Tuesday, June 24, 2014

Traveling With Firearms and Ammunition on Commercial Aircraft


Unloaded firearm in hard-sided lockable case.Firearms, ammunition and firearm parts, including firearm frames and receivers, are prohibited in carry-on baggage. Travelers such as target shooters, hunters, collectors, etc., need to travel with their firearms and can do so by checking their firearms and ammunition as checked baggage, as long as proper packing guidelines are followed.

Before I go any further, please take note: Firearm possession laws vary by state and locality. Travelers should familiarize themselves with state and local firearm laws for each point of travel prior to departure. For example, while firearms can be declared and checked with baggage in Cincinnati, it’s illegal in New York City due to possession laws. Airlines may have additional requirements for traveling with firearms and ammunition. Travelers should also contact the airline regarding firearm and ammunition carriage policies. Also, please note that other countries have different laws that address transportation and possession of firearms. If you are planning to travel internationally, check the regulations of the destination country to ensure compliance with their requirements.

Failure to adhere to the following regulations will preclude passengers from traveling with firearms, ammunitions or firearm parts. These regulations are strictly enforced and violations can result in state and local criminal prosecution, as well as civil penalties of up to $2,000 per violation.

    Unloaded firearm in hard-sided lockable case.
  • Travelers must declare all firearms to the airline during the ticket counter check-in process.
  • The firearm must be unloaded.
  • The firearm must be in a hard-sided container.
  • The container must be locked. A locked container is defined as one that completely secures the firearm from being accessed. Locked cases that can be pulled open with little effort cannot be brought aboard the aircraft.
  • If firearms are not properly declared or packed, TSA will provide the bag to law enforcement for resolution with the airline. If the issue is resolved, law enforcement will release the bag to TSA so screening may be completed.
  • TSA must resolve all alarms of checked luggage. If a locked case containing a firearm alarms, TSA will contact the airline, who will make a reasonable attempt to contact the owner and advise the passenger to go to the screening location. If contact is not made, the container will not be placed on the aircraft.
  • If a locked container alarms during screening and is not marked as containing a declared firearm, TSA will cut the lock in order to resolve the alarm.
  • Travelers should remain in the area designated by the aircraft operator or TSA representative to take the key back after the container is cleared for transportation.
  • Travelers must securely pack any ammunition in fiber (such as cardboard), wood or metal boxes or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition.
  • Firearm magazines and ammunition clips must be securely boxed or included within a hard-sided case containing an unloaded firearm.
  • Small arms ammunition, including ammunition not exceeding .75 caliber for a rifle or pistol and shotgun shells of any gauge, may be carried in the same hard-sided case as the firearm, as long as it follows the packing guidelines described above.
  • TSA prohibits black powder or percussion caps used with black powder.
  • There are certain limited exceptions for law enforcement officers who may fly armed by meeting the requirements of Title 49 CFR § 1544.219. Law enforcement officers should read our policies on traveling with guns.
http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/prohibited-items

Please be sure to double check your coats, bags and other personal items to ensure you don’t absentmindedly bring a firearm through the checkpoint. One of the most common reasons given when guns are found in carry-on bag is: “I didn’t know that was there!”

See you next week with more travel tips!

Follow @TSABlogTeam on Twitter and Instagram!


If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact us by clicking here.

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why is it that optics and other items that are not part of a firearm for its functionality are often confiscated? ??

RB said...

Bob you state that TSA does not allow black powder or percussion caps. Is that a TSA regulation or a regulation of the FAA? You wouldn't be taking credit for some other agencies regulations right?

And while we are on the subject of TSA regulations exactly what is TSA regulation, SOP, MD, or other directives regarding the screening of medical nitroglycerin?

Anonymous said...

Minor error in your post: Possession of a firearm in NYC is not the same as possession of a firearm as checked baggage in an airport in NYC. It is 100% legal to have a firearm as checked baggage if you are flying THROUGH an airport in NYC, and it is 100% legal to transfer that firearm as checked baggage onto another flight in NYC, but the folks in NYC get _really_ squirrely if you try to take checked baggage containing a firearm out of the airport - or introduce a firearm as checked baggage at a NYC airport.

