Friday, October 9, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 45 Firearms, Gun Powder and Concealed Items

45 firearms were discovered this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 45 firearms discovered, 37 were loaded and four had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured here were discovered this week. See a complete list below.

This container of gun powder was discovered in a checked bag at Denver (DEN). Gun powder is prohibited from both carry-on and checked bags.
We continue to find inert grenades and other weaponry on a weekly basis. 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 onboard the aircraft. This novelty grenade was discovered in a checked bag this week at Honolulu (HNL).

This concealed knife was discovered tucked between a belt and shirt during a pat-down after a Denver (DEN) traveler alarmed during advanced imaging technology screening.

This key knife was discovered at Erie (ERI).

A multi-tool was detected inside this flashlight's battery compartment at New Orleans (MSY).

An ice pick was detected in this walking cane at Sacramento (SMF).


Stun Guns - 20 Stun guns were discovered this week around the nation in carry-on bags. Three were discovered at Baltimore (BWI), two at Columbus (CMH), two at Las Vegas (LAS), and the remainder were discovered at Albany (ALB), Anchorage (ANC), Atlanta (ATL), Billings (BIL), Dallas Love (DAL), Denver (DEN), Erie (ERI), Fort Lauderdale (FLL), Gainesville (GNV), Kahului (OGG), Portland (PDX), San Diego (SAN) and San Jose (SJC).   


Clockwise from the top, these items were discovered at SEA, LAS, BWI, PHX, BNA and FLL
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. 

You can travel with your firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline.
  

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

 
https://twitter.com/asktsa

27 comments:

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...

Shadi Petosky.

Anonymous said...

"... 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 onboard the aircraft."

Why?

You determined it was a novelty item easy enough so why is it still prohibited from flying?

Anonymous said...

The body scanners found a knife. A metal detector also would have detected it. The same metal detector tech that has been used for decades, costs far less money, requires less staffing, is faster, and rarely false alarms, unlike the body scanners that false alarm a lot and have been shown to be defeated.

Anonymous said...

I saw this story: http://woodtv.com/2015/10/07/woman-apple-butter-led-to-fine-from-tsa/

That seems excessive to fine her. She left the apple butter and didn't fight it. A lot of passenger have received conflicting info from the TSA. I'm never sure if I should hang on to my ID & boarding pass or send it through the x-ray. I've been yelled at for doing it either way.

She had a pint sized jar. That would fit inside a quart bag. It would also fit inside a quart bag if it was divided into five 3.4 oz containers. Why can't the pint jar be taken through security? It is the same volume of butter whether it is in one large container or a few smaller containers. The smaller containers could be combined after security anyway. It makes no sense to limit the individual container size when the total volume is being limited by a quart bag.

Charles Parker said...

My name is Charles Parker and I would like to know, or at least have this blog list than when someone is found to be concealing or otherwise trying to get a weapon on a plane, train or other means of public transportation where it could be used to hurt other people in any way and in this blog, give the reasons given as to why they tried to take the weapon with them through security. It would be most helpful, if you would state the consequences of catching them, not just what the limits are that could face them. At least deny them access to flying for their actions, list their names and if charges are filed. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Quoted: "Anonymous said...
I saw this story: http://woodtv.com/2015/10/07/woman-apple-butter-led-to-fine-from-tsa/

That seems excessive to fine her. She left the apple butter and didn't fight it."
-----------------------
Care to bring up something more recent? This is from Jan 2013. The woman tried to get through, was turned away, then went back and tried to get through a 2nd time on another line. Seems justified to me.

Anonymous said...

Regarding the person with the apple butter:

First, it's not a liquid. This is basic physical sciences. TSA should stop with the nonsense about anything that may be gooey must be bad. While I'm at it, please stop with the war on water, juice, soda, wine, etc. It does nothing for safety but infuriates travelers. If TSA wants to vastly improve their image, screen sensibly like was done before the liquid ban, body scanners, and groping.

Second, the person should have made an apple butter pie which would have been allowed. Then the only crime would have been having an egregiously fattening but perhaps interestingly tasty pastry.

Third, if the apple butter were truly dangerous, your staff would be running for the nearest exit to save their lives. They didn't because they knew it was apple butter. Anything being directed to be placed in an airport trashcan is not a threat to aircraft.

Susan Richart said...

"Care to bring up something more recent?"

She was recently notified of the fine, which I hope she continues to fight. She did not try to circumvent security. Leaving one checkpoint to go to another happens more than you think. Here's one example:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/25554257-post28.html

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

Wait, the body scanners have false alarms? Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this? Did you know about this when you started using them?

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+ are out of luck.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Quoted: "Anonymous said...
I saw this story: http://woodtv.com/2015/10/07/woman-apple-butter-led-to-fine-from-tsa/

That seems excessive to fine her. She left the apple butter and didn't fight it."
-----------------------
Care to bring up something more recent? This is from Jan 2013. The woman tried to get through, was turned away, then went back and tried to get through a 2nd time on another line. Seems justified to me.

October 11, 2015 at 7:21 PM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first time I saw the story. Doesn't it seem excessive to fine someone $2,000 for this? She went to another checkpoint. She didn't try to sneak up the exit lane. She had a pint jar. That would fit inside a quart bag whether it is in one pine jar or several smaller containers. Since pies are allowed, she could have spread it into a pie tin and it would have been permitted. This just shows how messed up the liquid rules are when one large bottle is bad but several smaller containers with the same total volume are somehow safe.

