized units with the flip up cover, so you can't accidently discharge it. No claims that the can was unsafe :b

I wonder if after this incident I'll be delayed at airplane check points from now on for further searches. :fire:

Old Dog
January 9, 2006, 12:05 AM
Sometimes it seems to me that the degree of hassle one faces at airports is often proportional to the attitude one projects ... and possibly, the airports one flies through. I fly a lot, and always with firearms, and I simply try to get through the process calmly and act as though it's the most natural thing in the world to be checking at least two handguns (and sometimes a rifle such as an AR) through the airline counter and the TSA folks ... Never had a problem at any major airport in the country. Some airports are really proficient at checking guns through (Sea-Tac comes to mind), some just about average. Yeah, it's a minor hassle, but it seems one of the things is to stay cool, treat the screeners (no matter how fat or stupid) courteously ... I've seen folks go through the screeners with a big chip on their shoulders, acting as though they expected to be hassled, snapping at the screeners even when given a calm, polite request ... sure enough, these folks get hassled.

I may be wrong, but I think most folks who fly frequently know the drill and usually don't have any problems; those who don't fly a lot and expect a hassle, seem inclined to find hassles.

IndianaDean
January 9, 2006, 12:05 AM
HEY! Thats MY line on this forum! :neener: +100 The ONLY requirement I can reasonably see would be for the ammuntion in passengers firearms to certified by an independent NON-GOVERNMENT body as Airframe Safe, perhaps non-sparking frangable ammo. And ONLY at the behest of the airline in question.


I think that's reasonable.

AZLibertarian
January 9, 2006, 12:16 AM
People should be allowed to arm themselves with guns on airplanes. If the passengers on the 9/11 flights had been armed, those incidents never would have occurred.

We have the right to protect ourselves. No one should be allowed to take an individual's right to protect himself out of his hands and placed under someone else's authority. We should be allowed to be armed where ever we go, period. And I personally think that folks who don't think this should be so have very little faith in other people besides themselves. And I personally have faith in other people besides myself. If all of us here at THR for example flew somewhere together, I'd happily want all of us to be packing. Not to be stripped of our right for protection and herded onto the plane under the watchful eye of our loving, protecting government.

Well, you can count me as someone who doesn't want CCWs on planes. As I said in this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146298&highlight=azlibertarian) six months ago, allowing CCWs is a bad idea (and yes, I've now re-set my watch again. This topic comes up every couple of months, and I've come to use it to set my watch.) If you're going to allow CCWs, please answer the questions I asked here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1791570&postcount=35). If anyone is interested in my detailed views, you can run through the entire thread, but in short, the average CCWer doesn't have anywhere near the skills to take the kind of shots your assuming everyone could make, no one--not one--has been able to tell me how you'd tell the difference between a law-abiding CCWer and a terrorist with a legally acquired CCW, and the government ain't gonna let it happen anyway. The passengers and crew on an airplane are, unfortunately, expendable. You can accept this and fly, or not accept this and drive.

You imply that we have an absolute right to protect ourselves. This is not true. You cannot carry into a courthouse or polling place. Here in AZ, you cannot carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol. We accept these exceptions to where we're allowed to carry our own means of self-defense. An airplane, IMO, is no different.

And let's remember. The government isn't "herding" anyone onto a plane. Passengers buy their tickets of their own free will. Those tickets come with conditions--one of them being that you'll be checked for weapons before boarding. Again, you can accept this, or not.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 9, 2006, 12:29 AM
You imply that we have an absolute right to protect ourselves. This is not true. You cannot carry into a courthouse or polling place. Here in AZ, you cannot carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol. We accept these exceptions to where we're allowed to carry our own means of self-defense. An airplane, IMO, is no different.

And let's remember. The government isn't "herding" anyone onto a plane. Passengers buy their tickets of their own free will. Those tickets come with conditions--one of them being that you'll be checked for weapons before boarding. Again, you can accept this, or not.

An absolute right is a right that exists despite any law or majority. I think you're getting confused here. The right to defend yourself exists regardless of where you are. The right to carry weapons is what is prohibited in those places that you mention. And no, we dont all accept those exceptions.

The government forces airlines and people to conform to their rules if they choose to take the most convenient, and in many cases, the only reasonable means of transportation.

Your line of reasoning goes: The people choose to go on an airplane. The government chooses to apply an unconstitutional and ridiculous system of searches and restrictions to any person wishing to go on an airplane. Therefore, such restrictions and searches are right. The government could apply such a system of searches and restrictions anywhere they pleased. They could put it on street corners or public highways. What would your response be then?

Lets use the same line of reasoning. People CHOOSE to use public highways and street corners. Therefore, the government is right in searching and restricting them.

Ridiculous. Even more so when you consider that airlines do not even constitute a government run industry. They are private enterprises.

Demariana
January 9, 2006, 12:39 AM
You got something against fat people?

Oh my Goddess I sure hope not. I am a fat woman. Gun Wielding Maniac is who introduced me to guns, THR and has been teaching me how to shoot. I would not be on this forum if not for him.

What I have gotten from the responses is that if someone does have to fly and check a gun bring along the most up to date listing of what can and can not be carried or checked so if something happens you have the info to back up what you are saying. Sad that the passengers have to educate the workers but seems that is the case.

Also need to try and not get upset even when being hassled. Everyone can have a bad day. I work call center, I know. Just hard to not take things personal when the yelling or harrassment is being aimed at you. Better training in customer service and screening procedures would so help things.

Demariana

AZLibertarian
January 9, 2006, 12:57 AM
Oh my Goddess I sure hope not. I am a fat woman. Gun Wielding Maniac is who introduced me to guns, THR and has been teaching me how to shoot. I would not be on this forum if not for him.

What I have gotten from the responses is that if someone does have to fly and check a gun bring along the most up to date listing of what can and can not be carried or checked so if something happens you have the info to back up what you are saying. Sad that the passengers have to educate the workers but seems that is the case.

Also need to try and not get upset even when being hassled. Everyone can have a bad day. I work call center, I know. Just hard to not take things personal when the yelling or harrassment is being aimed at you. Better training in customer service and screening procedures would so help things.

Demariana

Exactly.
Check for your airline's policy on checking weapons. It'll be on their website. Read, follow and print out their own policy to show to the staff at the airport, if need be.Do the same thing for the TSA policy on checked weapons. Be polite to everyone you deal with. Show up early enough to deal with any problems that might come up. Many people every day fly successfully with their weapons. It is quite frustrating when a passenger runs up against a ticket agent or TSA employee who doesn't know what they're doing, and it typically makes news here. Please also keep in mind that much of the industry is either in or very near bankruptcy. Many employees have seen their pay cut, their pensions lost, and might not be in the best mood generally about their job. I don't offer this isn't an excuse for poor customer service, just to add some context to why people aren't terribly happy about things.

AZLibertarian
January 9, 2006, 01:09 AM
An absolute right is a right that exists despite any law or majority. I think you're getting confused here. The right to defend yourself exists regardless of where you are. The right to carry weapons is what is prohibited in those places that you mention. And no, we dont all accept those exceptions.

The government forces airlines and people to conform to their rules if they choose to take the most convenient, and in many cases, the only reasonable means of transportation.

Your line of reasoning goes: The people choose to go on an airplane. The government chooses to apply an unconstitutional and ridiculous system of searches and restrictions to any person wishing to go on an airplane. Therefore, such restrictions and searches are right. The government could apply such a system of searches and restrictions anywhere they pleased. They could put it on street corners or public highways. What would your response be then?

Lets use the same line of reasoning. People CHOOSE to use public highways and street corners. Therefore, the government is right in searching and restricting them.

