I have flown with rifles several times and never had a problem.

I have even had counter people gather around to see some of my guns that they thought were really nice. No big deal if you follow the rules.

Jaysus H. Rooooosevelt Keeryst talk about nanny state

"If he "violated" TSA rules, what the hell is the correct procedure? Does he have a claim against the airline for accepting the firearms without informing him of the correct procedure? Does he have a claim for improper detention by TSA?"

Whaddaya want an ingraved invitation.  How do you think you find about the rules and procedures.  YOU friggin call up first or check the web page and freaking find out FIRST   Yah can't claim Nanny State and then complain cuz nobody told you.

Find out first, most everybody knows that security is up at airports, hell look at haalf the posts here from the wusses that are proud to publicly proclaim they're too scared to fly on airlines now.  And the ones that gripe about TSA.  Hell if anything it's gotten a hell of a lot better because most of the gate agents and TSA types know the rules.  Before you had about a 70% chance of getting some joker at the airlines that had no clue.

Yah notice we have these anecdotal tales about somebody else that has had problems but all the first person are saying no problems.  I checked first and did it right and no problems.

The only suggestion I might make is to get the extra insurance, they they definitely keep an eye on your things.

I flew to New Orleans, B'ham, Wichita and Kansas City with a case that had 2 AR's  and 3 .45s packed in nice and tight. The screeners looked twice but didnt have any problems.

Is there any legal recourse for being detained like that?

LWC

I fly about twice a month and have checked guns a few times.

Here's some advice, don't trust the counter people for anything short of printing out a ticket.

I always ask for a TSA guy to do a bag search when I have a weapon and give my bag a TSA tag/seal of the day so that any connections it won't be stuck by an Xray find.  The tag in additton to the declaration shows the case has been inspected and not tampered with.  

Just reading this story this guys problem wasn't his guns but the damn baton which in an Xray will look like a pipe bomb. OK, now it's time to get suspicious.  Finding anti-government propaganda I'm tickled to death he was not allowed on the aircraft.  Yes he has the right to own that shit but he has no God given right to board an airplane. Yes afterwards was typical get even bullshit but the detention was a right call.

Once while checking through the carry on lane and was thrown up against the wall.  I talked fast but polite and they told me they suspected a bomb in my brief case.  I told them the contents and at a safe distance with hands on guns they allowed me to open the case.  They then showed me the Xray screen. Damn.............I had a maglite flashlight and was carrying a pressure gauge business sample they had rested on top of each other and even to me who was not trained on reading the Xray it sure looked like a pipebomb with timer.  OK, I'm imbarresed, harrassed, roughed up, but know where they were coming from so no hard feelings.

IMHO, other than the legal prosecution issues detaining this guy was a good thing.  Guns, unknown metal tube, anti-government propaganda, no TSA seal, and you don't see a problem with this guy getting on a plane?  I'd rather see him detained then make a mistake and 200 people dead.  

BTW, I'm anything but a pro-TSA. I've gotten one up on charges and written two published letters to the editor on abuses. IMHO, this is not a good one to bitch about.  Now if you want to talk about the blond girl I saw sexualy molested or the guy handcuffed for just saying the word hijack in the security line OK but metal tube, guns, half assed checkin procedure, and anti-goverment rhetoric, NOPE.

Tj

Guys - WASN'T ME.

I found this and posted it.

I haven't flown w/firearms since before 9/11, so I don't know how it is now.

Wow! Times have changed since that day in the late 1980's when I was asked by the agent working the Delta Airlines counter at Washington National to demonstrate that my weapons were unloaded.  Right in the middle of the terminal I got out my Remington 870 and pumped open the breech with that oh-so-familiar sound.  Then I produced a Ruger Red Hawk .44 Mag, a S&W 9mm and a Ruger Ranch Rifle.  “Thank you, sir, sign here;” was the reply and that was it.

I took the same 870 when I went hunting in Georgia in November 2001 without any incident. It was less than a month after 9/11 but before the TSA was invented.

What I was thinking after reading this account was - Exactly what precipitated this poor slob being singled out?  Was it that this guy was from Montana (isn’t it the home of the Anti-government Freemen) or had “the look” of a troublemaker?  But after going to the source of the original story and seeing what this guy looks, like I am still confused as to what prompted them to go after him.  He looks like a normal guy.  Perhaps he hadn’t cleaned his firearms properly and the explosives sniffer went off.  Then when they X-rayed the bag, the tech misread the shadow of the ASP baton as a pipe bomb.  After opening his bags and finding all of that “subversive” material (“Nazi” t-shirt, counter-insurgency manual, ect.) then the proverbial “pooh hit the instrument for producing a current of air”.

