joshwex90

This was the original post: So yes, a firearm in a checked bag.

And no, it's not considered more dangerous, because it isn't. The restrictions are to prevent others from unauthorized access to the firearm. That being said, when a firearm is in a checked bag with no ammo inside (as that's how they fly), there's no danger to people. It was in response to this: And the response, rightfully so, was that a weapon in a checked bag is NOT dangerous. No one is in danger of a gun with no finger on the trigger, in a locked box, with no ammo, going off accidentally or otherwise.

GUWonder

Of course a gun in checked luggage is cosidered generally more dangerous than a wrench or screwdriver in checked luggage. It's why the guns and ammo in checked luggage is regulated in a way that the wrenches and screwdrivers in checked luggage are not controlled.

Also, guns with bullet components in checked luggage can have the bullet components explode on planes or otherwise airside, even when those are not generally accessible to the passenger airside. It would take far more to make a wrench or screwdriver in checked luggage to explode at an airport or on an airplane. Just some facts.

Are you really going to tell us that checked in firearms never have any ammo in them? I have no faith in human perfection; and so I don't expect passengers, airline employees and TSA employees to have prevented all guns with ammo in them from being transported in checked luggage -- after all, rules aren't always followed perfectly. How often does the airline or TSA make sure a passenger transporting a checked in gun domestically is even legally allowed to have a gun and transport one? We know rules aren't always followed by the members of the public in that regard too. The airlines and TSA spend more time obsessing about passenger ID than they do identifying the legal allowance for the passenger with a checked in gun to even have a gun with them.

Note the following: I am not calling for a change in regulations for passenger guns transported on common carriers, as the carriage of firearms from checked baggage poses the same level of risk for being used to shoot up people as at many a public building or other area where carrying firearms is allowed. But the notion of guns in checked luggage or otherwise being no more dangerous than a screwdriver or wrench just defies any semblance of objectivity.

jkhuggins

Unfortunately, TSA invites exactly this criticism.

Consider:

• TSA requires its front-line employees to dress in uniforms that convey every aspect of LEO training, such as blue shirts, shield badges, and shoulder boards.
• TSA --- literally --- parades TSA employees at ceremonial occasions bearing firearms.
• TSA officials and politicians use militaristic rhetoric to defend their functions (e.g. "TSOs are often the first line of defense").
• TSA uses the term "officer" to refer to its front-line employees.

TSA seems to be doing everything in its power to convey the idea that TSOs are not merely "civilians". It seems a bit odd, then, for an employee of TSA to say "well, we're just civilians and shouldn't be expected to act any differently during an emergency."

(And just to clarify: this is a criticism of TSA, not of you. Your agency has established an unreasonable image for you that you cannot possibly live up to. The fault is theirs, not yours.)

joshwex90

This is ridiculous and at this point, I'm just going to assume you're joking. I don't know what "objectivity" you're complaining about as I have no relationship (which could cause lack of objectivity) to gun, luggage, or airport security groups.

I'm also curious the last time a gun, in a locked box in a checked bag, caused any more danger, than any other item in a checked bag

Boggie Dog

Seems to me that handguns and other firearms are considered as being dangerous otherwise why the requirement to carry them in a locked case?

joshwex90

They are inherently dangerous and proper precautions must be taken. For example, one must ensure that a gun can't easily fall into the wrong hands when being transported.

The point that was made earlier (that I am defending) was that once those precautions are taken and a gun is packed away in a locked box and out of sight of people, then the physical gun doesn't present a danger any more than anything else in the bag.

GUWonder

When it comes to being checked in on common carrier flights in the US, there is no US requirement for wrenches and screwdrivers in checked luggage to be placed in a locked case for transport. For guns there is such a requirement. Such requirements are built upon at least the perception of there being a greater danger when guns are present in checked luggage than when say wrenches or screwdrivers are in checked luggage.

BSBD

Theft prevention.

BSBD

Facts? Really? Please provide a detailed explanation of how this could happen.

Boggie Dog

How does a locked case prevent theft? Take the whole bag, just the locked case, and open it later.

I think the requirement for a locked case is exactly as stated by GUWonder in #99.

FliesWay2Much

This story has almost completely dropped off the television news radar screens and the TSA was never blamed for this or accused of anything stupid. So, my current view is that the TSA will do nothing because nobody blamed them for anything. Besides, they are too busy learning new groping techniques and trying to get us to sign up for Extortion-Check.

joshwex90

Which is? Without a locked box, a gun will on its own walk out of the bag and start attacking people?

Boggie Dog

I am no fan of TSA but this event is not a TSA matter. Similar to the 9/11 terrorist the rules in place at that point in time were complied with.

And for the record I think that after 9/11 the screening rules should have been updated from the lessons learned, adjustments to procedures made and we all move on. Absolutely no reason to create one more government agency and all of the bureaucracy that entails just for airport screening.

The act of creating TSA was an act of hysteria.

Boggie Dog

No, it still takes a person. The locked box is just an illusion to make people think the weapon is safe, kinda like TSA.

BSBD

I think it's important that we all try to avoid being foolishly pedantic.

There is no such thing as 100%-successful theft prevention. The goal is, regardless of what you are trying to protect, to make casual theft difficult. Thus the requirement to put a firearm into a (theoretically) less-accessible hard-sided case or luggage, and then make sure there are no external markings, tags, or other identifiers.

The hard-sided case can be any "hard" material - metal, wood, plastic, carbon fiber, the typical ABS-shell suitcase, etc.

If the goal were, as GUWonder speciously claimed, to somehow protect the public from a dangerous instrumentality, why would any old hard-side case or luggage be acceptable? Wouldn't the requirement be a heavy-gauge steel container with some sort of fire/bulletproof lining?