TSA finds average of 4 guns each day at airports

[BluesStringer]

Well, Blue......I'm not sure how the airline industry has gotten along all these years without the firepower of you and you ilk. Commercial air travel has been soooooo dangerous since the fed banned law-abiding Rambos such as yourself from carrying guns aboard planes. I can completely understand why you're so reluctant to fly what with the rampant skyjacking in this country.....

Oh, I see, my mentioning the 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments to the Constitution as a basis for opposing the TSA's illegal, immoral and abusive tactics is tantamount to admitting to being a Rambo. Does that about cover it hot-rod?

Your support for, perhaps even your knowledge and understanding of, the Constitution is as faded as the actual text of the document itself B2Tall. Have you ever seen it? I have. It's really quite sad that our country is in as bad a shape as is the Constitution:

It almost looks blank, doesn't it? Kinda like I imagine your face looks when you're in a failed search for a cogent thought as you pound out another non-repsonsive-to-anything post.

Sorry, I don't have attribution for this quote, but it rings true for me:

"Chains of habit are too light to be felt, until they are too heavy to be broken"

I admit, I maintain a heightened sensitivity to violations of the Constitution so that I don't succumb to the unfeeling condition of the first part of that quote, lest I am forced by honor and duty to at least try to defeat the second condition described therein.

You congratulated me for a job well-done in a previous post B2Tall. I would like to return the compliment. You are apparently going for a record to see how many insipid, vapid, idiotic and insulting posts you can spew in a row. Congrats dude, you've probably broken it three times over by now.

Blues

 

[B2Tall]

Tell us, Blue (if you can stop your posturing and sloganeering for a minute).....how would you separate the law abiding citizens from those with mayhem on their agenda?? Mindreaders? Don't bother saying we'd only let people with valid permits on board. There are a lot of angry, disillusioned nut-jobs that can legally obtain a permit and firearm, to say nothing of citizens of states w/o permits (besides, I'm guessing you're anti-permit as well).

How would you deter a suicidal fanatic (or two, or three...) with a gun(s) who's bent on making a bloody statement at 35,000 feet and wants to take everyone on the plane with him?? Nobody's gonna know he/they are on the plane until they open up with their guns! And guess what......at that point it's a little too late!! Even for somebody with a hyperinflated sense of self-importance like you!

You go ahead and put yourself and your family on that unsecure airplane. I'll stick with the safe ones.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Don't bother saying we'd only let people with valid permits on board. There are a lot of angry, disillusioned nut-jobs that can legally obtain a permit and firearm, to say nothing of citizens of states w/o permits (besides, I'm guessing you're anti-permit as well).

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we required a government issued permission permit to go to church. Or to post on the internet. Or to reproduce. Or had to pay a tax to protect us against unreasonable searches and seizures. Or if we still had to pay a poll tax to vote (funny how taxing the "right" to vote was struck down, isn't it?). Why should the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms be any different? Yes, I am anti-permit. Carry permits serve no purpose other than create a hurdle for law abiding citizens to jump over and raise money for politicians' budgets.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Back on topic of people carrying guns through security at airports:

Link Removed

SEA-TAC, Wash. – Twice in the past two days, Transportation Security Administration officers at Sea-Tac Airport have caught passengers trying to board with handguns in their carry-on luggage.

On Wednesday morning, an unloaded 9mm Glock was found in the carry-on bag of a man headed to Kona, Hawaii. Thursday morning, a man headed to San Francisco was caught at security with a loaded .22 caliber Beretta.
Both men were arrested, face state charges and could be fined up to $11,000.

 

[pyth0n]

Is there a legal way to pack in checked luggage and take your carry piece with you on via air travel? If possible, I'm guessing its airline dependent.

