Friday, April 3, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 32 Loaded Firearms, Live Smoke Grenades & A Strange Item at PHX

Loaded firearm discovered in carry-on bag at PHX
Loaded firearm discovered in carry-on bag at PHX


       
Two live smoke grenades were discovered this week. One was in a carry-on bag at Austin (right), and the other was in a checked bag at Columbus (left).
Two live smoke grenades were discovered this week. One was in a carry-on bag at Austin (right), and the other was in a checked bag at Columbus (left).

Homemade gadgets can resemble IEDs and result in evacuations and delays while explosives specialists work to clear the item.
What ended up being a homemade handheld gaming device strongly resembled an improvised explosive device on the X-ray monitor. Homemade gadgets can resemble IEDs and result in evacuations and delays while explosives specialists work to clear the item.

Inert Ordnance and Grenades etc. – We continue to find inert grenades and other weaponry on a weekly basis. Please keep in mind that if an item looks like a real bomb, grenade, mine, etc., it is prohibited. When these items are found at a checkpoint or in checked baggage, they can cause significant delays because the explosives detection professionals must respond to resolve the alarm. Even if they are novelty items, you are prohibited from bringing them on the aircraft.  Read here on why inert items cause problems.

Inert 120mm Tank Round (RNO)
Inert 120mm Tank Round (RNO)
  • An inert 120mm tank round was discovered in checked bag at Reno (RNO).
  • Four inert/replica grenades were discovered this week. Three were in carry-on bags at Austin (AUS), New Orleans (MSY), and San Francisco (SFO), and one was discovered in a checked bag at Laramie (LAR).
Replica Flash Bang Grenade Hot Sauce (MSY), Replica Cologne Grenade (LAR) and Inert Grenade (AUS).
L-R - Replica Flash Bang Grenade Hot Sauce (MSY), Replica Cologne Grenade (LAR) and Inert Grenade (AUS).
Artfully Concealed Prohibited Items – Artfully concealed is a term used to describe an item that was intentionally hidden. It could be anything from a knife sewn into the lining of a bag to a sword hidden inside of a walking cane. If a concealed prohibited item is discovered in your bag or on your body, you could be cited and possibly arrested by law enforcement. Here is an example from this week where an artfully concealed item was discovered by our officers.
  • A concealed detachable belt buckle knife was detected in carry-on bag at San Francisco (SFO)
Miscellaneous Prohibited Items – In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly, officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.

Top to Bottom, Knives Discovered At: COS, ABQ & SNA
Top to Bottom, Knives Discovered At: COS, ABQ & SNA
Bladed Multi-tool Amongst Other Items at LAX
Bladed Multi-tool Amongst Other Items at LAX
Stun Guns - 21 stun guns were discovered this week in carry-on bags. Two were discovered at Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW), two at Dallas Love (DAL), two at Las Vegas (LAS), and the remainder were discovered at Abilene (ABI), Burbank (BUR), Chicago Midway (MDW), Evansville (EVV), Nashville (BNA), Oakland (OAK), Ontario (ONT), Palm Springs (PSP), Phoenix (PHX), Portland (PDX), Sacramento (SMF), San Francisco (SFO), San Jose (SJC), Scranton (AVP), Seattle (SEA).

Ammunition – When packed properly, ammunition can be transported in your checked baggage, but it is never permissible to pack ammo in your carry-on bag.
 
Clockwise from top, firearms discovered at: MEM, ORF, IND, ATL, and MKE
Clockwise from top, firearms discovered at: MEM, ORF, IND, ATL, and MKE
Clockwise from top left, firearms discovered at:SAN, BUF, LAS, and ATL
Clockwise from top left, firearms discovered at:SAN, BUF, LAS, and ATL
33 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 33 firearms, 32 were loaded and 9 had rounds chambered.*In order to provide a timely weekly update, this data is compiled from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly from what is reported in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will be actual numbers and not estimates.

