Thursday, July 2, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 37 Firearms, Fireworks, Live Smoke Grenade, and More

Due to the Fourth of July holiday, this report is being posted on Thursday vs. Friday and only reflects the last six days (6/26 - 7/1).

Loaded firearm disovered at BNA.
37 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 37 firearms discovered, 34 were loaded and 16 had a round chambered. The firearm pictured above was discovered in a carry-on bag at (BNA).
Live Smoke Grenade
This live M18 smoke grenade was discovered in a checked bag at Madison (MSN).
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.

  • Seven inert/replica grenades were discovered this week in both carry-on and checked baggage at Albuquerque (ABQ), Fort Lauderdale (FLL), Houston (IAH), Little Rock (LIT), Kansas City (MCI), Chicago O’Hare (ORD), and Salt lake City (SLC). The inert grenade at MCI resulted in a 23 minute evacuation of the checked baggage area as well as Terminal B.

Inert/Replica Grenades
L-R: Inert/Replica Grenades Discovered At (IAH), (ORD), and (LIT).
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 are some examples from this week where artfully concealed items were discovered by our officers.

  • A belt buckle knife was discovered at Rapid City (RAP).
  • A knife was discovered inside of a book and under the lining of a carry-on bag at Minot (MOT).

Belt Buckle Knife
Belt Buckle Knife Discovered At (RAP).

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.

Knives
Counterclockwise from top, items discovered at: DAL, HNL, BOI, BWI, LGA, BDL, and SNA

Fireworks
These are all fireworks that were discovered this week in both carry-on and checked bags. Clockwise from the top left photo, the fireworks were discovered at: HNL, BWI, CLE, and MQT
Camping fuel.
This camping fuel was discovered in a checked bag at (PDX).

Stun Guns - 24 stun guns were discovered this week in carry-on bags at TSA checkpoints around the nation. Three were discovered at Las Vegas (LAS), two at Dallas Love (DAL), two at Jacksonville (JAX), two at Sacramento (SMF), and the remainder were discovered at Austin (AUS), Burbank (BUR), Charleston (CHS), Dallas Fort/Worth (DFW), Denver (DEN), Minneapolis (MSP), Monroe (MLU), New Orleans (MSY), Newark (EWR), Oakland (OAK), Pensacola (PNS), Phoenix (PHX), Seattle (SEA), Spokane (GEG), and St. Louis (STL).

Ammo
When packed properly, ammunition can be transported in your checked baggage, but it is never permissible to pack ammo in your carry-on bag. This ammo was discovered in carry-on bag at (MEM).
Loaded firearms.
Clockwise from top left, these loaded firearms were discovered in carry-on bags at: CLE, STL, PIT, ATL, and HOU
37 Firearms Discovered This Week – Of the 37 firearms discovered, 34 were loaded and 16 had a round chambered.
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.

*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.

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 @TSA on Twitter and Instagram!

Bob Burns
TSA Social Media Team


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

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

You know what's missing from your site? What happens to these idiots who just don't get it? Every week it's the same old story. Someone was caught doing something incredibly stupid or criminal, and you say they could be cited, etc. You make it sound as if they might get a scolding. But if you say, "This particular idiot was fined $2,000, or sent to jail for 90 days," you might be begin to see some effectiveness...the word getting out. But, no, for reasons you never explain, you just give us the numbers, which never change.

Anonymous said...

Why does the blotter team delay and delete legitimate questions asked of them and their cheerleader, Bold TSApologist? These comments meet blotter policy and are asked by the American public on a government website.

I'm not talking about delays due to weekends or holidays. I mean all out several-day delays and mass deletions during normal working hours.

Both the blotter team and the Bold TSApologist say they don't know each other and that Bold is not a TSA employee. (No word yet if Bold is a government employee or knows someone who works for TSA.) So why the special treatment?

Bold likes to act like she's a TSA employee or has inside TSA knowledge by answering policy and procedure questions with the air of authority (if not the spelling ability) and the blotter team allows Bold to get away with it until enough citizens raise our voices and get an rare answer or two. These special moments clearly state that anonymous Bold does not speak for the TSA's blotter team and that attacking comments are not allowed. Yet she still does speak for the blotter team and attacks other commenters.

Why the special treatment for Bold, blotter team?

*screenshot*

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?

SSSS for Some Reason said...

"... and many other prohibited items too numerous to note."

Why?

You have a weekly blotter post which is about the only thing you post any longer. Seems like it should be no problem at all to post those items since obviously there is some kind of reporting system for them. Seems to me like you could use the time you save by recycling photos of firearms to cut and paste at least something about how many other prohibited items you find.

How many 4 ounce bottles of shampoo, or toy hammers, or breast pumps do you voluntarily surrender from passengers each week? Tell us.... or are they too numerous to to note as well.