FWIW, I can see how all the LEO’s were flirting with his girlfriend.  Do a little research into the story and you will see what I mean.  Am I wrong, Hydguy?

First off I must respond to Adam and his idiotic statements.

I have met John several times, and he is very intelligent and knows the federal firearms laws damn well, so I doubt that he broke any federal laws, and it's pretty apparent from the TSA saying that he could just give them $600 and it would be over with.

He had a Das Reich shirt that was owned by a friend who is MARRIED to an Latino, so it's kinda hard to pull the race card here. As Kit said, her firearms instructor, who is a co-worker of mine is black, as is the owner of the store. So scratch that idea.

A counter insurgency manual. BFD. I used to carry my Green Monster full of info on weapons and tactics with me. So what? The books are legal. It could have been a copy of High Times for all WE care, but he would have gotten the same treatment.

As far as the FBI hitting on Kit, I believe it.
She is a cute girl.


I don't know if Dulles has it's own set of regs, but if they are more restrictive than the federal regs, then piss on 'em. It's hard enough to keep from breaking a law now, and the airports have no business piling on MORE restrictions. One reason that I don't fly.


Shooty Goodness is what Kit calls a good day at the range. BFD. Get over it.

And Adam, I'd rather hang out with people like Kit and John.

Ya know why? 'Cuz they don't come across as condescending know-it-all pricks.


And thanks to VCDL for asisting John and Kit for helping them get this issue partly resolved.

What was the point in keeping him handcuffed IN the cell?

It's probably a good thing you didn't have THIS book in your luggage!

[img]http://www.tomeaker.com/FReepers/reader1.jpg[/img]

On the 2d day of commercial flight following the 9-11 bombing I flew from my home to a non-Communist New England state via SWA with an AR-15, 5 mags, and a scope mounted on a quick-detach aftermarket rail. I had zero problems, other than my [shock] when the lady at the baggage asked me remove the rifle from the case, show an empty chamber, and pull the trigger to demonstrate that it was unloaded. I asked "Are you [i]sure[/i] you want me to do that? I mean . . . ." She just smiled and said "Yes sir," so I did. No reaction anywhere other than the nearby business-types turning away as though I whipped out my crank. When I arrived at my destination, I was one of just a handful of disembarking passengers and was therefore disappointed that my bags didn't come out on the carousel PDQ. I was disappointed until a [i]State Policeman[/i] came up to me carrying my bags, called me by name, [I was the only pissed-looking guy in the area who was pretty clearly not a New Englander] and said "Mr. X, I saw your rifle case and thought to myself 'Somebody might steal that,' so I pulled it out for you." He handed me  the rifle case and the bag, wished me a good day, and walked off.

I have flown with firearms a few times since, and have had no problems. It doesn't seem (based on my observation) that the bozos at the magnetometers - most of whom fall somewhere between "stupid" and "malicious" on the Usefulness Index - even know that you are the guy who checked the EBR.

Dude, I just looked at the tag on my weapons case from the last time went hunting and the tag reads FIREARM(S) UNLOADED.  Notice the "(S)" which signifies one or more.  One tag, one case - 3 weapons.  It is one tag per case.

Avoid the TSA- UPS it, Next Day Air, to yourself. Ask for a signature upon delivery- yours only.

My main concern with taking firearms on airliners is that the crooked baggage or maintenance personnel might steal it. Or trash it. At least with Next Day Air from UPS or the equivalent from FedEx or DHL, you know that it is tracked and guarded from the minute you drop it off to the time it is returned to you at your home. And insured.

In my experience, being from a state where guns are relatively rare in public, unless one is a cop or criminal, most cops and airport types have no idea what to do when you show up with a cased firearm for check-in. They all literally sweat bullets while you stand there shaking your head at their incompetence, while they paw over your flintlock musket, not knowing what to do with it. (God forbid, I ever travel with my AR.....)

They resemble chimpanzees who have stumbled upon a TV set, or the pygmies in "The Gods Must Be Crazy", when they discovered a Coke bottle in the middle of the desert....[rolleyes]

I can attest to the ignorance of some of the TSA personnel.  Recently, while flying from Columbus to Baltimore, I declared my 1911, demonstrated for the lady at the counter that it was unloaded, and handed my bag to the TSA guy at the large Xray machine in the Ticket Counter area.  I informed him that my bag contained a declared, unloaded firearm.  He thanked me for the warning, as the guy watching the monitor would no doubt notice the firearm in my bag.  Sure enough, the Xray guy stops the belt and examines the monitor for a moment, as he insures that I've declared the firearm, and have the proper tag accompanying it.  Next thing you know, some oaf of a TSA Handwander glances at the monitor and shouts "Oh, my God, is that what I think it is?"  As the people in the immediate area all begin to look at me.  His supervisor quickly informs him that it's perfectly legal.  Luckily his supervisor was up on his laws, and he promptly cut me loose to enter the terminal.  