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. 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.

Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the line is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. The passenger can face a penalty as high as $11,000. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions; that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items.

Read our 2014 Year in Review post! If you haven’t read them yet, make sure you check out our year in review posts for 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Follow @TSABlogTeam on Twitter and Instagram!

Bob Burns
TSA Blog Team

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

41 comments:

Anonymous said...

Amazing. What a bunch of nuts we have in America!

SSSS for Some Reason said...

"...Inert 120mm Tank Round"

Was it allowed to fly? Or was it voluntarily surrendered from the owner?

You did say it was inert so it is a valid question.

RB said...

I'm curious about the smoke grenades found this pasr week.

Was it a person in the military, you know those people who get Pre Check automatically, that had these items?

Anonymous said...

As always, absolutely nothing you needed your slow, invasive, and ineffective naked body scanners to detect. Meanwhile, how many people suffered physical searches thanks to false alarms on these useless machines?

Why are Curtis Burns and West Cooper unwilling to address, let alone answer, that question?

How many weeks has it been since you last trumpeted something dangerous you found with the naked body scanners?

Anonymous said...

So even though the home-made game machine was found to be just that, it was confiscated anyway? Why?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
So even though the home-made game machine was found to be just that, it was confiscated anyway? Why?

April 4, 2015 at 12:42 PM
-------------------
Funny, The only thing I read about the system was this:

"What ended up being a homemade handheld gaming device strongly resembled an improvised explosive device on the X-ray monitor."

One sentence. Nothing about it being confiscated. (Of course, you mean surrendered voluntarily. Correct?)

Anonymous said...

SSSS for Some Reason said...
"...Inert 120mm Tank Round"

Was it allowed to fly? Or was it voluntarily surrendered from the owner?

You did say it was inert so it is a valid question.

April 3, 2015 at 9:00 PM
-----------------------

I wouldn't want that on a plane with me when someone drops it out of their carryon.
Because, of course, anyone seeing it would automatically know it was inert.

Pat Campbell said...

Looks like there is a lot of questioning about the processes. What about the violators who endanger us all and cause our rights to be set aside so they can be foolish or worse. Thanks TSA for doing your job despite the second guessing and criticism.

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. now you're even allowing college kids (kaydets) to endure more reasonable screening, but those who served and sacrificed for 20+ have to take their bloody shoes and belts off!!

Anonymous said...

"Looks like there is a lot of questioning about the processes."

Of course there is. Virtually nothing TSA does makes anyone safer, and much of it is based on junk science ("behavior detection" voodoo) or TSA's own stupidity (invasive and overly sensitive naked body scanners with a 100% false positive rate). Why does people questioning an inept agency bother you so?

Susan Richart said...

On March 27th, in another thread, an anonymous poster wrote:

"Anonymous said...

Susan. The term TSO
Is an official an OPM designation, whether you agree or disagree is of no significance. It has nothing to do with morale. Your passive aggressive "insult" in using the term screener simply underscores your illiteracy."

My response is another citation:

"But in 2005, in an effort to professionalize the force and boost morale, the TSA reclassified screeners as “transportation security officers.” In 2007, the agency issued screeners uniforms with blue shirts, and the following year, it replaced the embroidered logos with metal badges."

http://tinyurl.com/kkj9ama

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
SSSS for Some Reason said...
"...Inert 120mm Tank Round"

Was it allowed to fly? Or was it voluntarily surrendered from the owner?

You did say it was inert so it is a valid question.

April 3, 2015 at 9:00 PM
-----------------------

I wouldn't want that on a plane with me when someone drops it out of their carryon.
Because, of course, anyone seeing it would automatically know it was inert.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

So you are trying to say the security measures put in place by the TSA are simply to make people *feel* safe? That the prohibited items list includes things that might scare passengers if they saw them 'fall out of a carry-on.'

Anonymous said...

