Friday, October 7, 2016

TSA Week in Review 9/30 - 10/6

Discovered 76 firearms

TSA discovered 76 firearms this week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 76 firearms discovered, 65 were loaded and 19 had a round chambered. All of the firearms pictured were discovered in the last week. See a complete list below.
Discovered two cane swords

Two cane swords were discovered this week at Bradley (BDL) and Houston (HOU). Concealed items can lead to fines and arrest. Please pack all knives and swords in checked baggage.
Discovered a belt knife
This belt knife was discovered in a carry-on bag at DTW.
Discovered knives
These items were discovered in carry-on bags at (clockwise) XNA, BWI, IAH, SAN, BUR and ANC.


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
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 2015 Year in Review post! If you haven’t read them yet, make sure you check out our year in review posts for 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014.



Follow @TSA on Twitter and Instagram!



Bob Burns
TSA Social Media Team

38 comments:

Chip and Andy said...

Why do you track how many firearms that had a round chambered?

RB said...

It looks like TSA is finding about 20% or so more firearms now than a year or so ago. Does that mean TSA was missing that many guns in the past years. And exactly why can't TSA get the word out that weapons are not allowed in the cabin. Anyone see any TSA TV PSA spots in Prime Time? On the radio? Simply fact is that TSA is doing very little to nothing to change things. Guess TSA likes to brag each week about what screeners found rather than doing something to change the trend.

Just more evidence that TSA is focused on doing the wrong things.

JP said...

Do people have so little to do than write comments like have been left on this website?

RB said...

Last comment posted was on 10/08/16 at 1:41 PM. Now 10/12/16.

Just another demonstration of TSA Professionalism at work.

Wintermute said...

Why is a Galaxy Note 7 allowed through security when a bottle of water isn't? One can actually catch fire, and the other can't.

More seriously, it's not the Note itself that's an issue, but the type of battery used in it - and quite a lot of our mobile devices, actually, and other devices have caught fire in the past. So the serious question is, why are devices with lithium ion batteries allowed? The pose a greater threat than a theoreticsl liquid explosive.

Boldly said...

JP said...
Do people have so little to do than write comments like have been left on this website?


hard to imagine, isn't it?

Boldly said...

Why is a Galaxy Note 7 allowed through security when a bottle of water isn't? One can actually catch fire, and the other can't.

More seriously, it's not the Note itself that's an issue, but the type of battery used in it - and quite a lot of our mobile devices, actually, and other devices have caught fire in the past. So the serious question is, why are devices with lithium ion batteries allowed? The pose a greater threat than a theoreticsl liquid explosive.

Really?

RB said...

Wintermute said...
Why is a Galaxy Note 7 allowed through security when a bottle of water isn't? One can actually catch fire, and the other can't.

More seriously, it's not the Note itself that's an issue, but the type of battery used in it - and quite a lot of our mobile devices, actually, and other devices have caught fire in the past. So the serious question is, why are devices with lithium ion batteries allowed? The pose a greater threat than a theoreticsl liquid explosive.

October 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM

..............
Oh and easy question.

It's because water is harmless and TSA knows it, but it makes it look like TSA is actually doing something. Just because that something is not worth doing never enters the brains of TSA employees.

Skyler DeWitt said...

Note 7's are allowed because airlines have a policy that as long as someone has a Note 7 on the plane, it must be turned off and they aren't allowed to charge it on the aircraft at all. Every airline has added that into their safety spiel that they give at the beginning of the flight. Water bottles are allowed on the plane, you just have to dump it out before you go through security and refill it once you get through to the other side. They don't know what's in that water bottle. Better safe than sorry.

Wintermute said...

Yes, really.

Wintermute said...

So, something that's a known threat is allowed, because a terrorist will promise not to turn it on, but an unknown that is so dangerous that it's thrown in the trash isn't. Makes perfect sense, if it's simply theatre, that is.

Wintermute said...

Apparently, my argument about the Note 7 was convincing (in the wrong direction)... Note 7's are now prohibited items. Even though they're not WEI.

Boldly said...

Why is a Galaxy Note 7 allowed through security when a bottle of water isn't? One can actually catch fire, and the other can't.

TSA is a security organization. The Galaxy 7 is not a threat to security. If it is a threat for other things, that would fall under FAA jurisdiction not TSA.

Wintermute said...

