Question of the Day: What Should Happen When TSA Finds a Handgun in Your Carry-On?

14362508

By Brandon at concealednation.org

Early Wednesday, an ugly-looking .380 handgun was found in the carry-on bag of a concealed carry permit holder at the Augusta, Georgia Regional Airport. TSA alerted airport police, who then took possession of the firearm and spoke with the owner. That owner, who has not been identified, was allowed to bring the firearm to their vehicle to secure it . . .

We all know that unloaded firearms can be transported in checked luggage (just don’t travel through NYC), and we also know that it’s a huge no-no to try and bring a firearm on an airplane via our carry-on bag.

Seriously, how does this happen? And it happens a lot.

There are two possible explanations that I can see from where I’m sitting. The first logical explanation is that this person is an idiot. The second logical explanation is that this person was trying to bring his or her firearm on the plane undetected, because they really wanted it with them.

The excuse that some give of “I forgot it was there” is absurd to me. If your life is so hectic that you accidentally placed your firearm inside your carry-on bag, you should stop carrying because you’re likely to be completely useless if you ever need to draw that firearm. Just tellin’ it like it is.

So the question remains: Should these people be held accountable for this to some extent? Is this part of being a negligent gun owner? They can potentially face charges for doing this, and the TSA can also impose civil penalties on the firearm owner. I’m sure that in some juristictions they’ll even take your permit away for being so irresponsible.

What do you think? Should they be held accountable, or simply told to “secure your firearm in your vehicle”?

comments

  1. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    TSA shouldn’t happen to start with.

    As for me, the TSA won’t get any opportunity to molest or disarm me. I don’t intend to fly commercially until the day I’d be offered complimentary frangible ammo for my carry gun.

    1. avatar john thomas says:

      Yup, no airline travel for me, either. Not until the whole thing is drastically changed.

    2. avatar gloomhound says:

      Do not like the TSA.

      Having said that an aircraft is one of the few places that the carry of a firearm ought be restricted, but that should be a decision made by the owner operator of the aircraft not the Feds . Knives and other non-flame admitting weapons should not present the same problems.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        I agree with you mostly. I am curious, however, what you mean by this “…and other non-flame admitting weapons “

        1. avatar gloomhound says:

          Weapons of a nature that would not add to the risk of fire in an aircraft. Guns, tasers, flamethrowers and the like. Weapons that are impact or bladed present less of a risk of fire.

        2. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Gloomhound, folks smoked in airliners for years with no problem, even those deathtrap 100 octane aviation gasoline fueled ones.

          Oh, and back then handguns were carried by passengers. (the ones with a brain, anyways).

          BTW – Ugly my ass. That AMT .380 is nice little pocket piece, I had one for years. Never failed to fire, although slide-bite was a bit of an issue. Wish I hadn’t sold it…

        3. avatar gloomhound says:

          People use to be allowed to do all manner of things in the past some of which were not right and proper. Allowing the owner of an aircraft the choice of allowing someone to fly with a gun seems like the right decision if we are to have a right to private property.

        4. avatar OngoingFreedom says:

          @gloomhound you may carry on private aircraft. I fly all the time with one.

        5. avatar twency says:

          gloomhound, of all the reasons I can think of for disallowing firearms from planes, risk of fire is near the bottom. Fires caused by firearms are few and far between, fires on airplanes outside of mechanical causes are quite rare, and far more flammable items normally allowed on airplanes.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Having carried many’s the gun on aircraft, up to and including a loaded machine gun, I have to ask why you think there’s any necessity for restrictions? Make sure the cockpit is adequately armored and let’er rip. Or, restrict hand cannons and leave normal carry guns alone.

        1. avatar gloomhound says:

          I think that if I owned a plane I would like some input on who was allowed to carry a firearm into my pressurized flying canister of fuel. Same as my house of car.

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          Of course! I don’t think many of us would have any problem with a choice between carriers… some could allow one thing and another, and some might not. Right now, the airlines don’t have any choice in most cases.

          Does the federal government own these aircraft and airports? Right now, pretty much. If the airlines actually owned their vehicles, facilities and businesses, it would be a whole different story.

    3. avatar Brett says:

      My parent live in Alaska, I live in Mississippi. Not flying really isn’t an option for me. Interesting fact, Era Alaska does allow you to carry firearms on their flights and you don’t have to go through the TSA to board them. I found this out when I flew from Anchorage to Kodiak on one of their flights and there was an area at the front of the plane for passengers to place their long guns during the flight. There were also people on the flight who were open carrying hand guns. I miss Alaska.

      1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

        Brett,

        [sniff] Now I want to go to Alaska just to carry and have my picture taken on the plane. 8>)

    4. avatar ralph says:

      “TSA shouldn’t happen to start with.

      As for me, the TSA won’t get any opportunity to molest or disarm me. I don’t intend to fly commercially until the day I’d be offered complimentary frangible ammo for my carry gun.”

      Could not have said it better myself.

    5. avatar foodog says:

      Yes, Mama, agree. TSA is stupid as it is now.

      That was not the question- what should happen to the owner?

      My answer – it depends. As we see, every airport, every TSA agent and supervisor is not the same.

      Just like getting stopped for a traffic ticket, if you you were wrong, in my opinion, you own up to it and take the consequences. Sometimes if you are obviously sincere and were not paying attention, you might get a warning. Its reasonable and not uncommon.

      Other times if you act like a d1ck, you wont. Its human nature- disrespect someone doing their job, when they get nothing but disrespect all day long, and you might get a result you might expect from someone having a bad day. Is that fair? Is life fair. Ask JFK- “Life’s not fair, get used to it”.

      Personally, if you cant be bothered to look up the rules for the airline and jurisdiction you are flying through, you probably not ought to be carrying a gun. Its that simple.

      Are the laws fair? No. Is life fair- no. Refer to the above.

      Vote for politicians that will change the law. In the meantime, deal with it like an adult.

  2. avatar Marc says:

    If this was at either of Chicago’s two airports I’m pretty sure we’d be reading about a different outcome.

    1. avatar Omer Baker says:

      Only if you’re not a member of the political elite.
      He is still a member of the state senate, BTW.

      http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-12-06/news/ct-met-2nd-congressional-district-trotter-20121206_1_trotter-state-senator-tsa-officer

  3. avatar John L. says:

    What should happen is: nothing. It should be legal to carry on a plane.

    Failing that, what should happen is, you should be allowed to lock your firearm in the local airport for-rent arms lockers.

    Failing that, well, how about checking it through to your destination for you?

    Because, honestly, being forced to lock it in your car is asking for it to get stolen during a time where an obervant thief knows (a) there’s a gun in your car and (b) you’ll be away for a while. I’d rather call a buddy to come get it if possible.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      If it’s still illegal to carry on a plane… I’d be fine with something like a speeding ticket. (You did goof.) You would then be invited to put the gun in a TSA provided (at your expense) box and check it through to your destination.

      In the long run, I would be very supportive of changing security rules to allow permitted (open or concealed) carry in the “sterile” areas of airports, including aircraft. Combine that with mandatory reciprocity of all states and a complete repeal and retooling of the GOPA (which would get rid of that annoying machine-gun ban). Give the new GOPA some teeth, (like making state officials criminally and civilly liable for violating it) and we’d have ourselves a winner.

    2. avatar arsh says:

      what should be done is ensuring the gun is not loaded on a plane with no ammo in your carry on. So long as that’s the case then yes you should be allowed to bring your pistol in a locked case in your carry on. It’s not ideal but its a hell of a lot better than currently allowed.

  4. avatar J E says:

    What happened in GA should be the standard for how this gets handled – TSA notifies the airport police who then escort you to your vehicle / airport lockbox / package center (USPS,UPS,FEDEX) onsite where you can take care of your oversite.

    “The excuse that some give of “I forgot it was there” is absurd to me.”
    Sorry Dan — have you ever left your cellphone at home, locked your keys in the car, etc? Life happens – while I agree that this happens too often, I lean much more on the “I always have this with me” excuse – I suppose that is reflected in the number of multi-tools and pocketknives I’ve had to donate to the TSA over the years too…

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Not to sound like an anti, but carrying a gun has a bit more responsibility attached to it than carrying a multi-tool or a cell phone.