Pat Campbell said...
Looks like there is a lot of questioning about the processes. What about the violators who endanger us all and cause our rights to be set aside so they can be foolish or worse. Thanks TSA for doing your job despite the second guessing and criticism.

April 6, 2015 at 1:40 AM

...............
Ahh, you mean the TSA.

Anonymous said...

How come the TSA Blog Team can't post comments on a regular basis? There seem to be at least 3 bloggers so how hard would it be to share the responsibility of keeping the blog updated?

Like most things TSA this blog is as dysfunctional as the rest of TSA.

Anonymous said...

> Amazing. What a bunch of nuts we have in America!
> April 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM

That's a bit harsh. TSA's only trying to protect our freedom, I wouldn't call them nuts.

Anonymous said...

Why are my comments with url links to the SPOT form being censored?

It is in the public domain so SSI no longer applies but the United States Constitution of Free Speech does.

Are you TSA employees proud to violate the Constitution and the Oath to Defend that Constitution?

Anonymous said...

Here's a bit of info for you disbelievers.

Anonymous said...

"pre-911 screening should be the norm"

And what exactly is "pre-911" screening?

Anonymous said...

"That's a bit harsh. TSA's only trying to protect our freedom, I wouldn't call them nuts."

Golly gee your witty. You write that all by yourself?

Anonymous said...

SSSS asks, "So you are trying to say the security measures put in place by the TSA are simply to make people *feel* safe?"

So you advocate security measures which make people feel insecure?



Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
SSSS asks, "So you are trying to say the security measures put in place by the TSA are simply to make people *feel* safe?"

So you advocate security measures which make people feel insecure?


No. We advocate security measures which actually make us safer, not ones which make you feel safe, but arguably do the exact opposite.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
"pre-911 screening should be the norm"

And what exactly is "pre-911" screening?

You're new here, I can tell.....

Pre-911 screening is this:

Walk Through Metal Detectors
Baggage X-ray/Scanners
Checked-Luggage X-ray/Scanners

If you alarm the WTMD you get 'enhanced' screening.

If your bags alarm the scanners, your bag gets 'enhanced' screening.

The security check points are staffed by people and companies hired by the airlines and/or airports and are private employees.

Its is very simple, it is very effective, it was the standard from 1976 until 2002 when the TSA formed itself to take over.

It also didn't cost us eight billion dollars a year.

TSA is welcome to operate in the same manner as the FAA.... which makes perfect sense if you give it more than a moment of thought because the FAA sets the standards the pilots must follow but doesn't actually provide the pilots.

The TSA can write the standards to be followed and they can test the standards with their "red teams." There is absolutely zero reason why the TSA has to provide the security personnel in the airport.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
SSSS asks, "So you are trying to say the security measures put in place by the TSA are simply to make people *feel* safe?"

So you advocate security measures which make people feel insecure?

No. I advocate measure which provide more than feelings.

If it is Security they are supposed to be providing why aren't they doing that?

I can figure out 15 ways to get around the current system and I am not one of the bad guys. Imagine what someone intent on doing some real damage could do.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
> Amazing. What a bunch of nuts we have in America!
> April 3, 2015 at 7:30 PM

That's a bit harsh. TSA's only trying to protect our freedom, I wouldn't call them nuts.

April 7, 2015 at 1:16 PM

..............................
It's far worse than just being nuts.

TSA has illegally expanded its mission without Congressional approval.

TSA is conducting general law enforcement searches in violation of the law.

TSA continues to use BDO's when proven that the program offers no improvement to passenger security.

There is only one viable solution and that is to disband the TSA in its entirety and return airport/aircraft security functions back to the owners of the private property.

TSA was a mistake and TSA proves that each and every day.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
SSSS asks, "So you are trying to say the security measures put in place by the TSA are simply to make people *feel* safe?"

So you advocate security measures which make people feel insecure?