Ridiculous. Even more so when you consider that airlines do not even constitute a government run industry. They are private enterprises.
I don't like all the laws related to CCW (and restricting CCWs from airplanes is one I support), but do accept them. To do otherwise would mean I'd get to pick and choose which aspects fit me, and which I could ignore. The laws which restrict CCW on planes and other places are put in place by the elected representatives of the people--not some unresponsive .gov. These laws have been constitutionally tested. "Streetcorner" searches have been shown to be fishing expeditions, and have no such legal backing. That airlines are private enterprises and not government industries has no bearing. Banks are private too, and must follow banking law (including the reporting of certain financial transactions to the government). Airlines, like banks and every other kind of business, must follow the laws which regulate them.

georgeduz
January 9, 2006, 01:14 AM
them tsa or security,took my 2 knifes in my case,so to hell with them.

rick_reno
January 9, 2006, 01:16 AM
This thread is why I drive. If I'm going somewhere too far to drive - I don't go.

The one time I have flown since 9/11 and dealt with TSA I will say it's better than Punjab and his merry band of turban wearing fellow scanner operators were in the pre-9/11 days. TSA seems to have replaced them with people who can speak English, which is a plus IMHO.

Warlock7
January 9, 2006, 01:21 AM
kind of messed up that we are resorting to calling our fellow americans thiefs and idots just because they work for the TSA or the airlines.

not very high road.

everyone's lives were made a bit more difficult since 9/11. one of the sacrifices we make as citizens during a time of war is enhanced security measures. imperfect as these measures are, they are as good as it gets considering the scale at which they must be deployed.

i believe everyone has a right to bitch about bad service, but making unfounded allegations of instutitionalized theft is just wrong.


Ya until it happens to YOU right????

Kodiaz
January 9, 2006, 01:28 AM
Actually we USED to have an absolute right to defend ourselves but it has been INFRiNGED. Which is why we can't carry in certain public places. If you look at the constitution the founders set up government with powers that when applied properly made them equal and opposed so that no one branch could railroad the others. Then we were given our RIGHTS so we could effectively oppose the govt. if it became unjust. The 1st exposes injustice if you don't know it exists you can't do anything about it. The 2nd gives us the people the ability to oppose an unjust govt.(granted because of infringement of this right opposition would require a major overstepping of authority on the part of the govt. because due to the current technology only all the gun owners in the country could have a chance of opposing the govt if became unjust) The 3rd well you can't oppose an unjust govt. if the soldiers are living in your house and can shoot you there. The 4th if said unjust gov. goes in and takes everything you have well I've never heard of someone winning a gunfight with their knuckles. The 5th and 6th are there so you can't be picked up for nothing and be locked up forever. If the govt is unjust and judges are unjust so get a trial by jury thanks to the 7th. The 8th is cruel and unusual punishment which is more of a restriction on the govt.'s ability to punish. The 9th says that the right written down aren't the only rights we have(i. e. privacy). And the 10th basically supports the 9th. But I'm no lawyer just a dumb A/C man.

Mark in California
January 9, 2006, 02:13 AM
It has been against the law to take MACE/Tear gas on to a commerical plane since at least the 1980's. The reason is because they fear the Mace can exploding and the tear gas getting into the air system and then getting to the pilots. It has nothing to do with TSA, but continued controled flight operations. Not even an on duty police officer may take Mace on a Air Plane.

foghornl
January 9, 2006, 09:42 AM
TSA=

T hieves
S tealers &
???????

Art's Grammaw was here. Please don't skirt around the language filter on THR.

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 09:52 AM
These two websites, both operated by the TSA, contradict each other on the pepper spray issue.
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Prohibited_English_4-1-2005_v2.pdf
http://www.tsa.gov/public/interweb/assetlibrary/Permitted_Prohibited_NEW.pdf

The mace I had was in one of the small palm sized units with the flip up cover, so you can't accidently discharge it. No claims that the can was unsafe :b



Both of these documents say the same exact thing, and have for over 4 years. The wording for mace/pepper spray has not changed, and December 05 was the latest revision, so there is no conflict in TSA documentation.
Not sure what you were looking at, but check again.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 9, 2006, 10:15 AM
Both of these documents say the same exact thing, and have for over 4 years. The wording for mace/pepper spray has not changed, and December 05 was the latest revision, so there is no conflict in TSA documentation.
Not sure what you were looking at, but check again.

http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Prohibited_English_4-1-2005_v2.pdf

On page 4 of this document it reads:
Can I take it? Carry On Checked
Mace/Pepper Spray No Yes
(One 118 mL or 4 fluid oz container of Mace or pepper spray IS PERMITTED in checked luggage provided it is equipped with a safety device to prevent accidental discharge. For more information on these and other and other hazardous materials, visit http://asi.faa.gov/passenger.asp)

Maybe you should check again.

Cacique500
January 9, 2006, 10:25 AM
I flew yesterday with two firearms and didn't have any problems. Declared the pistols at the check-in counter and waited for a TSA agent to take me in the back room and check them. I had two small pelican cases, one for the pistols (with a key lock and I retained possession of the key) and one for the ammo & mags (TSA approved combo lock - and I retained possession of the combo by opening the locks myself). He looked through both and did a cursory check of my bag and then everything was sealed back up.

I had all the regs printed out just in case but didn't need them this trip.

I also agree that a friendly attitude will help you along on your journey - though I had to wait 15 minutes for the TSA guy to show up, I was still polite with him and everything went just fine.

Oh, and if I every meet the 'Shoe Bomber' I'm going to beat the crap out of him. (Not very high road I know...but...) I can't stand stripping everything off to go through the metal detector, especially my shoes. I'm trying to walk with a computer, computer bag, jacket, belt, shoes, all the while holding my pants up until I can get to the area where I can get dressed again. Ugh. :cuss:

QuickDraw
January 9, 2006, 10:32 AM
Just had a thought.
If you get athlete's foot from walking around in
your socks,could you sue?:neener:

QuickDraw

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 10:36 AM
http://www.tsa.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Prohibited_English_4-1-2005_v2.pdf

On page 4 of this document it reads:
Can I take it? Carry On Checked
Mace/Pepper Spray No Yes
(One 118 mL or 4 fluid oz container of Mace or pepper spray IS PERMITTED in checked luggage provided it is equipped with a safety device to prevent accidental discharge. For more information on these and other and other hazardous materials, visit http://asi.faa.gov/passenger.asp)

Maybe you should check again.


No, in the 2 links you posted, the wording is EXACTLY the same. Mace/pepper spray HAS BEEN PERMITTED forever. It has NEVER been prohibited in checked baggage. Both of the documents you posted say that.

You said there was a conflict and there is not. The rules on pepper spray have been unchanged for very many years. Not sure why you are having trouble with this.

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 10:38 AM
It has been against the law to take MACE/Tear gas on to a commerical plane since at least the 1980's. The reason is because they fear the Mace can exploding and the tear gas getting into the air system and then getting to the pilots. It has nothing to do with TSA, but continued controled flight operations. Not even an on duty police officer may take Mace on a Air Plane.


In carry on, not checked baggage. You can and always have been able to check mace/pepper spray as long as it's less than 4 oz. This rule has been in place for many years. All the rules say is that it must be in a container with a safety catch to prevent accidental discharge, and in checked baggage.

The TSA regs pertaining to this have been posted about 20 times so far in this thread......

I am flying to Fresno this afternoon, with my 10gram Key Defender pepper spray, Sig P239 and 100 rounds of ammo, as I always do. I have printed out copies of both the TSA regs and the airlines rules, and I expect to have no problems. I do this 3 or 4 times a month. Never been a problem.

As mentioned, the best way to avoid the troubles is to know EXACTLY what the rules are, and to have printed copies with you. That way when someone starts the "you can't do that" you don't have to argue back with them, just show them where to find the correct answer. I've never had any airline or TSA employee give me trouble past showing them those documents. A couple of times they have done the "let me call and check" and after that it was always thank you sir have a nice flight.

