Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Loaded .380 Found Strapped To Passenger’s Ankle at DTW With Body Scanner

Loaded FirearmSaturday at DTW, a loaded .380 pistol was found strapped to the ankle of a 76-year-old man. We’ve found over 1,100 firearms this year, but what makes this one stand out from the rest is that it wasn’t found in a bag, it was found strapped to a passenger’s ankle with one of our body scanners. It’s just more proof that this technology can and will find dangerous items.

After reading comments around the web this morning, I noticed some comments stating that walk through metal detectors would have found this pistol and that they’re far less expensive than body scanners.  While that’s a true statement, the walk through metal detectors cannot detect non metallic items like explosives, which are the greatest threat to aviation today. Body scanners are far more versatile and can find both metallic and non metallic concealed dangerous items. Hundreds of dangerous, prohibited, and illegal items have been found with the scanners since January 2010. 

You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline. You can go here for more details on how to properly travel with your firearms. 

Great job DTW! 

Blogger Bob Burns
If you’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

Was this 76-year-old man arrested and charged with trying to harm an aircraft?

Shamino said...

OK, so now here's the obvious question that Blogger Bob didn't answer.

In the years since the scanners have gone into use, how many explosive have been detected that would not have been detected by metal detectors?

So far, all the blog posts we've seen here have been showing pictures of hard metal objects, which would have been found without body scanners.

So let's see weekly reports about non-metalic dangers detected by the scanners, not just the knives guns and grenades you've been showing us. I assume you must be finding stuff or you wouldn't be so certain that the scanners are necessary.

Caseyis39 said...

What is DTW? You never said. You have to realize these things go all over the internet. I'm on the East Coast and have no idea what or where DTW is.

Anonymous said...

I guess I should congratulate the screeners on doing the bare minimum requirements of their job. I'm not sure why this warrants a post on your blog. It would be an actual story if the guy got the gun through security. Finding a gun that someone is carrying on their body should happen almost 100% of the time. The metal detectors would have found this with a much lower costs, less screeners required, and not violated constitutional rights as the scanners.

Saul said...

>> Hundreds of dangerous, prohibited,
>> and illegal items have been found
>> with the scanners since January 2010.

Bob, it is not the job of the TSA to find illegal items. It is the checkpoint's job to find items that are a threat to the aircraft and its passengers. In other words, if the body scanners catch someone's concealed stash of drugs, that is not a "good find". Such drugs pose not one iota of a threat to the plane. Using finds such as drugs to justify AIT just shows that airport checkpoints have now become general police dragnets, rather than "warrantless administrative searches" for items that pose an immediate threat to aviation.

When you come back and tell us the items that AIT has found that actually pose a threat to aviation -- items that would not have been caught by the decades-old technology of metal detectors and baggage x-rays -- then I will change my tune.

But, Bob, it sure must be easier to publish the weekly TSA police log than it is to answer the critical questions that dozens of other commenters have asked over the past few weeks.

So, Bob, when can we expect some answers to pressing issues such as whether the TSA ever requires passengers to remove articles of clothing beyond outerwear? Or why gate searches are effective and not a make-work scheme for TSOs who have nothing else to do? Or why no other country requires its passengers to remove their shoes, and manage to not have planes blown daily out of the sky?

We await your answers. Thank you.

[Screenshot captured.]

Anonymous said...

"In the years since the scanners have gone into use, how many explosive have been detected that would not have been detected by metal detectors?"

That would be zero, right Curtis?

Anonymous said...

DTW is the international airport code for Wayne County Airport, Detroit, where the incident took place.

http://www.world-airport-codes.com/united-states/wayne-county-1900.html

Adrian said...

True, a metal detector would not catch pure explosives.

But it's really, really hard to get a reliable detonator through a metal detector. That's why Mr. Sizzlypants tried to use a very unreliable chemical process to detonate his underwear. And he failed miserably.

Also note that he flew into the US from an airport in the EU, which has now made the x-ray backscatter machines illegal. So no matter how many of these machines you inflict on us, there will still be ways in that are no better than a metal detector.

Metal detectors have a much, much better return on investment, have no safety concerns, have no privacy concerns, are cheaper to purchase (about 10x), are cheaper to maintain, and are hugely effective at finding dangerous items. They also work as a deterrent as demonstrated by the Sizzlypants case).

Furthermore, metal detectors are already paid for and available in every lane of every checkpoint in every airport that flies to the U.S.