April 7, 2015 at 3:41 PM
...........................
I believe the point was that security that only makes one feel secure is the same as no real security at all.

Anonymous said...

SSSS said, "No. We advocate security measures which actually make us safer"

What security measures make you safer, but not feel safe?

Anonymous said...

SSSS said, "I can figure out 15 ways to get around the current system and I am not one of the bad guys. Imagine what someone intent on doing some real damage could do."

And how exactly are all 15 ways stopped by going back to pre-911 screening?

Anonymous said...

RB and SSSS...

Please explain exactly how removing TSA Officers and replacing them with private screeners makes anyone safer; since TSA would still mandate all security procedures, define the technology used, and regulate implementation?

RB said...

 Anonymous said...
RB and SSSS...
Please explain exactly how removing TSA Officers and replacing them with private screeners makes anyone safer; since TSA would still mandate all security procedures, define the technology used, and regulate implementation?
April 10, 2015 at 5:29 PM
.....................................

How about being just as safe at a lower cost? Government is never the most economical choice. The administrative cost of TSA is unacceptable.

Second issue, why should government provide security services for private business? Does the FAA, as the regulator of aviation, supply government pilots to the airlines?

TSA is consuming over $8,000,000,000.00 each year, partially paid through airline security fees but also by all taxpayers. Why should people who don't use the airlines be forced to fund TSA?

Lastly is the cost of TSA employees. My opinion is that they are over paid for the type of work performed and can be done as well by contract employee were cost is a concern.

To be blunt taxpayers cannot afford the bloated government agency that TSA has become.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
RB and SSSS...