      1. avatar NJ2AZ says:

        i know exactly where all my firearms arms are at all times (i have around 20). If at any point i forgot where one was i would seriously consider shrinking the size of my collection.

        “life happens” isn’t an acceptable excuse in these cirumstance.s

        that being said, i agree with other posters. just escort the person out to secure the firearm in their vehicle. no need for anything else.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I know where my loaded firearms are, the others not so much, may have to look around a while.

        2. avatar C.Z. says:

          You sir are a model of responsible owner. Guns aren’t inherently dangerous but being absent minded is. And firearms (+) absent minded people is definitely the start of bad things. I think the current climate is such that law enforcement is prudent to assume someone trying to take a gun on a plane may have bad intentions. Not really sure what SHOULD happen, but if we find out that lady that was kindly walked back to her car to secure her weapon does something violent on a large scale the following week I’m sure everybody would wonder “why would you respond that way towards someone trying to bring a gun on a plane.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Well – tell that to the cops.

    2. avatar john thomas says:

      Brandon at concealednation authored this. Dan merely reposted it here. You’re not the only one making this error here. Reading is fundamental, gentlemen.

    3. avatar Mark N. says:

      Been there, done that too. I ALWAYS have a knife in my pocket, since they are such handy buggers, and I’ve donated one to the TSA and snuck another through security. As to the latter, I had reminded myself prior to getting to the airport to put it in luggage, but with a disabled wife and a bunch of luggage, a laptop, a wheel chair, yada yada, I didn’t realize I’d forgotten to remove it until I was standing in the the Stand and Deliver line. What was worse was that even though it was an inexpensive Buck, I’d just bought the sucker and didn’t want to give it up. So I stuffed it in with the charger and wires in the lap top bag and it went through.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        Mark, it seems to me the wheelchair would be ideal for sneaking thinks on an aircraft, tucked into the visoelastic seat cushions…

        Or an artificial limb. Metal in those…

    4. avatar Brenda says:

      Call me the idiot. I just got back from Africa on a medical mission trip on Sunday morning, and worked 3 straight days with cancer patients since I am a nurse. My husband had talked me into getting a concealed weapons permit and handgun for my purse since I walk back to my car at night after work. I did not take my purse to Africa, but after my third day of work, I threw clothes in a suitcase to fly to Florida for our family vacation. I was exhausted. When my bag got stopped at TSA, I didn’t even know why my bag was being pulled. I had placed my purse in the bag. I work hard with cancer patients and was just so tired. If I was attacked, I would remember my gun. It was in a zippered pocket. You can call me careless, I was. I carelessly forgot I had it. Now I am facing charges and must appear in an arraignment. I even offered to dump my purse as they searched. Totally forgot until they found it. So, yes, call me the idiot, but if you knew me, you would know that I am in no way dumb, or a felon.

  5. avatar Shire-man says:

    There should be no crime or penalty in simply having a thing regardless of the thing or the location in which you have it. Show me harm caused and we can talk. No, some MDA member throwing a hysterical fit does not qualify as harm.

    The TSA in general needs to be eradicated.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I pretty much agree. It goes without saying that your name will be recorded for posterity, and a second offense should get some serious attention, it is looking like you are trying to get a gun aboard an aircraft.

  6. avatar Gregory says:

    The first offense: $250.00 fine and you get your gun back. The second Offense: $500.00 fine and you loose your gun. The third offenses: $5000.00 fine, you loose your gun and one year in JAIL to think about how stupid you are. Perhaps this will get the message across and fix the idiot syndrome.

    1. avatar Flubnut says:

      I’m not for the fines, but there certainly seems to be an acute strain of idiocy going around. I don’t travel all that much, but when I do, I worry about 2 things: not letting my checked bags go above 50 lbs, and not carrying anything remotely dangerous in my carry on. (4 ounces of mouthwash is crazy dangerous, after all.) I know to leave my knife/flashlight/spray daily carry kit at home, why on EARTH would I forget to store my handgun?!?

      You can’t fix stupid.

    2. avatar Tim Going says:

      I say first time no fine but you check it and get a warning. They proceed from there with the fines.

    3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      There is no victim being harmed, why should there be any offense or fine? But then I would also repeal most traffic laws, they are little more than revenue generation.

    4. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      Being forgetful isn’t the same as being stupid. Being stupid isn’t a crime. Taking a weapon (and money) away from someone who has demonstrated no threat to others is a crime.

  7. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “…Seriously, how does this happen? And it happens a lot.”

    Actually, no. It doesn’t. Not really.

    The TSA ‘finds’ an average of 40 or so firearms a week from roughly 7 million people flying per week.

    As to the rest of the question….. “I forgot” is better than saying “I took my chances to get one past you and lost.”

    1. avatar Pieslapper says:

      Those of us that don’t live in or near a supposed liberal utopia, or who don’t travel by air frequently, can unfortunately slip into the mindset that we still live in a free society with constitutionally protected rights. Then we come into contact with some tentacle of the state and are jarred back to reality.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “…Then we come into contact with some tentacle of the state and are jarred back to reality.”

        Agreed.

        And it is still better to tell that tentacle that ‘I forgot it was there’ instead of telling them anything else.

  8. avatar Stinkeye says:

    What should happen? The TSA agent should engage you in a conversation about how you like that particular gun, how well it shoots, what kind of ammo you prefer, etc, including the TSA agent sharing similar info about his/her choice of carry weapon. Then they should send you on your way with a friendly smile and a jaunty wave.

    Barring that perfect world, it seems like letting you go secure the weapon in your vehicle or something like that is the best option. Under no circumstance should criminal or civil charges be filed just for having a gun in your luggage.

    That said, I don’t see how people forget about a gun in their bag. I guess I don’t have enough guns, because I know where all of them are at any given time.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Technically, TSA are not federal agents and, as such, not typically allowed to carry on duty.

      1. avatar Stinkeye says:

        I was describing a fantasy world where hoplophobia doesn’t exist. Hence the word “should”. If a world existed where they didn’t hassle you for a gun in your luggage, I would also expect people would be allowed to carry at work. Especially if their freakin’ job is ostensibly to provide security, which is what we’re told to believe the TSA is doing.

    2. avatar arsh says:

      TSA needs to create a separate lane ran by vets who need jobs that allows for the safe checking of a pistol on a flight to ensure it is not loaded and that no ammo is on said persons. This solution creates jobs, lets you have your gun, and removes the possibility of a negligent discharge at 30,000 feet. You can check ammo and load your pistol as soon as you exit said airport at your destination. it’s a win win.

  9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    TSA and/or local law enforcement should let the person go lock their handgun in their car or an airport locker, period. There should be no arrest because THE OWNER DID NOT HARM ANYONE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY INTENTION TO HARM ANYONE.

    This is basic Common Law people. As we like to say, “No harm, no foul.” Unfortunately what we have is Pandora’s Box where our local, state, and federal governments declare anything and everything to be “illegal” making life a legal minefield for everyone.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      So drunk driving is OK, so long as you don’t crash? What about attempted murder? How about criminal conspiracy? After all, no harm, no foul.

      The idea here is that introducing a firearm into a given area is inherently dangerous, which is true. After all, firearms are left in bathroom stalls sometimes. They’re negligently discharged sometimes. Had the firearm not been there, it could not have been left in a stall or negligently discharged, correct?

      Now, there are a million countervailing arguments, many of which I’ve made or would agree with, as to why such events are acceptable risks. That’s not the point, however. The point is that the mere presence of a firearm among people does carry a risk of unintentional injury. It is the elevation of that risk, by your negligence in bringing in a firearm into a secured area, that is the crime and for which you are punished.

      How much punishment? That’s the discussion.

      1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

        “…The idea here is that introducing a firearm into a given area is inherently dangerous, which is true. ”

        It is?

        What makes an airport so different that introducing a firearm is inherently more dangerous than anywhere else?

