Disassembled Gun and Ammo Found in Three Stuffed Animals - TSA
Officers at Providence TF Green Airport (PVD) noticed what appeared to be a
disassembled firearm on the X-ray screen of baggage belonging to a father and
his small child. Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) were called to the checkpoint
and after searching the bag, they discovered a disassembled weapon hidden in
three of the child’s stuffed animals. The main frame of a .40 caliber firearm
was in one animal. A magazine loaded with two .40 caliber rounds and firing pin
was inside another. The slide was inside third stuffed animal. All of the necessary
components to assemble a fully functional loaded firearm were artfully
concealed in the three stuffed animals. This is just another example that
threats can appear anywhere and this is why our Officers take a closer look at
everything. It’s also an example that shows that even though we’ve made changes
to how we screen children 12 & under, the security process is still just as
effective. Congratulations to our Officers at TF Green Airport for a great
find!
Simulated Semtex-H – Once again, an explosives training aid was
discovered at a TSA checkpoint. This time it was at Fort Walton Beach (VPS) and
it involved a block of simulated Semtex-H explosive. We had no way of knowing
it was simulated until after we had gone through all of the motions.
Hollowed Out Book – A hollowed out book containing narcotics and drug
paraphernalia was discovered at Denver (DEN). As I’ve said many times before,
we’re not looking for drugs, but when we find them, we have to report them. So…
please don’t bring them. It’s yet another example of how a normal everyday item
can be used to conceal items.
Mace Gun – It looks kind of like a 1950’s era sci-fi ray gun, but
officers at Newark (EWR) discovered a mace/pepper gun.
Ammo in Pocket Found With Body Scanner – TSA Officers at Baltimore
(BWI) discovered 13 rounds of ammunition in the front pocket of a passenger who
went through a body scanner.
People Say the Darndest Things - Here are examples of what not to say at the airport. Statements like these not only delay the people who said them but can also inconvenience lots of other passengers if the checkpoint has to be evacuated:
- A passenger at Amarillo (AMA) stated “I have a bomb on my body” twice. As if once wasn’t enough?
- While having his bag searched at Tucson (TUS) due to an explosive trace detection alarm, a passenger stated “Watch out for the explosives.”
Miscellaneous Prohibited Items
- In addition to all of
the other prohibited items we find weekly, our Officers also found firearm
components, realistic replica firearms, stun guns, brass knuckles, a ginormous
amount of knives, ammunition, and batons.
Firearms - Here are the firearms our Officers found
in carry-on baggage since I posted last Friday.
You can travel with your
firearms in checked baggage, but they must first be declared to the airline.
You can go here for more details on how to
properly travel with your firearms. Firearm possession laws vary by state and locality. Travelers
should familiarize themselves with state and local firearm laws for each point
of travel prior to departure.
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 throughput 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’d like to comment on an unrelated topic you can do so in our Off Topic Comments post. You can also view our blog post archives or search our blog to find a related topic to comment in. If you have a travel related issue or question that needs an immediate answer, you can contact a Customer Support Manager at the airport you traveled, or will be traveling through by using Talk to TSA.
56 comments:
I never would have guessed the gun in the teddy bear story would be the top catch of the week. Congratulations on finding a gun with the x-ray machine. The same x-ray machine that has been used for decades and not the expensive AIT scanners. Isn't finding guns the bare minimum of the TSA's job responsibilities? I don't issue a press release when the McDonald's worker gets my order correct.
I have a question about the drugs in the hollowed out book. You say that drugs have to be reported to the police. Why do they have to be reported? They are no threat to the aircraft, so I don't see why they would the police would need to be involved. It seems like this is a slippery slope for a possible Constitution violation.
I see the body scanner found ammo in the pocket of a passenger. You know...the metal detector would have found that too, at a lower cost and with less privacy issues.
Is there going to be any comment on the story this week of the teenager who had her insulin pump damaged after being coerced into the AIT scanner? Also, she was incorrectly told my the TSO that she could not take juice through the checkpoint. I thought that was allowed for diabetics.
As a pump user who has been treated poorly by the TSA, these stories anger me.
And now, for Part Two of TSA Week In Review:
You Didn't Need That Life-Saving Device, Anyways: TSOs in Salt Lake City coerced a teenager into submitting to an AIT scan, destroying her $10,000 insulin pump in the process.
Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain: TSA has $184 million in unused equipment gathering dust in a warehouse in Texas ... and when Congressional investigators wanted an accounting, TSA deliberately tried to conceal the equipment from the investigators.