I don't fly much each year, but the times I have, I printed both the TSA and airline checked baggage requirements and complied with them. Each airline I used, (Tucson to Mich & Tucson to Florida)Northwest and Continental, were easy to deal with. Both accepted a locked MTM case and ammo in th e factory box. Ammo was allowed in the same suit case but not in the MTM case. Slides were not locked back. Both airlines insisted in using TSA locks. The bag was only opened once in Michigan and the guns physically checked. Tucson & Florida just had me place a tag in the suit case then bring it to a TSA x-ray check point. Got the thumbs up and was on my way. Check with each airline you intend to use and print out their rules and current TSA rules before you go, as close as possible to your departure as possible. Also print a copy of the laws at your destination to make sure your can bring your guns there because you will have to declare them on your return trip. I printed mine out the night before. Not a horrible experience.

Just an illustration of the problem N.J & N.Y. can cause a law abiding citizen. http://www.nraila.org/Search/?q=John Torraco

 

[6shootercarry]

There are laws that allow for you to travel with your gun using the commercial airlines... Check with the airlines regarding specifics. And do yourself a favor, get a good travel case... The TSA monkeys and baggage handlers are about as careless with your property as the democrats are with your future... I fly with mine and have not had any issues. NEVER I mean NEVER choose to fly with a gun if your flight makes a connection in NY... See other threads for that nightmare scenario...

Funny how we need additional laws to protect us from laws that are supposed to protect us... 4King silly...

 

[BluesStringer]

Carry permits serve no purpose other than create a hurdle for law abiding citizens to jump over and raise money for politicians' budgets.

I Liked the post for obvious reasons, but think there's a much more nefarious purpose behind most (if not all) permit systems in the country. It tells the government where to go first for the "front-line" 2nd Amendment proponents if/when confiscations start. And for any blithering idiot sheeple out there who think confiscations are just the ramblings of a paranoid wannabe Rambo, stick it where the sun don't shine:

Permitting systems make the above much easier, and as with nearly everything gun-related in this country, it is ONLY the law-abiding citizen who suffers the denial of their rights.

Blues

 

[B2Tall]

Dear Blue.....you gonna answer my question?? How would you distinguish between the passengers who're simply law abiding citizens excercising their 2A rights from those passengers who're trying to kill everyone on the airplane??

Let us know when you get that one figured out.

 

[BluesStringer]

Dear Blue.....you gonna answer my question?? How would you distinguish between the passengers who're simply law abiding citizens excercising their 2A rights from those passengers who're trying to kill everyone on the airplane??

The same way I know when I go to a mall, or a concert, or walk down the crowded streets of a metropolitan city. That is to say, I don't know who wants to do what or who is capable of what depth of evil. That's why I carry, because I don't know about anyone but myself, and when someone goes off the rails, I want a fighting chance to survive it.

You have acceded to the premise that looking for inanimate objects equals weeding out terrorists. Those same terrorists will be just as deadly plying their trade in any one of the venues I just mentioned, so I guess it's fine with you if TSA guards the gates of those places too and steals your private property (even friggin' shampoo!!) and gropes your wife. You've already accepted the premise, so what does the venue really matter? Just because a plane might take a few minutes to fall out of the sky and the passengers will suffer more terror for those few minutes? Pfft. Terror is terror is terror, and terrorists are the enemies of peace, tranquility and safety, not concealed carry permit holders.

Solution: Adopt the same screening processes and criteria as Israel uses. Look for terrorists, not for the most far-fetched, improbable use as a weapon of innocuous inanimate objects that everybody who travels would be expected to have with them, and not for guns carried by people who have complied with the law and subjected themselves to government scrutiny voluntarily, long before they even knew they'd have to fly that day.

Not that I have any illusions that you will just accept my answer, but you asked, so there ya go.

Blues

 

[B2Tall]

The same way I know when I go to a mall, or a concert, or walk down the crowded streets of a metropolitan city........

Your answer is predictably weak and silly. Actually not an aswer at all. "I have no idea" would have been much more appropriate on your part because that's really what you said in spite of all your worn-out rhetoric. Apparently expecting you to stop with the posturing and misdirections was asking for too much.