Yes, TSA is not a very good organization, there's no arguing that. They are clueless beyond belief most of the time. But, they are in the system and I can either not fly or deal with it. I refuse to travel without a means to defend myself, so I have to deal with it.

jason10mm
January 9, 2006, 10:57 AM
Just some side notes for ease of getting past TSA screening.

Supposedly open toe sandals with a sole LESS than ONE inch thick (essentially those cheap beach flip-flops you had as a kid) are ok to wear through the metal detector. As usual, it is up to the individual screener, so if they slept through that part of the training you'll have to take them off anyway.

Wilderness Tactical makes a riggers belt with PLASTIC buckles. No metal to set off the mass detector.

As I fly quite a bit, I'm slowly aquiring stuff to streamline going through the screening process. Stowing my phone, pager, and keys in my carry-on while wearing a low metal content digital watch with no metal buckles on my clothes should get me through with minimal stripping required :)

Skeptic
January 9, 2006, 11:56 AM
I fly a lot. In this country and all over the world. I fly with Govt issued ID, Diplomatic Passport, and all of the bells and whistles that are supposed to make getting thru security easier. Not so.... it all depends on the TSA person at the security checkpoint. I have had my five year old son stopped and told that he would have to take off his Tevas so that the TSA person can check them out. They are sandals - no where to hid anything and they are so small that if you did hid anything it would not make a difference.

I have found that TSA folks are good and bad - some know their job and others can't find their butt with both hands. Same can speak great english and some not so well. IMHO, TSA is a band-aid on a sucking chest wound.....

Sorry if I offend anyone, but that's the way I feel.

roo_ster
January 9, 2006, 12:19 PM
...in short, the average CCWer doesn't have anywhere near the skills to take the kind of shots your assuming everyone could make...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to making an assumption yourself, that the LEO/Airmarshall can satisfy your damands as to skill level.

A fellow I knew during college got out of the Navy so he wouldn't have to balance a ball on his nose any longer. He then joined the Air Marshalls and went through their training program. He was not impressed with many policies/personnel/training in the AM/TSA, but one thing that stuck in my mind was his take on the training and the personnel.

He was pretty appalled at the poor level of training. He was taught to sweep all the passengers on his way to getting his weapon aligned with the terrorist. When he protested, he was given some lame explanation that did not satisfy. He recalls many overweight former city cops in his class, as well. Most got through the training.

After training, he was paired up with some obese former New Orleans cop in which he had zero confidence. Not because the former cop was large, but because he was incompetent.

He also had zero confidence in his superiors. The lack of support of TSA mgt has been documented many other places. He submitted many suggestions to improve AM effectiveness, none of which went anywhere. It was his opinion that the AM program was stood up to create the appearance of "doing something" by our politicos.

He has since moved on from the TSA.

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 12:33 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to making an assumption yourself, that the LEO/Airmarshall can satisfy your damands as to skill level.

A fellow I knew during college got out of the Navy so he wouldn't have to balance a ball on his nose any longer. He then joined the Air Marshalls and went through their training program. He was not impressed with many policies/personnel/training in the AM/TSA, but one thing that stuck in my mind was his take on the training and the personnel.

He was pretty appalled at the poor level of training. He was taught to sweep all the passengers on his way to getting his weapon aligned with the terrorist. When he protested, he was given some lame explanation that did not satisfy. He recalls many overweight former city cops in his class, as well. Most got through the training.

After training, he was paired up with some obese former New Orleans cop in which he had zero confidence. Not because the former cop was large, but because he was incompetent.

He also had zero confidence in his superiors. The lack of support of TSA mgt has been documented many other places. He submitted many suggestions to improve AM effectiveness, none of which went anywhere. It was his opinion that the AM program was stood up to create the appearance of "doing something" by our politicos.

He has since moved on from the TSA.


This is completely reverse of my current take on the Air Marshalls and their training. As far as I know, their training some of the best, most advanced and most rigorous you can find anywhere for Law Enforcement. Hmmm....

DarthBubba
January 9, 2006, 01:24 PM
Vee have Vays to be making you Comply!!

Your papers now Juden!!!, now join Zee lines for Zee showers.(A quick look into our future under the TSA types), Their Motto: One million officers not a single clue.
Did you ask if any of the TSA monkeys if they had a copy of the supposed regulations you were in violation of. I would be willing to bet that none of them could repeat them back to you.
While all of this was going on did you notice a group of 13 middle eastern looking guys getting through security with bags full of knives, all looking a bit nervous?
Wow I feel a lot safer with this parade of morons we have in charge now don't you?!!

To Hell with them all I'll drive every where I need to go,

DarthBubba:evil:

spacemanspiff
January 9, 2006, 01:41 PM
Mostly just stupid people. However, when someone pisses me off, I'm more inclined to pick out their particular flaws then I would otherwise
but that kind of reaction is very juvenile. you may as well have called him a 'poopy-head'.

btw, as on the other forum you posted this to, i dont have any sympathy for your troubles with the airlines. although its come to light that small canisters of spray are indeed lawful to have in your baggage, you did not know that. you didnt do your research.
you also transported ammo loaded in the magazines, thats always been a no-no, and you should be grateful to the TSA for not catching that.

obm
January 9, 2006, 01:43 PM
Ya until it happens to YOU right????
as i said in my post, everyone has a right to bitch about bad service. but resorting to calling them names and making blanket statements like all TSA personnel are thieves is just wrong.

Dr.Rob
January 9, 2006, 01:51 PM
Rules and regs are one thing, common sense is another.

It's obvious in multiple threads about TSA is that there is a distinct lack of training and consistancy between airports. You can (and will) complicate your own travel by packing firearms/mace etc. and it pays you to do your homework, be courteous and allow yourself extra time to deal with the hassles. (Because it's GOING to happen)

A loose round (even a dummy) is a no-no. If you must have a snap cap is it a big deal to top off a loaded magazine with it?

BozemanMT
January 9, 2006, 01:53 PM
and people wonder why I don't fly
and it gets worse every day.
how stupid was the cop to not know what a snap cap was?
unbelievable.:cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Old Dog
January 9, 2006, 02:19 PM
This is a distinct example of the type of post that not only does not add anything to the discussion, it is certainly not an example of "The High Road:"
Vee have Vays to be making you Comply!!

Your papers now Juden!!!, now join Zee lines for Zee showers.(A quick look into our future under the TSA types), Their Motto: One million officers not a single clue.
Did you ask if any of the TSA monkeys if they had a copy of the supposed regulations you were in violation of. I would be willing to bet that none of them could repeat them back to you.
While all of this was going on did you notice a group of 13 middle eastern looking guys getting through security with bags full of knives, all looking a bit nervous?
Wow I feel a lot safer with this parade of morons we have in charge now don't you?!!
So, DarthBubba, just how often do you fly?
What airports do you go through?
Have you personally had problems such as the one the original poster described?
Or are you simply one who parrots the negative characterizations of an entire group of people because you don't have anything original to say?
How many TSA personnel do you know personally?

Comparing TSA personnel to Nazi prison camp staff is absurd.

I'd hope that more people take seriously posts such as Dr. Rob's, skeptic's and obm's ... I fly regularly, with firearms, and as stated before, I just don't see problems with TSA or airline staff to the magnitude some would have you believe ... Just friggin' get to the airport early and act like a courteous grown-up -- believe me, it works.

HankB
January 9, 2006, 02:21 PM
Below is just another example, in my opinion, of another brain fart:

It's the sort of thing that makes you want to pack some "special" ammo handloaded to produce 150,000 PSI. When they "confiscate" it and use it in their own pistol over the weekend, they'll end up combing shrapnel out of their hair. Dah, yeh thet wood be KoOl woodunt it! Hank you should be really proud of yourself for even mentioning it.Why so upset, Glenn? (BTW, you might try using spell check on your response.) After all, you spent a good portion of your post denying that officials would steal from people under color of authority, right? Even to the point of "guessing" that anyone who would dare regard some of our wonderful TSA screeners as thieves had crooked & immoral tendencies themselves. (I guess Ann Coulter must be a thief at heart too, since she had a necklace stolen by a TSA drone . . . a necklace that was never turned in. And had the unmitigated gall to besmirch the fine reputation of government officials by writing about it.) Not content with mere disagreement, you called it a "brain fart."

