Except that the airline cannot legally ship the firearm. The only legal thing that the airline can do is bring the owner of the firearm to the firearm and then they can travel together.

It would only be unlocked if you (TSA) ignored the FAR and opened the luggage without the passenger present. This is why I have very good locks that most bolt cutters can't touch.... and my name and number etched near the locks.

Of course, the TSA could relock the hypothetical luggage with one of the many locks that they "forget" to put back on opened bags daily and ship it on to the rightful owner.

Sorry, I have seen it happen where the police take possession of a firearm in the situation I describe. And it actually makes sense, in a way. When the police get there, its at the point where the case is no longer locked - and the gun can not fly if its not locked. Do you really think the airline will buy a lock for the passenger even if its their mistake?? Since when do airlines treat passengers nicely?

I am guessing as to whether or not a gun will be shipped. Once at that point, its beyond TSA's hands.

I do understand what your saying...but again, I have seen it. And I could imagine the airline flying the passenger to that airport. However, as I was pointing out to those who say stick a gun in there to solve your problems - that would be a much worse situation, wouldn't it?

No, your not reading what I am saying. I am describing a rare situation. How would we know a firearm is in there in the situation I describe?

lol as to your other comment, yes, sometimes locks are left off. I know I have done it. It does happen. Yet, you also know we cant put someone's lock on another persons bag. Or are you suggesting 2 wrongs make a right? :)

I guess the poster is basically saying that the TSA should be more careful with people's possessions. Locks, like anything else cost money and the fact that you or others forget (which is human) costs us money.

It would be nice if the TSA had a program in place to re-imburse us (the flying public) when their agents forget to replace locks, but I do realize that would be a nightmare to administer.

Back on-topic, I was talking with a colleague who recently checked his gun and was more annoyed by what the TSA agent said to him rather than the process of checking the gun.

Apparently, the agent screened the gun and said something to effect of, you do not really need a gun anymore since we (I guess the Federal Government) are entrusted with keeping you safe.

As my colleague said, I realize that guns in airports are a touchy subject and that a little extra attention is going to be given to me because I am checking my gun and that is fine by me (him) but the commentary from the agent was really not needed.

That has been my point from day 1, I understand that there are going to be rules (whether I like them, lump or think they are stupid) but the general disrespect that I see from so many TSA agents is what bothers me. Laptops out (okay) but to bark at an old woman who may not know the rules, just seems mean. Or making a comment, oh I hope he "enjoys" his secondary because a gentleman opted out of the AIT machine, just seems wrong. Or telling my colleague that he does need a gun anymore because they are keeping us safe.

Do your job, follow the rules, but be respectful and avoid commentary unless it is solicited. I do my job and manage to be polite and avoid commentary, I am unsure why so many TSA agents find it impossible.

Dan

I agree: if TSA employees loose the lock, TSA should pay for a replacement. But again, I was describing a rare situation when the airline ships the bag to the wrong airport, and lets it sit lobby side. Then the bag has to be rescreened. In some airports, this might mean the bag has to be open. If it is locked, obviously the passenger isn't there to open it, so the lock has to be cut.

And those comments you mention are wrong. It shouldn't be tolerated, yet, sadly, too often it is.

The following is my opinion, nothing I have heard from TSA management, or any other TSA staff: Part of the problem with TSA is how it was created by Congress. I do believe there is a need for screening. I would change some of it, eliminate some of the staff/equipment, but I do believe there is a need. Thus, people are needed to fill those positions...

We have talked before about what at TSO earns. The first 2 years are TOUGH. After that, if the TSO has a decent record, meaning they have not been written up, tardy too often, etc., they are "promoted" to another pay band. Add the locality, differential, holiday pay, and after just 2 years experience they can make $40 to $45k a year. Not a lot, but not bad. After a few more years they can make even more. There are some TSO's who decide to work some over time, maybe 5 hours a week (45 a week total), who pull $55 to $60,000 a year. Again, not rich by a long shot, but still not bad. And all without an actual promotion, meaning they have 1 stripe. Now add just 1 or 2 promotions, and you can actually do fairly well. I am sure some 1, 2, and 3 stripe TSO's make more than some who post on this site (not that it means anything, but money does provide for quality of life in some ways).