We have had two big stories over the last week or so, the foiled underpants bomber and the report by the EU that x-ray body scanners are safe. So what does the TSA want to discuss. Stuffed animals! Is this a joke?
I wish I could say that I am astounded that you included the stuffed toy guns in this report.
Sadly, I am not.
You are so desperate to try to prove your "worth," that you included something that was a total set-up by a woman seeking revenge.
Screen shot
Who is Jon Corbett?
Screenshot.
You made the math for this one too easy, Bob! If you found 30 guns, that means that you missed about 70, right? Or, feel free to correct my calculations. Thanks.
Bob, Whay wasn't my comment about why this guy was allowed to fly posted?
After all, we all know that the gun parts didn't come from the factory "pre-installed" in the stuffed animals.
Given how the TSA could be facing a criminal investigation for altering documents and misleading Congress during their inspection of warehoused equipment, I wouldn't put it past them the guns in the stuffed animal find was a TSA set up. Especially since the timing of this happens to be right after that incident when TSA accused a 3-year old child of passing a gun to her grandmother. Up until that Congressional report came out, I would have believed otherwise, but as more comes out on what TSA is hiding behind their "SSI" operations, it's becoming evident that this agency is corrupt.
"Once again, an explosives training aid was discovered at a TSA checkpoint."
That's fantastic. As a matter of being open and honest with the American people so that they may get a true understanding of your effectiveness, I would love it if you would also publish how many times each week the explosives training aid are failed to be discovered.
When can I expect these statistics to be made available?
"I’ve said many times before, we’re not looking for drugs, but when we find them, we have to report them."
---------------------------------------------
You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between "Our policy is that we report them" and "we have to report them."
Anonymous said...
"I’ve said many times before, we’re not looking for drugs, but when we find them, we have to report them."
---------------------------------------------
You apparently fail to grasp the distinction between "Our policy is that we report them" and "we have to report them."
Anonymous said...
I have a question about the drugs in the hollowed out book. You say that drugs have to be reported to the police. Why do they have to be reported? They are no threat to the aircraft, so I don't see why they would the police would need to be involved. It seems like this is a slippery slope for a possible Constitution violation.
lets be real here....any federal employee must report illegal substances, or items found. It doesnt matter if they are a screener or janitor...how can you have a problem with getting drugs off our streets no matter how small?
and the pump story is bogus too...there have been a lot of users of those same pumps on TV saying they were never told they couldnt go through the scanners and have brought them through a bunch of times...lets face it she was exposed to alot more radiation including x ray radiation during her flight...it was a PR stunt by the pump maker....I know not everyone like TSA but do we really need to scratch the bottom of the barrel here?
"lets be real here....any federal employee must report illegal substances, or items found. It doesnt matter if they are a screener or janitor...how can you have a problem with getting drugs off our streets no matter how small?"
Really? Can you validate that? So any federal employee who doesn't, for example, report illegal drugs at a concert is violating what? The law? Is it a felony? Please point to the federal law that back up your point.
"and the pump story is bogus too...there have been a lot of users of those same pumps on TV saying they were never told they couldnt go through the scanners and have brought them through a bunch of times...lets face it she was exposed to alot more radiation including x ray radiation during her flight"
Once again, please have some knowledge before you comment. As has been reported here many, many times, "radiation" is not a monolithic term. The radiation to which she was exposed is not at all the type she (and the pump) would have been exposed to in flight. More likely, though, is that the magnetic field generated by the scanner was the culprit. Would you like to illuminate us with your explanation of this?
?...it was a PR stunt by the pump maker...."
How, exactly, would this benefit the pump maker? Do you have a shred of evidence that backs up your accusation? You *do* realize that making a false accusation can be a violation of Federal law? A real violation, not the pretend one you brought up.
"I know not everyone like TSA but do we really need to scratch the bottom of the barrel here?"
You mean by claiming that kids are making up stories about their insulin pumps?
The TSA does not provide security and consumes a huge amount of taxpayer money. Time to get our money's worth. I'm sorry if that puts your job in jeopardy but we're simply not going to stand for TSA's incompetence and overreach any longer.
Anonymous said...
"it was a PR stunt by the pump maker..."
---
Are you kidding? You're just going to whitewash the whole incident by saying it was a PR stunt? That's become the norm, I guess. "I don't like it, so it must have been planned on purpose jut so someone could get attention."
