Unpleasant experience at airport

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

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.

 

[Lennyjoe]

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]

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]

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]

I know, I know!!!

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]

And the law-abiding one would be the one who shoots him

 

[TallPine]

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.

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...? ). Banks take care of themselves and their money - how come the airline companies can't take care of themselves?

 

[Carlos]

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?

 

[AZLibertarian]

[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. There are 37904 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--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]

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]

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. 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 and this guy 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. I won't rehash it all again, but the questions remain.

 

[Bainx]

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]

Hey! Let's not forget when Joe Foss couldn't board with his CMOH.

RBH

 

[Archie]

I see both sides of this...

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.