Wednesday, November 18, 2015

TSA Week in Review: 46 Firearms and More - 11/6 - 11/12

Discovered firearms

46 firearms were discovered this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 46 firearms discovered, 39 were loaded and 15 had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured here were discovered this week. See a complete list below.


Discovered inert grenades

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 board the aircraft. The inert grenade pictured was discovered in a carry-on bag at Chicago O’Hare (ORD).

Discovered cane swords

A cane sword was discovered in a traveler’s carry-on property at Las Vegas (LAS).

Discovered knives
Clockwise from the top, the knives pictured above were discovered at IAH, ANC, BZN, DAL, SJC, SAV, PVD, PSP, DAL and IAH.
Discovered 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 the top, the pictured ammo was discovered in carry-on bags at RIC, JFK and LAS.


In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly in carry-on bags, our officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, stun guns, small pocketknives and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.



Table for discovered firearms in carry-on bags list
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

https://twitter.com/asktsa
 

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Did this big catch miss the cutoff this week?

http://www.local21news.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/Cumberland-County-boy-has-souvenir-toy-confiscated-by-TSA-233140.shtml

Making a 5 year old throw away a toy that doesn't even look close to a replica is inexcusable. Can somebody from the TSA explain why this toy was not allowed?

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...

Bullets (the projectiles that exit the barrel when a loaded round is fired) are not "ammunition"; I do not mean to be contrary, but other than weight, why would raw projectiles be considered dangerous and unacceptable in ANY luggage? I'm not sure you could throw them at someone with enough force to cause injury.

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...

So good, this should be posted twice. Thanks TSA for all you do.
Anonymous said...
I just want to share a story with those of you who never have a kind word or anything positive to say about TSA or TSA officers. Today while at the Airport, I saw a young female passenger flying out. I heard her tell one of the TSA officers she was on her way to rehab in Texas and hadn't eaten in days. She was in tears. After being treated very professionally by the TSA officer, she left. Shortly there after I saw this same girl at one of the shops attempting to buy a candy bar. Turns out she has no money. A TSA officer saw what was going on and knew her story. He pulled his personal credit card out of his pocket and bought her 4 candy bars and a bottle of water. The officers only request of her, "fight as hard as you can to beat this." With that she walked away and boarded her flight.
My point is, so many people here are fast to criticize officers and you forget that most of them are people just like you and I. Sure they have a different job but they have feelings, families, a heart and compassion just like the rest of us. Feel free to be critical of the agency, but it does not need to be personal. Some TSA officers are wonderful people. I saw this first hand today and I commend this officer. Now, back to your regularly scheduled drama.


KeyPinItReel said...

Bob, you have reused a gun photo again.

November 18, 2015 - leftmost column, fourth photo down

November 6, 2015 - rightmost column, third photo down

Don't worry. I have already taken screenshots.

Anonymous said...

Bob and West, is Lynn Dean really a TSA Blog Team member anymore? She doesn't claim to have anything to do with the blog since its launch, except maybe one or two posts over the past seven years.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting to find out if y'all confiscated 40 pounds or 80 pounds of marijuana last week. No answer yet.

Still wondering why you're continuing to censor my comments about the accessibility issues on this site. Does West really hate disabled people that much? His personal blogs certainly hint at it...

Keep it up, fellas-- I'm sure you'll work your way up to a job rating of "marginally competent" after a few more years of sustained work!

Anonymous said...

What, you're not trumpeting this great catch by your screeners at FLL? Or maybe it's counted as one of the guns you found there.

http://www.wwmt.com/news/features/national/stories/TSA-throws-out-child-39-s-Buzz-Lightyear-souvenir-233355.shtml#.Vk0E6K6rQb3

Anonymous said...

Why do you track the caliber of the firearms but not the disposition of the owner? You say they can be fined or arrested but don't track which occurred.... Why?

Anonymous said...

"...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 board the aircraft. The inert grenade pictured was discovered in a carry-on bag at "


So was the explosives detection professionals called out for this find? Were they the ones that determined it to be an inert grenade? If not, why not? If the clerk at the baggage scanner was able to determine it was an inert grenade what made it so dangerous that it can't fly?