Anonymous said...

The California Firearms Law summary for 2013 says on Page 6:
"Federal and state laws generally prohibit a person from carrying any firearm or ammunition aboard any commercial passenger airplane." Perhaps the TSA should let the California DoJ know that statement is incorrect. In some jurisdictions, you cannot case the ammo with the weapon so the TSA requirement to keep ammo and weapon in the same secured case causes a problem

Marsha x3 said...

Once again, blotter team, low resolution screenshots is a very poor and unprofessional substitution for a table.

Please learn HTML. You can do so for free! It's on the Internet!

Whose choice was it to post a pixellated image of a table? Bob? West? Lynn? Ross?

Anonymous said...

I continue to wait for some justification for active duty military being included in pre-check, but not retired military or holders of current DoD or LE background investigations. military retirees have at least 20 years documented service to this Nation, pretty much proving their lack of risk. both DoD and LE background investigations should reveal any risk factors. active duty military do not, necessarily, have a background check or any significant length of service. neither citizenship nor a background investigation is required to enlist in the military, in fact there are likely illegal immigrants serving. if it is really about safety, then why are potentially unscreened non-citizens allowed through? sounds like it is just pandering to an admirable group to get PR, not adjusting the rules to ease screening on those who present a lower likelihood of threat.
Let me be clear: pre-911 screening should be the norm. it is all that is required, now that cockpit doors have been reinforced and locked, and flight crews and passengers know that the rules have changed and passivity=death. however, if we are going to continue this massive waste of tax dollars on security theatre, at least have _some_ of the rules make sense.

Anonymous said...

Will be interesting to see if this thread works to bring down the number of guns brought to the airport each week, which is the purpose of this post.

Something tells me it's not going to work.

Worker 2319 said...

"It is 100% legal to have a firearm as checked baggage if you are flying THROUGH an airport in NYC, and it is 100% legal to transfer that firearm as checked baggage onto another flight in NYC"

This is true, thanks to the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the follow-up statement in the comment about NYC getting fidgety when those checked bags get back into your control are equally true. The rub comes when your flight gets stranded in JFK during a stopover. You may well be flying from the free world to the free world, but if you get stuck in New York or similarly constitutionally ignorant jurisdictions, you can end up in jail, as has happened several times in the past.

Adrian said...

Looking forward to your post on the no-fly lists, now that another judge has ruled that the TSA-enforce DHS lists are unconstitutional.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/judge-no-fly-list-violated-constitutional-rights

Anonymous said...

"Will be interesting to see if this thread works to bring down the number of guns brought to the airport each week, which is the purpose of this post."

No. The purpose of Curtis Burns' weekly blotter posts is to try to convince you that every flight is in danger from hordes of terrorists who can only be kept at bay by TSA sticking their hands in your underwear and taking naked pictures of you. But that's just not the case - there is absolutely no evidence that any of these people with firearms, ever, are anything other than forgetful, stupid, and irresponsible. It's all well and good to keep these firearms off of aircraft, but noninvasive WTMDs and X-ray machines did that just fine for years. The blotter posts are TSA's attempt to justify their indefensible and unsustainable screening procedures.

/screenshot

RTRAYTE said...

Using the top photo of the semi-automatic with the safety cable and two magazines . . . would it be lawful to have the two magazines loaded? Thanks

RB said...

Anonymous said...Will be interesting to see if this thread works to bring down the number of guns brought to the airport each week, which is the purpose of this post.Something tells me it's not going to work.June 25, 2014 at 7:20 AM
!,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I submitted a comment responding to your post but TSA decided to violate my civil rights and censored my comments.

TSA screeners find weapons which is their actual job but we have to keep in mind that finding 30 to 50 weapons in a weeks time out of the 11,000,000 (eleven million) people who fly each week actually shows that weapons are not a major issue and certainly not worth the resources TSA expends bragging about how well they are doing finding them when real issues go unanswered like the recent questions about lifesaving medicines being confiscated by some TSA screeners or the Justice Department investigation of wrongdoing by the TSA Administrator.