I don't believe that ALL, or even MOST, screeners are corrupt. (Though I've personally seen them selecting attractive young women - and ONLY attractive young women - for a "special" check.) But since by your post and 26 years in Federal service you've apparently come to regard ALL TSA workers as honest, high pressure ammo lurking in a traveler's baggage should be a non-issue, since no official would EVER use his position to help himself to something that looked good. It would only pose a danger to the traveler himself who might absent-mindedly mix it up with regular ammo . . . but since he doesn't trust screeners, he's probably a person who, to use your terms, has . . . disrespectful attitudes toward others, poor upbringing, low morals, thieving lifestyle, low self esteem and so forth. In other words, he'd be a real lowlife anyway, right?

I only wish your unwavering confidence in the integrity of the officials were justified. :rolleyes:

beaucoup ammo
January 9, 2006, 02:25 PM
As Dr. Rob alluded to, there are different levels of competence among TSA types. The rush to fill quota and (IMO) an unrealistic deadline to get airport security up to Federal specs following 9/11 contribute to this. You'll find good and bad as in any business.

My wife and I drive by choice, and fly only when it's a funeral. etc. that render the Jeep mode of transport impossible.

With shrapnel in the old bod and an orthotics devise as well, I know what to expect and plan for it. My wife always goes first, so she can sit down and read while I endure the drill.

Caci500 is spot on with his approach to transporting firearms in the "belly." Bottom line, best thing is to keep cool, consider the source and you'll get through a lot quicker than if you berate the "slower" droids.

Take Care

madkiwi
January 9, 2006, 02:28 PM
This is completely reverse of my current take on the Air Marshalls and their training. As far as I know, their training some of the best, most advanced and most rigorous you can find anywhere for Law Enforcement. Hmmm....

Your assessment on their training would be based on what exactly? A few MSM reporters doing puff-profile stories or the government's own press releases?

My understanding is that Scouts at a Jamboree get better firearms training.

madkiwi

AZLibertarian
January 9, 2006, 03:01 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to making an assumption yourself, that the LEO/Airmarshall can satisfy your damands as to skill level.

A fellow I knew during college got out of the Navy so he wouldn't have to balance a ball on his nose any longer. He then joined the Air Marshalls and ...was not impressed with many policies/personnel/training in the AM/TSA, but one thing that stuck in my mind was his take on the training and the personnel.... As I've said earlier, I am a captain at a major national airline, and have frequent contact with Air Marshals. Your friends experience with a "fat" former cop is directly opposite to my observations. Most have other LEO experience, but very few of the Marshals I've run across appear to be anywhere near "fat".

I don't know this for a fact, as I haven't trained with them, nor do I have any other LEO training to compare it to, but it is my understanding that FAMs are trained to be just about the best shots in Law Enforcement. For most of us, buying a gun right out of the box will guarantee that you'll have a lifetime of shooting with no problems [Tinker with it, or use aftermarket add-ons, and that's another story entirely.] Most shooters simply can't wear out a gun with normal shooting. I've heard, OTOH, that some FAMs are wearing out their guns because of all the training they do.

That extended training is one of the reasons that Air Marshals quit. They have to go to the range over and over and over again, just to keep their skills high. Couple that with what has to be the world's dullest job--where you get to sit on your bum all day, eat airline food, actively avoid conversations with others, stay alert but without having your head on a swivel--and it's no wonder that they've had retention problems.

I won't debate that the TSA hasn't had some start up issues with the FAM program. The program was spun up real fast. However, in spite of this, and the other issues with the TSA, it is a valuable program.

roo_ster
January 9, 2006, 03:04 PM
This is completely reverse of my current take on the Air Marshalls and their training. As far as I know, their training some of the best, most advanced and most rigorous you can find anywhere for Law Enforcement. Hmmm....

Perhaps things have changed since he went through. I wouldn't count on it, though. This is the same agency that insited its agents wear "shoot me" suits on the aircraft and would not work out a better way to insert AMs on to the plane without drawing notice.

I have had good and bad experiences with the TSA and their airline toadies. It is very location-specific. FWIW, DFW is a terrible place to fly out of WRT TSA. This is where most of my poor experiences have occurred.

One memorable incident occurred when we were traveling with my wife & then 2 month old son. My wife was carrying our boy when a DFW TSA flunky insisted she remove her sneakers. My wife being less than tolerant of bravo sierra at this time, hopped on the edge of the x-ray machine conveyor, stuck her feet out toward the TSA flunky, and said, "You want them? You take them off," while keeping hold of our boy.

I have since done my level best to do my part to bury the Wright Amendment, wish American Airlines ill, and fly OTAA*.

OTOH, the TSA in Tampa were the soul of propriety & professionalism.

I have checked firearms in both places. Again, Tampa was head & shoulders above the losers at DFW. I present a calm, reasonable demeanor and follow the regs to the letter. I also print them out to refer to, just in case. Even so, my attempts to minimalize difficulty are often thwarted by the ignorance or malevolence of the TSA/airline personnel.

Flying is even more of a pain than it used to be.

* OTAA=Other Than American Airlines. Airtran at DFW & Southwest out of Love Field are two good alternatives.

V4Vendetta
January 9, 2006, 03:11 PM
I don't fly. Anywhere I want to go, I drive.

NineseveN
January 9, 2006, 04:32 PM
Your assessment on their training would be based on what exactly? A few MSM reporters doing puff-profile stories or the government's own press releases?

My understanding is that Scouts at a Jamboree get better firearms training.

madkiwi

It would be based on the 14 FAMs I personally know, their backgrounds (a Navy Seal, a couple of SWAT guys - one from an East Coast Agency, one from the West Coast, a handful of Army Ranger types and one firearms instructor with a lengthy and impressive military and civilian resume'.) and balancing that against my own training and knowledge.

The training of the other TSA staff is hit or miss, and their application of it is the same, but the FAMs that I know all went in with very impressive backgrounds and training and came out answering my questions with responses like, "Yes, we learned a lot in there, best training I think I have ever had aside from the EOD and Demolition stuff I learned a while back".

That's a near-direct quote from a good friend who came home and wrote me later in the evening after he finished his initial training.

I have confidence in these 14 people because I talk with them regularly, I know they know their stuff. Their level of firearms expertise and tactics is sound, they've BTDT and still had impressive things to say about the training. A few minor complaints or suggestions did come up during one conversation, but I think we all understand that no training is perfect.


Might I ask what your assessment is based on since you saw fit to question mine?

30Cal
January 9, 2006, 04:41 PM
I wonder if after this incident I'll be delayed at airplane check points from now on for further searches. :fire:

Nope. You'll get a letter from the TSA in June telling you how dissappointed they are in you. I lost 2 magazines at the checkpoint in Louisville last Christmas (lesson: do not carry on gun parts or anything that could possible be used on or with a gun). No hassles on any trips since then.

I put only firearms in the locked box and nothing else. The fewer things you give them to think about, the easier a time you're going to have. If you make the event into some sort of quiz on TSA regs, then you're going to end up losing.

Ty

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 9, 2006, 06:48 PM
but that kind of reaction is very juvenile. you may as well have called him a 'poopy-head'.

btw, as on the other forum you posted this to, i dont have any sympathy for your troubles with the airlines. although its come to light that small canisters of spray are indeed lawful to have in your baggage, you did not know that. you didnt do your research.
you also transported ammo loaded in the magazines, thats always been a no-no, and you should be grateful to the TSA for not catching that.