Please explain exactly how removing TSA Officers and replacing them with private screeners makes anyone safer; since TSA would still mandate all security procedures,

~~~~~~

Because the TSA by its very nature has to treat security in a one-size-fits-all nature. There can't be but the smallest allowance for individual procedures appropriate to the specific airport because any risk has to be mitigated system wide. You can't have one airport skip the shoe carnival or you then have to allow of them to do so. And that would weaken the TSA's reason for being the TSA.

And, by virtue of the TSA providing the actual security personnel they are also accepting any liability in the event of a terrorist attack. If someone 'gets past' the TSA and causes damage to the aircraft or its passengers the airlines get to sue the bejeebus out of TSA for not doing their job. If the security were provided by the airlines and airports they would do a much better job of doing their job because it is their staff protecting their equipment protecting their own bottom line.

And, there are some Constitutional problems with the TSA doing the actual security. A great number of the things the TSA does are violations of our Rights, specifically our Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights. There are a couple of TSA employees who are going to jump on this part of the comment but screw them they obviously have never read the Constitution and are just following orders. Anyway.... if the Airlines and Airports were providing the security personnel then those Constitutional problems go away. The Bill of Rights are limits placed upon the government and list some of the things we the citizens don't want them doing to us. It is an immediate fix Constitutionally because you have gone back to the basic tenants of private property and basic contract law.

And, the TSA wouldn't be mandating the actual procedures, they would be mandating the standards of security. Just like the FAA, they mandate the final standard but don't mandate how you get to that standard. If the airlines and airports can find a better way of doing something that meets the standard they are welcome to do so.

Did I mention the part about the airlines providing more effective and more professional security staffing? An aircraft is a very expensive piece of hardware and the airlines is going to work very hard to protect that investment. They aren't going to cut corners and place their own bottom line at risk.

Oh, and we wouldn't be spending eight billion dollars a year. Sure we would still be spending something because all those managers are going to expect to get paid, but not having to pay about 50,000 front line workers would be a huge savings to the taxpayer.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousApril 10, 2015 at 5:29 PM
RB and SSSS...

Please explain exactly how removing TSA Officers and replacing them with private screeners makes anyone safer; since TSA would still mandate all security procedures, define the technology used, and regulate implementation?

--
It wouldn't necessarily make us any safer, but it also wouldn't cost us $8 billion a year. Actually, it probably would make us safer, as the buracracy would be stripped away, and a screener would be allowed to turn a known terrorist away even if his ticket said precheck.

Anonymous said...

AnonymousApril 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM
SSSS said, "No. We advocate security measures which actually make us safer"

What security measures make you safer, but not feel safe?

--
You can do better than that if you're trying to twist words. If you weren't, then to explain, most of what TSA does is designed to make people feel safe, but don't increase security at all. Some of what they do actually lessen security instead. So, thanks to TSA, we are all easier targets, even though we've been fooled into thinking we are safer.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
SSSS said, "I can figure out 15 ways to get around the current system and I am not one of the bad guys. Imagine what someone intent on doing some real damage could do."

And how exactly are all 15 ways stopped by going back to pre-911 screening?

None of them would be stopped, that's the point. Why are we paying 8 billion dollars a year to support a system that isn't any more secure than what we had before?

TSORon said...

Anonymous asked…
[[Please explain exactly how removing TSA Officers and replacing them with private screeners makes anyone safer; since TSA would still mandate all security procedures, define the technology used, and regulate implementation?]]

Honestly it wouldn’t. Private screening happens today, mostly for charter flights and the like but there are a few federalized airports that employ non-federal employee’s. The problem with that is that while they are required to meet and perform to the same standards as the federal TSO’s their funding comes directly from the airports and airline’s. Airports and airlines main interest is in their bottom line, profit for their shareholders and their employee’s, not security. It’s the same problem that caused many of the issues leading up to the 9/11 attacks, conflicting instructions, multiple management channels, daily procedure changes that had nothing to do with the actual security of the aircraft and their passengers, etc. It’s all pretty well spelled out in the 9/11 Report (an interesting read by the way). I have advised reading it to the nay-sayers here many times, but the suggestion seems to fall on deaf ears.

RB said...

TSORon said...

Honestly it wouldn’t. Private screening happens today, mostly for charter flights and the like but there are a few federalized airports that employ non-federal employee’s. The problem with that is that while they are required to meet and perform to the same standards as the federal TSO’s their funding comes directly from the airports and airline’s. Airports and airlines main interest is in their bottom line, profit for their shareholders and their employee’s, not security. It’s the same problem that caused many of the issues leading up to the 9/11 attacks, conflicting instructions, multiple management channels, daily procedure changes that had nothing to do with the actual security of the aircraft and their passengers, etc. It’s all pretty well spelled out in the 9/11 Report (an interesting read by the way). I have advised reading it to the nay-sayers here many times, but the suggestion seems to fall on deaf ears. 
April 11, 2015 at 4:48 PM
...................................

Is it true or not that the weapons used by the 9/11 terrorist were permitted under the federal screening regulation in place at that time?

If they were allowed under government regulations then it was a federal government failure not a screening failure.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

TSORon said...The problem with that is that while they are required to meet and perform to the same standards as the federal TSO’s their funding comes directly from the airports and airline’s. Airports and airlines main interest is in their bottom line, profit for their shareholders and their employee’s, not security.

~~~~~~~

Which is true, but not in the way you are trying to imply.

Airlines are beholden to their shareholders, true.

And the aircraft, the 'equipment,'is what allows them to make the money.

There are lots of corners that can be shaved off or completely cut, but security isn't one of them. If the airlines provide security and then allow a bad guy through that security then it is their bottom line that is at risk. Airlines are not going to skip out on security and risk loosing the very thing that makes them money.

And, no, failures in check-point security had nothing to do with September 11. So don't even try to use that as justification for the TSA because the TSA can't even stop a gun smuggling ring from operating right under their noses.

Puddintane said...