Meanwhile you overlook the fact that no company wants to be known for a pump that can't be transported through TSA security with ease or breaks so easily, meaning this "PR" stunt would hurt them, not help them. The company that offered to donate one to replace her broken one has chosen to remain anonymous, so it can't be PR for them either. I understand critical thought doesn't come easily for some, but it's necessary to safeguard many things in life.
Anonymous said...
and the pump story is bogus too...there have been a lot of users of those same pumps on TV saying they were never told they couldnt go through the scanners and have brought them through a bunch of times...lets face it she was exposed to alot more radiation including x ray radiation during her flight...it was a PR stunt by the pump maker....I know not everyone like TSA but do we really need to scratch the bottom of the barrel here?
----------------------------
I believe I wear the same model of pump that was damaged. Animas says on their website not to go through the scanners. I've emailed Animas about the scanners and received phone calls back telling me not to go through the scanners. This was a phone call and not some form letter email. Another manufacturer, Medtronics, says the same thing on their website.
Maybe the scanners rarely damage the pumps and maybe this girl was unlucky. What if the people taking their pumps through the scanners are lucky and nothing has happened yet? I'm going to listen to my pump manufacturer instead of taking medical advice from the TSA.
An insulin pump has made my life so much better. Using syringes is a real pain, especially when travelling. There is no way I'm jeopardizing my pump by going through a scanner. That means I'll likely get the enhanced patdown. It's not a good alternative, but I'll take my "resistance" being groped over potential damage to my pump anyday.
Anonymous said...
and the pump story is bogus too..
Prove it. Where's the link?
I'm profoundly curious about the motivation behind the father who tried to smuggle a handgun inside the teddy bears. What was his intent? Did he want to hijack the plane? Did he do it just to see if it could be done?
After all, the weapon could be packed in his checked baggage then declared.
Great catches! But could you please explain what role the new intrusive enhancements (i.e., irradiating strip search machines and groping patdowns) played in detecting this contraband? It looks to me like old-fashioned metal detectors and x-ray scanners should have caught all of them.
By the way, Bob, I haven't forgotten about the drug smuggling baggage screeners in Los Angeles. I'm sure that once you've finally found the perfect blend of evasion and condescension, your post that masterfully spins away this PR disaster will epitomize the propagandist's finest art. I'm looking forward to it.
As is always the case, every one of these items would have been caught in the pre-TSA era, for billions less, using simple metal detectors and xray machines.
So why do you need the body scanners again?
why is the tsa looking for guns? the cockpit doors are reenforced so guns pose no threat to the plane.
Blogger Bob said:
"All of the necessary components to assemble a fully functional loaded firearm were artfully concealed in the three stuffed animals."
Artfully concealed? Give me a break. A handgun inside a stuffed animal that's going through an X-ray machine isn't "artfully concealed". Any screener who misses something like that should be fired immediately. That's about as easy as it gets.
The "artfully concealed" stuff is the stuff you aren't finding.
Steve Scottsdale said...
"I'm profoundly curious about the motivation behind the father who tried to smuggle a handgun inside the teddy bears."
From what I've read, he didn't put them there. They were planted to get him in trouble. The new stories refer to it as a "domestic dispute".
I *knew* you'd tout the stuffed toy find on this week's post. Two problems I have with it. First, it was detected via pre-9/11 screening methods. How does this justify your agency's continued (and well-documented) wastefulness? Second, the family was still allowed to fly?! Surely a child carrying a concealed firearm in his stuffed toys is a terrorist, and should not be allowed to fly.
(While snarky, this comment follows guidelines. Screenshot taken to combat the widespread censorship on the part of the TSA)
SLC. Insulin pump.
"Ammo in Pocket Found With Body Scanner – TSA Officers at Baltimore (BWI) discovered 13 rounds of ammunition in the front pocket of a passenger who went through a body scanner. "
Is it important for potential terrorists to put their ammo in their front pockets so you can find them?? I saw some video showing someone hide their recording cell phone in a side pocket while going through the scanner.
Anonymous said...
lets be real here....any federal employee must report illegal substances, or items found. It doesnt matter if they are a screener or janitor...how can you have a problem with getting drugs off our streets no matter how small?
I'm not sure which TV series or comic book you are getting your "facts" from.