And why are novelty items prohibited from flying? It's not like you can take over a plan with a bottle of perfume or a leather embossed picture of a gun.

Ksubrent61 said...

Well, are you going to add a child's fantasy to that list? Your new slogan should be "TSA: protecting the nation from 5 year olds and their toys".

Anonymous said...

Where's the Buzz Lightyear Flip Grip toy on that picture grouping of confiscated "weapons"?

Adrian said...

In the announcement last week of three TSA contractors being charged with drug smuggling at an SFO checkpoint, there's this bit:

"The defendant operating or overseeing the x-ray machine either knew the carry-on baggage contained narcotics, viewed images that suggested the need for secondary inspection, or both. Nevertheless, in each instance, the defendant responsible for the x-ray machine failed to call for a secondary screening of the baggage or alert law enforcement or a supervisor to the presence of suspected narcotics."
[http://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/three-san-francisco-international-airport-security-screeners-charged-fraud-and]

The wording there seems to be deliberately cagey.

If an x-ray TSO knows that a bag contains narcotics but sees no evidence of WEI, is that TSO required to call for a secondary inspection of that bag?

If yes, then the TSO clearly would be exceeding the bounds of an administrative search for weapons.

If no, then why is this part of the allegation?

It seems the only "correct" answer from TSA would be that narcotics and WEI are indistinguishable in an x-ray. Is that actually true?

And even if it is, if the TSO "knows" the suspicious item on the x-ray is narcotics then they "know" it's not WEI, and thus there's no need to call for a secondary inspection in order to check for weapons. If they are required to notify law enforcement about the narcotics, then that seems outside the bounds of an administrative search for weapons and threats to aviation.

I get the charges to conspiracy to smuggle and distribute narcotics, and, if true, they should be prosecuted for that.

But these fraud charges are practically an admission that the TSA has been stretching the truth every time they claimed that big drug finds were incidental to clearing bags for WEI.

Anonymous said...

I wanted to leave a comment at just how impressed I was with the professionalism and accuracy the TSA agents at FLL were this week. From the screener at the monitor, to the pat-down agent and eventual officer that release me after discovering a 9mm magazine left in a pocket of my briefcase. All were understanding and professional ... yet I was both embarrassed and ashamed to be one of the above statistics. The TSA is often maligned ... but never again by me. Thanks for doing your job (and allowing me to continue on my flight without a fine or penalty!)

Unknown said...

How about the possibility of the ammunition firing if there was a fire in the cabin or a fire/crash scenario?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: ".....(and allowing me to continue on my flight without a fine or penalty!)"

You were penalized as your lost your magazine.

Watch your mail. TSA doesn't hand out fines on the spot; it comes in the mail.

screen shot

Anonymous said...

You posted your own story twice, Bold TSApologist. Lame.

Feel good glurge with too few factual or identifying details, too many "ah, shucks" improbabilities. Snopes would mark this story as false.

She "hadn't eaten in days" and was traveling alone to a different state "to go to rehab?" Unlikely, and even if true, why would an alleged drug addict choose to talk to someone dressed up to look like a cop? Why would a drug addict tell someone that could keep her from getting on a plane about her drug addiction? They could certainly stop and grope her, search her stuff, call real law enforcement about possible drug smuggling. It doesn't add up.

Notice the writer didn't say the same screener who talked to her before bought her a candy bar. It was "a [screener] who knew her story." How did the first screener tell another one who was not at the screening area about this "poor girl"? How did this second screener ID her so quickly? What was the 2nd screener doing in the store? Where was the store in relation to the screening area?

How did this one passenger see all of this transpire? Was he standing directly behind the girl and then following her? If the writer was so concerned as to follow the girl, why didn't he offer to buy the girl some food?

The final straw in this glurge is the officer's "only request". Straight out of Writing for Network TV 101.

This guy is trying to catch his own plane, but is able to see and hear everything that transpires between a stranger and a screener (including noting the "professionalism"), despite having to go through screening himself, follows this stranger to a store, and sees a second screener do a second generous act in a different location.