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          See 9/11, then come back when you’re serious.

        2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “…See 9/11, then come back when you’re serious.”

          Sorry, I didn’t realize you are a Troll. I thought I was chatting with an actual person.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          No firearms were involved in 911. If a few people happened to be CCing on each of those aircraft, as suggested above, it would seem likely that the outcome would have been similar to Garland, TX the other day. Except the attempt would not have been made.

        4. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          For newbies not fluent in Comment Board Speak, allow me to translate.

          “Sorry, I didn’t realize you are a Troll. I thought I was chatting with an actual person” roughly translates as:

          “I made an incredibly stupid remark, got called on the carpet for it, now I’m butt hurt and embarrassed. So I’ll just call you a name like ‘troll’, just to try desperately to shift focus and save face.”

          If you already speak Pouty Brat, then this is an easy dialect to pick up. Basically the same, but some slang is different.

        5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Pssst……Larry……..the point is whether firearms in the secure zone of an airport, including aboard a plane, is more dangerous than in other common locales. Given the enormity of damage inflicted on 9/11 versus any other terror attack in the U.S., that point just gets filed as fact, regardless whether those hijackers used guns. Really, if you can take over planes with box cutters and do that damage, then you can take over planes with guns and do that damage. Compare that to a bus or taxi, and the airport is a more dangerous location.

          Now, if you think one or two business or vacation travellers concealed carrying would prevail against a surprise firearms attack from determined terrorists, you’re deluded. After all, small knives were allowed aboard on Sept. 11th, where was the big victorious knife fight? Nowhere, and every plane crashed, murdering thousands. That’s……slightly different from trained and prepared professional PD in Garland winning. Hence the different outcomes.

          Really this is silly, though. Your view that a firefight in the aisles at 30,000 feet would result in all bad guys dead and only one good guy with a minor injury, as in Garland, is just too stupid to ponder. Good grief, man, don’t you ever learn?

        6. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          OK, so I am a pouty brat. So what. That still doesn’t answer the question about what makes airports so special that guns are bad there. I see the cops have them so it can’t be the gun that is the problem.

          And last time I read anything about September 11th I didn’t see how guns were used to accomplish of the mayhem and destruction that day so I will ask you the question again….. I can carry my firearm into Kroger’s but not the airport? Why?

        7. avatar Anonymous says:

          For newbies not fluent in Comment Board Speak, allow me to translate.

          “Sorry, I didn’t realize you are a Troll. I thought I was chatting with an actual person” roughly translates as:

          “I made an incredibly stupid remark, got called on the carpet for it, now I’m butt hurt and embarrassed. So I’ll just call you a name like ‘troll’, just to try desperately to shift focus and save face.”

          Yea he didn’t say that. You did. We call that a strawman with some ad hominems mayonnaised on the top. So much for your logical deduction.

          If you already speak Pouty Brat, then this is an easy dialect to pick up. Basically the same, but some slang is different.

          You seem fairly proficient at pouty brat yourself.

      2. avatar Anonymous says:

        Your analogies are not comparing apples to apples.

        So drunk driving is OK, so long as you don’t crash?

        Drunk driving is akin to shooting in the air and hoping they don’t come down on people’s heads. So – no. Not a fair comparison.

        What about attempted murder?

        Can the attempt be proven? If not then no. How this can be compared to a permit holder forgetting about a security checkpoint is beyond me.

        How about criminal conspiracy?

        Conspiracy is the fuzziest nonsense ever. Over government is endlessly conspiring to hurt people all the time (foreign and domestic). What is wrong with us following their example? The crime itself should be punished. Not thoughts, ideas, or discussions. The punishment for the crime should be the deterrent.

        The idea here is that introducing a firearm into a given area is inherently dangerous, which is true.

        And your point is? Lets ban all guns then. Tell cops to stop carrying firearms. Tell police and military firearms are dangerous and shouldn’t be carried. Do it for public safety (both foreign and domestic).

        They’re negligently discharged sometimes. Had the firearm not been there, it could not have been left in a stall or negligently discharged, correct?

        Well – had I not been born I wouldn’t have the risk of dying.

        The bread and butter argument:

        The point is that the mere presence of a firearm among people does carry a risk of unintentional injury. It is the elevation of that risk, by your negligence in bringing in a firearm into a secured area, that is the crime and for which you are punished.

        Punished due to “elevation of risk.” Nice. Culturally, people should strive to be safe. Knowing the consequences of your actions (accidentally hurting people due to unsafe practices and the punishment thereof) should be the drive to achieve safety. Mandating safety through victimless laws takes logic, thought, and common sense from the people. Also – governments love money. Lots of money. They make lots of money through fines, fees, and prison (prisons are money making machines) so they can fruitfully enjoy their cushy, easy jobs where they will likely never be fired regardless of inactivity. Given the current situation in the United States, the last thing I want is government controlling my safety and taxing the hell out of me to fund it. I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery. I also prefer money in my pocket rather than giving it to some guy who is going to beat me with a baton because I “elevated people’s risks.” I would gladly accept any elevations of risk that some concealed carrier with a firearm brought to my presence in order to maintain personal freedom for everyone.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Anon,

          Too much fail from you out of the gate, and I’m bored with point by point refutation after Chip and Larry.

          The principle offered was “no harm no foul.” You don’t just get to declare me wrong, you must refute my argument. Drive drunk, no crash. That is no harm. True or false? True. Sooo……..by the principle, that means no foul. Now, I get that that’s painful, having your point demolished, but denying it or recharacterizing is doesn’t save it.

          But hey, let’s play. Fire in the air, no one gets injured and no property damaged. No harm, right? Sooooo…….no foul, huh? So you’re cool with firing into the air willy nilly? We’ll just see how it turns out first before passing judgment on the act, after the fact? That’s your point, but like all true believers, you refuse to carry it to its logical extension, preferring instead only selective application. That’s why you cannot comprehend that a firearm inside the airport elevates risk. Is it an acceptable elevation? Perhaps. I think so, but that’s a different discussion from this one. You’re just conflating everything and understanding nothing, because I’m not blindly screaming “Guns! Gimme guns!” in psychotic support.

          Geez, you guys are lucky I’m on your side and that no one on the antis side has half a brain. Otherwise you’d get handed these beatdowns on a daily basis. Last comment to you, then I’m done and you can rail against me without reply all you want:

          Some of you people spend WAY too much time in here; stunting your thinking for receiving only echo chamber confirmation of your pre-existing views.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          Too much fail from you out of the gate, and I’m bored with point by point refutation after Chip and Larry.

          Obviously not bored enough. You still made the effort, even, to describe that you were bored.

          The principle offered was “no harm no foul.” You don’t just get to declare me wrong, you must refute my argument. Drive drunk, no crash. That is no harm. True or false? True. Sooo……..by the principle, that means no foul. Now, I get that that’s painful, having your point demolished, but denying it or recharacterizing is doesn’t save it.

          I don’t believe in drunk driving laws. If you kill someone when you are drunk – you should to prison (for a long time). Knowing that alone, people should not drive drunk. I don’t drink at all and actually never have – due to fact that drinking impairs so much in the human body. I’m not denying or recharacterizing anything. I believe the punishment for the crime should be the deterrent – end of story. So – No harm no foul stands with me. I do believe that when there is a “near-miss” people should learn from their mistakes and realize how close they were to a prison sentence.

          But hey, let’s play. Fire in the air, no one gets injured and no property damaged. No harm, right? Sooooo…….no foul, huh? So you’re cool with firing into the air willy nilly? We’ll just see how it turns out first before passing judgment on the act, after the fact?

          Yea, I answered this in the above statement. Judgement should be passed after the fact – correct.(punishment for the crime should be the deterrent).

          That’s your point, but like all true believers, you refuse to carry it to its logical extension, preferring instead only selective application.

          I think I carried it out above for you.

          That’s why you cannot comprehend that a firearm inside the airport elevates risk.