A fire isn't a threat to security?!

Chip and Andy said...

Boldly said...TSA is a security organization. The Galaxy 7 is not a threat to security.

Neither is water so how do you explain the 3-1-1 circus?

Shoes are not a threat to security so please explain why I have to remove them to go through the security choke point?

Security is a practice, not some random collection of arbitrary policies with checklists and duplicate lists of redundant information. Like how firearms are reported... Some number of loaded firearms and some other number of loaded firearms found each week with no informational context. 74 firearms.... Scary. Out of several million travellers.... How many zeros come after the decimal point?

Boldly said...

Wintermute said...
A fire isn't a threat to security?!

nope. It may be a threat to safety, but not security.

Boldly said...

Neither is water so how do you explain the 3-1-1 circus?

Shoes are not a threat to security so please explain why I have to remove them to go through the security choke point?


I would estimate this has been explained at least a dozen times. That you choose not to agree with the answer does not make the answer invalid or even illogical.
It is simply your opinion and you are entitled to it. But don't suggest that it hasn't been answered ad nauseam.

Wintermute said...

And water is?

Chip and Andy said...

Bold Posting Intern said "I would estimate this has been explained at least a dozen times. That you choose not to agree with the answer does not make the answer invalid or even illogical. "

Google search disagrees with your assertion. Perhaps you could provide the relevant links?

kevinran said...

google London liquid bomb plot then maybe you'll understannd

Chip and Andy said...

"...google London liquid bomb plot then maybe you'll understannd"

Nope. Boldy has tried that gambit several times already and failed every time.

If liquids are dangerous then why have the 3-1-1 nonsense? How is a sixteen ounce bottle of liquid so dangerous but pour it into several three once bottles and suddenly it is safe? So Safe that it doesn't need anything more than to be placed in a zippy bag in its own feet bin.

Wintermute said...

We understand that the liquid bomb plot was not actually viable.

GSOLTSO said...

Wintermute sez - "We understand that the liquid bomb plot was not actually viable."

Then there is a misunderstanding. I have provided a video demonstration of what these planned items could do, I have provided links to Dr. Sidney Alford explaining how this is a viable scenario, and DHS along with several other Nations have done their own research and concluded that the liquids plot is viable. Speaking with the explosive experts here at my airport, and at some other airports (all former military EOD specialists) the liquids plot is viable, but more difficult than using a more stable explosive material. This does not mean that it is not viable, it means it would require more planning and care. Failure to recognize that on an individuals (or group) part, does not alter the truth behind it. Liquids are still a viable threat matrix, and to discount them as not being one could possibly have grave consequences. Just like Shoes and sheet explosives are viable threat matrices, the inability of some to either understand or recognize them as a threat, does not render them a non-threat, it just renders them a threat that some do not pay attention to.

West
TSA Blog Team

GSOLTSO said...

Wintermute sez - "Even though they're not WEI."

I guess one could make the case that they are an intermittent, unplanned small scale E, or at least an I. It is a bug enough concern that the FAA made changes and released this info almost overnight. It is primarily a safety concern, while it can have an impact on safety, it is primarily a safety concern. I am fairly certain that is the reason that the FAA released this, instead of TSA - we are currently deferring to their announcement, and if anything else is sent down by HQ or published that I see, I will do my best to make certain I post it here.

West
TSA Blog Team

Wintermute said...

No misunderstanding on my part. If the threat were viable, there would be no 3-1-1 circus. How do you explain that nonsense away if liquids are such a threat?

Wintermute said...

I'm surprised they only banned the Note 7, and not all devices containing Lithium Ion batteries. They've been problematic in the past, and I am sure there will be issues with them in the future... I suspect they must contain those magical explosive liquids you keep insisting are viable ;)

Wintermute said...

I believe you and your cheerleaders are ignoring the part of the plot that is not viable... Liquid explosives are not impossible. Liquid explosives are unstable. The part that is unlikely to happen is to actually make it to the airport to begin with without going boom.

Chip and Andy said...

West said "...Liquids are still a viable threat matrix"

You answered "a" question, West, but you didn't answer the question being asked. If liquids are a viable threat matrix then why are they just tossed into a common rubbish bin? If liquids are a viable threat matrix what makes them safe enough to ignore when poured into wee size bottles?