Anonymous said...

Do you have any tips on how to pack large sums of cash? One of your spokespeople posted on twitter about how the TSA found $75,000 in a passenger's bag. I understand that if something looks suspicious on the x-ray, a bag needs to be opened and inspected. I don't get why after it was determined to just be money and not a threat to the plane, why the police were called. There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. Also, it seemed like an invasion of privacy to post the pictures of the bag with the cash online.

RB said...

 SSSS for Some Reason said...

"...and many other prohibited items too numerous to note."

Why?

You have a weekly blotter post which is about the only thing you post any longer. Seems like it should be no problem at all to post those items since obviously there is some kind of reporting system for them. Seems to me like you could use the time you save by recycling photos of firearms to cut and paste at least something about how many other prohibited items you find.How many 4 ounce bottles of shampoo, or toy hammers, or breast pumps do you voluntarily surrender from passengers each week? Tell us.... or are they too numerous to to note as well.
July 4, 2015 at 12:59 PM
____________________________
The why is simple.

Blogger Bob, or whomever is actually writing this blog, is to busy cutting and pasting, recycling pictures, and such to do any creative original work.

Time for someone who actually cares but that would require going outside of TSA.

RB said...

And still not a word on from TSA on this little matter:

TSA Worker Slammed for Tweeting Passenger’s $75K in Carry-on Cash

If you were carrying $75,000 in cash onto a plane, would you want your bag and your airport location tweeted out to the world? Neither would we. (Of course, we don’t have piles of cash lying around.)

That didn’t seem to occur to Lisa Farbstein, a spokesperson for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), who often shares pictures of crazy things found by the TSA on her Twitter account. Farbstein recently tweeted this message to her nearly 1900 followers: “If you had $75,000, is this how you’d transport it? Just asking! TSA @ #RIC spotted this traveler’s preferred method.”


First off, why did TSA decide that this person was involved in anything illegal and by what training are TSA screeners qualified to make such determinations? Or what threat did this money present to the airplane? Did the screener think it was WEI?

I certainly don't understand TSA's focus on things that are none of TSA's business. When TSA can do better than finding more that 5 or 6% of test targets maybe, after Congressional approval, TSA can branch out to other things.

Lisa Farbstien should be removed from government employment.

Anonymous said...

The TSA is not law enforcement, and they don't care that all of the people weren't terrorists and most went on to fly that day. All they want to do is post photos of "scary" guns.

Anonymous said...

Why the special treatment for Bold, blotter team?

I absolutely have no idea who Bob is, never met probably never will.
I have no problem answering relevant questions.
I don't think I have ever attacked a commenter, just some comments.
any thing else?

Anonymous said...

There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. Also, it seemed like an invasion of privacy to post the pictures of the bag with the cash online.

there are laws about carrying large amounts of cash out of the country. Perhaps this was an international flight.
Invasion of privacy? who's? the unknown, un-named un-identified passenger?

RB said...

Anonymous said...
There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. Also, it seemed like an invasion of privacy to post the pictures of the bag with the cash online.

there are laws about carrying large amounts of cash out of the country. Perhaps this was an international flight.
Invasion of privacy? who's? the unknown, un-named un-identified passenger?

July 8, 2015 at 3:21 PM

..................
Where a passenger is going is of no concern to TSA no matter how much cash the person may have. FINCEN Form 105 is filed with Customs not TSA.

TSA is authorized to search for WEI and cash money is certainly not WEI.

Anonymous said...

there are laws about carrying large amounts of cash out of the country. Perhaps this was an international flight.
--
Perhaps you didn't do any research before commenting. It was a domestic flight, so no. No laws were violated.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
There is nothing illegal about carrying cash. Also, it seemed like an invasion of privacy to post the pictures of the bag with the cash online.

there are laws about carrying large amounts of cash out of the country. Perhaps this was an international flight.
Invasion of privacy? who's? the unknown, un-named un-identified passenger?


First, it was a domestic flight so therefore not illegal to carry any amount of cash.

Second, the invasion of privacy is from a TSA Agent who was taking snaps on her personal phone and posting to a personal account on company time. The passenger may not have been outed but that still doesn't excuse the actions of a TSA Employee taking pictures of people doing nothing wrong and trying to imply they are doing something wrong.

And before you even try to rebut that last point.... me taking a picture of you and posting it is very much different than a government agent, like Mrs TSAmedia_LisaF, taking pictures and posting them. Mrs Lisa F is not allowed to do what she did as a government agent and she certainly isn't allowed to do it on company time.

Anonymous said...

There are more TSA employees on the "social media" team than just Bob. Know any of them? Another unnamed TSA employee?

And my question was for the " social media" team, not you, Bold TSApologist.

