Bad experience with the TSA

[Sky]

Here’s the translation, broken down, in plain English.


· The TSA has a work force of 43,000.

· TSA blogger Christopher [White] says TSA has had a total of “more than 110,000 employees” in its six-year history.

· That means more than 67,000 individuals who entered into employment contracts with TSA have left the agency over this period of six years.

That’s not attrition. That’s exodus. And it’s egregious fiscal waste.

In the fall of last year, a man in a dark suit walked into a UPS Store in Las Vegas, Nevada, flashed a badge, identified himself to the store manager as a Special Agent H. Charles Maurer of the Department of Homeland Security and demanded to see private files on an individual who keeps a postal box there. Familiar with state law, the store manager, M. E. Burks, told the man that he’d have to produce a subpoena first.

According to a federal grievance document viewed by this reporter, the federal agent told the store manager, “I don’t need a subpoena, I have this badge. Now, get me the files.” Burks refused to hand anything over and notified the customer in question instead. The customer, as it turned out, was a U.S. Federal Air Marshal named P. Jeffrey Black. Special Agent Maurer was his boss and was conducting an extrajudicial and unauthorized investigation on Black.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...ekacQH5G5ucgJgDbA&sig2=eiAQV_AXiHIRseDsxYhtbQ

In the last decade, fewer than 500 out of the TSA's 150,000 employees have been arrested on suspicion of theft, Melendez said. That's about 0.3 % -- a pretty small number, though I suppose some might argue that it should be closer to zero.

For some reason the total number of TSA workers is not something easily found and really depends on what you are reading and from where is the source. Let us just say they are a growing work force.......The 65,000 number I saw was last week but I do not remember where I saw it?? I really do not make stuff up but again just because we see something in the news or on the Internet it does not make it so and we can usually find something totally opposite.


http://overheadbin.msnbc.msn.com/_n...ional-report-calls-for-drastic-changes-at-tsa

...The report, "A Decade Later: A Call for TSA Reform," was published by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which is chaired by Rep. John L. Mica
a bloated bureaucracy of more than 60,000 employees that is in much need of immediate revamping

 

[ny32182]

Flying with a gun is easy as pie if you do it right.

-The regs are clearly laid out... just follow them, and everyone's life will be easier.

-Assume TSA and cops are not "gun people"... in general they are not. They don't have the slightest clue what a serialized part is or isn't.

Consider the two things above, and personally my conclusion would have been that putting easily visually identifiable gun parts like a stock and trigger in a checked bag without declaring them is highly likely to generate problems, and that is exactly what happened.

Next time just fly with the complete assembled firearm, declare according to the regs, and you'll save a lot of money vs. shipping it. In any event, I too am wondering what possible motivation there could have been for trying to both ship, and fly, with the same gun at the same time.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Flying with a gun is easy as pie if you do it right.

-The regs are clearly laid out... just follow them, and everyone's life will be easier.

-Assume TSA and cops are not "gun people"... in general they are not. They don't have the slightest clue what a serialized part is or isn't.

Consider the two things above, and personally my conclusion would have been that putting easily visually identifiable gun parts like a stock and trigger in a checked bag without declaring them is highly likely to generate problems, and that is exactly what happened.

Next time just fly with the complete assembled firearm, declare according to the regs, and you'll save a lot of money vs. shipping it. In any event, I too am wondering what possible motivation there could have been for trying to both ship, and fly, with the same gun at the same time.

Maybe the OP was attempting to test the knowledge of TSA regarding firearms?

Even though I detest not much more than complying with government regulations that don't exist or are not applicable, I must admit that declaring the parts as a firearm would have been painless, even though unnecessary, and I don't see where any harm to the traveler could have come from it. Heck, it would given him the authorization to lock a case that the TSA would not have the legal authority to open...

 

[bikemutt]

Heck, it would given him the authorization to lock a case that the TSA would not have the legal authority to open..

On my last trip with a shotgun the TSA guy at Sea-Tac made me open the lock, he had his way with all my belongings. He actually did smile when I pointed out the underwear was freshly laundered.

Anyway, while he did not open the lock himself, he had me do it. And he searched my bag quite thoroughly. Was he out of bounds?

 

[mgkdrgn]

I had mailed the receiver and barrel to my self (I have a c&r) so that I would not need to fly with a rifle.

And the reason we simply didn't mail the whole rifle to yourself was ... ??

 

[NavyLCDR]

On my last trip with a shotgun the TSA guy at Sea-Tac made me open the lock, he had his way with all my belongings. He actually did smile when I pointed out the underwear was freshly laundered.

Anyway, while he did not open the lock himself, he had me do it. And he searched my bag quite thoroughly. Was he out of bounds?