TSA screeners are paid to find threat items and if they did just that I think everyone would be happy but no, TSA squanders manpower and resources on doing useless things. ID checking worthless, confiscating LGA's worthless, State your name worthless, Gate checks worthless, BDO's proven by GAO to be worthless.

I was always taught that bragging about yourself or group was low class and if you were doing things right others would take care of the bragging for you.

No one but TSA is bragging about TSA.

That should be a message to someone. Are you listening Pistole?

Anonymous said...

Adrian said...
Looking forward to your post on the no-fly lists, now that another judge has ruled that the TSA-enforce DHS lists are unconstitutional.


Adrian,
Read the entire article you posted again. It does not say these lists are unconstitutional.
It says the people who are on the lists have no appeals process. The lack of appeals is deemed by the judge to be a violation of their rights.

Anonymous said...

"TSA screeners are paid to find threat items and if they did just that I think everyone would be happy but no, TSA squanders manpower and resources on doing useless things. ID checking worthless, confiscating LGA's worthless, State your name worthless, Gate checks worthless, BDO's proven by GAO to be worthless.
I find comments like this laughable. Leyts take one item at a time and talk at a level that anyone can understand...
"checking ID's"
Lets assume TSA didn't check ID's. Do you know who is getting on teh plane and if they are on a no fly list? Or accessing the checkpoint with a fake, home printed boarding pass? Its kind of good to know the right people are accessing the terminal area.

"confiscating LGA's"
As we recall, liquids an be made into bombs. This has been proven. What threat is your water you ask? None. Of course TSA can just check your water to make sure it is safe. Lets assume TSQA just allowed LGA's. How long would it take to screen those LGA's to insure they are all what they say they are? Imaging the delay getting through the checkpoint if that happened. The most time effective solution, prohibit them.

That these methods dont make sense to you, does not mean they are not for a reason. If you really think aboutthe screening methods, they all have a perpose and in reality, make sense. I would suggest thinking more about why and look at TSA's record.

Remember, TSA is not in the business of catching terrorists. They are in the business of keeping threat items and individuals off of flights. Do they suceed 100% of the time? No, but I bet you in your job dont either. Nobody does.

However how many terrorist have boarded an American based flight and carried out a terror attack since the incepton of TSA? The answer is ZERO. 100% success for keeping US flights terror free.
Can any private sector security company make that claim? Any federal agency? any police agency?

TSA has been 100% successful at their mission, that cannot be argued.

Anonymous said...

Wow. TSA tries to help people and all they get is nag, nag, nag. What a miserable lot. Go have an ice cream cone and cheer up.

Susan Richart said...

"TSA has been 100% successful at their mission, that cannot be argued."

The TSA is charged with keeping WEI off of airplanes, not keeping terrorists off of airplanes.

screen shot/dhs ig statement

Susan Richart said...

To the anonymous person who believes the TSA has been 100% successful in its mission:

The ID checkers don't have a clue as to whether a passenger is on the no-fly list or not. All they do is try to match the picture on the ID with the person standing in front of them. A useless function.

The liquid bomb fiasco was just that, a fiasco. I don't recall that liquids can be made into bombs, at least not any bombs that will make it to the airport. The LGA thing is pure theater.

You're funny. First you say that the TSA has not had a 100% success rate in keeping threat items and individuals off planes. Then you say that the TSA has been 100% successful at their mission. You can't have it both ways.

Screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

he is what i love about the blog. tsa was repeatedly slammed for not doing anything about the amount of guns that were being found at the airports. now tsa is putting information out to assist with this issue and the same people that were slamming tsa continue to do so. it is obvious that this is a no win situation for the tsa. please shut the blog down as it is obvious that it is not working.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
I find comments like this laughable. Leyts take one item at a time and talk at a level that anyone can understand...

"checking ID's"
Lets assume TSA didn't check ID's. Do you know who is getting on teh plane and if they are on a no fly list? Or accessing the checkpoint with a fake, home printed boarding pass? Its kind of good to know the right people are accessing the terminal area.

If TSA is doing a proper screening for WEI then exactly why does anyone need to know who is getting on the airplane? More importantly is that Watch List Matching is done by the airline not TSA when a person buys an airline ticket. If they are on a watch list they will not be able to print a boarding pass. Lastly the TSA TDC does not check ID against any Watch List, so I fail to see how this function is anything other than a complete waste of tax dollars.

