Tuesday, January 5, 2016

TSA Week in Review: December 25 – 31

Discovered firearms

46 firearms were discovered this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 46 firearms discovered, 37 were loaded and 13 had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured were discovered last week. See a complete list below.

Discovered knives
The batarangs (top) were discovered in a carry-on bag at SLC, and the weapons on the bottom were all discovered at IAH.


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.

Firearms Discovered in Carry-On Bags Chart
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

37 comments:

RB said...

TSA can try to cover up the assault of the 10 year old girl but TSA's cover up isn't going to work. Story made the 10 PM DFW NBC news cast.

RB said...

A Marine has been arrested for the murder of a college student here in the DFW area. That Marine was qualified for TSA's Pre Check under current TSA rules but retired military members are not qualified.

Feeling safe now?

Anonymous said...

You fellow TSA PR buddy, Nico Melendez, seems quite content that a ten year old girl had her chest, buttocks, and genitals touched by a screener: sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/04/tsa-10-year-old-girl/

Kalifornia Cid said...

Will the TSA blotter team be posting about the latest "good catch?"

sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/jan/04/tsa-10-year-old-girl/

Anonymous said...

BTW, the year column displays 2016 for 2015 data.

Does the TSA publish arrests facts behind these statistics?

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?

george said...


Please correct the dates on your latest list of weapons found.

Adrian said...

Are you planning a blog post to cover the rule changes that removes the right of passengers to opt-out of whole-body imaging? Will there be a new proposal and comment period (as the TSA was supposed to do before rolling out WBI as a primary screening method) before putting these changes into effect?

Are you planning a blog post on the upcoming deadline for several states who have not updated their state identification cards and databases to comply with the REALID Act?

L.T.S.O. said...

The TSA is on two major television networks! Great job, guys!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/father-outraged-uncomfortable-tsa-pat-down-10-year-old-daughter-n491191

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/06/10-year-old-girls-capri-sun-container-leads-to-tsa-pat-down.html

Ciaran O'Malley said...

With all due respect, do these blog posts serve a meaningful purpose? I mean, it's the exact same stuff every week. And when it's not the 'week in review,' it's a recycled travel tip that was written five years ago.

This is an example of a product that has no value added and is not reaching the people it's intended to reach. I know this because the according to the statistics you helpfully posted at the bottom of the post, since 2011 the number of firearms discovered in carry-on baggage has increased over 20% annually. And it's even more pointless to go over these statistics when, again as you state, in many cases (although I would submit it's more likely the vast majority) people simply forgot they had these items.

All I'm saying is, stop wasting your time trying to reach a segment of the population that you're clearly not reaching. Or at least find a new strategy for doing so. I know when a product line you've worked on for many years is discontinued it's sad--I get it. But you've gotta be able to admit when it's not working and invest your time into something that does. Cause right now all you're doing is talking to yourself. And these guys ^. And that's not healthy.

Also, fix the dates. Marty McFly didn't even go that far into the future.

Anonymous said...

Could you please provide a report on how many 10 year old children you frisk?

Unknown said...

Still 0 terrirosts caught but you love to repeatedly violate our Rights as law abiding Americans that just want to protect ourselves. I would feel safer on a plane with 20 good guys conceal carrying than a flight with 1 air marshall. I love to piss off TSA everytime I fly.

Anonymous said...

So nothing with the nudie-scanners, which you can arbitrarily make non-optional now. Why do you use them again?

RB said...

TSA's ASSUALT of a 10 year old girl has made it onto just about every news site known all across the nation.

And TSA's claims "Proper Procedures Were Followed" yet again when it is clear to anyone that what was done to this poor girl was hardly PROPER.

What I would really like to know, and under TSA Secret Rules Citizens Must Follow (TSASRCMF), why does a positive ETD test of a purse require a PHYSICAL Grope Down of a persons body?

Would not an ETD test of that person provide any needed information or alternatively using the Whole Body Imager to clear the person? But Noooooo, TSA wants to rub the bodies (everywhere) of children instead of using common sense and using the least invasive means to screen the person, as required by law!

Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

TSA and its employees acted in a criminal manner by screening this child in the manner that was used.

RB said...

TSA Blog Team in hiding? Afraid to address the TSA abuse of a 10 year-old girl?

RB said...

Check in regularly for "TSA Travel Tips" and our end of week "TSA Week in Review" posts on Fridays.

So in the TSA world is Friday now Tuesday or is this just one more example of the lack of attention to detail that is so common to all of TSA?