          No. I completely comprehend that a firearm inside the airport elevates risk. But so does being born, getting out of bed each day, not getting out of bed each day, driving on the roads with other people, etc. But where do you draw the line? Politicians have been drawing the line based on someone’s opinion (much like yours 🙂 Not on the basis that it is the correct action.

          Is it an acceptable elevation? Perhaps. I think so, but that’s a different discussion from this one. You’re just conflating everything and understanding nothing, because I’m not blindly screaming “Guns! Gimme guns!” in psychotic support.

          This is barely worth addressing, really. Your assertion is that I am conflating everything and understanding nothing but then you address nothing specific. I can easily make the same of you. Looking back – I noticed nobody was screaming guns… give me guns… in the appearance of anything psychotic. But again – your opinion and assertion (unsubstantiated).

          Geez, you guys are lucky I’m on your side and that no one on the antis side has half a brain. Otherwise you’d get handed these beatdowns on a daily basis.

          We don’t see you beating anyone down. We feel sorry for you. This is clearly evident in your ad hominem based dismissals.

          Last comment to you, then I’m done and you can rail against me without reply all you want:

          So scuttle out while you think you are ahead? Looks that way.

          Some of you people spend WAY too much time in here; stunting your thinking for receiving only echo chamber confirmation of your pre-existing views.

          I visit a variety of different places with people of many different views – you are proof of that.

      3. avatar Jeff in CO says:

        I think something that most people are not aware of is the fact that there are two parts to a crime. You have the elements of the crime, and you also have the “mens rea” (mental state or lit. “the guilty mind”). I’m not sure how this particular federal statute reads, and maybe someone else has the time to look through the statutes (I don’t). There are four different “mental states” that can be utilized in a statute:

        Criminal Negligence
        Criminal Recklessness
        Knowingly
        With Intent

        There are very few “strict liability” crimes. Many traffic infractions are “strict liability,” IE., you don’t have to prove that a person was “intentionally” speeding. They are either speeding, or they are not speeding. Most likely, this particular federal statute would have some “mens rea” listed.

        In Colorado, we even have several statutes that have all four listed. One example is our Child Abuse statute. The level of mental culpability determines what level of misdemeanor or felony the crime is. This is also how we have four homicide statutes (1st Degree Murder – with intent [premeditation]; 2nd Degree Murder – Knowingly; Manslaughter – Recklessly; Criminally Negligent Homicide – Negligently).

        If the federal statute reads either “knowingly” or “with intent,” then technically, “accidentally” leaving it in the carryon wouldn’t violate the statute. There could be multiple parts to the statute as well to determine the level of crime. It could have a misdemeanor offense for “negligence,” and a high-level felony for “with intent.”

        The other situation you run into as well with these airport violations is that they also fall under the state and city statutes/ordinances of the locale. Is the local agency charging them with their violation, or is it being handled as a federal crime. What are the state statutes for that particular locale, and what “mens rea” is required for PC for an arrest? This is one reason why this issue is so complex, and why it is not handled consistently across all jurisdictions.

        1. avatar twency says:

          “There are very few “strict liability” crimes.”

          That used to be true, but the trend is more and more to not have a mens rea element. This is a problem for the rational rule of law.

      4. avatar Fox Mulder says:

        how can you compare drunk driving with bringing a gun into an airplane. I agree with most, that the penalty should be a fine, a nice sized one, and that’s all. We are tired to subsidize the 2 million incarcerated Americans

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I didn’t make that comparison. He applied the “no harm, no foul” principle to having a gun in the airport (the secured area, accessible to planes.) If simpy carrying doesn’t hurt anyone, the it’s ok with him. Understand? Ok.

          I applied his same principle to drunk driving, JUST the drunk driving itself. No crashing. If no one gets hurt then it should be ok, right? Hey, it’s his principle, not mine.

          I see where you’re getting hung up. The RISK of injury from drunk driving is greater than the RISK of injury merely from carrying in the airport. I agree, but he didn’t address risk. He focused exclusively on actual outcome, i.e., the harm. No harm, no foul.

          How much risk we as citizens accept, or ban by law, is another discussion. That carrying a firearm does entail risk, is just a fact. He’s denying that that risk even exists, however, which is fallacious. I’m jusy using his principle against him, by applying it to something I know he he won’t defend, like drunk driving. His principle is the same, though, so no selective applications are valid. Otherwise it fails.

  10. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I want plane carry, so I’m not looking to hammer these guys like they’re history’s greatest monster. Still, the law is the law and your failure to abide by it is sucking up resources and delaying other travellers.

    Maybe a documented warning on the first offense and a class C parking ticket equivalent fine for subsequent offenses, and go store it right away? It needs to sting a little, but not ruin your life.

    Now, If you got dropped off at the airport and have no place to store it right away, well, then your mistake may sting a little more. Too bad, so sad.

    1. avatar actionphysicalman says:

      I think you are mixing up who is actually responsible for the mis-allocation of resources and delays.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Nope, but you’re mixing up root cause and proximate cause. I get it: TSA delays stem from bloated bureaucracies, security theater, and the panicked post-9-11 “Do something!” crowd. That’s all here already, built in, baked in, whatever, and is the new normal which I plan for.

        Surprise delays beyond that include the Glock-packing jackwagon in front of me who’s known the no guns rule for decades (since that predates 9-11), but still showed up tooled up, anyway.

    2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

      So, Johnathan, I guess you’ll be completely happy to have all your guns (or anything else) confiscated and destroyed just as soon as “the law” prohibits your having it?

      “The law is the law” is slave talk.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        No, the law is the law is civilized adult human being talk. We’re living in a society here with 300+ million people. We’re not savages nor two year olds.

        How many songs are on Pandora? How many brands of white laundry detergent are on the shelves at the store? How many brands of carbonated sugar water are on the market? How many brands of just WATER are on the market? We can’t agree on anything! That’s fine in a free market, because you’re free to go enjoy your choices on your own, as long as you pay for them. I’ll do the same and we merrily go our separate ways.

        In the political realm, it’s a whole other matter, as one person’s right necessarily impact someone else’s, and in highly consequential ways. It’s a society, remember. People in contact means rights in conflict. There must be uniformity of rights and there must be finality of those rights. Otherwise, by definition you have multiple classes of people possessing differing and ever changing rights, which is to say, no real rights at all, and the exact opposite of what you purport to support.

        YOUR unilateral dismissal of any law you don’t like is your unilateral destruction of other people’s rights. YOUR absolute liberty view is pure anarchy. You’re not so much against slavery, just against YOU not being the master, or at least against you being a slave. To hell with everyone else, so long as you get yours, huh?

        Fortunately, even you don’t believe your own drivel. The proof? You stop at red lights, even late at night, and you pull over for ambulances, even when there are wide open lanes. You abide by thousands of other laws I’m sure you find distasteful. Why? Because it’s the law, but also because you acknowledge and accept the tradeoffs. So save your sanctimonious, hypocritical foolishness for someone who doesn’t see straight through it.

        1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “…No, the law is the law is civilized adult human being talk.”

          So pointing out useless or unjust laws makes me uncivilized?

        2. avatar MamaLiberty says:

          ” YOUR absolute liberty view is pure anarchy. You’re not so much against slavery, just against YOU not being the master, or at least against you being a slave. To hell with everyone else, so long as you get yours, huh?”

          Not even in the same universe. The central “LAW” of my life is the law of non-aggression. I measure every thought, word and deed against that law. It is the only law that is necessary, in any society.

          No human being has the authority to initiate force against another human being, under any circumstances, nor to delegate the initiation of force. Every human being has absolute authority to defend their lives and those of others against any agressor.

          I have no desire to control or harm any other person, ever, yet I would never hesitate to defend my life or that of another. That is what a “law abiding” person really is, as far as I’m concerned.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          YOUR unilateral dismissal of any law you don’t like is your unilateral destruction of other people’s rights.

          Dismissal of a law does not necessarily result in the destruction of someone else’s rights. City ordinance has requirements on lawn height. If a neighbor doesn’t mow his lawn for a few weeks – is everyone’s rights destroyed/violated. Sounds like the realm of intolerance and opinion, not the realm of rights.