"confiscating LGA's"
As we recall, liquids an be made into bombs. This has been proven. What threat is your water you ask? None. Of course TSA can just check your water to make sure it is safe. Lets assume TSQA just allowed LGA's. How long would it take to screen those LGA's to insure they are all what they say they are? Imaging the delay getting through the checkpoint if that happened. The most time effective solution, prohibit them.

I don't think anyone can present a LGA weapon that can be safely carried through a checkpoint or assembled in the airplane. If there are such weapons then TSA should treat confiscated LGA's as possible threat items at the checkpoint. The simple fact that TSA tosses confiscated LGA's in common trash bins right at the check point proves that they know there is no threat.


That these methods dont make sense to you, does not mean they are not for a reason. If you really think aboutthe screening methods, they all have a perpose and in reality, make sense. I would suggest thinking more about why and look at TSA's record.

TSA's record has been looked at by the governments watchdog, GAO. GAO has found severe faults with TSA screening practices. It's pretty clear that what TSA is doing is not the right things.

Remember, TSA is not in the business of catching terrorists. They are in the business of keeping threat items and individuals off of flights. Do they suceed 100% of the time? No, but I bet you in your job dont either. Nobody does.

> So if TSA's job isn't to keep terrorist off of airplanes then why is TSA checking ID's, playing the say your name game, have worthless BDO's and such. You contradict your self in one posting. I would agree that TSA should limit themselves to Administrative Searches for WEI since that is all the law allows.

However how many terrorist have boarded an American based flight and carried out a terror attack since the incepton of TSA? The answer is ZERO. 100% success for keeping US flights terror free.
Can any private sector security company make that claim? Any federal agency? any police agency?

TSA has been 100% successful at their mission, that cannot be argued.

June 26, 2014 at 1:45 PM

How many terrorist have boarded American flights? I don't think anyone knows for sure but the most likely fact is that no terrorist have attempted to carry out an attack. Given the known holes in TSA security methods the easiest means to introduce WEI to an airplane is through airport employee entrances since TSA has failed to meet its responsibilities and screen airport workers to the same degree that passengers are screened.

Claiming that TSA has been 100% successful in its mission is laughable unless your turn a blind eye to the rampant corruption of TSA employees.

Anonymous said...

"As we recall, liquids an be made into bombs. This has been proven."

This is absolutely and incontrovertibly false. TSA has never proven that liquid explosives are viable, or that the 3.4-1-1 policy has any grounding in science, or that anyone has ever tried to bring a dangerous liquid onto an airplane.

Right, Curtis Burns and West Cooper?

/screenshot

Anonymous said...

"That these methods dont make sense to you, does not mean they are not for a reason."

All TSA has to do is provide independently reviewable cost-benefit assessments to justify their procedures. Why doesn't TSA make such assessments available? Have they not conducted them? Do they make TSA's past decisions look like bad decisions? Would TSA leaders and elected officials have to stop accepting security industry lobby contributions if the assessments were independently reviewable? I suspect it's a bit of #2 and #3, based on the example of the GAO's assessment of the BDO program. The GAO conducted the assessment, not TSA. (That's #2.) TSA is ignoring the assessment's recommendation to end the BDO program. (That's #3.)

"TSA has been 100% successful at their mission, that cannot be argued."

Actually, I can argue that it is not TSA that has prevented post-9/11 attacks on US planes but locked cockpit doors and the guarantee that passengers will now fight back. I ask again, where are the independently reviewable assessments of these layers of security?

@SkyWayManAz said...

Anonymous said...

"It does not say these lists are unconstitutional.
It says the people who are on the lists have no appeals process. The lack of appeals is deemed by the judge to be a violation of their rights."

Prison isn't unconstitutional but putting you there indefinitely without due process is. Your statement tends to ignore that pesky technicality is exactly the reason critics said the list was unconstitutional. If you were placed on the no fly list the government may feel they did so for a valid reason. They could also be seriously mistaken and you have a constitutional right to face your accusers. This is something DHS has found inconvenient and willfully ignored. It's sad it took over a dozen years for that fundamental right all Americans have to be affirmed by the high court.