No, he was not out of bounds because of the bold and underlined part above. If he had required you to give him the keys so that he could open the lock, that would have been against Federal regulations. That's also why it is against Federal regulations to put a TSA lock on the hard sided case containing a firearm.

 

[N003k]

Agreed with many others, the regs are a bit cloudy, but, honestly, it IS easy to fly with firearms, I did it just this past Friday, and will be doing it again next Wednesday.

My bag DID alarm for explosives...all they did? Ask me to step around the counter and unlock it for them. They test swabbed the opening edge of the case...and then random parts of the inside...then when it turned out not to be a bomb, the agents apologized for the hassle, locked it up for me, right in front of me, and then put it back in my suitcase for me, organizing the textbooks in there for me in the process. Let me lock up the suitcase, sent it straight back and wished me a good flight.

Easy peezy.

So, why not just fly with it?

Or, forbidding that, since you had to do all the regs for firearms to SHIP those parts to yourself, why not just ship the whole thing? I'm really confused why you did a bit of both honestly, and it seems TSA just followed the regs closer than you'd like given how vague they are.

 

[paradox998]

A couple of clarifications.

I shipped the receiver/barrel via US Mail as I did not have a long hard sided case to use on the airlines. Also, the rifle is fairly valuable, and I felt it was be more prudent to break it down into two parts as I would not risk as much in a single shipment - postal or airline, neither of which are too accommodating on insurance claims. The luggage I used was a hard sided suitcase with locks, large enough for the stock, but not for an assembled gun.

I guess the question is when do have to declare gun parts? For example if I only had a few springs and a some grips, would I need to declare them? How about a magazine? I have flown quite a bit and have checked guns on numerous occasions, but never needed to declared ammo or small parts in the past. Guess I will have to declare that highly dangerous grip screw as a gun part on my next flight.

 

[N003k]

I'd say it passes the declare point when it becomes recognizable as a gun part personally. Magazines, grips, stocks, etc, etc. If ya don't want to, at least be prepared if they claim it is parts with locks, etc.

 

[NavyLCDR]

I guess the question is when do have to declare gun parts? For example if I only had a few springs and a some grips, would I need to declare them? How about a magazine? I have flown quite a bit and have checked guns on numerous occasions, but never needed to declared ammo or small parts in the past. Guess I will have to declare that highly dangerous grip screw as a gun part on my next flight.

Legally, according to 49 CFR 1540.111, you are not required to declare any firearm parts, only firearms. I guess if you want to fly, though, you have to declare whatever they tell you to declare. Would be funny to declare a grip screw as a firearm ... how would you show that it was unloaded, though?

 

[pintler]

Agreed with many others, the regs are a bit cloudy, but, honestly, it IS easy to fly with firearms,...

I agree, with one potential and important caveat: it's easy unless your flight gets diverted or delayed overnight to Chicago, NY, etc.

 

[tkaction]

Throw a light bulb in the mix and call it a lamp!

 

[bikemutt]

One obstacle to flying with a firearm is the extra bag charges most airlines now impose. So if I'm lucky enough to be flying Delta today, I have one suitcase with my clothes etc, and a locked, hard case with a handgun, I'm out $25 for the first bag, $35 for the next.

So, is it against the rules to place the gun case inside the suitcase, thus having only one checked bag, saving myself $35?

Now I pulled this off in October with a shotgun, but that piece of luggage is primarily a gun case which happens to have enough room in which to place gear. My question above is the opposite scenario where an TSA-approved gun case is placed within a plain suitcase.

 

[ny32182]

Locked pistol case inside my regular suitcase with my clothes and other stuff in it is the only way I've ever done it.

 

[bikemutt]

Thanks ny32182, I'll send you a percentage of my extra bag savings going forward

 

[Loosedhorse]

I wonder if you could check this:



"I'm on my way to an art show..."

 

[Dr_B]

dealing with stupidity in positions of authority

That pretty much sums it up. The TSA, or air theater association, doesn't know its own rules. I get a different experience at every airport, from every airline clerk, and every TSA agent.

 

[bikemutt]

I'm going to give TSA the benefit of the doubt here, the idea is if the law-abiding flying public cannot figure out the rules, neither can the terrorists. It's all part of a grand plan I tell you, seriously.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So, is it against the rules to place the gun case inside the suitcase, thus having only one checked bag, saving myself $35?

That's the way I have always done it. Not against the rules at all.

 

[N003k]

I personally fly Southwest, so no Baggage fees for 2 checked bags, and at the very least, THEY don't care if the gun case is inside a suitcase. I had a pelican 1500 case in a suitcase with 6 textbooks (weighed in at 40lbs), and they didn't care. I can't imagine any other airlines care either if it's in any other suitcase.