Liquids are a threat or they aren't. Small bottles don't change the threat when you can take as many small bottles as you like.

Wintermute said...

Interesting that my reply which followed guidelines hasn't been posted yet, but later comments have been.

Boldly said...

Chip and Andy said...
West said "...Liquids are still a viable threat matrix"

You answered "a" question, West, but you didn't answer the question being asked. If liquids are a viable threat matrix then why are they just tossed into a common rubbish bin? I think a new policy here should be, once a question is answered, it should never be allowed to be asked again. This, as with so many other questions has been answered many many times. That you don't like or agree with the answer does not give justification to keep asking it. It is a very logical answer.
If liquids are a viable threat matrix what makes them safe enough to ignore when poured into wee size bottles? where is the "dead horse" imogi?

Liquids are a threat or they aren't. Small bottles don't change the threat when you can take as many small bottles as you like.

Wintermute said...

Show me where that question has been answered. You cannot, as it has not.

Wintermute said...

Perhaps you misunderstand the question... To make it clear:

A 16oz bottle is considered potentially dangerous.
A 3oz bottle is considered safe (enough).
You can have as many 3oz bottles in a quart-sized baggie as you want.
What is preventing someone from combining multiple safe 3oz bottles into an unsafe amount?

This is the question that needs answered. I have never seen an answer. I've seen you claim that liquids are "banned," but never anything answering this very basic question.

Chip and Andy said...

Bold Posting Intern said "... I think a new policy here should be, once a question is answered, it should never be allowed to be asked again. This, as with so many other questions has been answered many many times. That you don't like or agree with the answer does not give justification to keep asking it. It is a very logical answer. "

In your opinion.

In my opinion you nor West nor any other TSA employee or cheerleader has actually answered the question. And since it hasn't been answered, brace yourself, I am going to ask it again:

If a sixteen ounce bottle of liquid is too dangerous to go through security then why is 21 ounces of liquid safe simply because it is in smaller bottles? Why is the liquid now so safe that it needs nothing more than a zippy bag to get through security?

Anyone can answer. Boldy, you could offer up a link to the answer since you obviously know where it is. West? Wanna take a crack at it?

Boldly said...

Anyone can answer. Boldy, you could offer up a link to the answer since you obviously know where it is. West? Wanna take a crack at it?

I enjoy your redundancy (sp?).You should have paid attention in the past when it was addressed.

Wintermute said...

If it's such an obvious answer, why do you A) refuse to answer, and B) refuse to provide a link to such an answer. I submit that this is because it hasn't been answered.

And if you enjoy the redundancy so much, why the call for censorship of questions you don't like?

Chip and Andy said...

"...Blogger Boldly said...
Anyone can answer. Boldy, you could offer up a link to the answer since you obviously know where it is. West? Wanna take a crack at it?

I enjoy your redundancy (sp?).You should have paid attention in the past when it was addressed."

And I noticed you still didn't provide any link to where the information might be. I already asked Google, I even asked Bing.... neither service seems to know what you insist I should have read already.

And for the record, here is the question that remains unanswered (except Boldy, she knows the answer already but isn't sharing):

If a sixteen ounce bottle of liquid is too dangerous to go through security then why is 21 ounces of liquid safe simply because it is in smaller bottles? Why is the liquid now so safe that it needs nothing more than a zippy bag to get through security?

RB said...

Chip and Andy said...
"...Blogger Boldly said...
Anyone can answer. Boldy, you could offer up a link to the answer since you obviously know where it is. West? Wanna take a crack at it?

I enjoy your redundancy (sp?).You should have paid attention in the past when it was addressed."

And I noticed you still didn't provide any link to where the information might be. I already asked Google, I even asked Bing.... neither service seems to know what you insist I should have read already.

And for the record, here is the question that remains unanswered (except Boldy, she knows the answer already but isn't sharing):

If a sixteen ounce bottle of liquid is too dangerous to go through security then why is 21 ounces of liquid safe simply because it is in smaller bottles? Why is the liquid now so safe that it needs nothing more than a zippy bag to get through security?

November 1, 2016 at 9:54 AM
......................
I think an equally important question that has gone unanswered for years is why an item that is too dangerous to go through a TSA security checkpoint is just tossed in common garbage bins right where people congregate while going through security.

Wintermute said...

And, again, crickets. Funny how Boldy never has an actual answer for this...