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.