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...

"Lets assume TSA didn't check ID's. Do you know who is getting on teh plane and if they are on a no fly list? Or accessing the checkpoint with a fake, home printed boarding pass? Its kind of good to know the right people are accessing the terminal area. "

If the TSA has done their job, then what does it matter if Joe Terrorist flew beside you on the plane? He has no way to use it was a weapon of mass destruction.

"As we recall, liquids an be made into bombs. This has been proven."

Actually, it hasn't. If it has, let's see it. Any liquid explosive that could do damage to the plane is either too unstable to make it to the airport in the first place, or requires large enough quantities to raise suspicions.

"That these methods dont make sense to you, does not mean they are not for a reason."

Except, I have a bit of an expertise in security, and they still make no sense. Because it has nothing to do with security, and everything to do with show.

"If you really think aboutthe screening methods, they all have a perpose and in reality, make sense."

No. And no.

"I would suggest thinking more about why and look at TSA's record. "

I have. I suggest you do the same.

"Remember, TSA is not in the business of catching terrorists. "

Then why is ID important again?

"They are in the business of keeping threat items and individuals off of flights. Do they suceed 100% of the time? No, but I bet you in your job dont either. Nobody does."

But I also don't fail 70% of the time. TSA does.

"However how many terrorist have boarded an American based flight and carried out a terror attack since the incepton of TSA? The answer is ZERO."

And I have an anti-tiger rock I'd like to sell you. And before you say it's not a valid comparison, tigers on the lose in mid-Ohio are at least as common as terrorists attempting to blow up airplanes.

"TSA has been 100% successful at their mission, that cannot be argued."

I just did, using logic. TSA agrues using fear.


GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - ""As we recall, liquids an be made into bombs. This has been proven."

This is absolutely and incontrovertibly false. TSA has never proven that liquid explosives are viable, or that the 3.4-1-1 policy has any grounding in science, or that anyone has ever tried to bring a dangerous liquid onto an airplane.

Right, Curtis Burns and West Cooper?"

Not really. The liquid bomb threat is viable, queue Dr. Sidney Alford.

Now please queue those that are going to lambaste Sidney Alford as a quack or a shill (Even though he has over 30 years of working in explosives and ordinance, and designing specialized explosives for industrial purposes - and a misspent childhood playing with unexploded ordinance in England during and after WWII).

For those that are interested in Dr. Sidney Alford, please check his Wikipedia Bio.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/30/airports-could-beef-security-because-new-explosive/

an interesting article about liquid explosives, it appears that an expert says that liquid explosives do in fact exist and that a very small quantity can take down a plane. interesting read for those that have an interest.

Mike Toreno said...

Clerk West, nobody is saying that there are no such things as explosives. What we are saying that there is no viable plot to smuggle liquid explosives onto an airplane. If there were, and if somebody wanted to do it, they would just do it. All they would need to do would be to put it in their luggage next to a cupcake.

Clerks miss 70% of guns that are brought to the checkpoint - the liquid rules endanger the public by engaging the clerks' limited capacity to pay attention in the detection of a nonexistent threat.

Anonymous said...

I have to laugh at all the self provlaimed experts here.
Liquid explosicves are not viable? Do your research or better yet, ask the family of the traveler killed a few years back during the test run of liquid explosives. research the "bojenko project".

You say TSA screeners dont know who is on the no fly list? Yes,they actually.
TSA and teh airlines vet EVERY single passenger every day through "secure Flight" to check the background of every passenger flying. Every day, every flight.

You say an "no fly listed" person could not print a boarding pass? Right, they cant. But what about false ID's? Can a terrorist board a flight without his tools of the trade, sure he can. But TSA is going to want to know where he is.


What these responses really say is the American public has no idea at all what steps are envolved and what TSA really does.
Clearly they also have no idea what steps terrorists may do to board a flight or do to get threat items on a flight.

Corruption at TSA?
Is it any mor ethat polkice corruption? Politician corruption?
corruption in any business? I doubt it.