Legally speaking, a TSA Screener who finds what he thinks is drugs does not know that substance is actually a drug any more than he knows if the water bottle he confiscated was an explosive or H2O. The screener could report it to a law enforcement officer, and if the LEO, in his LEO-trained mind, reasonably suspects it to be drugs, he could could temporarily detain the passenger, but even he cannot automatically arrest and charge anyone for possesion of drugs without verifying the substance with a test kit first.
TSA does not test substances for drugs, but they do test for explosives. Any screener who reports drugs to an LEO is using personal discretion to determine what that substance is. It would be no different than any John, Jane or Jack----or some Federal Janitor---on the street using personal discretion to report someone with drugs to the local cops, with the difference being that TSA ILLEGALLY DETAINS YOU in place until that cop arrives, then personally hands you over to him rather than allow you to move on with your civil rights before reporting it. It is the perfect example of TSA's mission creep, otherwise they would be summoning LEOs for every water bottle they find since explosives are what brings down jets---not drugs.
You want to test this? Start bringing dried spices in baggies through the checkpoints and watch TSA Screeners overreact and detain you until LEOs clear you to move on un-arrested.......and you won't see that incident posted on Bob's Friday wrap-up.
Sigh.
I knew the gun in the teddy bear would be touted as a big catch. And like the previous similar incident, it will be used to justify the harassment and torment of screaming toddlers everywhere.
What TSA completely fails to point out:
Good old fashioned 1970s style x-ray of carryons would have caught this gun. So would the kid walking through a metal detector carrying the stuffed toy. The case has *nothing* to do with screening, not screening, or limited screening of children under 12. The case has nothing to do with patdowns, the nude-o-scope, or any other invasive screening method. Nobody has ever suggested letting children carry large stuffed toys through the checkpoint completely unscreened, bypassing both x-ray and metal detector.
In other words, TSA was not required to make this catch.
BTW, will TSA be sending an $11,000 kangaroo court administrative fine to the dad? How about the vindicitve mother who allegedly placed the gun? I find it ironic that the dad and kid were allowed to proceed with no penalty other than confiscating the toys, acknowledging that there was no actual or intended threat, but you still tout this as a big catch.
Holy crap! HENRY KISSINGER!?
Can't wait for the excuses TSA and Blogger Bob make when they try to explain patting-down Henry Kissinger and forcing him get out of his wheelchair!!!
TSA, America's joke government agency!
Wow. Thanks for saving us from the artfully concealed butter knife, blue-gloved avengers.
Anonymous said...
I have a question about the drugs in the hollowed out book. You say that drugs have to be reported to the police. Why do they have to be reported? They are no threat to the aircraft, so I don't see why they would the police would need to be involved. It seems like this is a slippery slope for a possible Constitution violation.
By your logic, if they find a severed head or my grandma's kidney they don't need to report them because they're not a threat to the aircraft. Although as far a violating the Constitution, we're already on that slope.
Anonymous said...
I have a question about the drugs in the hollowed out book. You say that drugs have to be reported to the police. Why do they have to be reported? They are no threat to the aircraft, so I don't see why they would the police would need to be involved. It seems like this is a slippery slope for a possible Constitution violation.
By your logic, if they find a severed head or my grandma's kidney they don't need to report them because they're not a threat to the aircraft. Also, the passenger submitted the book for screening. This is called implied consent. If the police ask if they can search your house without a warrant and you let them in the Constitution has not been violated because of, you guessed it, implied consent.
Next time, demand a warrant.
How many times in the last ten year has a gun been drawn on a plane!!!!!
HOW MANY TIMES IN THE LAST TEN YEARS HAS A GUN BEEN DRAWN ON A PLANE IN THE US!!!!!!
Bob does tend to selectively choose not to post some of my comments. I'm very careful not to mention names or bad words but seems like they get bounced for even tiny hints like location or an asterisk. That said I laugh at the hater comments on how guns aren't a threat on the plane, seriously? This isn't a new or in any way unreasonable policy. It's shocking people still do it in enough numbers that TSA can run this article week in and week out. Unfortunately it does make you wonder what they don't catch. Tried and true 1970's tech could easily spot these items. When I did the job pre TSA one summer in the 80's we had screeners running X-ray that read a book their whole shift instead of look at the scanner. The sad thing is I have to believe some of this stuff worked before.
@SkyWayManAz said...
"That said I laugh at the hater comments on how guns aren't a threat on the plane, seriously?"
It seems to me that it would be rather difficult to bring down an airplane with just a handgun. It's certainly a risk to the people on the plane, but they face the same risk on the ground.