Some of your comments, if made by pretty much any other commenter, would have been deleted as attacking other commenters. And you know it. I was asking the "social media" team why this occurs.

Anonymous said...

Yes, invasion of privacy. The airport, date of travel, and bag were clearly visible. Anyone seeing this Tweet who was at the airport could have seen this incident and the person. Now they know what the person was carrying. I'm sure a clever thief could find out more information too. Bribery or hacking can get one a LOT of information.

It is NOT illegal to carry large amounts of cash domestically nor internationally. One only must fill out Customs, NOT TSA, forms to carry more than $10,000 cash out of the US. It is none of the TSA's business to publicly share this situation. They are NOT law enforcement and they are NOT CBP.

Invasion of privacy? Yes. Just as if they showed photos of someone's lingerie, private papers, medications, etc. It doesn't matter if we don't see the owner's face along side it. It was NOT Lisa Farbstein's job nor right to share this information.

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 sacrificed for 20+ have to take their bloody shoes and belts off!! it's pretty clear that TSA doesn't understand risk assessment or risk-based anything, much less security.

Anonymous said...

"I have no problem answering relevant questions."

Even if those "answers" are incorrect and/or are just your opinion?

screen shot

Anonymous said...

"I have no problem answering relevant questions."

Even if those "answers" are incorrect and/or are just your opinion?

correct. However, to date I do not believe I have answered any questions "incorrect."

Anonymous said...

"correct. However, to date I do not believe I have answered any questions "incorrect."

That would be "incorrectly", but don't let that incorrect grammar bother you. You messed up on the question of $75,000 cash big time as several others have explained to you. And, in fact, most of your answers are wrong to some degree or another.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
"I have no problem answering relevant questions."

Even if those "answers" are incorrect and/or are just your opinion?

correct. However, to date I do not believe I have answered any questions "incorrect."

You answered the questions about suitcases of money incorrect so you should look into that belief you have about your answers. It needs some adjustment.

Anonymous said...

Funny. No reply yet from the Bold TSApologist.

Anonymous said...

How about your repeated false assertion that it is illegal to carry over $10k internationally?

TSORon said...

Anonymous said...
[[correct. However, to date I do not believe I have answered any questions "incorrect."]]

Unfortunately correct and accurate answers never seem to satisfy some of the other posters here. I have noted many times that they don't have the necessary frame of reference (read as information) to understand why the answer is correct and therefore refuse to accept it. Not that it changes anything, an accurate answer remains an accurate answer, its only that they don't have the background data to understand it.

SSSS for Some Reason said...

Anonymous TSORon said...
Anonymous said...
[[correct. However, to date I do not believe I have answered any questions "incorrect."]]

... Not that it changes anything, an accurate answer remains an accurate answer, its only that they don't have the background data to understand it.

What background data? You have tried this tack several times and it still doesn't fly. Yes I used that pun intentionally!

You, by virtue of your name, are an Agent. Somewhere near the bottom of the organization chart, no where near the top of it to be sure. That means you don't have access to 'data' regarding terrorism activity or threat levels or anything else. You didn't get the heads up from the boys down in intel that there is a new something to be on the look out for because that is not how your organization works. It isn't and you know it and don't bother trying to make it so because a great deal of your organization is only a FOIA request away and that includes the parts you keep saying are SSI. Yes, your organization resists those requests as hard as it can, but we can and have and will outlast you on these requests (see the recent red team results for an example).

You don't have 'intel'. You don't have data. You don't get SSI information in folders marked Your Eyes Only. You don't know things that would scare us into giving up what few freedoms we still have. You can think that all you want if that is what it takes for you to get through your day but don't try and make us believe it because we aren't buying what you're selling.

Anonymous said...

Really, Ron? Acting all superior and hurling thinly veiled insults towards the American public on this government website again?

Were you at work for the TSA or using government equipment/network when you sent this comment, Ron?

Anonymous said...

TSO RON PLEASE.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous TSORon said...
Anonymous said...
[[correct. However, to date I do not believe I have answered any questions "incorrect."]]

Unfortunately correct and accurate answers never seem to satisfy some of the other posters here. I have noted many times that they don't have the necessary frame of reference (read as information) to understand why the answer is correct and therefore refuse to accept it.

Tell us then please, TSORon, since you have the information we seem to be lacking.... why is 20 ounces of liquid in one container bad but the same liquid poured into several smaller containers placed in a plastic bag is safe.

You have the frame of reference, share. Give us the correct and accurate answer.

Anonymous said...

It's been two weeks. Looks like Ron couldn't admit he didn't really have an answer.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
It's been two weeks. Looks like Ron couldn't admit he didn't really have an answer.

July 31, 2015 at 10:10 AM
.................
Any surprise?

Just like TSA, all air, no substance.