Yet congress set it up so people with just GEDs can get these jobs. What congress did was to bring jobs to mostly low-income people, many without a higher education. Again, this is my opinion. I believe congress did this so that individual MoC could tell the poor in their district they brought them X many jobs, and federal money to their city/county/state.

When TSA was created, it was created by politicians. Personally, I would have had a professional organization already school in screening found TSA as a non-LEO addition to their force, such as the Secret Service, or Capital Police, as those are federal agencies, but that is just me. Politicians saw their chance, and they took it, and a new agency was created. I believe many of the problems originate from there.

It would have been easy to set the requirement not at just a high school diploma, but a minimum of 2 years college experience or equivalent. Perhaps higher? Yet we have people who have never studied government, American political theory (something I believe should be part of every TSA employees educational foundation), or even law.

Do not misunderstand me. I have met some of the best people I have ever worked with, while at TSA. I have also met some people I am happy to never see again - and as far as I am concerned, those people grew up uneducated (sort of not their fault), and they remain uneducated (entirely their fault).

Part of the problem TSA has is the perception of pay. As many have post here on many different threads, they think its very low. Again, first 2 years it is. But it does get much better, yet no one seems to know - which is TSA's fault.

I remember a thread started in December, I believe, where the most senior TSO from Chicago (?) was complaining about not making enough money - that he had to work as much over time as he could, and still couldn't make ends meet. It upset me, because I figured out that working an average of 1 1/2 overtime shifts a week (6 OT shifts a month, approximately) he pulled about $65 to $70,000 a year. A 1 stripe employee making that, and complaining...

TSA does need to do a better job letting the public know that the can have a decent living working as a screener. However, I will state that overall I enjoy working for TSA, and overall most of the employees I have met are positive, helpful people.

Again, all above is my opinion, nothing I have heard from any TSA employee.

Nothing is preventing the TSA from instituting higher standards.

If only we had something that would allow a TSO to look into our bags without having to open them....I know, we could call them X-Rays.

You mean to the police?

You can 'transfer' firearms to the police. No FFL is needed for that.

It was the caps that set the tone for me..... I took it as a 'snotty' response.

I typed one heck of a scathing response. Deleted it and re read the OP and realized I was on the wrong track.

A situation caused by the airlines and made worse by the TSA. But, let us look at it.

My case gets sent to the wrong airport. The TSA decides that they have to cut the locks off even though the TSA website says that they won't. So, far we have the TSA destroying private property.
Now the TSO freaks out and says that the gun can no longer fly since the case is no longer locked.
They then decide to give my property over to the police. The government now has possession of my property through no fault of my own. That is generally called theft.
Many police departments have a policy of never returning guns to a citizen. In this case I'm out thousands of dollars. Or maybe New York City will decide that I can only get my gun back if I get a New York City permit without concern that a normal person cannot do that.
So, I have to sue. I'm now out many thousands of dollars for a lawyer and even if I have a court order to return it, the cops still might not.

So, I'm out thousands of dollars, my security is compromised, and all of this just for security theater.

You say that you need to re-screen it because it was in the non-sterile area of the airport. But we know that items go in that cargo hold without being screened. Why destroy my property and cost me thousands of dollars while putting it right next to a USPS package that has never been screened?

Can you show me the provision of the Gun Control Act that would allow a non-licensed individual to transfer a Title 1 firearm to a police department?

I think the term you are looking for is 'safekeeping'.

If the firearm is private property, and you can own it lawfully then the police will return it to you.

I see this happen on a regular basis.

The ATSA does.

You assume every airport has this? Most do, some do not. Why would you assume that?

And for those that do they can clear the bag MOST of the time - not always.

No worries: I use the caps to emphasize words. In all seriousness, if I'm doing that incorrectly, let me know and I will change.

And my point is this: the consequence of this for the airline are so dire, that the airlines seem to move heaven and earth to make sure that this doesn't happen. Sure, lost luggage happens. It happens with ordinary luggage all the time. But, somehow, "magically", the number of times it happens when firearms are checked (in accordance with all applicable regulations) is incredibly small.

Gee, I wonder why that is? Maybe it's because the airlines treat luggage containing firearms with greater care than "ordinary" luggage. Which is precisely the point of the exercise.

Is it a guarantee? Of course not. Nothing's guaranteed about airline travel. But this technique seems to improve the odds of getting your bag bag substantially.