BTW, Israel doesn't allow people to board their planes with guns either. Their security measure are far tougher (i.e. "immoral" according to you) than anyone else's, including the TSA's. Bad idea on your part to use them in an attempt to bolster your argument, but that's what I've come to expect from your ever-changing song-and-dance.

 

[Rich_S]

I've disarmed to go into a school function before and locked the gun in the glove box. Then after the direct trip home left the gun in the glovebox. Next morning it's a pretty frantic phone call to make from work, "Honey. Don't be alarmed, but my 'clothing accessory' is in your glovebox, so you might want to discretely place it in a condition that is not, ummmm.... prohibited for it to be in in your vehicle."

We go to a school function probably once a month and now she always asks when we get home, "Got your gun?"

I guess I am not fit to carry a gun and should turn in my CPL immediately. I'll get right on that.

Leaving it in the glove box is pretty dumb. Forgetting it there is even dumber. Nice work.

 

[Rich_S]

In addition, attorneys, like CCW instructors, will err on the side of caution, at the expense of person freedom and rights, in order to provide as much protection to their clients as possible. God forbid one of their clients should get hassled or even arrested for engaging in perfectly legal behavior. They might turn around and sue the lawyer/instructor because the lawyer/instructor did not warn them against engaging in perfectly legal behavior. Just like all those warnings and cautions you see in instruction manuals for anything.

Oh dear....placing ammo in a seperate conatiner from the gun when flying is a horrendous intrusion of freedom and rights....ROFL

 

[BluesStringer]

Your answer is predictably weak and silly. Actually not an aswer at all. "I have no idea" would have been much more appropriate on your part because that's really what you said in spite of all your worn-out rhetoric. Apparently expecting you to stop with the posturing and misdirections was asking for too much.

I don't accept the premise that I'm posturing or misdirecting at all. You asked, I answered, simple as that.

And I did say "I have no idea," only I used my own words, not yours. To wit:

That is to say, I don't know who wants to do what or who is capable of what depth of evil. That's why I carry, because I don't know about anyone but myself, and when someone goes off the rails, I want a fighting chance to survive it.

I fail to see how that is "worn out rhetoric." It's the truth. It's as true for me as it is for you and as it is for the government that has to squelch our rights in order to give the illusion that they're capable of guarding against someone going off the rails to begin with.

BTW, Israel doesn't allow people to board their planes with guns either.

Wasn't the point of my statement, but they don't have a 2nd Amendment either.

Their security measure are far tougher (i.e. "immoral" according to you) than anyone else's, including the TSA's.

Right, my reference to morality was regarding "security measures." Quit being purposely obtuse. I find it immoral of our government to give every flying traveler a choice between being groped or having naked pictures taken of them. It neither contributes to the security of the flight, nor protects the individual's rights to be free from unreasonable searches.

Bad idea on your part to use them in an attempt to bolster your argument, but that's what I've come to expect from your ever-changing song-and-dance.

What is it with you that when someone simply holds a different opinion than yours, it's a "song and dance?" And nothing has changed at all with me, except I changed my mind to put you on ignore.....for now.

Anyway, part of this video includes interview excerpts with one of the founders of Ben Gurion Airport's security system, a system which has never (got that? N.E.V.E.R.) had a departed plane blown up or hijacked. The only people who go through body scans are those who are identified through previous parts of the process as terrorist suspects. Clearing security takes about 30 minutes for most passengers. Who has to take longer? Terrorist suspects! Not granny. Not your ol' lady after being felt up before she could clear security. Not your freakin' four year old kid. Terrorist suspects are delayed, and that's it.

My reference to Israel's system was about who they look for and how they go about identifying them, not about whether or not they allow CC permit holders on board, so save the condescending BS this time, whaddaya say? The Israelis have it down on how to run a security check-point that is, at airports at least, nearly 100% successful, and not every traveler has to give up their rights or human dignity in order to travel by air. Not a bad idea on my part to use them to bolster my argument at all. The only bad idea I've had recently is to think that you're capable of just having an easy-going discussion about issues facing America, gun enthusiasts, and/or concealed carriers. It's not a mistake I plan on repeating indefinitely though.