          YOUR absolute liberty view is pure anarchy. You’re not so much against slavery, just against YOU not being the master, or at least against you being a slave. To hell with everyone else, so long as you get yours, huh?

          The lack of options cause conflict. If there was an airline that offered conceal carry, or that didn’t harass gun owners, that would be nice, but there is none. You see, people like us are born in to this system that we did not endorse. There are no options for us. One could suggest we move to another country – but this country is actually the best option we have. It would be nice if there was a state or sovereign nation close by where we could live our life in pursuit of happiness, not bothering people, and doing what we like to do, alas there is not. So we have conflict between the safety/risk people, and the freedom/leave me alone people. There are laws I think we can all get behind:

          Don’t kill people.
          Don’t take/steal people’s stuff.
          Don’t hurt people.
          Don’t make slaves of people.
          Don’t destroy people’s stuff.
          etc.

          It is very difficult if impossible for all of us to agree on rules for “risk” because every day of your life there is risk and it only grows until you die and to my knowledge – everyone dies. So it is hard for me to stand behind some of these:

          Risk based laws:
          Don’t carry pocket knives into the county clerk’s office.
          Don’t carry guns on airplanes.
          Don’t transport guns in the cabin of your car.
          Drive under the speed limit.
          Don’t allow felons to vote or own guns.
          Sex offender registries.
          Zero tolerance polices.
          Selling raw milk across state lines and raw milk license.
          Seat belt laws.
          Texting laws/cell phone laws.
          and too many others to list.

          And opinion based laws:
          Keep your lawn mowed short
          Pay the city monthly storm water drainage fees (even though it was a one time installation and they never maintain it)
          Interior design license (Texas)
          Tooth brush mandating (Massachusetts)
          Tour guide license (DC)
          pumpkin/Christmas tree vendor license (Minnesota)
          License to go out of business (Milwaukee)
          Licensing of private investigators, electricians, plumbers, roofers, etc.

          Fortunately, even you don’t believe your own drivel. The proof? You stop at red lights, even late at night, and you pull over for ambulances, even when there are wide open lanes. You abide by thousands of other laws I’m sure you find distasteful. Why? Because it’s the law, but also because you acknowledge and accept the tradeoffs.

          I don’t know about Mamaliberty, but I follow the laws because if I don’t some guys will force me to pay money to the local or state governments (stealing) and/or beat me with a baton (assault). Shoot my dog (destruction of property). I also might get thrown in jail/prison (legalized slavery), etc.

          In my opinion, if we to enforce everyone’s opinions on each other – there would be no freedoms at all. We might as well write down what we could do – not what we couldn’t. When one takes a freedom based view – they align themselves on the idea that (freedom + tolerance) > (rules and restrictions + intolerance). In either case there are times everyone will be unhappy, but it is easier to pursue that happiness when you are free to do so.

        4. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          “You stop at red lights, even late at night, and you pull over for ambulances, even when there are wide open lanes. You abide by thousands of other laws I’m sure you find distasteful. Why? Because it’s the law, but also because you acknowledge and accept the tradeoffs.”
          Not true, most abide by those laws to avoid the “legal” consequence (which involves the threat and or exercise of force). Don’t believe me? Take the threat of punitive force away and see how many follow irrational and unethical laws.

        5. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Chip, are you just being willfully daft for fun, or is this really the best you can do?

          We’re discussing one’s obligations to follow the law and not just to flout whatever law you happen to dislike. We’re talking about concrete real life ACTIONS and how everyone just ignoring laws at will is uncivilized.

          From that, you come back with merely “pointing out” laws you don’t like, means someone is uncivilized? Seriously? That’s what you understood my clearly stated and not at all complicated point to be? Wow. Just wow.

        6. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Psssst……Actionphys…..those penalties ARE part of the trade offs. You don’t get to agree with my point, restate it, then claim the rebranding as your own counterpoint.
          I’m saying she may dislike laws and call others “slaves”, but she follows the same damn laws, too.

          As for following laws, buddy, the vast majority of life in a society is governed by mores and folkways, not criminal or civil laws. Even mores codified in law are so often as an afterthought. Really, is it the criminal penalty that deters you from committing necropholia? Come on.

          Now, I don’t challenge that there are penalties which influence behavior. Far from it. It’s exactly my point that they do. I just took exception to her claiming the moral high ground, when she’s down in the muck following the laws, too, and when her real objection is that she can’t rule over others with impunity. Scratch an absolutist, ultralibertarian, holier than thou, I’m-one-with-the-universe type, and the same stale, statist stench that we all abhor will ooze out.

        7. avatar actionphysicalman says:

          I am not really able to keep track of what the other commenters are saying or why. I don’t imagine that you have a slave mentality or blind obedience to the state. I am just responding to very limited portions of your comments. I certainly can restate something that you may have intended to be implicit in what you wrote, this is evidenced by the fact that I did. My point was that many do not abide by the laws and mores that we do because we have accepted majority rule as necessary for order and prosperity. I realize now that this was probably not contrary to what you were arguing.
          You and your antagonists here seem to both be putting words in each others mouths, but you seem to be getting the most emotional about it. You are also being at least as unnecessarily demeaning as any of the others.
          Oh, and in the case of necrophilia it is indeed not fear of punishment that restrains me, it is simply disinterest.

    3. avatar Anonymous says:

      Nope, but you’re mixing up root cause and proximate cause. I get it: TSA delays stem from bloated bureaucracies, security theater, and the panicked post-9-11 “Do something!” crowd. That’s all here already, built in, baked in, whatever, and is the new normal which I plan for.

      Surprise delays beyond that include the Glock-packing jackwagon in front of me who’s known the no guns rule for decades (since that predates 9-11), but still showed up tooled up, anyway.

      So… this is the new normal… there is nothing that can be done about it… lets all embrace it. Got it.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Nobody said embrace it. For the record, I say work within the system to change.

        What I am also saying is don’t sit there eyes closed, hands over ears, screaming “la la la…..I can’t hear you!” like a petulant child, and deny that this is, in fact, the reality.

        Geez, you snippy little keyboard commandos belie your false bravado with such tantrums. The more you harumph and grump and groan here, attacking those who dare state the facts, the less likely you’ll actually get off your abundant butts and actually do anything about any of this. Internet blogs. Sheesh. Talk about opiate of the masses!

        1. avatar Anonymous says:

          What I am also saying is don’t sit there eyes closed, hands over ears, screaming “la la la…..I can’t hear you!” like a petulant child, and deny that this is, in fact, the reality.

          I’m going to assume that the above statement is in reference to the person carrying at the secure checkpoint? I think everyone knows this is the reality (even the person at the checkpoint).

          Geez, you snippy little keyboard commandos belie your false bravado with such tantrums. The more you harumph and grump and groan here, attacking those who dare state the facts, the less likely you’ll actually get off your abundant butts and actually do anything about any of this. Internet blogs. Sheesh. Talk about opiate of the masses!

          I’ll tell you what I see. In my opinion, you made a comment that a lot of us disagreed with and we expressed our opinions. Some of the responses weren’t very good (on both sides). But really it doesn’t boil down to facts. It boils down to opinion. Our opinion and yours. You thought it was appropriate to criticize someone for not following a law that us, and perhaps they, felt merited no respect. You implied that you would not break a law that merited no respect. And…You openly endorsed the leftist “risk & safety” syndrome. But it’s ok. We all have opinions. It is by expressing those opinions to each other that we contemplate more on what is best based on all our own personal moral systems.

  11. avatar actionphysicalman says:

    If no crime has been committed why punish a person?

  12. avatar Rich K. says:

    Quite frankly I think it should be perfectly legal for a law-abiding citizen to carry on an airplane as long as the gun is loaded with frangible ammo. Might help discourage random nutjobs and Rashid Raghead from engaging in acts of mayhem, if the practice became widespread.