Never noting which airport nor the screeners' names or descriptions.

False story.

Anonymous said...

To the Anonymous poster who was found with a gun magazine at a screening area, don't count your chickens yet. You may yet receive a $3000 fine in the mail.

Wintermute said...

So, this happened today? Or the other day when you first posted it? Having two separate dates on the story makes one question if it even happened.

Charles Parker said...

Why aren't these people being caught, shown in this publication of TSA findings along with the items found? Give us a look at those who are caught and let us know who these dumb bells are who put themselves in this position. I'm sure you have their pictures and they are guilty of doing this, are they not?

Anonymous said...

Unknown said...
How about the possibility of the ammunition firing if there was a fire in the cabin or a fire/crash scenario?

In case of a fire/crash scenario I don't think anyone is going care about ammunition.

GSOLTSO said...

Charles Parker sez - "Why aren't these people being caught, shown in this publication of TSA findings along with the items found?"

The individuals that have items determined to be a threat/possible threat are turned over to local LEOs for determination on whether charges are to be filed or not. Even if charges are filed, it is done by the local LEOs, and the individuals would be processed accordingly by that department. TSA merely catalogs and inventories the items for reporting purposes. To post a picture or the individuals information would be publishing PII (which is a no-no in our administrative capacity).

Anon sez - "I wanted to leave a comment at just how impressed I was with the professionalism and accuracy the TSA agents at FLL were this week."

Thank you for the kind words, I will pass on the compliments so they can be relayed!

Anon sez - "is Lynn Dean really a TSA Blog Team member anymore?"

Yes.

West
TSA Blog Team

Anonymous said...

You posted your own story twice, Bold TSApologist. Lame.

Feel good glurge with too few factual or identifying details, too many "ah, shucks" improbabilities. Snopes would mark this story as false.

She "hadn't eaten in days" and was traveling alone to a different state "to go to rehab?" Unlikely, and even if true, why would an alleged drug addict choose to talk to someone dressed up to look like a cop? Why would a drug addict tell someone that could keep her from getting on a plane about her drug addiction? They could certainly stop and grope her, search her stuff, call real law enforcement about possible drug smuggling. It doesn't add up.

Notice the writer didn't say the same screener who talked to her before bought her a candy bar. It was "a [screener] who knew her story." How did the first screener tell another one who was not at the screening area about this "poor girl"? How did this second screener ID her so quickly? What was the 2nd screener doing in the store? Where was the store in relation to the screening area?

How did this one passenger see all of this transpire? Was he standing directly behind the girl and then following her? If the writer was so concerned as to follow the girl, why didn't he offer to buy the girl some food?

The final straw in this glurge is the officer's "only request". Straight out of Writing for Network TV 101.

This guy is trying to catch his own plane, but is able to see and hear everything that transpires between a stranger and a screener (including noting the "professionalism"), despite having to go through screening himself, follows this stranger to a store, and sees a second screener do a second generous act in a different location.

Never noting which airport nor the screeners' names or descriptions.

False story.

100% true and accurate story as seen through my own eyes. You can nit pick and ask childish questions, you can nit pick with irrelevant thoughts. The fact is, it happened whether of not you like it. you just cannot accept that there are many great TSA officers. This officer was certainly one of them.

Wintermute said...

West, your agency already does a ton of stuff that's a no-no in its administrative capacity. Also, when's the last time Lynn did anything on the blog? You and Bold seem to be the only people approving comments, and Bob seems to do the weekly blotters. Is she a team member in title only? Makes sense, as your agents are "officers" in title only.

Wintermute said...

The questions were not childish. There are logical holes in your story that need cleared up to make it believable. Your overly defensive reply speaks tons to its veracity.

Anonymous said...

You say you saw this entire event and your silly story is the whole truth as it actually happened, Bold TSApologist?

When did this allegedly happen (month, day, year)? What airport did this allegedly happen? Did you actually see it or did your screener family member tell you about it?

Your boasting about the great screener isn't your screener family member, right? And isn't it screenerS?

You never answered the questions in my first comment nor provided any proof or details.

Still a false glurge story.