party_boy

Those are most likely to be a federal prison inmate transfer.

hiltonhead

You have to understand that most on here do not really want to do many of the things mentioned. They just like to get worked into a lather about whether or not Bush and the TSA are trying to squash their God given right to wear their boxers on their heads. Most of the banter should be taken in small doses and viewed with a sense of humor.

Have a great day all!

jib71

Does this God given right extend to bullet-proof boxers? How about briefs?

Cookie Jarvis

Aren't bulletproof vest illegal in a lot of states???

I guess that would be my first question before trying to transport one anywhere. After I got that question answered then concern yourself with what's going to happen when you bring it into the airport.

Also, very curious--- why would a CHILD be in a position that it would need a bulletproof vest?????

BobH

I suggest checking the TSA web site -- but really do you want to do anything that will flag you for doing something a bit unusual ?

Bob H

Flaflyer

Bart said "just as there is nothing that prohibits handcuffs in carry-on luggage."

Handcuffs are cop "tools", so why would they not be banned under the "no tools" rule?

Bart

Some screeners do try to prohibit handcuffs. They are not prohibited items. What else do you want me to say?

Now if you have the kind with the furry cuffs.....

oklAAhoma

OK - with that kind of logic where do you recommend we stop? A laptop is a businessman's tool and a violin is a musician's tool. Shouldn't we ban those as well?

SJC1K

I'm pretty sure that possession of body armor by a civilian who is not a convicted felon is legal everywhere in the United States. Many states have enhanced penalties if body armor is worn during the commission of a felony.

exerda

It doesn't surprise me. They're made for dogs, too (presumably for working police dogs, though nothing should prohibit one from buying one for a pet, either). In certain parts of the world, I can in fact see that having a bullet-proof vest for your kids would be almost a necessity--so someone has to make them, and if they can find a secondary market where they are less necessary, I guess that's good business.

exerda

I wonder how many people in CA after that incident screamed, "Why aren't assault weapons banned?" without ever stopping to look and see that CA does in fact ban the very weapons those guys were using (not to mention the fact that they were also in violation of the NFA for possessing unregistered automatic weapons). Of course, banning bullet-proof vests would strike me as just the kind of knee-jerk reaction I'd expect with that incident... but I'm rambling into OMNI-land now.

Cookie Jarvis

Okay. Thank you so much! That answers one question.

My other question is: In what situation would an adult make it necessary for a child to need to wear a bulletproof vest?

party_boy

Apparently for the OP, Flying.

SJC1K

Paranoia?

GeneralAviation

The "very weapons" the Romanian immigrant bank robbers were
using during that dramatic bank robbery and shootout in L.A.
some years ago were fully AUTOMATIC weapons, which were
outlawed in the 1930's. With the proper federal permits, you can
still own them, after jumping through all the hoops....it's not easy.

The 1989 gun grabbing legislation that was passed in "Kalifornia"
banned new sales of a list of 19 SEMI automatic rifles, which
a few years later was expanded. Existing semi automatic rifles
were allowed if the owner paid a fee and registered them by a
certain date.....many people did not.

Interestingly enough, during the bank shootout in North
Hollywood, the cops went into a local gun shop pleading for
additional firepower, and the gun shop owner accomodated the
LAPD's request. It's lucky for the LAPD the gun shop owner
didn't say, "Sorry, but there's a 10 day waiting period!"