    1. avatar arsh says:

      I agree with carrying on a plane but I think it should be required to have no ammo allowed on persons or carry on. There’s no reason you shouldnt be able to keep it on persons, but I would not want a negligent discharge or purposeful one at 30000 feet. that tiny hole becomes a massive hole with everyone dying.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That concept is bullshit. If a handgun is powerful enough, it will put a hole the size of the projectile in the side of the aircraft. The only danger from that would be if the hole is jagged, it might cause a whistle which might damage your hearing. I speak from 5000 hours of flying experience, 10 years of that in the military version of the Boeing 707, the world’s most common airliner for around 25 years. The idea that a pistol will blow a 3 foot hole in an airplane and kill everyone aboard is so silly I cannot even express it.

        1. avatar Jeff in CO says:

          No, Larry, you are wrong. It will blow a huge whole in it! Haven’t you ever seen a movie before??? It’s all real life! 😛 🙄

          On a more serious note, MythBusters even debunked this on an episode years ago. I think the only other possible scenario of a handgun downing an aircraft would be if they unloaded on the plane and somehow managed to sever the triple-redundant hydraulic control lines or something . . .

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          So how many in-flight shootouts have you experienced in your 5,000 hours flight time? None? Then shut up about your irrelevant claim of expertise.

          Now, as it turns out, you’re actually partially correct, only partially, and as usual, you miss major aspects.

          You’re right, a bullet hole through the skin of the plane will just leave a hole. The aircraft’s pneumatic pressurization will more than compensate for. It does so by design, actually as air already leaks from doors seals. There’s actually an outflow valve, aka a hole in the plane, specifically to adjust airflow as part if pressure maintenance.

          A bullet blowing out a window is a bigger problem, though. One bullet might might not do it, but several could. Cabin pressure would be lost in a matter of minutes. The pilots would plunge to lower altitudes, so people could breathe. Not everyone’s going to get that mask right.

          In that chaos, there would be major injuries, worse than what we already see in bad turbulence. There would likely be additional random shots fired, hitting people and the people behind them. There would be some heart attacks.

          Bottom line, it would range from exciting, but harmless, to serious and deadly. No, a massive gaping hole tge size of a beverage cart wouldn’t open up and suck people out, but neither would that have to happen in order for damage caused by gunfire to result in serious injuries and even fatalities.

        3. avatar Anonymous says:

          So how many in-flight shootouts have you experienced in your 5,000 hours flight time? None? Then shut up about your irrelevant claim of expertise.

          A bullet blowing out a window is a bigger problem, though…

          We are all very curious about your in-flight shootout experiences where the window blew out and the consequences resulted as you described?

          http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-politeness-is-to-human-nature-what-warmth-is-to-wax-arthur-schopenhauer-164794.jpg

  13. avatar Fdog says:

    This was the correct outcome.

    TSA’s job is to keep the aircraft sterile, not patrol and arrest. Legally carried (but not permitted on the aircraft) items are supposed to be “bounced back” at the checkpoint.

  14. avatar Stephen Rivera says:

    I can see a poor dude forgetting a shitty range gun he bought for 75 bucks is in his bag, but it still shouldn’t happen.

    I had an experience once upon a time when I returned from a combat deployment in Iraq. I was flying home on leave, using my issued daypack as a carryon. TSA decided to check my bag and do an explosive residue check. I was pulled out of line and questioned for some time why, exactly traces of C4 and RDX were on the lining of my bag. I produced my CAC and explained why, but it still wasted my time and I almost missed my flight. After that I traveled with “clean” bags only.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I remember a story from Vietnam, unsure whether it actually happened. Shortly after Nixon took office, he was insistent that the drawdown begin TODAY, time for BS was over. A group of grunts were shuffled from the boonies directly onto an airplane, no idea where they were going, crashed out and woke up when they landed on the west coast, complete with the mud of Vietnam still on their boots and their machine guns and grenade launchers still loaded. Supposedly caused a bit of consternation!

  15. avatar michael kennedy says:

    When I go to the range, I usually take multiple guns. I use a backpack that has several pockets. It’s not uncommon for me to be pulling stuff out of the backpack days later. I’m not using it as an excuse but I could easily visualize a small, non favorite gun being left in a bag.

    I’m impressed the guy wasn’t beat with weighted rubber hoses, arrested, sent to gitmo, and put on the no fly list.

  16. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I did a self pat down on the way to Atlanta and discovered I had my pocket knife on me after I had checked my luggage.
    I asked the TSA guy if he had any solutions. He pointed to a small store right next to the secure area. The store sold me a stamped padded envelope so i could mail it home. No muss, no fuss. Cost me about 4 bucks. I called it my “I’m stupid tax”.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Such a tax for only 4 bucks is a bargain, indeed.

  17. avatar Anonymous says:

    That owner, who has not been identified, was allowed to bring the firearm to their vehicle to secure it . . .

    Good. Because if it was a cop, they would have done the same, and no arrest would be made. Why can cops “accidentally” carry but permit holders cannot?

    The excuse that some give of “I forgot it was there” is absurd to me. If your life is so hectic that you accidentally placed your firearm inside your carry-on bag, you should stop carrying because you’re likely to be completely useless if you ever need to draw that firearm. Just tellin’ it like it is.

    I’m sure they knew it was there. They are likely in the habit of grabbing and stowing their firearm, and they had a brain fart when it came to realizing they would be going through security. That is the portion that they “forgot about.” Perhaps they don’t travel often??? Brandon???

    What do you think? Should they be held accountable, or simply told to “secure your firearm in your vehicle”?

    Since there was no victim (at all), I don’t think they should be held accountable to Brandon’s opinion at concealednation. In my opinion, I think people with risk/fear based opinions should grow a set of pearls and mind their own business while staying out of other people’s affairs. Unless there is an actual victim or complainant, we shouldn’t be punishing people’s activities based on fears and risks. The reason TSA exists is because of people just like Brandon. The rule is no guns on the plane. That rule was enforced – end of story. What actually was the problem here?

    I once went to the county clerks office to register a land deed. I had a small pocketknife with me and I forgot that the county clerks office was a top secret secure facility with more than a dozen armed guards, cameras, metal detectors – the whole shebang. The guard said I couldn’t enter with the knife (never mind that my pen in my shirt pocket was likely more dangerous for stabbing wounds). I asked him if he could hold it for me because I parked a quarter mile away and I only needed 3 minutes. He said “no.” So I went outside and threw it in the flowerbed. I went inside, finished by business, and came back outside and picked it up out of the flowerbed. People forget things all the time, and i’m glad their not punished due to Brandon’s “opinion.”

  18. avatar BDub says:

    ‘Seriously, how does this happen? And it happens a lot.”

    Does it? There are about 1800 handguns discovered in carry-ons each year, but there are around 100 million handguns in this country and 300 million people. Have some sense of proportion.

    Its forgetful, possibly stupid, and certainly non-economical, but NO its not negligent.

  19. avatar a. y. says:

    how does this happen? the firearm in question is carried / worn so often that it becomes a piece of clothing or accessory that is not in active conscious thought.

    sure, the owner might be aware that they have it just as they are aware that they are wearing clothes but unless one is actively thinking about it or required to think about it, why would it come up within stream of consciousness?

  20. avatar Noishkel says:

    I’m kind of ambivalent leaning towards positive on carry on a plane. But I defiantly don’t agree with automatically charging someone with a crime for accidentally bringing a firearm through a check point.

    1. avatar arsh says:

      I’d like to see it allowed in your carry on in a locked case so long as no ammo is with it. Create a separate TSA lane for it (more jobs) where you open the case for a trained agent (Vets who need jobs I’m looking at you). The agent can then rack the slide to determine there is no round chambered. Any ammo that is found can be placed in a “waste” bin but the gun remains with you. You then re-lock the case and keep it in your carry on for the duration of the flight.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Then, once you are aboard the aircraft, your pal hands you the ammunition and your 72 Virginians are just a few shots away. Your plan won’t work, but the idea of treating an airplane just like an airborne taxi cab will. For those who have forgotten, 911 happened because the flying public had been trained by our government, for over 40 years, to just go along with hijackers, don’t worry about a thing, be sheep. Even a bunch of medieval morons could see how to use that. If there were likely to be several armed people on board, the attempt would never have been made.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      I’d prefer the solution in ‘Airplane! 2, the sequel’

      “Excuse me, would you like the armed or the un-armed section?”