I fully understand that doing a weekly synopsis and trying to get it in on Friday of the reporting week is pretty unrealistic, but hey you are TSA. No surprise over the poorly thought out and executed plans. Why not just take care of the little things first? The big things usually are never big when details are the first priority.

RB said...

" Ciaran O'Malley said...With all due respect, do these blog posts serve a meaningful purpose?"

The TSA Blog has the same putpose as the rest of TSA, to end citizens freedom.

@SkyWayManAz said...

We were repeatedly told on this blog that patting down children was to be rare and less invasive than what is done to adults. That looked like more invasive than most of pat downs I have endured from TSA. In the original video the father points out where the screeners finger was inserted into his daughter's underwear. That's been done to me and routinely to adults. I have to tell you though if I was a parent I would immediately file a police report if that was ever done to my child under 12 because of a juice box. Now we all know juice is banned because it could be an explosive, even though TSA disposes it at the checkpoint instead of following hazardous material procedures. So by that logic I can see a child being subjected to a hand swab for an explosive trace. Yes that is a flawed test that generates numerous false positives, especially on women due to cosmetics. If they test negative have the child walk back through the metal detector. If they test positive AIT or modified pat down for children described previously on this blog that is less invasive. I can only see this level of aggressive invasive behavior on the part of TSA being justified if there was an actual weapon in the child's bag. A permitted cell phone that rang in addition to the banned juice box doesn't qualify as a weapon. I'm certain if there was an actual weapon TSA would be loudly thumping their chest in triumph.

Anonymous said...

Still 0 terrirosts caught (do you know this? TSA is not in the business of catching terrorists. They are there to prevent threat items from getting on planes. Other agencies catch terrorists.) but you love to repeatedly violate our Rights as law abiding Americans that just want to protect ourselves. (The courts would have a different opinion) I would feel safer on a plane with 20 good guys conceal carrying than a flight with 1 air marshall. (air marshals, as much as people love to sing their praises, have the exact same record as TSA when it comes to terrorist captures. I would love to see legal CCW carriers armed aboard aircraft. I happen to be one.) I love to piss off TSA everytime I fly. and I would guess they love messing with you.

Anonymous said...

So nothing with the nudie-scanners, which you can arbitrarily make non-optional now. Why do you use them again?

No fires at my house but I have smoke detectors. Nobody breaking into my house but I still lock the doors. Something's although not used per si, are put in place as a detourant. I am a legal CCW holder in 38 states. But I don't take my gun to certain places because I know the have metal detectors. I know I cant have my gun and I know they are using metal detectors.is it fair to say they aren't working? of course not. Think for just a few seconds...do you lock your doors? Why? pretty silly question wasn't it?

Anonymous said...

Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

can you provide a link to this information? Never heard or read this before.

carlacarlacarlacarla said...

I had a fun belly laugh about the Stihl chainsaw that reeked of gasoline... but I'm kinda bummed that TheBandPerry's "I got my CHAINSAWWWWW!" will repeat over-and-over in my brain while trying to go to sleep tonight.

Wintermute said...

No tigers in Central Ohio since getting this tiger-repellent rock, either. In other words, correlation does not imply causation.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

can you provide a link to this information? Never heard or read this before.

January 11, 2016 at 10:35 AM
.............................................
A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose."

...................
That's all the help you are getting Bold Blotter Intern. You already seem to know everything there is to know about TSA and its screening operations so this should be no surprise to you.

Susan Richart said...

Boldy:

"Although the constitutionality of airport screening searches is not dependent on consent, the scope of such searches is not limitless. A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose." Davis, 482 F.2d at 913"

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Susan Richart said...

Boldy wrote:

"I would love to see legal CCW carriers armed aboard aircraft. I happen to be one.)"

Thank heavens that people like you are NOT allowed to carry your guns on aircraft.

screen shot/DHS OIG statement

Anonymous said...

You own and carry a gun, Bold TSApologist?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

can you provide a link to this information? Never heard or read this before.

January 11, 2016 at 10:35 AM
.............................................
A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose."

...................
That's all the help you are getting Bold Blotter Intern. You already seem to know everything there is to know about TSA and its screening operations so this should be no surprise to you.

See you were wrong. This is what you what you said Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. There is a big difference between what you said and what the law says. Least invasive versus no more extensive nor intensive than necessary. You shouldn't reword things to fit your agenda. It can really discredit oneself. Thanks for the help, but I'll get the easy ones...

Wintermute said...

Grasp at straws much?