This is a classic statement.."Any liquid explosive that could do damage to the plane is either too unstable to make it to the airport in the first place, or requires large enough quantities to raise suspicions."

Thanks for explaining EXACTY why TSA checks liquids and limits quantity.

Another ediculous comment .."And I have an anti-tiger rock I'd like to sell you. And before you say it's not a valid comparison, tigers on the lose in mid-Ohio are at least as common as terrorists attempting to blow up airplanes."
Really? Do you really think terrorist have given up the idea of blowing up planes?

It sshouldnt suprize me how many Americans are ignorant to the threats we face every day. Actually, it scares me....


GSOLTSO said...

Anon sez - "Liquid explosicves are not viable? Do your research or better yet, ask the family of the traveler killed a few years back during the test run of liquid explosives. research the "bojenko project"."

Just for familiarization for those that do not know what the "Bojinka Plot" is, the Wikipedia entry is pretty informative.

West
TSA Blog Team

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...

Another ediculous comment .."And I have an anti-tiger rock I'd like to sell you. And before you say it's not a valid comparison, tigers on the lose in mid-Ohio are at least as common as terrorists attempting to blow up airplanes."
Really? Do you really think terrorist have given up the idea of blowing up planes?


Are you saying that there have not been wild tigers running loose in central Ohio in recent years? Or you're convinced the TSA is 100% effective? And for the record, my answer is, for the time being, yes. Otherwise, it would have happened. If 10 try, 7 will make it through, and the TSA will trumpet the catch of the three they actually catch.

Susan Richart said...

Here I am, first in the queue.

Sidney Alford's has been discredited because he is a paid consultant to the British government.

His was a carefully controlled experiment that would stand little chance of success in the "real world."

As for the Bojinka plot, that failed, although there was some damage to a plane and one death.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Susan Richart said...

To the anonymous poster on July 1 at 10:05 a.m.

If you want readers to seriously consider what you write, please learn to spell and to write coherently.

NO, the ID checkers have no idea if a flyer is on the no-fly list. As I said before, all they are doing is matching the passenger's face with the picture on the ID.

Screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Susan Richart said...

As for the Bojinka plot, that failed, although there was some damage to a plane and one death.

so one death is considered a failure? what would the public say if the tsa allowed a bomb to go off that killed one person?

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Susan Richart said...

As for the Bojinka plot, that failed, although there was some damage to a plane and one death.
...................
so one death is considered a failure? what would the public say if the tsa allowed a bomb to go off that killed one person?

July 2, 2014 at 12:37 PM
................
If the plan was to take down an airliner and all you did was kill one person then yes the plan was a failure.

TSA tosses "to dangerous to clear security" LGA's into common trash bins right at the checkpoint so I don't see how TSA could be concerned about potential explosives. Either these things are truly to dangerous to take into the secure area or they are not but TSA's actions show us there is no concern.

TSA is just play security for the masses.

Susan Richart said...

The Bojinka plot failed in that it was never carried out. It had been planned to attack over a dozen flights plus other venues. It never happened; therefore, it failed.

screen shot/DHS OIG statemnt

Wintermute said...

Anonymous said...
"so one death is considered a failure? what would the public say if the tsa allowed a bomb to go off that killed one person?"

As far as terrorist plots got, yes, it was a failure.

As already stated, terrorists are not currently attempting to take down aircraft, or it would have happened by now. TSA has ~70% failure rate, so seven out of ten plots would be successful.

Anonymous said...

again i ask what would the public say if a bomb went off and 1 person was killed in america? especially if it was due to a procedure or item that was not allowed before and said procedure or item was changed or allowed.
i am curious as to why it was "unsuccessful"? i believe it was due to the mistiming of the detonation, if the bomb would have gone off in the air as expected the result would have been much different. also i believe that this was a test run and not the actual plot itself. so yes the plot was unsuccessful however the test run showed that the item worked.

Anonymous said...

"Are you saying that there have not been wild tigers running loose in central Ohio in recent years? Or you're convinced the TSA is 100% effective? And for the record, my answer is, for the time being, yes. Otherwise, it would have happened. If 10 try, 7 will make it through, and the TSA will trumpet the catch of the three they actually catch."