Again, some here are NOT understanding what I am saying. You are talking about something I am not. lol I give up.

And I have seen many cases where it hasn't. Look at New Orleans where the police still haven't returned all of the guns that they illegally seized. And this is just as bad since it is one government agency making the weapons unsecure so that another government agency can have an excuse to 'safekeep' them.

Name one airport that doesn't have a single X-Ray machine.

I know what you are saying. You are saying that just because we have a gun in the case doesn't mean that you guys won't cut into it. I'm saying that cutting into it opens you and your agency to some risks.

You are right they are wrong, but there is a problem I complain and I am blown off. There is mentality that I (the flying public) have no idea what I am talking about and that well, if I do not support TSA than I am against TSA.

It sucks, there is no two ways about it, it is the risk I take whenever I check my gun.

Something is clearly wrong, they (the airlines or TSA or both) should have a method for fixing mistakes. Either they (the airlines/TSA) don't care, have decided it is too expensive or lord knows.

Either way, we the flying public are out dollars (in physical property) and short of a miracle very little is going to change it.

I guess you can call me a Kettle/Sheeple/Whathave you, but I have resided myself to such sucky situations. Maybe I shouldn't but I have and while I agree it is not right, I know nothing is going to change it.

Dan

PS, I was talking with an airport cop (who moonlights as a security guard at my office) whom I am friendly with and he said that he (on TSA's request) has confiscated three guns from the airport he patrols due to broken locks, etc. Each and every time he has tried to reunite the gun with its owner. This cop is a genuinely good guy, he even drove one of the confiscated guns upto the owners house in the Northern end of county so the pax would not be out $$$.

No. It is not. People on this thread misunderstand what actually happens. Yes, the carrier calls law enforcement to the scene, but is is law enforcement that seizes the unaccompanied firearm. It is then up to the firearm's rightful owner, that is the pax, to claim it from law enforcement.

No, what I am saying is that we wouldn't know there is a gun in the bag....

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Then the cops are opening themselves up for a civil rights lawsuit.

Like the risk of having to pay for lost property? Its about the only risk they take.

Um, no.

They can take custody of the weapons as part of their community caretaking function. Once an owner is identified who can lawfully possess the firearm then it is returned to him.

If the police dont believe that the owner is allowed to take possession of the firearm, then that is what the court is for (due process).

Quite correct, except that it isnt a seizure. They are taking custody of it until the owner can be determined.

Firearms seized during a state of emergency. Was it right, I say no. The courts agreed.

The problem came in when they could not identify the owners of the firearms.

Nah, I think I just took it the wrong way...... you know how typing doesnt convey the message sometimes.

I'll look you up the next time we go thru SAT.

Simple.

police=government.

as part of their government responsibility, governments can secure firearms.

are you suggesting that anyone who comes across a firearm must find an FFL at 3AM?

Owner's name is right there on the luggage tag. They have nothing to identify, and as pointed out the government cannot take advantage of a situation that they created to take an action that they otherwise would not be able to take.

Lets not try to make a big govt conspiracy where none exists.

The bottom line is that when a firearm is discovered with no owner present, the appropriate thing to do is turn it over to the police for safekeeping.

If the gun is in an unlocked bag, its not flying.

We all take that risk when traveling with firearms.

Except it was the government that made it unsecured. If one department breaks down a house's door on accident, another department doesn't get to go in and take anything that they want. They secure the door, they don't take the jewelry.

On my way back from MSY to DEN last year, my bag with pistol in it was sent on to Frankfurt. United didn't find it, but I got a call two days later from Lufthansa telling me they had my bag and were putting it, unopened on the next non-stop to Denver.

Why wouldn't your errant bag make it back to you if misrouted. . . in the US?

The dilemma is that over half of the airline folks INSIST that the declaration should go INSIDE the hard guncase with the firearm(s) inside the locked suitcase. I've tried to explain that the TSA like to be able to see the declaration without opening the gun case but have been met with so much heated resistance that I've given up training the trainers. I just smile and do as I'm told. I make more flights that way.

Some airlines have the notice on their website (Delta, for exampe), so you can fill out two of them for just this situation.

One goes inside, one goes outside.

Baggage claim isn't sterile.

A mis-routed bag with a tag for a different airport should never get on the baggage claim carousel.