Adrian said...

X-ray backscatter or millimeter wave?

Anonymous said...

I am just very sad of all these "bloggers" who only have negative things to say!! Wow!!! People told me how these "bloggers" were just an embarrasement, but I thought it was just an exageration. Well, it is not! It's almost funny, really! You can NEVER win with these "bloggers." First everyone was complaining about how ridiculous was to search the elderly because they would never...(everyone knows the story), but now, all those people were proven to be WRONG! c'mon people!! The main point is he had a concealed GUN ON HIS ANKLE, which he took to a Federal airport, AND that is a Federal offense!.... Now, why are all of these "bloggers" talking about the metal detectors, REALLY PEOPLE?? And, someother "blogger" stating, "oh they were just doing the bare minimum requirements," WOW! I am speechless...Then, all these "bloggers" start asking, "Oh well, when have they caught explosives" blah blah... PEOPLE! THAT'S WHY THEY ARE THERE AND IF THEY HAVEN'T, WELL THAT'S A GOOD THING!!! I sure wouldn't want my family there if that happens! Thanks to all the TSOs, nothing has happened! You should all be ashamed, because if you do fly, they are looking after you and your family. You take them away, terrorists will have it A LOT EASIER!... You should all be thankful. NUF said.

Anonymous said...

Very thankful we have and use these scanners. If the free public don't want to use scanners or believe they violate their rights, then drive.

THANKS TSA for all you do to keep our families safe at home!
Deployed US Marine

Anonymous said...

1. Once again brave Sir Bob has ridden into combat and achieved a glorious victory over a straw man.

No one doubts that your scanners may be able to detect things that you otherwise couldn't detect. What we doubt is that your risk/benefit analysis has any rational foundation. By "risks" I mean potential threats to both health and privacy as well as financial costs and by "benefits" I mean the prevention of attacks that would not have been thwarted by previously existing measures. Is that clear enough?

2. "...the walk through metal detectors cannot detect non metallic items like explosives, which are the greatest threat to aviation today. "

That is completely false. The greatest threats aviation remain, as always, pilot error and mechanical failure. Fortunately, commercial aviation fatalities are such a tiny risk that the idea of pumping billions into increased security is absolutely laughable. Have you guys ever heard of diabetes and cancer? Cause every dollar you spend on these ridiculous machines could be spent on research devoted to curing these diseases, which are a real and tangible threat to the average American.

[This post is on topic and violates none of your guidelines. Screenshot captured.]

Anonymous said...

DTW is Detroit Metro

Anonymous said...

Body scanners are far more versatile and can find both metallic and non metallic concealed dangerous items.

Not really true...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2010/12/backscatter_scanner_vulnerabilities

"It is very likely that a large (15-20 cm in diameter), irregularly-shaped, cm-thick pancake with beveled edges, taped to the abdomen, would be invisible to this technology"

...and that's ignoring the whole 'internally carried' bomb thing.

Anonymous said...

so you caught an old man with a pistol. What about the TSO who brought his own gun into the checkpoint illegally? Funny how you've never mentioned that one as a success story. And does that TSO still work for TSA?

Saul said...

>> ... detect non metallic items like explosives,
>> which are the greatest threat to aviation today

Bob, please cite a source for this statement, beyond Pistole or Napolitano saying so.

Also, if explosives are such a threat, how did we manage for the eight years between the formation of the TSA and the deployment of AIT with no explosion attempts on fights originating from the US?

[Screenshot captured]

Anonymous said...

Adrian, don't worry about the EU not having backscatter scanning machines. I am quite sure now that the EU have banned them all flights from there will soon have to land in a non EU country outside the US for rescreening of passengers before entering our airspace. That means all flights to the US from the EU will likely have to land in Canada or Greenland for the rescreening process. I predict that this policy will be implemented within six months. Maybe Bob can post here when the US adopts this policy.

Anonymous said...

a hand held metal detector or just a common sense would have also detect this gun. Don't need a half million dollar xray machine to find this.

Anonymous said...

I assume you caught a terrorist then? Was the man arrested for trying to hijack the plane? I hope you cleared the terminal!

Nice job trying to defuse the strip searching of the 3 elderly women.

Nadav said...

The problem with this situation is people flying from outside the US. Almost no country uses body scanners, so people can harm US planes from the outside.

Guns can be caught on every metal detector.

Nadav

Anonymous said...

