Your interpretation of the law is certainly not the intent of the law and I don't think for a moment it would stand up in court.
The sources of the intent are silent on the intent of this rule. That includes the preamble to the rule in the Federal Register, 67 FR 8353, Feb. 22, 2002, the statute that authorizes the rule, and the surrounding rules. I would argue that the intent is to keep thieves out and not to keep the TSA out. I cannot imagine how the intent to NOT keep TSA out is met by prohibiting a TSA lock.
The spirit of the law clearly shows the intent is to keep the means to lock or unlock the container out of the hands of those involved in the shipping process, except when in the immediate presence of firearm owner/shipper.
The Letter of the law also supports this, though with your interpretation not as clearly.
So when combining both the letter and the spirit of the law you are left with a clear conclusion that they do not want anyone besides you with a way to unlock the firearm's container outside of your immediate presence.
It is
clear from the rule is that TSA must be given access to inspect the gun. It is clear that the gun case be locked. It is clear that the suitcase be locked. It is clear that I must retain the key or combination. It is
not clear that I must retain the key
and combination. It is clear that by my retaining the
combination, only TSA can unlock the lock. Even if the current rules were written before TSA locks existed, TSA locks fit very neatly into TSA's program. TSA would have to be the entity to arrest and seek prosecution if this were a violation.
I have defended more clients than I can count for violations of criminal statutes and rules in the CFR that were less clear than this one. One thing that was always clear - the plain language of the law prevails. In this case, even if "key or combination" was a mistake and was supposed to say "key and combination," the court would
first look to the plain language and only after it found ambiguity would it look to the legislative intent or surrounding rules and laws. I think
or means
or. There are plenty of definitions in the TSA rules, but none that define "or" to mean "and."
If intent of the surrounding rules and laws is to make access by TSA to checked guns
more difficult and instead to require the passenger being present during inspection, I haven't seen any evidence of it, and have only seen the
opposite.
As to the spirit of the law? I would argue that it the same as the intent - to keep crooks out and allow the TSA in.
Again, I ask for someone to show me where it says no TSA locks. Or show me a case of someone being prosecuted for using a TSA lock. The only thing I've seen is smooth sailing
with TSA locks and a refusal by TSA to allow me to transport guns
without supplying the key or combination,
despite repeated offers to unlock the gun for the TSA supervisor.
Besides...those TSA locks are a joke...all it takes is a pair of pliers to open one.
Is that relevant? TSA is perfectly satisfied with plastic gun cases. TSA was very unhappy with my heavy gauge steel safe with unlabeled pushbuttons on the simplex lock, and gave me lots of grief.
They made me draw a picture of the lock, number the buttons on the picture, and write out instructions for them to open it. They gave me hell for insisting on opening it for them and more hell for pointing the rule to them in the CFR. My choices were to write out the instructions, leave the airport and FEDEX my gun to myself and miss my flight, or abandon the gun.