I never want to fly again... I feel so violated by the new xray machines that see me naked at Burbank Airport. Why do I get strip searched just flying around in USA but when flying out of the country, this does not happen?
Anonymous there is a risk on the ground but you have way more options to flee. Onboard the plane you have to stand your ground. Anyone else want to be in the middle of that? Sorry it's not an unreasonable policy and you've always been allowed to check firearms declared in your luggage. In so many ways TSA goes beyond common sense but this isn't one of them.
Anonymous said...
"Why do I get strip searched just flying around in USA but when flying out of the country, this does not happen?"
Because the terrorists have been successful - they created terror in the American population. Many people are so afraid they are willing to go along with anything that makes them feel better. They are willing to give up their rights for some pretend security.
Wow this is real entertainment! Looks like the same disgruntled people making remarks everyday. The scanners can detect explosives smuggled on a person.
Haters gonna Hate! Bob
@SkyWayManAz said...
"Anonymous there is a risk on the ground but you have way more options to flee. Onboard the plane you have to stand your ground."
Ever ride in an elevator?
Really think you can out-run a bullet?
Anonymous said...
"The scanners can detect explosives smuggled on a person."
Sometimes - kind of.
The scanners aren't explosive detectors, they detect materials and shapes. A smart person can get explosives past the scanners.
Annonymous said...
"It seems to me that it would be rather difficult to bring down an airplane with just a handgun. It's certainly a risk to the people on the plane, but they face the same risk on the ground."
Now, I generally have problems with the TSA, but this is not one of them. My problem with the handgun-via-stuffed-toys story is that it was caught using pre-TSA methods, yet the TSA trouts it out like some huge find, justifying their virtual strip-searched and invasive pat-downs. It was found by neither. But the damage a handgun could cause could, I'm sure, cause the cabin to depressurize. Or maybe, life Blogger Bob in a previous post, I've been watching too many movies ;)
Anonymous said...
Wow this is real entertainment! Looks like the same disgruntled people making remarks everyday. The scanners can detect explosives smuggled on a person.
May 17, 2012 4:23 PM
....................
The Whole Body Strip Search Machines do not detect explosives.
Any claim that they can is a false cliam.
Wintermute said...
"But the damage a handgun could cause could, I'm sure, cause the cabin to depressurize."
Losing cabin pressure is uncomfortable, but it won't kill a normal person. That's what the oxygen masks are there for.
I guess someone with lung problems might be at risk.
RB said…
[[The Whole Body Strip Search Machines do not detect explosives.
Any claim that they can is a false cliam.]]
RB actually has the right of it this time. Imagine my amazement. AIT does not detect explosives. It detects anomalies. It’s the TSO’s who work with the technology that detect the explosives.
I would like to see how many people were actually screened compared to the actual numbers of prohibited items found, with a proper breakdown of the items in terms of the actual threat, not confiscated water and shampoo. Finding 30 firearms through xray and metal detectors seems like it's on the low side for the scope of the TSA. Which would suggest to me you're incredibly over funded and given too much authority or you're not doing your job effectively with the equipment you already have. Just to clarify I have never posted on this site before
So you're posting pictures of devices used to try to sneak things throughs security.
Anyone who actually wants to try and sneak items through security sure does have a terrific resource.
Well done TSA!
TSORon said...
"AIT does not detect explosives. It detects anomalies."
The big question is whether all explosives will show as an anomaly.
From the information I've seen, the answer is no.
The TSA of course won't allow any actual testing.
"AIT does not detect explosives. It detects anomalies."
Anomaly - a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.
I assume that a passenger carrying explosives be a deviation from the rule, wouldn't you?
Try again, Ron.
Ron, TSO is also a misnomer. The screening clerks aren't officers. For that matter, they don't have anything to do with security, and their effect on transportation is to impede it.
Anonymous said...
Can't wait for the excuses TSA and Blogger Bob make when they try to explain patting-down Henry Kissinger and forcing him get out of his wheelchair!!!
TSA, America's joke government agency!
According to reports Kissinger is used to this and stated how professional and courteous the screeners were. If he had no problem with the search why do you?
http://online.wsj.com/article/AP16c915bfb91d42bc8352328b3d239b45.html
How many of these incidents were potential terrorist attacks or just stupid people showing off their stupidity? Catching potential terrorists is a good thing but the continual harassment of the average airline traveler is outright wrong.
Post a Comment