The whole body scanner only detected it because this individual wasn´t smart enough to hide it in his rear end crack. Full boddy scanners can´t see there, while metal detectors would alarm.

These disgusting machines are WORSE than what you already had.

RB said...

"After reading comments around the web this morning, I noticed some comments stating that walk through metal detectors would have found this pistol and that they’re far less expensive than body scanners. While that’s a true statement, the walk through metal detectors cannot detect non metallic items like explosives,"
............................

Using a combination of Wall Through Metal Detector, Hand Held Medal Detector, and Explosive Trace Detection equipment that is available at all checkpoints today a reasonable level of screening can be done without the TSA Strip Searches, electronic or real, and travelers will retain a small degree of privacy.

The Whole Body Imagers are clearly an invasion of privacy and the Backscatter version presents a known health hazard to the public and very likely to the operators.

I appreciate that TSA found a small pistol, that's your job, but this find doesn't really call for an announcement. But, if you're going to announce this type of thing why not equal time and announce the Federal Investigation of TSA at MSP where it seems TSA is not doing its job?

Anonymous said...

The TSA has gleefully reported on all of the items that they have discovered on passengers going through security. However, we never hear about any INTENT of the passengers to use any of these items for wrongdoing, do we? That is because the passengers are NOT terrorists!!!!

I am NOT afraid of my fellow Americans, even when they are armed. However,any student of history should be VERY, VERY afraid of what the government is doing to destroy the Bill of Rights in America. What DHS and the TSA are doing is profoundly dangerous and is an affront to liberty and freedom.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for keeping me safe at work everyday. From an appreciative flight crew member.

Anonymous said...

What was the point of mentioning that the gun was found by the body scanner? The gun would have alarmed a metal detector just the same.

Seems this is a blatant and misleading attempt to justify the use of a body scanner.

NUF said. said...

Again... You can never win with these "bloggers." First, they were complaining because metal detectors did not catch anything and that people could get things through very easily. That was solved by having the scanners. Now, they are complaining because of "violation of their rights" (NOT) and because of "health issues." They use cell phones every day all day, which has more radiation, and they are scared of the scanners, which takes 2 seconds! HAHA, WOW PEOPLE.. Ok.. So, which one is it people? I agree that these machines are not 100% effective, so, all passengers should just be searched like they do on EVERY country! They actually "strip search" if they have too, and will dump your bag and let YOU pack it back. That's how it should be done. But hey, you know all these "bloggers" will complain about that as well. You are just simply too spoiled! So, what do all these negative "bloggers" want? to get rid of TSA offiers (NOT SCREENERS), but then, an attack is more likely to happen, and when it does, all these negative "bloggers" will say, "Oh that would have never happen if we had people (officers) screening people blah blah blah," isn't it right? HAHA you all make me laugh! be grateful and stop complaining!! AND don't let TSA distract you from the real issues that we have in our beautiful Country. NUF said.

Anonymous said...

Quoted:
" Anonymous said...
The TSA has gleefully reported on all of the items that they have discovered on passengers going through security. However, we never hear about any INTENT of the passengers to use any of these items for wrongdoing, do we? That is because the passengers are NOT terrorists!!!!

I am NOT afraid of my fellow Americans, even when they are armed. .......
December 14, 2011 8:14 AM
_____________________
Really? So you have no problem with this guy having that gun on an airplane? A guy that was too dumb to even realize he had a lb and a half of metal strapped to his ankle when he came to an airport. I would think that if he's that dumb, the chances of that thing going off while inside the plane when he goes to scratch his ankle would be pretty high.

Thanks TSA. I don't care how you found this, just glad you did!

Oh, and by the way, I too have a concealed carry permit in NY city, one of the hardest places to get one, (so I'm not anti-gun) and I hope this guy loses his!

Anonymous said...

"I agree that these machines are not 100% effective, so, all passengers should just be searched like they do on EVERY country!"

You mean all those countries that don't use scanners, don't have a shoe carnival, and only have liquids restrictions thanks to pressure from the US? Yeah, I'd be happy to have that be the norm here. Why, just last year I took a flight from the UK to the US and did not remove my shoes! Fortunately, my shoes DID NOT EXPLODE!

Anonymous said...

[[They actually "strip search" if they have too, and will dump your bag and let YOU pack it back]]

Right. And how many of those countries have a 4thAM?

If they have their own version of a 4thAM and they are still presumptively guilty until they prove themselves innocent, then the same criticism you hear here applies there as well. ...but it's up to them to criticize it. Not us. It's their country, not ours.