What the heck are you talking about? If I recall correctly, this IS the only forum I've posted this story in.

Thanks for the lecture on what is juvenile and what is not. I'm sure you're a great judge, Mr. SpaceMan. Now, Daddy, before we continue, I'd like to point out a few facts.

I believed that Mace was perfectly legal to carry in my checked luggage. I'd carried it onto planes in other airports several times, displayed for everyone to see without any troubles. I've also carried ammunition is sealed containers, of which I was led to believe a magazine was an appropriate container. I've also carried it cardboard boxes. Again, with no troubles in the past.

I had a strong primae facie case that Mace and ammunition were legal to carry. Research enough and I was correct.

I find it incomprehensible that you are defending a bunch of incompetents. For what reason? Was anyone made safer from the confiscation of my snap cap and Mace? NO. In fact, I was less safe from the loss of my Mace.

I suppose I should be grateful to the TSA for not stripping me nude and doing a body cavity search too. Screw that. I'm not grateful to them at all. If they had found the ammo, what the hell could they have done? Arrested me? CARRYING AMMUNITION IN A DECLARED CASE WITH THE WEAPON IS NOT ILLEGAL! Are you reading me?

I posted this story on the High Road so that I could enlighten others as to what was happening at the airports, not so I could get a lecture on manners by government stooge apologists.:banghead:

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 06:54 PM
CARRYING AMMUNITION IN A DECLARED CASE WITH THE WEAPON IS NOT ILLEGAL! Are you reading me?
:

You need to do some more research my friend. Carrying ammo in the SAME LOCKED FIREARM CASE as the weapon is most certainly NOT ALLOWED.

Ammo also CANNOT be in magazines, it must be in "original shipping" container.

TSA is not the only one making the rules here, airlines can apply their own.
You buy a ticket on their transport, you play by their rules.

I fly American 99% of the time. American allows ammo and firearm in the same SUITCASE, but not in the same locked firearm case.

Some airlines do not allow ammo and the firearm in the same suitcase at all, they have to be in completely seperate luggage with 2 distinct luggage tags.

Look, the fact is you were ill prepared for your travels, you're pissed off, and you want to blame TSA. That's fine.

If you had researched BEFORE your flight, printed the regs or at least been able to quote them correctly, you would not have this problem.

The snap caps should not have been loose in the suitcase and most certainly not in the locked firearm case, that's plain and simple a no-no, it's clearly written in the rules. Don't be pissed at TSA because some guy doesn't know the difference between live ammo and a snap cap. It was YOUR responsibility to meet the rules, and you failed to do so.

The mace was clearly legal for you to have in checked luggage, but you did not have the little brochure from TSA to show the airline employee. You did not ask for her to check, you did not ask for her supervisor and throw a major fit for her stealing your mace. You had a chance to correct that mistake and you chose not to.

TSA may be a waste of air, Ticket agents may be brain dead, but as a traveller in the system YOU should have taken the High Road and the responsibility on yourself to properly prepare to travel with these things. No one is defending the security measures in place. We all know they are a joke. But we also all know they exist and we have to deal with it.


In the end, the trouble you went through was, for the most part, self inflicted.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 9, 2006, 07:03 PM
You need to do some more research my friend. Carrying ammo in the SAME LOCKED FIREARM CASE as the weapon is most certainly NOT ALLOWED.

Ammo also CANNOT be in magazines, it must be in "original shipping" container.

Look, the fact is you were ill prepared for your travels, you're pissed off, and you want to blame TSA. That's fine.

If you had researched BEFORE your flight, printed the regs or at least been able to quote them correctly, you would not have this problem.

The snap caps should not have been loose in the suitcase and most certainly not in the locked firearm case, that's plain and simple a no-no, it's clearly written in the rules. Don't be pissed at TSA because some guy doesn't know the difference between live ammo and a snap cap. It was YOUR responsibility to meet the rules, and you failed to do so.

The mace was clearly legal for you to have in checked luggage, but you did not have the little brochure from TSA to show the airline employee. You did not ask for her to check, you did not ask for her supervisor and throw a major fit for her stealing your mace. You had a chance to correct that mistake and you chose not to.

In the end, the trouble you went through was, for the most part, self inflicted.

Ok. I see I'm just going to keep fighting this battle over and over. Fine. Back to the TSA regs.

From the TSA website:
"Any ammunition transported must be securely packed in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
Firearm magazines/clips do not satisfy the packaging requirement unless they provide a complete and secure enclosure of the ammunition (e.g., by securely covering the exposed portions of the magazine or by securely placing the magazine in a pouch, holder, holster or lanyard). The ammunition may also be located in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as it is properly packed as described above."

If you recall, I was carrying my magazines in a sealed magazine carrier. Dummy rounds are not covered anywhere that I can find at all.

TexasRifleman
January 9, 2006, 07:11 PM
If you recall, I was carrying my magazines in a sealed magazine carrier. Dummy rounds are not covered anywhere that I can find at all.

Why didn't you post the whole thing?

Why did you leave off the last paragraph?
I'll post it for you, then go read what I wrote above.

As for Dummy Rounds you can't be surprised that they lump dummy rounds into a pile with "ammunition" in general. It's an airport, not Cabela's.

Air carriers may have their own additional requirements on the carriage of firearms and the amount of ammunition an individual may place in checked baggage. Therefore, travelers should also contact the air carrier regarding its firearm and ammunition carriage policies.

So we can assume that since you are a rule following traveller that you did in fact check with the airline to see if they had different requirements?

I can assure you that American, Delta, United, and Southwest sure do.
What airline did you fly again?

From American Airlines fine print:

Firearms and Ammunition may not be carried by a passenger on an aircraft. However, unloaded firearms may be transported in checked baggage if declared to the agent at check in and packed in a crush-proof container manufactured specifically for the firearm or a hard-sided suitcase. Firearms must be in a locked container. Properly packaged small arms ammunition for personal use may be transported in checked luggage apart from the firearm.


From United Airlines fine print:

Firearms
Federal regulations require that firearms in checked baggage or in their own shipping case be unloaded and declared. Firearms are not allowed in carry-on bags. Firearms in checked baggage must be packed in a locked hard-sided bag or gun case. A maximum of 11 lbs. of small arms ammunition is allowed in checked luggage in the original manufacturer's box or securely packed in a fiber, wood, or metal box to prevent movement of cartridges.

And from Southwest, yet another version:
Ammunition

* Small arms ammunition for personal use (provided it is properly packed) is permissible in checked baggage only.
* The ammunition may be placed in the same container as the firearm and must be securely packed in cardboard (fiber), wood, or metal boxes, or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
* When checking ammunition, Customers are limited to 11 pounds gross weight (ammunition plus container) per person.
* Magazines or clips containing ammunition must be securely packaged (placed in another small box or in a secure cutout in the carrying case, in order to protect the primer of the ammunition).
* Make sure guns are unloaded and definitely never transport a gun in your carryon baggage!
* Gunpowder (black powder) and primers or percussion caps are not allowed in checked or carryon baggage.
* Loose ammunition or loose loaded magazines and/or clips are not allowed.


And finally Delta. Notice Delta disallows mace and pepper spray, totally going against TSA, but that's their right to do so.

Ammunition will only be accepted if it is boxed, small-arms ammunition, it weighs less than 11 pounds, and is packed in checked luggage only.

Firearms will be accepted only if they are unloaded, declared to the agent at check-in, and packed in a suitable container in checked luggage only.

Gunpowder, mace, pepper spray, and tear gas are not allowed.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is a confusing mess at the very least, and big trouble at the worse.

The fact that the airlines can make it up as they want makes it complicated.
If you did in fact fly Delta then the mace thing is explained. TSA are not the only idiots making up rules, and don't think for a SECOND that I am defending those people.

I run into them regularly.

