Some people seem to think that is the case. I know the ins and outs of the latest court cases and there are so many angles to it. Suffice it to say that there is some give and take when you want to fly. I know that it is a pain in the *ss to some people and those people are ones that dont deserve what they get. The problem is that you cannot exempt anyone that is unknown by virtue of several rules.

Because my bag was already checked at the TSA checkpoint and deemed "safe" for transport.

Either TSA didn't do a proper job of checking the bag at the checkpoint (fail), or someone trusted to enter the sterile area without screening transferred an "unsafe" item into my bag inside the sterile area (fail). Gate screenings, as I understand them, are attempts to counteract either (or both) of those failures, and possibly others.

Or am I missing something?

There is something called public trust. That is what takes place in most instances when someone brings something in that is otherwise banned. They are by virtue of their position and some vetting process, allowed to do certain things. The issue of liquid disposal at the checkpoint is a contradiction. TSA disallows liquids over 3.4 Oz because they MAY be hazardous. When they are disposed of, they are deemed not hazardous. To give you an idea though, the lighter ban: it cost 5 million dollars to dispose of all the lighters that TSA disallowed over the period of one year. They HAD to be disposed of as HAZ MAT. If the liquids were done that way, then it would be impossible to fund the disposal of them because at DEN we get 3000 gallons a month on average. So yes it is a contradiction.

This would not be a failure of TSA. This is not what TSA is about. TSA is about the screening of passengers and bags/cargo.

Funny, that's not what TSA says TSA is about.

Nothing in that mission statement restricts TSA's attention to passengers and bags.

And there's plenty of evidence for that. Wasn't it a TSA employee (a "TSI", if I recall the acronym) that damaged several aircraft at ORD while attempting to gain access? Nothing in that activity that dealt with passengers or bags.

If liquids are dangerous, then why even allow 3.4 ounces? What's to stop, Peter, Paul, Mary, Beavis, Butthead, Happy, Sleepy, Sneezy, Bert, and Ernie from all combing their 3.4 ounces into something bad?

With the public trust, do I need to mention Pacific Air Lines Flight 773? What's to stop an airport vendor from hiding something in their shoes, or bringing in a dangerous liquid in?

This in inconstancy at it's best. (and worst)

Why does an airport food worker have any more trust than Joe Blow traveler?

And that is not what happens. You have the choices that are so well known:
Take it to your car,
Give it to a friend
Mail it somewhere
Check the bag at the counter
Abandon it at the checkpoint in order to proceed.

When you do the latter then it is secured by TSA and disposed of. Depending on the individual circumstances, most of these are not an option when time and value is concerned.

"secured" :rolleyes:

http://friendlyskies.smugmug.com/Oth...57_fnwVD-O.jpg

There are some processes in place to stop your example of 9 merry men and one woman from doing this. The rest of these examples are not exclusive TSA policies. TSA is supposed to screen passengers and bags/cargo. There are other policies in effect by other agencies to check the other examples that you give.

Like that term eh? We cant just let it sit on the table or the ETD machine.

Good point about the TSI, this is an interesting subject. Inspector as they are called are what the FAA used to do. While they are under the TSA, they are not involved in screening per se.

True, but it everyone went through screening... i.e taking the evil liquids, xraying shoes from everyone you greatly reduce the chances of something happening.

Screening for all or screening for none.

In DEN, I've seen it sitting right on the floor, beneath the secondary tables. Imagine one of the bottles was capable of causing an explosion. Great place for collateral damage..

'surrender under duress' is theft, pure and simple...

I dont argue with that point. The issue is that there are people called Vendors at the airport and those person by virtue of a process are allowed to be called public trustee. Through something called a stake holder they have enough vetting to be allowed to carry through with shoes on and other stuff.
But I would be remiss not to mention that there is a layer or more just for them.

Theft is the intentional taking of anything of value belonging to another person without that persons consent and with the intent to permanently deprive that person of its use. Since there are the options that are available, a person cannot argue that it is theft.

you called it surrender under duress - there is no consent in duress. Perhaps you should actually get your law degree before quoting legal concepts.

Technically you are correct BUT you get the concept. You are told that you can voluntarily surrender the item. However you are under duress. It is not my concept, it is my explaination of the feelings that are taking place.
1. example is a little swiss army knife that so and so dearly departed on left them. They are not allowed, it has sentimental value and so they have to decide what to do. That is duress, they want to do the right thing by the person and the memory of that person, they also want to get on that plane.
So my use of duress is not the legal one it is the emotional one.

And the FAA still does. The FAA is responsible for safety of flight and airworthiness. They have very specific and public procedures available to anyone under FOIA. They do not hide behind secret directives.

TSI are NOT repeat NOT what the FAA used to do and still does. Never have been, never will be.

FAA inspectors have worked in the business, either in general aviation, commercial non-scheduled aviation or air carrier service. They are generally highly skilled and qualified, many of whom carry Airframe and Powerplant Mechanics ratings and/or Inspection Authorizations. Every FAA inspector I have ever dealt with has treated me with courtesy and respect and a degree of mutual understanding.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me why the TSA is a dangerous organization and needs to be shut down. TSO appear to generally show ignorance in virtually every aspect of their mission, from harassing mule skinners to busting airplanes and stealing my pepsi to looking at my naked . . . .