Since this is our country, and we have a 4thAM which STILL fails to say "except for terrorism", then it does violate our rights.

[[You are just simply too spoiled!]]

Yes ... you are. You whine about how scared you are in the middle of the night and Mommy Government jumps up to roust everyone in the neighborhood to make sure they aren't scawing hew poow widdow ba-a-aby-y-y-y... Never mind the imposition, presumption, and irrationality. Baby's scared. Must placate baby.

[[but then, an attack is more likely to happen]]

Actually, probably not.

9-11 was predicated on the ability of passengers to force their way into the cockpit and the 'official' US policy toward hijacking being "cooperate and negotiate". The cockpit doors are now non-accessible and the response protocol has been changed to "resist".

9-11 cannot happen any longer.

Sorry. I know this is disappointing to you and many like you ...

[[isn't it right?]]

For me? You couldn't be wronger if you tried. My response would be "that's the price for living in a free society".

Now, obviously, if YOU prefer living in a dictatorial state where the power of the government is supreme and you are left to hope, wish, and cross your fingers that the government will universally use their limitless powers benignly, that's up to you. But I don't. I prefer freedom, thankyouverymuch. And yes, I'm aware that with my freedom comes your freedom, and your freedom includes your ability to say and do many many many indescribably stupid and foolish things ... case in point, your missive of 11:28AM ... but that's just one of the costs of it. I am more than capable of countering your jabber, just as Americans have shown themselves more than capable of taking down the childish attempts to commit air sabotage.

MORE capable, mind you, than TSA and its policies have been in preventing those yahoos from getting aboard, I might add.

rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

Nuff Said said...

Look at what this "blogger" writes:
_________________________________
[[They actually "strip search" if they have too, and will dump your bag and let YOU pack it back]]

Right. And how many of those countries have a 4thAM?

If they have their own version of a 4thAM and they are still presumptively guilty until they prove themselves innocent, then the same criticism you hear here applies there as well. ...but it's up to them to criticize it. Not us. It's their country, not ours.

Since this is our country, and we have a 4thAM which STILL fails to say "except for terrorism", then it does violate our rights.

[[You are just simply too spoiled!]]

Yes ... you are. You whine about how scared you are in the middle of the night and Mommy Government jumps up to roust everyone in the neighborhood to make sure they aren't scawing hew poow widdow ba-a-aby-y-y-y... Never mind the imposition, presumption, and irrationality. Baby's scared. Must placate baby.

[[but then, an attack is more likely to happen]]

Actually, probably not.

9-11 was predicated on the ability of passengers to force their way into the cockpit and the 'official' US policy toward hijacking being "cooperate and negotiate". The cockpit doors are now non-accessible and the response protocol has been changed to "resist".

9-11 cannot happen any longer.

Sorry. I know this is disappointing to you and many like you ...

[[isn't it right?]]

For me? You couldn't be wronger if you tried. My response would be "that's the price for living in a free society".

Now, obviously, if YOU prefer living in a dictatorial state where the power of the government is supreme and you are left to hope, wish, and cross your fingers that the government will universally use their limitless powers benignly, that's up to you. But I don't. I prefer freedom, thankyouverymuch. And yes, I'm aware that with my freedom comes your freedom, and your freedom includes your ability to say and do many many many indescribably stupid and foolish things ... case in point, your missive of 11:28AM ... but that's just one of the costs of it. I am more than capable of countering your jabber, just as Americans have shown themselves more than capable of taking down the childish attempts to commit air sabotage.

MORE capable, mind you, than TSA and its policies have been in preventing those yahoos from getting aboard, I might add.

rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

December 14, 2011 12:32 PM
__________________________________

Ok.. You are too funny! Re-read the post.. not just the 2-4 sentences or words you are quoting. That's exactly my point.. You are and have been too spoiled AND you are still missing the point. Let's see if you understand it this way --- You ask for an apple, an apple is given to you. You then complain about it and want an orange instead, but again, that's not good enough for you, so you start complaining. You then want grapes, but that's not good enough for you either, so you rather have an apple again. Get my point, now?
Wow... NUFF SAID.

NUF said said...

Like I have been saying. You simply can't win with these "bloggers" HAHAH... I appologize on behalf of all these negative "bloggers."
Thank you to all that are serving to help us, the traveling public. NUF SAID.

tramky said...