  21. avatar Gunr says:

    Maybe there should be a large sign at the entrance of each check in line that reads, DID YOU REMEMBER TO CHECK YOUR CARRY ON FOR WEAPONS!”
    Not the perfect solution, but I’ll bet it would save a few souls from a lot of headache!

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, in the line for the checked bags. You could quick ooops no you can’t. I was going to say put it into your checked bag, but that requires a locked hard case, you couldn’t do it on the spur of the moment. Otherwise, check what was your carryon, it’s better than going to jail or losing a favorite gun. Can you legally mail a gun to yourself?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        ” Can you legally mail a gun to yourself?”

        I believe you can. I’d be fine with a padded box postage paid for 20 bucks, call it a stupid tax. Beats the hell out criminal charges and losing your gun.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    Pre-9/11, airport screeners found a pocket knife inside my carryon that I had completely forgotten. The knife would have been legal, except that it had a finger-groove “pistol grip” that was a no-no at the time.

    I was allowed to put the knife in my car and return to the gate. I made my flight. No problems, mate. That’s the way the “problem” was handled.

    If some dood is found trying to bring a gun on a plane in contravention of the rules, he should be checked out by the po-po and sent out to his car to stash his gat. Unless there’s some serious reason to believe that said dood is a terrorist or something.

  23. avatar arsh says:

    The problem from what I’ve gathered is there’s no real easy way to transport your handgun when you are flying. If you put it with checked luggage it will probably be stolen as theres numerous reports of TSA stealing anything they think is valuable. Also its technically a big no no to leave your gun unattended which checking it forces you to do.

    Obviously you won’t want people carrying on a plane. A hole in a plane high in the air = bye bye plane. So the third option is to ship it, but wait you can’t ship a handgun via USPS to yourself as it’s against the law.

    I’d like to see it changed to allow carrying in a case so long as no ammo is with it. but that’d make too much sense.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      If you put it with checked luggage it will probably be stolen as theres numerous reports of TSA stealing anything they think is valuable.

      I fly with checked guns all the time and never had a problem. In fact, after I check my guns, I’m usually issued a TSA Pre-Check and breeze through the line.

    2. avatar Chip in Florida says:

      “…Obviously you won’t want people carrying on a plane. A hole in a plane high in the air = bye bye plane.”

      Nope. The plane already has a hole in it, about the size of a silver-dollar (ish) that lets air out continuously. The engines compress the outside air and pumps it into the cabin, the pressure relief outlet lets out the air. And being a giant metal tube that is riveted together you have countless other small leaks and channels that air is constantly leaking out of. It is not a sealed tube of air that will pop the minute you puncture the shell.

      The controls for the aircraft are surprisingly small as they travel from front to back, mostly it is wires. And more than just one wire. So you aren’t going to shoot the plane out of control.

      The gas tanks have a lining in them that is designed to arrest sparks so even if you shoot the wing the only thing you are going to accomplish is a leak.

      The windows are made of shatter-resistant plastic so shooting one is only going to make a hole a bit bigger than the round itself. A horrendous noise, the airmasks deploying and the pilot dropping rather quickly to a lower altitude (10k feet if I remember correctly) is the only thing that will happen.

      Other armed passengers are not going to start shooting creating chaos and crossfire issues because that kind of stuff only happens in the movies.

      So tell me again why armed passengers are a problem? What makes an aircraft so much different than a Kroger’s?

      1. avatar Rupert says:

        Then there was the Federal Air Marshal (FAM) whom left his weapon in the airport men’s room on TP dispenser.
        Boarded flight without weapon.
        You see you may forget you have it in your bag or you can forget it when you are supposed to have it.
        Not a one of you is perfect of sound mind.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Pretty good, Chip, just a couple corrections. A bullet hole in a window won’t cause anything to happen other than a bit of noise, the amount of pressurized air being forced into the cabin is many times that required to keep it pressurized, the outflow valve(s) are set to maintain a given cabin altitude, from the cockpit. If you introduce a bullet sized hole into the equation, the outflow valve would automatically adjust by an amount too small to measure, and the pressurization would be unaffected. I actually doubt if an average carry pistol would penetrate the skin of an aircraft, but if it did, the result would be the same.

        In short, I don’t think that one man could carry enough 9mm ammo aboard with him to affect the pressurization at all. Let’s say 2000 rounds, OK? I’m talking about 2000 .355″ holes in the skin, I’d guess it would take a week or so to patch them all, otherwise, no problem. Which means there should be no more problem carrying on aircraft than there is in a taxi.

        1. avatar Gunr says:

          Most of what you say is true, however, I think there are very few areas where a bullet would not penetrate the skin. The interior cosmetics are mostly plastic, with insulation between it and the skin. The skin on most airliners is usually .063 6061 Aluminum. This is around 3/4 hard, but believe me, it wont come close to stopping a bullet, even after penetrating plastic and insulation.
          Some airliners, especially some newer designs, may use a heavier gauge material.

    3. avatar jwtaylor says:

      “A hole in a plane high in the air = bye bye plane.”
      I understand that a lot of people believe this happens, but its simply not true. You could unload your magazine of .357sig through a commercial airliner’s fuselage at altitude and it would be really unlikely that it would cause a crash. That’s assuming you don’t kill the pilots. It would not be good, but but it’s not bye bye airplane.

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        On an airliner it’s a hole over 2-3 inches I think. The engine’s compressor bleed air handles pressurizing the aircraft.

        A bigger hole and you expedite your decent to 10,000 and land at the nearest, etc…

        Airlines have lost chunks of fuselage in flight that sucked people out and they manged to land the aircraft just fine. Re- Aloha Airlines.

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Edit-

          Look how much of this Boeing is missing and they landed it:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloha_Airlines_Flight_243

  24. avatar "lee n. field" says:

    TSA shouldn’t be happening, but…

    “Sir. We’ll need you to check this for the duration of the flight. I’ll walk you over there…”

  25. avatar Rupert says:

    I fly every week from Austin. Every time at security when ID and boarding checked I am asked by TSA if there are any weapons in the bag. Great reminder and much appreciate they ask and I thank them. Makes one think twice and look in bag to be sure.
    No problem to leave and store weapon because at that point you are not yet in the sterile area.
    I have not encountered this simple question at other airports.
    Texas legislature has a bill pending that if caught with weapon in carry on you’d be given opertunity to retrieve from bag leave and take back home or vehicle without further implications.

    1. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “Texas legislature has a bill pending that if caught with weapon in carry on you’d be given opertunity to retrieve from bag leave and take back home or vehicle without further implications.”

      The way it oughtta be.

      Texas legislature? IOW, *maybe* two years away…

  26. avatar MiguelDunn says:

    The arrogance of many in these comments is predictable. You say it will never happen to you, until it does. You think you’re so infallible when it comes to firearms safety. The reality is that we are all capable of making mistakes.

    Unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances that upset your typical routine can produce unfortunate consequences. We are all prone to complacency as well. How many of you in a rush to be somewhere have left the gun safe open where you keep your EDC firearms? How many of you have violated any of the gun safety rules? Those new to shooting and concealed carry are especially vulnerable.

    How does something like this happen?

    1. Someone new to shooting that has just received their CCW and carries off-body (purse or briefcase). They’re new to shooting and concealed carry, and are not yet familiar with the fantastic TTAG website, so they are not aware that off-body carry is a bad idea. This person has no kids and lives alone. Their gun often remains in their purse/briefcase, even at their bedside at night. They wake up the next morning for a flight, in a rush, and head out the door with their briefcase/purse in hand. It’s not until they see TSA agents congregate around the monitor that they realize they forgot to remove their firearm from their purse/briefcase.