Blues

 

[B2Tall]

Oh dear....placing ammo in a seperate conatiner from the gun when flying is a horrendous intrusion of freedom and rights....ROFL

LOL! We've got some people on this site who imagine themselves as some of 2A Rosa Parks. Except they don't have balls like she did. They do whine, bellyache, and do a lot of self-righteous posturing. Just a lot of paper tigers rattling plastic swords behind their computers.

 

[Phillip Gain]

NEVER I mean NEVER choose to fly with a gun if your flight makes a connection in NY... See other threads for that nightmare scenario.

Just a couple of points to add to this:

- Connections in any state where a license is required to merely possess a gun = bad idea. (Look them up for yourself. I'm tired, and if I overlook one, I know a certain user will get all flamed up over it and start mouthing off about how big of idiots we instructors are.)

- If you find yourself on a plane that is forced to land (due to weather or whatever) in a state that has these kinds of laws...then collect your luggage, rent a car, and drive to a neighboring state where you're legal, before continuing your air travel. It may cost you a bit in change fees, but it beats a hefty fine and/or incarceration.

Theoretically, while driving, you should be protected by Federal law. At least enough that an attorney could make a "good faith" argument should you be arrested.

Notwithstanding any state or local law, a person shall be entitled to transport a firearm from any place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and transport such firearm if the firearm is unloaded and in the trunk. In vehicles without a trunk, the unloaded firearm shall be in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

But even if you are in apparent violation of the laws of the state in which you find yourself...you're not nearly as likely to get caught if you drive carefully. (as opposed to trying to check your gun back in at the airport)

It's worth noting that when you check a firearm, there is no record of it whatsoever in the airline computer system. Yes, I researched this just a few weeks ago. So upon arrival at your destination, no one knows you have a firearm in your possession. It's when you try to check it back in to depart that you wind up in trouble.

 

[Firefighterchen]

To expand on navy and gain...

Another reason many airlines don't require a separate container for ammo is because a hard sided suitcase that can lock doesn't need additional hard cases inside it for the firearm. My suitcase is hard sided and lockable, so all I do is keep my firearm unloaded, holstered, and compressed in my t shirts, ammo in proper cases tucked into a corner. After declaring, I lock my entire suitcase.

If you have a soft side suitcase, an additional hard sided case is needed. The soft suitcase does not need to be locked, just the hard case, but its a good idea to lock your suitcases anyways (personal opinion).

On a side note...how hard is it to say you were wrong and restate the correct information?

 

[Rich_S]

LOL! We've got some people on this site who imagine themselves as some of 2A Rosa Parks. Except they don't have balls like she did. They do whine, bellyache, and do a lot of self-righteous posturing. Just a lot of paper tigers rattling plastic swords behind their computers.

I wonder what they actually do about it other than spending countless hours online looking up laws to try and make it appear to total strangers that they're knowledgable about everything or gathering with a bunch of open carriers to stick their guns in people's faces......

 

[jg1967]

I thought the whole point of fighting all these various wars on terror was so that some day our grandkids could indeed just board a plane again and fly off? Because if it is not then the only solution is ever more security until we do indeed end up boarding planes dressed in paper suits like at the doctor's office, complete with cutouts on the backs so we can have the probes inserted more easily. I am really looking forward to that (not).

 

[Firefighterchen]

LOL! We've got some people on this site who imagine themselves as some of 2A Rosa Parks. Except they don't have balls like she did. They do whine, bellyache, and do a lot of self-righteous posturing. Just a lot of paper tigers rattling plastic swords behind their computers.

I wonder what they actually do about it other than spending countless hours online looking up laws to try and make it appear to total strangers that they're knowledgable about everything or gathering with a bunch of open carriers to stick their guns in people's faces......

Is this also what the NRA teaches you?

 

[localgirl]

This thread was a lot more fun when we were discussing being groped by attractive men in uniform.