I would expect nearly everyone going to or from Detroit to be carrying weapons! What's the big deal? It's like going to the Central Congo where every other person has an AK-47. The city has entered the Third World.

Anonymous said...

"Adrian, don't worry about the EU not having backscatter scanning machines. I am quite sure now that the EU have banned them all flights from there will soon have to land in a non EU country outside the US for rescreening of passengers before entering our airspace."

What you suggest will never, ever happen. The first thing the CAA will do is require that all US flights stop partway for rescreening. Really, this is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever seen.

Anonymous said...

"Really? So you have no problem with this guy having that gun on an airplane?"

I don't, no.

"A guy that was too dumb to even realize he had a lb and a half of metal strapped to his ankle when he came to an airport."

He might have been dumb but I'll bet he knew his weapon weighs more than 1.5 lb.


"I would think that if he's that dumb, the chances of that thing going off while inside the plane when he goes to scratch his ankle would be pretty high."

A total non-sequitar. I suspect he is so accustomed to carrying that it didn't occur to him.

Don't worry, he won't lose his CCW over this.

Anonymous said...

"They use cell phones every day all day, which has more radiation, and they are scared of the scanners, which takes 2 seconds!"

Wow, one upset TSO. Unfortunately, not a very smart one. At what wavelength does your cell phone operate? How about the scanners? Care to outline the ERP for each? How about the health consequences?


"" WOW! I am speechless..."

Probably would have been better had you been...

Anonymous said...

Did the man have a valid CCW? If he did, was it revoked? I am not sure about the CCW rules in the DTW area, but airports are a CCW "no-go" area where I live. Even if he had a valid CCW, he should not have had his ankle-holster loaded. Should have been in a pistol box.

Anonymous said...

[[Ok.. You are too funny! Re-read the post.. not just the 2-4 sentences or words you are quoting. That's exactly my point]]

Actually, your "point" - as it were - is that you are scared to itty bitty pieces and you're attempting to cobble together a justification for what YOU deem necessary based on Mommy Government doing what they cannot begin to do. Perfect safety and security does not exist, no matter how much bubble wrap and blankies you hide in.

**I** didn't ask for an apple. You did. **I** didn't then ask for an orange. Someone else did. Your entire "get my point now" schtick is built upon a straw-man thrashing escapade where you define everyone around you based on your own fears and phobias. But the reality is this, kiddo: those people whom you deign to self-righteously lecture do not have those fears and phobias.

You do.

The only one who wants fruit of any variety is YOU, and those like you, who want Mommy Government to protect them from the scary bad men that they wouldn't recognize if they were wearing an "Al Qaida U - Class of 2001" sweatshirt.

Learn it and learn it quick: we are not paranoid. You are.

rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

NUF said said...

HAHA.. Nope! Not a TSO my friend.. I can see you love to judge people, but all those who judge, judge themselves..Again, you all negative "bloggers" are missing the point. You are an embarrasement. And, I'll say it again, you can never win with all these negative "bloggers." NUF said.

Anonymous said...

interesting post

Anonymous said...

Bob, has there been a single incident to date where the AIT scanners have found an item dangerous to aircraft or other passengers (not an illegal item, one dangerous to aircraft) that would not have been detected with the WTMD?

Anonymous said...

Nuff said said

...I can see you love to judge people, but all those who judge, judge themselves...

... you all negative "bloggers" are missing the point. You are an embarrasement(sic). And, I'll say it again, you can never win with all these negative "bloggers."


oh the irony...

NUF said...

[Learn it and learn it quick: we are not paranoid. You are.

rwilymz]
_________________________

There you go again HAHA... I am not scared nor have ANY phobias! Living in the USA is the safest place ever!!! This is nothing compared to where I have been. You love judging without knowing. You are an embarrasement. I am sorry for you.
The only thing I agree on, is that we will never be perfectly safe (now you say something worth reading about). However, there are sercurity measure that need to be done to HELP PREVENT another attack, even if the probabilities of that from happening is not much. But, just don't "cry" about it, and JUST DO IT. Get screened and keep walking. NUF said.

Josh said...

We spent all this money on these possibly cancer causing machines. How much bang for our buck are we getting? Obviously, the company that manufactures the machines is getting their money worth. Lobbying money I mean, of course.

Have we detected "non metallic items like explosives, which are the greatest threat to aviation today. "?

For that to even have a chance at being a true statement we'd have to have detected some. Either that, or the 1100 firearms actually posed no threat.

Anonymous said...