Anonymous said...

I kno TSA never does anything bad so just tel peepl there are never false alarms on the scanners!

RB said...

$2,000.00 TSA fine for Apple Butter.

One can only shake their head in wonderment at how stupid TSA can act.

TSA Bloggers a question, do you think negative media attention like this is in the best interest of TSA or in anyway helps TSA to gain the trust of the public?

That is a serious question and one that should have be asked by the Administrator and his immediate staff before this made the news.

I suggests that it makes TSA look petty and vindictive.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Wait, the body scanners have false alarms? Why is this the first time I'm hearing about this? Did you know about this when you started using them?

October 13, 2015 at 7:47 AM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
There have been lots of articles out there about how they false alarm far too often and that requires a patdown of the alarmed area. that usually turns up nothing and just slows down security.

The scanners used to alarm on my wife's hair, even though she didn't have any hair clips or booby pins in it. They would always pat down her hair. Last time she flew, it alarmed on her bare wrist. The TSA worker patted down her bare wrist. I'm not sure if that is progress, but it is humorous and sad.

Anonymous said...

He, he, he, he, he:

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20151015/NEWS/151019789

Anonymous said...

My goodness, the TSA PR hacks can't even be bothered to perform their weekly propaganda post.

Tell me, if you can't take PRIDE by being punctual with your absurdist celebrations of security theater, West and Bobby, why do you even bother doing it? It certainly isn't because you're actually contributing anything to society...

Anonymous said...

Save your money if you are applying for TSA pre-check and have a knee implant. I was patted down in front of the whole line because my implant gave off an alarm (MSY). I had to wait for the pat down and take off shoes anyways. They had my whole background, fingerprints because of the TSA pre-check status and I travel with my passport domestic or international travel. What was the point of paying for the pre-check status?

Anonymous said...

$2,000.00 TSA fine for Apple Butter.
no, she was fined $2000.00 because she was told she could not take her apple butter. She chose to leave the checkpoint to dispose of it. Rather than following rules, she chose to make a second attempt at bringing an already denied item into the checkpoint. Come on people, really? Sounds like the time my boy got in trouble at school. The students were told to remain quiet. My boy started reading out loud. When he got in trouble, he said he got in trouble for reading. No, he got in trouble for failing to follow directions. As did this passenger.

RB said...

 Anonymous said...My goodness, the TSA PR hacks can't even be bothered to perform their weekly propaganda post.Tell me, if you can't take PRIDE by being punctual with your absurdist celebrations of security theater, West and Bobby, why do you even bother doing it? It certainly isn't because you're actually contributing anything to society...October 16, 2015 at 3:55 PM
?..............?
Take pride from collecting a TSA charity check? When pigs fly.

RB said...

 Anonymous said...$2,000.00 TSA fine for Apple Butter.no, she was fined $2000.00 because she was told she could not take her apple butter. She chose to leave the checkpoint to dispose of it. Rather than following rules, she chose to make a second attempt at bringing an already denied item into the checkpoint. Come on people, really? Sounds like the time my boy got in trouble at school. The students were told to remain quiet. My boy started reading out loud. When he got in trouble, he said he got in trouble for reading. No, he got in trouble for failing to follow directions. As did this passenger.October 19, 2015 at 10:44 AM
?..................?
The fine was for circumventing security which did not happen. Nor did she attempt to hide the too dangerous for TSA Applebutter.

It's stupid policies like this make TSA a laughing stock the world over.

Anonymous said...

Oh, so it's your son who works for the TSA, Bold TSApologist?

Anonymous said...

The fine was for circumventing security which did not happen. Nor did she attempt to hide the too dangerous for TSA Applebutter.

It's stupid policies like this make TSA a laughing stock the world over.

I never said she tried to hide it because I don't know. What I do know as do you, she was told it could not go through security. After leaving the checkpoint with it, she made a second attempt to get past security. We don't have to agree with the policies, we just have to follow them. Its pretty simple to do. Pretty expensive apple butter. Maybe it was worth it. Bet she will follow the rules next time.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Oh, so it's your son who works for the TSA, Bold TSApologist?

no, None of my family works for TSA. Why would you think that?

RB said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
The fine was for circumventing security which did not happen. Nor did she attempt to hide the too dangerous for TSA Applebutter.

It's stupid policies like this make TSA a laughing stock the world over.

I never said she tried to hide it because I don't know. What I do know as do you, she was told it could not go through security. After leaving the checkpoint with it, she made a second attempt to get past security. We don't have to agree with the policies, we just have to follow them. Its pretty simple to do. Pretty expensive apple butter. Maybe it was worth it. Bet she will follow the rules next time.

October 27, 2015 at 10:20 AM


So you agree that she did not try to circumvent TSA security.

Anonymous said...

Bet she figured that the first TSA employee didn't know what he was talking about. Bet she figured the first TSA screener was seeing his own rules. Bet she figured the TSA screener was pretending to be "inconsistent".

It is perfectly reasonable that she would go to another screener.

Rules won't change if no one challenges them.

Anonymous said...

Really? No one in your family works for the TSA, Bold TSApologist? How about you? A friend?