And yes, my apologies, I was quoting Americans rules, not TSA when I said ammo and gun had to go seperate.

spacemanspiff
January 9, 2006, 07:14 PM
well perhaps you didnt post it, but someone did on GT: http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=482688

I posted this story on the High Road so that I could enlighten others as to what was happening at the airports, not so I could get a lecture on manners by government stooge apologists
you forgot to call me a poopy-head. oh yeah, i'm also really fat. and stupid.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 9, 2006, 07:49 PM
well perhaps you didnt post it, but someone did on GT: http://www.glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=482688


you forgot to call me a poopy-head. oh yeah, i'm also really fat. and stupid.

Ok, Spaceman. I'm willing to bury the hatchet on this thing, without putting it into your skull. If you'll stop trying to lecture me, I'll stop trying to be an ???????.

BTW, thanks for the link. I didnt know someone had posted my discussion and I'm reading the responses with interest.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 9, 2006, 07:52 PM
Why didn't you post the whole thing?

Why did you leave off the last paragraph?
I'll post it for you, then go read what I wrote above.

As for Dummy Rounds you can't be surprised that they lump dummy rounds into a pile with "ammunition" in general. It's an airport, not Cabela's.



So we can assume that since you are a rule following traveller that you did in fact check with the airline to see if they had different requirements?

I can assure you that American, Delta, United, and Southwest sure do.
What airline did you fly again?

I flew Southwest, as always. I like cheap air fares. Just so long as you arent going to Chicago. Boooooo to Midwest Airport.

I guess I should have specified. I didnt realize there was such a wide disparity in the policies of the airlines. But, as you can see, the airline I was flying on had no policy against mace or the carrying of pistol ammunition in the same box as the handgun.

The magazines were loaded and in a carrying pouch.

drinks
January 9, 2006, 11:22 PM
OMB;
Thiefs? Idots? Whazat?:rolleyes:

hwp
January 13, 2006, 01:56 AM
I don't fly. Anywhere I want to go, I drive.

Really?

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=176256

SRFL
January 13, 2006, 02:47 AM
While the situation at the airports has plenty of room for improvement, I think it's better than the bad old days of private security companies, such as Summit and Argenbright. I say this with some experience having worked with (and inspected) companies such as those when I worked for FAA Civil Aviation Security (CAS) (predecessor to TSA at the airports) at EWR (Newark), JFK (Kennedy) and LGA (LaGuardia).

Oh the horror stories whenever we inspected the security functions at the airports! Obvious modular bomb testing equipment not getting detected, being able to BS your way onto the security ID display area (SIDA) without a badge, etc.

About the Federal Air Marshal (FAM) program, I've always known it to be outstanding with respects to training and so-so with management since the FAM program fell under FAA/CAS before TSA was created. As such, I've known quite a number of former FAMs (such as nearly my entire chain-of-command when I was still with the FAA were for FAMs). I have a couple of friends that were washed out of training due to failing to meet firearms standards...one for consistently not being able to draw his weapon out of the holster quick enough.

The big problem with getting people not "fitting the FAM mold" happened when the FAM program was forced to "draft" a significant number of agents in response to 9/11. A good number of agents from my organization became temporary FAMs. They were given short training courses and sent into the "field"....the civil aviation world. But those assignments, ended after a few months across the board, I believe, and now a TSA/FAM on duty today is one that went through to FLETC CITP and then their follow-on course, as it was before 9/11 when the program was under the FAA.

ZenMasterJG
January 13, 2006, 03:12 AM
Totally off topic, but....
From the TSA's permitted/prohibited list... Toy Transformer Robots?! They felt the need to specifically allow toy robots.

Boy, do i feel safer with TSA around.
:rolleyes:

pete f
January 13, 2006, 04:37 AM
I rarely ride mass transit, hate it like the plague, but one day i had to, and i took a but that services the MSP airport as well as the Mall of America megamall. while riding home on the bus a very ahhhh substantial black woman was sitting behind me and talking about the "take" for the day. She seemed very very well informed and at a opportune moment i was able to read her jacket to see she was a TSA employee.

She was talking to another woman similarly dressed and they were comparing what they had pocketed during the day, several nice pocket knives, many ZIPPOS' a few leathermans, some nice sewing scissors and a few SAK's. The first lady was saying that she was now going to another pawn shop because the guy was willing to give her a better split on the sales of her "booty" At my stop, i got up and left taking note of her name and badge. I called her in the next morning to the local TSA office. I asked first if it was approved policy for personnel to knowingly keep confiscated items. I was told "oh heavens no!!" three weeks later on my next flight out she was still there, same booth.

The TSA does little or nothing that was not being done before hand. The situation with people today is that never again will a 9-11 type hijacking occur, no one will sit still like they did before. in minutes a hijacker will be beaten to death, passengers are just going to say hell no. The problems now will be a SAM or similar device shooting one down. Or someone who gets on with a suicide device and blows them self up. not with four guys taking a plane over again. just not happening

solareclipse
January 13, 2006, 04:40 AM
if i can't drive to it, i am not going. 6 years already it has served me well. I've saved a lot of extra cash on tickets and all that.

I took that vow after some stupid employee had me take off my shoes (yes they were nice nikes but if she wanted to look at them she could have asked straight out).

feedthehogs
January 13, 2006, 08:46 AM
When the TSA took over security the biggest problem I encountered was the lack of knowlege of the laws they were supposed to enforce.
How can you enforce laws if you don't know what they are?

This along with different airports seemed to have different enforcement of the laws, again a lack of understanding.

Unless you walked on the plane bare, chances are I would have a problem.

This coupled with some, but not all bad attitudes led me to joint a group that uses private chartered planes. The problem is they are not always available.

In October I had to fly to Charlotte NC and had to go commercial and I had to make extra precaution to leave all items home.
I made an extra effort to be friendly at the security check in and had little resistance. My wife was not as lucky. They picked her to go into one of the sealed air machines that tests for explosive residue and she refused which created quite a stir.
It seems they don't get many people refusing their requests.

Before Christmas I had to fly to the Bahamas, again I flew commercial but had no problems other than huge lines at the ticket counter and lines that stretched back into the parking garage at Ft Lauderdale waiting to get thru TSA. The agents seemed real friendly.

Like most everythng else, you can trace most problems and hassles to poor training.
But l imagine if there was an actual school you had to go thru and take a test on your knowlege of procedures and laws you are intrusted to enforce, there would be few people available to do the TSA job.

Cacique500
January 17, 2006, 10:21 PM
:cuss:

Update on my return trip from Dallas, TX. Went to the AA counter and declared the firearms. Ticket agent gave me the card to fill out which I put in the case. My bag is then carried down to the TSA 'oversize/special inspection area' where two guys are sitting in chairs reading a newspaper.

Guy #1 - comes up and asks "What do you want?"

Me - I have two firearms to declare

Guy #2 - Give me your key

Me - I'm sorry I can't do that - it's against Federal Law for me to give you the key. I will, however, be happy to unlock the cases for you so you can inspect them.

Guy #2 - That's BS. My book says you have to give me the key.

Me - No, really, it's against Federal law. I'd be happy to pull a copy of the regulations out for you.

Guy #2 - You're wrong. Everybody just hands us their key.

Me - (while unlocking the pistol case) Tell you what...you guys just do your thing on this case and I'll go dig out the regs for you.

Guy #1 - inspects pistols (w/o touching them) and lets me relock the case.

Guy #2 - still pretty PO'd I didn't give him the key

Me - Goes and takes out my handy dandy printed out regs...specifically, 49 CFR 1540.111.3.iv...highlighted with yellow highlighter on my sheets:

" (iv) The container in which it is carried is locked, and only the passenger retains the key or combination."

Me - *thinking* read it and weep you moron.

Guy #2 - Well, that's not right - that's not what my book says.