"Bob, has there been a single incident to date where the AIT scanners have found an item dangerous to aircraft or other passengers (not an illegal item, one dangerous to aircraft) that would not have been detected with the WTMD?"

No, there has not. Right, Curtis?

Anonymous said...

I've asked previously, with no response. I know empty magazines are allowed in checked baggage generally, but, to be specific, do the empty magazines need to be declared and in hard-sided containers? I ask because I may not have enough room in my regular gun case (a large pelican), and most airlines prohibit multiple cases.

GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "I've asked previously, with no response. I know empty magazines are allowed in checked baggage generally, but, to be specific, do the empty magazines need to be declared and in hard-sided containers? I ask because I may not have enough room in my regular gun case (a large pelican), and most airlines prohibit multiple cases."

The proper rules for transporting firearms and ammunition can be found on TSAs website here:

http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm

According to that:

"Firearm magazines and ammunition clips must be securely boxed or included within a hard-sided case containing an unloaded firearm."


I hope this helps with your travels!

West
TSA Blog Team

Mark said...

It's amazing yet never fails to amaze me. I guess people are always going to whine and complain about something. Look the body scanners are in place, terrorist know they are there and thus they serve as a deterrent to someone wanting to send explosive though. Without them then the likelihood of a terrorist organization using explosives on an aircraft is increased. It's simple as that. SO quit whining, it's one of the few smart expenditures our government has made.

Anonymous said...

[[the body scanners are in place, terrorist know they are there and thus they serve as a deterrent to someone wanting to send explosive though]]

Because explosives were "sent through" on a daily basis prior to body scanners, weren't they?

Um, well, no, in fact, they were not.

[[it's one of the few smart expenditures our government has made]]

Sadly, I'm sure you believe that.

I don't know where you live, Mark, so just work with me here on this analogy. Let's suppose you live in North Dakota. The last time a hurricane hit North Dakota was - roughly - never, but you keep hearing about the damage that hurricanes do, mostly from tidal surge. And so you build a seawall around your home at an extravagent cost. ...a seawall ...in the middle of North Dakota. "Deterrent" is how you explain it to the neighbors, who chuckle behind your back.

They chuckle because they aren't spending their money to help you, and they aren't being compelled to dig your post holes and mix concrete by hand for you. If they were forced to play along with you rather than just watch, they'd be pretty miffed, wouldn't they? Durn tootin' they would.

So there you are with this ugly seawall around your home just waiting for those hurricanes that never come, and it only cost you about $5billion dollars. One spring, when the snow melts, you find that the river broke its banks and your seawall, while not stopping any hurricane's tidal surge, managed to hold back a foot of river water for a week. SUCCESS!!

And you gloat to your neighbors. It only cost you $5billion to avoid having to layer a few sandbags. Wow. What a wise investment.

rwilymz
http://dblyelloline.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Ok, so a metal detector wouldn't have caught the loaded handgun? Give me a break. I can't believe how ridiculous this all is.

Caroline Sound said...

Unbelievable! Just don't get it! He was either intent on harming someone or intent on catching you out? No other explanation!

Ryan said...

I would like an answer to the question others have asked.

Was this man charged with attempted hijacking?

The TSA's ostensible job is to keep air travel safe. If this man's gun was taken, it was presumably because he intended to hijack the plane or harm the passengers with it.

So, what crime was he charged with?

Maya - Como Enamorar A Una Mujer said...

You know, I may have commented in the past regarding things like this, but I really want to voice just how appreciative and thankful I am for living in a country as such, with implemented safety by the TSA.

Things like this happen daily,and people seem to be getting craftier when it comes to planning, plotting and scheming, and it is outright scary.

I think we should all appreciate and be thankful. It is a reminder of the realities we face, and what others do to ensure we are safe.

Anonymous said...

It is not the job of the TSA to find illegal items. It is the checkpoint's job to find items that are a threat to the aircraft and its passengers. In other words, if the body scanners catch someone's concealed stash of drugs, that is not a "good find". Such drugs pose not one iota of a threat to the plane. Using finds such as drugs to justify AIT just shows that airport checkpoints have now become general police dragnets, rather than "warrantless administrative searches" for items that pose an immediate threat to aviation.

+1

UtahCCW said...

I don't mind the body scanners, in fact, I don't care at all if some TSA officer were to see me "naked" on a body scanner. I much prefer that to the inconvenience of being physically searched, especially when those searches are of grandmas and young kids.