USA Flag

Official website of the Department of Homeland Security

Transportation Security Administration

TSA Week in Review: June 19th - 25th - 59 Firearms and More

Thursday, June 29, 2017
Discovered Firearms

TSA discovered 59 firearms over the last week in carry-on bags around the nation. Of the 59 firearms discovered, 50 were loaded and 15 had a round chambered. Firearm possession laws vary by state and locality. Travelers bringing firearms to the checkpoint can be arrested and fined up to $11,000. Travelers should familiarize themselves with state and local firearm laws for each point of travel prior to departure. You can go here for more details on how to properly travel with your firearms in checked baggage. All of the firearms pictured were discovered over the last week. See complete lists below.

Inert Blasting Caps

These inert blasting caps (detonators) were discovered in a carry-on bag at Houston (IAH). We don’t know items are inert until our explosives professionals take a closer look, and that takes time and slows down the line. It can even lead to a complete shutdown and evacuation. Real, inert, or anything resembling explosives are prohibited in both carry-on and checked baggage.

Fireworks

All of these fireworks were discovered in checked and carry-on bags last week at airports around the nation. Fireworks and firecrackers are prohibited altogether.

Knives

Clockwise from the top, these knives (etc.) were discovered in carry-on bags at SJC, CLE, BUR, IAH, DTW, BHM, MEM, IAH, DEN, DTW & SFO. While all knives are prohibited in carry-on bags, they may be packed in checked baggage.

In addition to all of the other prohibited items we find weekly in carry-on bags, our officers also regularly find firearm components, realistic replica firearms, bb and pellet guns, airsoft guns, brass knuckles, ammunition, batons, stun guns, small pocketknives and many other prohibited items too numerous to note.

Firearm Discovery Spreadsheet*In order to provide a timely weekly update, this data is compiled from a preliminary report. The year-end numbers will vary slightly from what is reported in the weekly updates. However, any monthly, midyear or end-of-year numbers TSA provides on this blog or elsewhere will be actual numbers and not estimates.

Unfortunately these sorts of occurrences are all too frequent which is why we talk about these finds. Sure, it’s great to share the things that our officers are finding, but at the same time, each time we find a dangerous item, the line is slowed down and a passenger that likely had no ill intent ends up with a citation or in some cases is even arrested. This is a friendly reminder to please leave these items at home. Just because we find a prohibited item on an individual does not mean they had bad intentions; that's for the law enforcement officer to decide. In many cases, people simply forgot they had these items.

If you haven’t read them yet, make sure you check out our year in review posts for 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. And don’t forget to check out our top 10 most unusual finds of 2016 video!

Follow @TSA on Twitter and Instagram!

Bob Burns

TSA Social Media

Comments

Submitted by RB on

Why wasn't the great lobster apprehension highlighted in this weeks TSA back-patting round up?

TSA sure thought bragging about it was a good idea a few days ago.

Submitted by Ed Hill on

I really enjoyed the pictures of the TSA employee mishandling a passengers lobster. Could we have a weekly best find? Embarrassing toys of fancy underwear?

Submitted by S Richart on

STILL! :-)

http://www.fox9.com/news/265354360-story

"When put to the test, the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport failed 95 percent of security tests conducted at the airport last week, according to Fox 9 sources."

Submitted by Wintermute on

At least their consistent in their failure rate.

Submitted by Chip In Florida on

"...When put to the test, the Minneapolis St. Paul Airport failed 95 percent of security tests "

Donchaknow... that means the TSA is doing a really good job. Just wait.... Boldy will come around soon and tell you how so.

Submitted by RB on

Does TSA policy require a Full Body Pat Down if a person declares medical liquids in excess of 100 ml?

Submitted by West Cooper on

RB, the information that has been published regarding oversized medications can be found here.

"

3-1-1 Liquids Rule Exemption

You may bring medically necessary liquids, medications and creams in excess of 3.4 ounces or 100 milliliters in your carry-on bag. Remove them from your carry-on bag to be screened separately from the rest of your belongings. You are not required to place your liquid medication in a plastic zip-top bag. If a liquid, gel, or aerosol declared as medically-necessary alarms, then it may require additional screening and may not be allowed"

TSA Blog Team

Submitted by Anonymous on

Submitted by West Cooper on Thu, 2017-07-06 12:35
RB, the information that has been published regarding oversized medications can be found here.

"

3-1-1 Liquids Rule Exemption

You may bring medically necessary liquids, medications and creams in excess of 3.4 ounces or 100 milliliters in your carry-on bag. Remove them from your carry-on bag to be screened separately from the rest of your belongings. You are not required to place your liquid medication in a plastic zip-top bag. If a liquid, gel, or aerosol declared as medically-necessary alarms, then it may require additional screening and may not be allowed"

TSA Blog Team
...........
But that information did not answer the question that I asked.

Is a Full Body Pat Down required if a person declares more than 100 ml of medical LGA's?

I ask this question because social media is full of reports of abusive full body pat downs by TSA screeners if a person declares medical LGA's in quantities of more than 100 ml.