Me - Look amigo, this is the actual FEDERAL LAW that your book was written from. If you'd like to invite your supervisor down to discuss this further I have plenty of time and we can chat about it.

Guy #1 - Ok sir, your bag is ok and I'll take it from here.

Guy #2 - walking away and mumbling some not-very-nice things about me.

Bottom line is this... "The container in which it is carried is locked, and only the passenger retains the key or combination." Have 49 CFR 1540.111.c.2.iv printed out. Be polite (to the point it makes you nauseous) and be confident. If all else fails, ask for a supervisor.

Also be aware that the TSA version says "It is preferred that the passenger provide the key or combination to the screener if it is necessary to open the container, and then remain present during screening to take back possession of the key after the container is cleared. If you are not present and the screener must open the container, the TSA and/or airline will make a reasonable attempt to contact the passenger. If this is unsuccessful, the container will not be placed on the plane since unlocked gun cases (or cases with broken locks) are not permitted on aircraft due to Federal regulations."

Fortunately the bags made it ok (I had visions of broken/missing locks).

I'm going to print out the entire CFR from the ecfr.gpoaccess.gov website for my next trip.

Happy flying y'all!

telomerase
January 18, 2006, 12:18 AM
The downside is that these ritual rapes at aiports cost billions of dollars and don't make us any safer... in fact they just encourage terrorists to blow up dams or something else that might really do some damage.

The upside is that time foreigners spend laughing at Americans disarming themselves to make themselves "safe" is time they don't spend making Lassa/flu hybrids.

Gordy Wesen
January 18, 2006, 12:33 AM
Edited per Justin

LiquidTension
January 18, 2006, 12:37 AM
I've only flown once since 9/11, and I had no firearms due to the fact that I was going to Japan. Hence, I have no experience with that particular aspect of the conversation but I can comment on airport security here vs. there.

I left from CAE in Columbia and had no problems. They didn't make me take off my shoes or anything. I had a diving knife in checked luggage, but that was all due to the fairly strict knife laws in Japan. In Chicago things were fine for the most part. People weren't as polite as down South, but then they never are :) Got into Osaka, went through customs, all was well. Got to Okinawa, again all was well.

On the way back, when I got to Chicago, the change hit me like a mule fart to the face. Everyone in Japan was POLITE, even when they asked me to take the bottle of habu sake out for them to inspect. Chicago was like walking into a butt-kicking festival and finding out that not only did you forget to bring your legs, but you have the biggest butt in the room (i.e. I was totally unprepared). The people were extraordinarily rude.

First, the security screeners were too busy yelling to each other across the terminal about whatever it is that self righteous Latino gangsta-wannabes talk about to notice that the trays for putting personal items on were all on the other side of the checkpoint. Then, they start yelling at people to keep moving when the line gets delayed due to the fact that nobody has a place to put their stuff to go through the conveyor. Second, they were getting in people's faces and telling them - quite loudly - to keep moving. Problem is, most of the people couldn't understand them due to the fact that 1) it is an INTERNATIONAL airport, full of people from all over the world, and 2) they were speaking Latinobonics - I couldn't even make out what they were saying! The Japanese had less of an accent than these American TSA screeners. They made me take off my plastic sandals I had purchased in Oki. I informed the person that they were PLATIC, not PLASTIQUE, but the reference flew over their head at an altitude rivaling the departing airliners.

I'm not saying this because I have any particular dislike for Latinos or women or anything like that. I'm saying this because it just shows that the TSA is obviously in the habit of hiring people that are completely unprofessional. Seriously, this is the first stop many people make when coming to this country, and they are greeted by incomprehensible gibberish being hurled at them by some incompetant person on a power trip. I can totally believe what others in this thread have reported about the attitudes of TSA employees. Strangley, when I got back down South, they were polite again - if a bit stoic.

While I can't comment on the theft issue, I do find the Ann Coulter reference interesting. Do you have a link for that?

Gordy Wesen
January 18, 2006, 12:44 AM
ok

NineseveN
January 18, 2006, 01:46 AM
Glad this post resurfaced.
I remember reading the Jelly Donut Eater's post, Bartley, who said:


That was a completely pointless insult that added nothing to your point, or this thread. Not very THR. "Jelly Donut Eater"? It's not even funny man.

PeteRR
January 18, 2006, 02:25 AM
I took my .45 with me this last summer as I traveled for work. I experienced 10 different ways for the TSA at 10 different airports to handle my pistol in my checked luggage. Eventually I started carrying 3 locks in my pocket(2 for the hard case(I was told that with one lock the case could still be opened and my pistol taken) and one for the luggage that the hard case was in)). The lack of standardization was, and is, infuriating.

MaMa PyCb
January 18, 2006, 02:47 AM
Quote:
everyone's lives were made a bit more difficult since 9/11. one of the sacrifices we make as citizens during a time of war is enhanced security measures.

I thought we had rights though? I thought we didnt make sacrfices of things like rights and libertys and such. didnt one those guys who wrote that stuff that we base our government off(and Im being sarcastic here) of say something like " those who sacrifaces freedom for saftey diserve neither freedom nor saftey"

I dunno, I thought americans where supposed to trust each other.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 18, 2006, 01:32 PM
One thing this thread has opened my eyes to is that there are people who will defend the government even when it breaks its own rules.
:rolleyes:

Lennyjoe
January 18, 2006, 01:54 PM
My son just got hired on to TSA and starts on the 5th of Feb. He is trained on weapons and associated hardware so at least we will have one guy in the mix that knows whats going on. ;)

Steelcore
January 18, 2006, 03:33 PM
You could have shipped your guns to yourself at your inlaws place in Arizona and avoided the whole mess.I don't fly because of all the security BS.Not worth the stress of putting up with morons.More fun to drive and see the country.

Lennyjoe
January 18, 2006, 03:48 PM
I have learned to carry a copy of the regulations on my person for cases just like this. Have both the TSA and carriers regulations for quick reference.

marlin.357
January 18, 2006, 04:54 PM
no one--not one--has been able to tell me how you'd tell the difference between a law-abiding CCWer and a terrorist with a legally acquired CCW

The terrorist would be the one trying to highjack the airplane.

Thefabulousfink
January 18, 2006, 04:58 PM
And the law-abiding one would be the one who shoots him:D

TallPine
January 18, 2006, 05:06 PM
I guess that flying wasn't considered unpleasant enough to begin with (being crammed like a sardine into a metal cylinder with a bunch of strangers to be hurtled through the stratosphere towards someplace you probably really didn't want to go to in the first place) so the whole "airport security" and TSA process was dreamed up to separate you from your belongings, strip search you, and just generally humiliate you to round out the experience. :rolleyes: :(

Who cares about "airport security" anway...? What we (the airlines to be precise) should be concerned about is "airplane security" - which could best be provided by putting an armed guard on each plane (maybe sit up by the cockpit door with a sawed off shotgun...? :p ). Banks take care of themselves and their money - how come the airline companies can't take care of themselves?

Carlos
January 18, 2006, 08:37 PM
kind of messed up that we are resorting to calling our fellow americans thiefs and idots just because they work for the TSA or the airlines.

not very high road.

everyone's lives were made a bit more difficult since 9/11. one of the sacrifices we make as citizens during a time of war is enhanced security measures. imperfect as these measures are, they are as good as it gets considering the scale at which they must be deployed.

i believe everyone has a right to bitch about bad service, but making unfounded allegations of instutitionalized theft is just wrong.

Well, it's not very high road to call you less than intelligent or completely out of the loop, but somebody has to. It's well known that the TSA has stolen much property from citizens. Unfounded? Are you out of your mind?

:cuss:

AZLibertarian
January 19, 2006, 01:24 PM
[In response to how we'd prevent terrorists from legitimately acquiring a CCW] The terrorist would be the one trying to highjack the airplane. I've been through this here before, but one more time can't hurt...