Anonymous said...

SorryNotSorry, Boldy. When something just crosses the threshold from not enough to enough, it is the least or minimum amount necessary. RB is correct.

If a recipe calls for a cup of flour, a cup is no more than the amount necessary and is therefore the least amount necessary for the recipe to give the expected results.

RB said...

Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States.

can you provide a link to this information? Never heard or read this before.

January 11, 2016 at 10:35 AM
.............................................
A particular airport security screening search is constitutionally reasonable provided that it "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary, in the light of current technology, to detect the presence of weapons or explosives [and] that it is confined in good faith to that purpose."

...................
That's all the help you are getting Bold Blotter Intern. You already seem to know everything there is to know about TSA and its screening operations so this should be no surprise to you.

See you were wrong. This is what you what you said Remember TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW and in the case of this 10 year-old girl did not comply with the LAW as passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States. There is a big difference between what you said and what the law says. Least invasive versus no more extensive nor intensive than necessary. You shouldn't reword things to fit your agenda. It can really discredit oneself. Thanks for the help, but I'll get the easy ones...

January 17, 2016 at 11:28 AM
....................
Boldy, what do you think these words mean?

"no more extensive nor intensive than necessary"

Anonymous said...

You own and carry a gun, Bold TSApologist?

I am not an apologist. I hold TSA to a very high standard and call them out when they screw up. I just don't see the black helicopters that so many here seem to see. That said, yes, I do own and carry a gun legally.

Anonymous said...

SorryNotSorry, Boldy. When something just crosses the threshold from not enough to enough, it is the least or minimum amount necessary. RB is correct.

If a recipe calls for a cup of flour, a cup is no more than the amount necessary and is therefore the least amount necessary for the recipe to give the expected results.
I will have to disagree with you. RB was not correct. RB stated that "TSA is mandated to use the least invasive means to screen travelers by LAW."
That's is false. They are mandated is "is no more extensive nor intensive than necessary," The law does not use the word "invasive" in this context.
Invasive, extensive and intensive are three different words with three different meanings. They are not interchangeable.
Also the word "necessary" has a huge implication. RB left the word "necessary " out..convenient huh. I'm sure that was not agenda influenced. Who decides what is "necessary? I would argue that has to be left to the officer doing the screening in most cases. They are the one who has the lives of hundreds riding on his decisions. If he cannot be sure that someone is not clear, it then becomes more "necessary" for screening to become more "extensive" and intensive."

Wintermute said...

Those three words may have different meanings, but context is everything. In the context of what RB was saying, he was entirely correct. And the TSA has hundreds of loves riding on their decisions? Really?! Then that 95% failure rate must be really comforting.

Anonymous said...

Lol, no TSA screener "has the lives of hundreds riding on his decisions."

You are also wrong when you say, "If he cannot be sure that someone is not clear, it then becomes more "necessary" for screening to become more "extensive" and intensive.""

Statements like that really do make you an apologist, Bold TSApologist.

The screener is just being a mindless drone. He isn't allowed to think or use common sense. (A three-striper screener agreed with me on this.)

All the screener is doing is reacting to little lights on a screen and making no actual assessment and using no thought about the realities of the situation. They aren't allowed by horrible, intrusive, violating TSA policies and procedures. Mindless drones. That's who you are so proud and thankful for. That's who you are supporting.

Anonymous said...

Those three words may have different meanings, but context is everything. In the context of what RB was saying, he was entirely correct
no, he was not. invasive, intrusive and extensive are 3 different words with three different meanings. They are not interchangeable in any way. TSA directive also includes the word "necessary" which leaves room for interpretation and varying factors. RB conveniently left that word out which leaves no room for other factors. He-she was absolutely incorrect. But for the purposes of the agenda of the haters, you can feel he-she was correct.

Anonymous said...

Boldy, you appear to be so certain only you are correct. You have chosen to label all who disagree with you "haters" and argue every point even when you have been proven mistaken multiple times.

You are arguing for argument's sake. When you do that, your statements get more and more ridiculous.

Saying 'invasive','intrusive', and 'extensive' are "not interchangable in any way" is simply incorrect. The English language is not as static nor restrictive as you are currently arguing.

An extensive search can be intrusive and/or invasive. An invasive search can be extensive and/or intrusive. An intrusive search can be extensive and/or invasive.

Each word does have subtle differences from each other. Perhaps you would like to tell us which of these three words you use for TSA searches of innocent people's bodies and property, we could move past this wacky argument which is dissolving into what 'is' is.