I dont know about tigers in ohio, nor do I care.
TSA does not "trumpet" catching terrorist. That is not the function of TSA.
Do date, there have been ZERO terror plots carried out during TSA's tenure,while an untold number of threat items have been kept off of flights.

"TSA tosses "to dangerous to clear security" LGA's into common trash bins right at the checkpoint so I don't see how TSA could be concerned about potential explosives. Either these things are truly to dangerous to take into the secure area or they are not but TSA's actions show us there is no concern"

No, TSA throws prohibited liquids in teh trash. Not because they are a threat, they are prohibited. Anyone knows that 99.999% of the liquids at the checkpoint are perfectly safe. However, the only way to insure that the .0001% that is unsafe does not comoe through a checkpoint is to ban them all aceept those that are mmedically required. TSA CANNOT test every liquid that comes through nor can they just allow them all to come through untested.
I cantr believe people still struggle with this simple concept.

As already stated, terrorists are not currently attempting to take down aircraft, or it would have happened by now. TSA has ~70% failure rate, so seven out of ten plots would be successful.

I would love to know where you get these two bits of amazing falsehoods from. Do you have better intel than the FBI, DHS CIA? Anyone who believes terrorist have given uip the idea of taking down planes is just in denial. But I guess its easier to think they have given uip rather than admit current security meassures are working to prevent attacks.

Susan Richart said...

“As of mid-2011, terrorist threat groups present in the Homeland are not known to be actively plotting against civil aviation targets or airports; instead, their focus is on fundraising, recruiting, and propagandizing.”

This from Jonathan Corbett's suit against the TSA.

If there were terrorists out there and they felt they couldn't hit airplanes themselves, they would be targeting the lines of people waiting to get through security. Or they would be hitting malls, grocery stores, theaters, any place where large groups of people gather.

That's not happening. What does that tell you?

Tell me: Do you work for the TSA?

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Alex said...

TSAnonymous said, "Anyone knows that 99.999% of the liquids at the checkpoint are perfectly safe. However, the only way to insure that the .0001% that is unsafe does not comoe through a checkpoint is to ban them all aceept those that are mmedically required. TSA CANNOT test every liquid that comes through nor can they just allow them all to come through untested. I cantr believe people still struggle with this simple concept."

According to your fake statistics, for every 10,000 bottles of water and shampoo that are seized by the US govt from private citizens, one is "unsafe?" What do you define as unsafe, TSAnonymous? Pepper sauce? Peanut butter? Breast milk?

Move that decimal over a few more times because almost 12,000,000 people fly every week and millions of private property items are confiscated every year. For every 99.999999% of safe items that are seized, zero liquid bomb components are found.

Also, please reread you SSI SOP because a liquid does not need to be "medically necessary" to be allowed.

Here's a simple concept for you to grasp.

Just put 13.6oz of any liquid in four 3.4oz bottles. Carry it through screening. That magically changes an unsafe liquid to a safe one?

Put all 13.6oz back into a large bottle once through screening and head to your plane. Oh wait, doesn't putting that 13.6oz of liquid into one large bottle magically make it unsafe again?

The liquid ban is illogical and unnecessary.

West, your attempts to justify the liquid ban with one guy's one controlled experiment and a failed plot, as well as the follow up comment by one of your buddies that includes a link to an article that has no sources or scientific evidence, just proves the folly of the TSA and it's stupid policy.

SCREENSHOT

Wintermute said...

TSAnonymous said...

"As already stated, terrorists are not currently attempting to take down aircraft, or it would have happened by now. TSA has ~70% failure rate, so seven out of ten plots would be successful."

"I would love to know where you get these two bits of amazing falsehoods from. "

The first is NOT a falsehood. The TSA admits the 70% failure rate. They claim it's old, but newer GAO reports say it's stayed fairly steady over time, ergo, if it was once 70%, it is still near 70%. The other portion of the statement takes that to it's logical conclusion; if the TSA fails 70% of the time, and terrorists are targeting airplanes, then we would be seeing 7 out of 10 of their plots succeed. Since we know the failure rate is 70%, the only logical conclusion is that terrorist are not targeting airplanes.