I live in the Phoenix area--not exactly a gun-phobic area. The population of Maricopa County (basically all of the metro Phoenix area) is 3.5 million (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/04/04013.html). There are 37904 (http://www.azdps.gov/ccw/stats2005.asp) Concealed Weapon Permits in this same county.

So--with a bit of public math--we come up with a 1% chance that you'd run across someone with a CCW permit here in Maricopa County. Or, said differently, 99% of the people you run across don't have a permit.

If you allowed CCW on planes, you'd have to expect that no more than 1% of the passengers boarding planes in Phoenix would be so armed.

For the past couple of years, I've been trying to get out once a month to an IDPA match. There are (to my knowledge) 4 venues in the area which host IDPA matches--and I've been to 3 of them. Many of the guys (and a couple of gals) I see are the same faces match-to-match, venue-to-venue. But my point here is that, most matches have no more than 30 shooters. The largest group I've seen was at the South Mountain Showdown (http://www.phoenixrodandgun.org/IDPA%20Scores/2005/idpa/southmtnshwdwn2005.htm)--which had 63 shooters, if my count is correct. Many of these shooters, however, were from out of the county or out of state.

I recognize that there are all kinds of practice and that IDPA isn't for everybody, but it's my view that most of the 37000 permit holders in Maricopa County don't practice much at all. Although there's no way to know, I'd be surprised if more than 10% of us carry more than once per week.

So, based on all this, I have to conclude that the vast majority of those interested enough in CCW to go out and pay their money and take a course, don't take the effort to practice what they preach.

With this as background, I have a hard time supporting the average CCW carrier bringing his gun on a plane. A terrorist will go out and get the same legitimate permit that we all have. It's really not much more involved than getting a Drivers License. Yet, that determined terrorist will have extensive practice at what he intends--practice that the average CCWer doesn't have.

By letting unpracticed, inexperienced CCWers carry on planes, you open the door to very practiced terrorists. No one here has solved this dilemma. Do it and I'll be open to changing my view.

Gun Wielding Maniac
January 19, 2006, 10:44 PM
I've been through this here before, but one more time can't hurt...

So, based on all this, I have to conclude that the vast majority of those interested enough in CCW to go out and pay their money and take a course, don't take the effort to practice what they preach.

By letting unpracticed, inexperienced CCWers carry on planes, you open the door to very practiced terrorists. No one here has solved this dilemma. Do it and I'll be open to changing my view.

Hmmm... In most states that I'm aware of, CCW holders go through a background check by the state police before they are issued their permits. Presumably, this background check weeds out little things like felonies, flags by the FBI, not holding citizenship, that sort of thing.

In short, the background of each of the CCW holders has been certified. If you say that "CCW's can be faked". I'll respond that LEO and Air Marshall ID's can also be faked.

What is to stop an extemely motivated terrorist from becoming a PILOT for that matter? And just flying his plane into his target at a set signal? Just HOW trustworthy does a person have to be?

Your example of one very motivated terrorist with a CCW does not damage the strength of the argument for allowing CCW's to carry on planes. Quite the contrary, it seems that the aircraft would be safer if a larger proportion of people were carrying. No matter how motivated, one terrorist couldnt be expected to take on 7 or 8 armed people.

And have you considered what effect this would have on the mindset of a terrorist... if he would also have to consider that any aircraft he might attempt to hijack would have an undetermined number of armed people ready to oppose him?

AZLibertarian
January 20, 2006, 01:11 PM
Hmmm... In most states that I'm aware of, CCW holders go through a background check by the state police before they are issued their permits.... There are background checks, and then there are background checks. Here in Arizona, you basically have to not have a criminal history (http://www.dps.state.az.us/ccw/obtpermit.asp). However, nobody's going to look at what groups you belong to, what you've written somewhere, or anything else. Although because the 19 9/11 hijackers weren't Resident Aliens and therefore wouldn't be eligible, both this guy (http://www.frontpagemag.com/media/Homepage/JohnWalkerLindh.jpg) and this guy (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/nl/thumb/4/47/Mcveigh.jpg/160px-Mcveigh.jpg) could have easily had an AZ CCW had they wanted one.

But back to my earlier point, the average CCW carrier (regardless of the depth of the background check) simply doesn't practice. There's relatively few of us, and those that take the effort to practice regularly are even rarer. Quite frankly, the shooting standards for getting a CCW are pathetically simple. The courses are primarily designed to make sure that the new CCW-carrier understands the depths of the liability they're assuming.

You can see a bunch of practical questions I asked about CCWs on airplanes last summer here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146298&page=2). I won't rehash it all again, but the questions remain.

Bainx
January 20, 2006, 01:42 PM
Enjoy the flying the marxist skies!

I have a close relative who is a commercial pilot and he repeatedly tells us that the subcontractors who clean the interior of the plane, stock food and drink etc. have virtually NO security to go thu in order to board the plane.
Of course, the sheeple passengers inside the airport terminal do not know this. All they know is the "window dressing" facade of security that they observed being placed upon them and assuming that all is well.

What a friggin joke!

redbone
January 20, 2006, 05:55 PM
Hey! Let's not forget when Joe Foss couldn't board with his CMOH.

RBH

Archie
January 20, 2006, 07:51 PM
One of the biggest mistakes George Bush made was in not dumping Norman Mineta (?) as Sec Trans. I'm sure he has a reason, and I'd sure like to hear it, because Mineta is a twit.

TSA is a rather young agency. They have changed several times in their brief history from this department to that and they do not have a clear and cohesive plan of what they are about. As has been mentioned, much of what they do is 'window dressing'.

Yes, TSA screeners do steal from people. One of my professional associates is a Special Agent with TSA who performs 'internal audits'; that is, he looks for screeners stealing from people's baggage. They are prosecuted (provided sufficient evidence to prosecute is developed) as much as possible. So the implication that TSA screeners may steal from passengers with impunity is sheer nonsense. There are thieves in every occupation.

All in all, I'm not happy with flying anymore. The laws and regulations are very complex (thank your Congress before you gripe at TSA) to the point of being incomprehensible. It's not surprizing even supervisors cannot keep up with '... is this okay?'

For situations like the one starting this thread, we have only one option. Complain long and loud to the agency in question.
... the Louisville Police Department came over to take a look. Yep, the TSA called the cops on me :B The cop, a middle aged man with a gut, looked at the snap cap for a few seconds, rolling it over in his hands and saying, "We're going to have to confiscate this. Its a prohibited item." I just stood flabbergasted for a few seconds. I told the cop it was a dummy round, a snap cap, totally lacking powder and he just looked at me blankly.Write a letter to the Louisville Police Department. Tell them what happened, complete with Officer's name/badge number and the police report number. Ask them to provide you the law prohibiting possession of a snap cap under the circumstances. (The Louisville cop cannot enforce federal laws or regulations, by the way; there is no federal 'crossover' provision.) I would inform them if I don't get a written response within 72 hours, I am going to send copies of this letter to the local newspapers, the local news media, my state representative and my federal representatives.

The same for everyone else. If something happens you feel is a violation of your civil rights, do something. No, don't blow up a federal building; make your objections known to the agency involved. Be polite, but address the lawfulness of the circumstance.

Federal law 18 USC 242 makes certain actions "...a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States." Taking property without lawful authority is a violation of the Forth Amendment.

Having said all that, I don't fly much anymore. F'rinstance, I'm planning on going to the Arizona State Police Games this year. Could you imagine the reaction when I show up at either the ticket counter or the TSA screening point with: a duty pistol, a PPC pistol, an evil black plastic Remington 870 for the three gun match, an M1 Carbine for three gun, a Garand for the High Power Match, and a sniper rifle; not to mention copious amounts of ammo?

Heck, the gas money will be cheaper than the excess bagage charges.

If you enjoyed reading about "Unpleasant experience at airport" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!