From the 9/11 Commission report:

"Over 90 percent of the nation’s $5.3 billion annual investment in the TSA goes to aviation—to fight the last war. The money has been spent mainly to meet congressional mandates to federalize the security checkpoint screeners and to deploy existing security methods and technologies at airports.The current efforts do not yet reflect a forward-looking strategic plan systematically
analyzing assets, risks, costs, and benefits.
Lacking such a plan, we are not convinced that our transportation security resources are being allocated to the greatest risks in a cost-effective way."

The TSA to this day does not follow the practice recommended above. The GAO is still waiting for the agency to analyze false alarms from WBI.

To go on:

Recommendation: "... Further, the TSA should conduct a human factors study, a method often used in the private sector, to understand problems in screener performance and set attainable objectives for individual screeners and for the checkpoints where screening takes place."

On 4/1/15, the TSA submitted a Request for Information (RFI) for information on the use of Human Factor study info. Note, this is not an RFP - Request for Proposal. That means that the TSA is finally getting around to thinking about how it might use Human Factor studies to improve it "services", 11 years after the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations.


screen shot/DHS OIG statement


SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous said...
SSSS said, "No. We advocate security measures which actually make us safer"

What security measures make you safer, but not feel safe?

April 10, 2015 at 5:14 PM

What kind of question is that? How does that even make sense? What do feelings have to do with security?

A better question would be what does ____ do to improve security.

Let's try it, shall we?

Q:What does the --shoe carnival-- do to improve security?

A:The idea is that the explosive material in the shoe would be visible on the x-ray machine. Except very few shoes could hold enough explosive to be visible on the scanners. Even the Shoe Bomber didn't have enough explosives in his shoes to do more than injure a few people. Explosive shoes are not a viable option for disabling equipment or even effecting more than a few people on an aircraft in flight.

Wanna go again?

Q:What does the --liquid restrictions-- do to improve security?

A:Nothing. Less than nothing. A quart sized zippy bag can hold seven or more 100ml bottles without straining the closure. Lets keep it simple and say five bottles. That is up to 17 ounces of potential liquid allowed, per passenger, through security.

However! A single 16 ounce container of liquid is *not* allowed through security.

But! Anyone can carry an empty 16 ounce container (any size really) through security and then pour the contents of the bottles inside the quart-sized zippy bag into the empty container.

If binary explosive materials were even within the realm of possibility at that small a measure, the liquids restriction isn't going to stop them getting through security.

Wanna go again? Or are you maybe getting the idea that security is an actual and real thing to do and not just some people in uniforms standing around making themselves look relevant with their constant sky-is-falling-terrorist-behind-every-suitcase hyperbole.

Feeling safe and being safe are two radically different things.

Anonymous said...

Ron, the "issues leading up to the 911 attacks" that you allude to are nonsense. The 911 attacks didn't occur because the screeners were inadequate: the weapons they used were not prohibited items.

You are also incorrect in stating that airports are interested in "their bottom line, profits for their shareholders. . ." Virtually all air carrier airports are owned by governmental agencies.

It is correct to say that airlines and airports have concerns in addition to security. But there is no empirical evidence that lack of focus by airports was safety problem.

The reality is that the only TSA program of any success is the interdiction of contraband. That interdiction was no worse before TSA. The evidence of that is that the record of USE of contraband in flight post TSA is exactly trhe saem as pre TSA. There's no reason to believe that any less contraband was arriving at checkpoints, so either it wasn't a problme in th efirst place, or it was being successfully stopped before TSA.

The reasons FOR private enterprise screeing are simple: rude, attitudinal screeners could be (and were) fired because the contractors feared losing their contracts. It costs less and is more efficient because almost nothing is done more efficiently by bureacracy.

Simon Smith said...

Looks like there is a lot of questioning about the processes. What about the violators who endanger us all and cause our rights to be set aside so they can be foolish or worse. Thanks TSA for doing your job despite the second guessing and criticism.

Anonymous said...

Simon, what is your period that any of the people caught or not caught put anyone in danger? Over twice as many guns made it through the screening area than were found. Planes didn't fall from the sky.