    2. A guy on-body carries everyday. He works in professional environment so he carries a slim, sub-compact that’s easy to conceal under his professional attire. He’s been doing it for over 10 years. He is married but has no kids. He’s on his way home from work, but has to make a stop. His stop requires him to disarm because the location forbids firearms. He places the firearm in the back sleeve of his briefcase. The stop takes longer than expected and he is now running late for a weekend trip with friends. He dashes home, quickly packs his car, including his larger frame carry gun, and rushes out the door for a weekend in the mountains. He returns late Sunday evening, and now has to pack for a business trip outside the state. The next morning he wakes up, in a rush, and heads out the door for the airport. It’s not until he see’s TSA agents congregate around the monitor that he realizes he forgot to remove his firearm from his briefcase.

    3. A group of friends goes on an out of state hunting trip. To make checking their firearms easy they pack their firearms (rifles and handguns) into large cases that can accommodate multiple firearms. The hunt was a success and the group is packing up camp to leave for their flight home. The weather that morning was particularly bad, and packing everything up was a bit frantic. As a result, not one of them ate breakfast. They arrived to the airport late due to poor road conditions. The group proceeds to check in. One of the guys in the group finishes his check-in before the others, since his guns were in the case being checked by another member of the group. He offers to go and get the group coffee while the others finish checking in. The group is now back together and going through TSA security. Unfortunately, for the guy who got coffee for the group, his handgun was inadvertently left in his carry-on backpack. You see, while the group hastily packed in the bad weather that morning, he left the handgun he placed in his backpack next to him while he slept the night before. Had he been present when the guns were checked, rather than going to get coffee for the group, he might have noticed his handgun missing.

    I am sure there are many more stories like these. For me, unfortunately, I am the guy in the second story. Fortunately, I was not charged or prosecuted, though I did miss my flight, and spent quite a bit of time being interrogated by both local and federal authorities. TSA was gracious enough to fine me $2500 as well. The other stories were told to me secondhand.

    So, It does happen. It is arrogant to say a person is an idiot, and that excuses like “I forgot” or “I wasn’t aware” are absurd. You are ignorant and self-righteous to assume something like this will never happen to you.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      @MiguelDunn
      You sound like an anti, throwing out extreme examples while pointing out the obvious.
      With that being said, I disagree with you. You DON’T forget your firearm is in your luggage….PERIOD.
      There are some things you don’t forget. You forget your airline ticket. You forget you left the heat on. You confused your flight number for the gate number….but you don’t forget you have a god damn gun in your luggage.
      Having handled firearms for almost 40 years, I don’t forget where my guns are or their current condition.
      I know my .22 is loaded, chambered and the safety is off. I know my Sig is loaded and chambered. I know my AK isn’t drinking Vodka at the moment, has a full 30 round magazine inserted, is NOT chambered and the safety is on. There are things a person is allowed to be complacent about and there are things I find inexcusable when it comes to complacency and that’s guns.
      Yes yes, humans make mistakes, thanks for clearing that up. I had forgotten humans weren’t perfect. Wow, what a wake up call!
      I my view, a person who goes through a TSA check point with a gun in their luggage they “forgot about” shouldn’t be having a gun or gun permit for a while. No criminal charges, purely administrative sanctions.
      Maybe that will instill better actions around firearms.

      1. avatar MiguelDunn says:

        Thanks for making my point with your ignorant and self-righteous diatribe. You assert I resemble an Anti, while you’re the one suggesting a person’s gun or gun rights should be taken away for passing through a TSA security checkpoint with a firearm? You sound like a true progressive, “follow MY rules absolutely or I’ll take away YOUR rights.” I don’t remember the 2A stating “shall not be infringed, unless you pass through an airport security checkpoint.”

        Perhaps my examples border on the extreme, but given the number of travelers per year compared to the number of CCW permit holders, wouldn’t the number of incidents per year represent the majority of cases with unusual circumstances?

        And, thanks for pointing out how perfect you are with your firearms. Perhaps we should amend the 2A so that only those who are perfectly safe and never make mistakes can own and carry a firearm. Even better, you should write a book on firearms awareness and safety, because you sound like the messiah for gun rights.

        1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

          @MiguelDunn
          “ignorant and self-righteous diatribea”
          Wow, what are that chances? That is exactly what I thought about your original comment!
          Butt-hurt much? Get a tissue.

          ” Even better, you should write a book on firearms awareness and safety, because you sound like the messiah for gun rights.”

          And you sound like a blowhard who hates it when someone disagrees with you and too much free time.

  27. avatar Jim R says:

    Ideally nothing would happen, because ideally there wouldn’t be a problem with carrying a firearm on a domestic flight.
    Barring that, they should allow the owner to secure the weapon in their vehicle (if they drove to the airport themselves) or, failing that, ship the weapon home via whatever means happen to be convenient (USPS, UPS, FedEx, etc)

  28. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Beats me…Since I would NEVER do it I have very little sympathy. But I also think there should be NO TSA. Be responsible.

  29. avatar MotoJB says:

    That’s exactly what should have happened…legal CCW…let him put it away in the car. Don’t arrest him, confiscate and treat him like a felon. That would be dumb as hell.

  30. avatar Rupert says:

    I have a CHL, transportation workers ID card (TWIC) and passed background check for TSA pre check should TSA worry about me carrying on airplane?
    I have all the above. Maybe I could be a part time FAM when flying for business.

  31. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Question of the Day: What Should Happen When TSA Finds a Handgun in Your Carry-On? Ummm….they should thank you for helping to protect the plane from ISIS attacks?

  32. avatar Excedrine says:

    What should happen?

    A whole lot of nothing. That’s what. At least not on any strictly domestic flight anyway.

    International flights? That’s another story.

  33. avatar Johnny B Goode says:

    I do not think there is a one size fits all answer to people bringing guns through a TSA check point. Someone leaving their home residence has no excuse for not packing their gun and checking it in with the TSA. Returning home things are a lot more hectic. If the gun is locked away in a locked case I could call that an honest mistake. But having the gun cocked and locked on your person is not a mistake. The person had no intentions of checking the gun.

  34. avatar Ken says:

    Ever leave your car keys in the car, or on the dresser? How about your hat or jacket? The gun is not the problem. Forgetting the gun is not the problem. Articles, like this one, slanted against guns, is a problem. Were it not for some law there was no problem. Had there been no such law the guy did nothing wrong. It is human nature for people to forget.

    Forgetting an anniversary is far more serious than forgetting about a gun that you never use. Unless you’re Bob Munden, how many of us shoot every day. Shame on you for bad mouthing a guy that forgot about his gun in the rush to get to the airport. People forget stuff, especially when they are focused on something else. Would you label him a sexual predator for having forgotten to zip up? No! Get real people. A gun is an everyday thing like a car and like a car it needs to be treated with respect.

    One last question. Ever forget where you parked your car? OMG, how stupid can you get? The thing is huge, for every gun death there are over a hundred vehicle deaths, and you forgot where you put yours! What punishment should be assessed to someone so irresponsible.

  35. avatar C says:

    I was once on the team of “what kind of idiot would do that”. well, I became one of them. Not an excuse, but this is what happened. Ive been traveling a bunch the past few week, by road, and generally carry a gun with me, on my hip the entire time. However, I went to see my in-laws last weekend and was worried the nephews would find it, so I put it up in my truck, in my bag and locked the truck. Responsible right? I also helped a uddy move and was exchausted from the trip and carried my stuff inside (so the gun wouldnt get stolen). next day, wife unpacks my bag of clothes and the bag goes back in the closet. I have 2 ccw that I rotate, depending on what im wearing, how my pants are fitting, etc. On this particular week, I grabbed the ccw2 so CCW1 was “in the safe” i thought. Fast forward – I’m in a hurry, throw my clothes in my normal travel bag, grab my bag and run out the door , Mind racing on other subjects. At the terminal, TSA finds the gun and I couldnt deny what happened. I told them what happened and offered any info I could “its loaded, its in the second pocket in the main compartment, etc” I wasnt charged but now Im waiting a fine from TSA. It was pretty obvious I had no intention of harm, but still, it happened and I’m ashamed of myself for it. Take it for what it is, but I AM a responsible gun owner, but mistakes DO happen to everyone. Never again.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email