So answer the question, it's fair and does not require disclosing SSI. The public has a right to know!

Submitted by US on

West, that information has NOTHING to do with RB's question about genital pat-downs and you know it. Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth, and why do you think it's a good idea to be dishonest?

Submitted by S Richart on

West, it seems clear that many people are being groped by TSA even if those oversized allowable items don't alarm. Can you explain why that is happening?

Submitted by Max Yost on

" Submitted by RB on Thu, 2017-07-06 09:44

Does TSA policy require a Full Body Pat Down if a person declares medical liquids in excess of 100 ml?
Submitted by West Cooper on Thu, 2017-07-06 12:35

RB, the information that has been published regarding oversized medications can be found here.

"

3-1-1 Liquids Rule Exemption

You may bring medically necessary liquids, medications and creams in excess of 3.4 ounces or 100 milliliters in your carry-on bag. Remove them from your carry-on bag to be screened separately from the rest of your belongings. You are not required to place your liquid medication in a plastic zip-top bag. If a liquid, gel, or aerosol declared as medically-necessary alarms, then it may require additional screening and may not be allowed"

TSA Blog Team"

West, if I filter through your obfuscated non-answer, I find this statement: "If a liquid, gel, or aerosol declared as medically-necessary alarms, then it may require additional screening and may not be allowed."

I can conclude that, by your use of the word "it", that the medical liquid may require additional screening. I read nothing to indicate that the citizen may require additional screening. Why doesn't the TSA follow their own published policy?

Submitted by West Cooper on

RB sez - "So answer the question, it's fair and does not require disclosing SSI. The public has a right to know!"

Actually, that is asking SSI. We are unable to answer questions about screening procedures, unless TSA has published it. I shared the advisement and published information on oversized medical liquids, to give as much information as possible.

US sez - "Why is it so hard for you to tell the truth, and why do you think it's a good idea to be dishonest?"

Nothing dishonest at all, we are not able to answer questions about TSA procedures unless it has been published by HQ in the public forum - and that specific answer is not published in the public forum. In the interest of sharing as much information as possible, I posted the information from the TSA page as mentioned above.

TSA Blog Team

Submitted by RB on

No question was asked about how a pat down is done. Question did not ask about procedures.

How about some verifiable facts like you suggested at Flyertalk.com?

Submitted by West Cooper on

So, let me see if I understand correctly. You asked if a specific step is required as a part of policy - which is a questions about a specific step in the screening process. That is indeed asking about procedure, just under a different name or term. The answer is still going to be the same. The actual published information about carrying medical oversized LGAs in carry-on, is included in my previous comment. The answer about what is required as a part of policy/procedure is still going to be "It is SSI, and I am unable to comment on it past what has been published by HQ in the public forum".

TSA Blog Team

Submitted by RB on

"Submitted by West Cooper on Sun, 2017-07-09 13:33
So, let me see if I understand correctly. You asked if a specific step is required as a part of policy - which is a questions about a specific step in the screening process. That is indeed asking about procedure, just under a different name or term. The answer is still going to be the same. The actual published information about carrying medical oversized LGAs in carry-on, is included in my previous comment. The answer about what is required as a part of policy/procedure is still going to be "It is SSI, and I am unable to comment on it past what has been published by HQ in the public forum".

TSA Blog Team "

........................

Unbelievable how far TSA and its employees will wiggle around in an effort to be deceptive. Asking if a Pat Down will be conducted if a person declares medical LGA's in excess of 100 ml is not a question of procedure.

So much for trying to obtain factual information as suggested on Flyertalk. So much for your integrity.

Submitted by Anonymous on

And West is yet again a shining example of why the TSA is so hated...

Submitted by West Cooper on

The responses have always been consistent. If you ask a question about procedure, and TSA HQ has not published it, it is SSI and can not be answered.

If there is something in our collection of published documents in the public, we will give the same answer and many times, link to the actual place it has been published.

The same questions asked in many different formats, or even just the same question asked over and over is not going ot yield a different result. We have been consistent, we will continue to do so.

TSA Blog Team

Submitted by RB on

Submitted by West Cooper on Mon, 2017-07-10 08:57
The responses have always been consistent. If you ask a question about procedure, and TSA HQ has not published it, it is SSI and can not be answered.

If there is something in our collection of published documents in the public, we will give the same answer and many times, link to the actual place it has been published.

The same questions asked in many different formats, or even just the same question asked over and over is not going ot yield a different result. We have been consistent, we will continue to do so.

TSA Blog Team

............................

How about sending the question up the chain and see if you can answer it. It is not an unreasonable question. Reports from the field indicate that a Full Invasive Crotch Grabbing Pat Down (FICGPD for future use) is exactly what is happening. If this is SOP the public has a right to know. If it is not SOP TSA has a duty to correct what is happening. I see nothing about this disclosure that could possible compromise TSA security.

Submitted by RB on

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2017-07-09 17:45
And West is yet again a shining example of why the TSA is so hated...
.....................
Poster Child?