I was amazed that this oaf of a TSA employee didn't know that firearms were allowed in checked luggage.  If your job was to look for things such as that, wouldn't it behoove you to know the legalities that certain entities entail?  Do they just give these freaks a handwand and a badge and say "good luck?"  Out of the hundred or so TSA people I've seen while flying the past year of so, I can count on one hand the number of them that I would actually trust if need be.  The rest are just a crack squad of flunkies that don't know their head from their ass.

Airport security is kind of an oxymoron.  There's so many holes with fingers plugging them, that it's just a matter of time before more water comes seeping, or God forbid, rushing out.  

Does anyone know if you can request that TSA search your bag w/ you present?  I had their little "we searched your bag" card left in my luggage when I flew back from Baltimore w/ my 1911, and some gifts I purchased on my vacation.  I don't feel at all at ease about these slackers searching my personal belongings, containing a firearm and sometimes knife, w/ out me present to insure that all items make it back in the bag.  I would rather have my bag searched w/ me present every time, then leave it up to chance that they desire to search my bag, which may only be 50% of the time.  

Dude, my advise to you is to get a lawyer and sue for false arrest.  If the DA let it go for lack of evidence that should help you.  They should never have arrested you, period.  At the very least I would try to get your lawyer fees and lost wages etc compensated for.  I would also contact your congressman/senator and raise as much hell as you can. If nothing else you can try to ruin the sorry carreer of the apes who wronged you.  

P.S.  Were you ever read your miranda rights?  They should have done this before questioning you.

Another fine example of the left hand not knowing what the right foot is doing.....

This is why I don't fly anymore. Well, this coupled with the fact that airlines have become the new Greyhound. Nicer folks on the bus these days.

How about this for an idea: Get rid of all the security. I just want to get on the aircraft, dammnit. I'm willing to take the risk. Hell, I'll fly Air Jihad, as long as they don't have Tyrone the security guard trying to jack me around beacuse he has a problem with white people.

And disarm the pilots. You wouldn't give a gun to a Greyhound bus driver. What makes pilots special? Shut up and fly the airplane. You would think they were ship captains, not aerial bus drivers. Work on showing up sober, then we might consider arming you.

I love it. The TSA goons jack this guy around for a T-shirt and his choice of reading material. Abu Nidal could get on the plane with a satchel of C-4, wearing a "Death to the Infidel" T-shirt, and no one would stop him.

Good thing I like to drive,

G

I've worked on the new conveyor systems at SFO this year.

I've seen first hand what happens in the baggage claim area. All bags that gets suspected by the Invision Xray machine gets hand searched by TSA employees. Whenever they find something amusing like sex toys or guns  they all crowd up like little kids to see whats in there. I've seen them joke around holding items up so the rest of them can see. I've seen one of them inspecting a rifle not paying attention to where he was pointing it.

I think its 10% of all bags gets hand searched, that might be current protocol. And this happens in the back before the bags get loaded on a plane. Passengers don't see whats going on back here. I've seen bags stripped completely just for a suspected item, Then everything just thrown back in all sloppy. And if you have a handle type lock(not the padlock), they will break it off,when they're done they'll duct tape your luggage so it can close. I've seen bags miss flights because TSA is too slow checking bags.

I suggested to the airlines they put cameras and monitor TSA employees.

that is just crazy.

I've never had problems flying with guns.  but I like to fly Alaska so they are used to seeing guns.




so what are you saying??  not letting them hand cuff you will make thing go back up hill?

if I'm ever in trouble remind me not to ask you for any advice.  

Resisting is a good way to 1) get a legit charge against you 2) lose any chance of a winning a law suit against them and 3) get a face full of oc and a boot to the nuts.

LOL, I remember right after 9/11 when the added security did this in the terminals.  They especially loved holding Victoria Secrets up so everone in the terminal could see it or breast searching someones wife in front of them.

The TSA has issues for sure but are a damn sight better than those clowns.

Tj

Being one who works for the FAA, it seems the guy followed the rules for checking in and declaring his weapons.  For whatever reason, someone got a wild hair and decided they didn't like what he had.  Having said that, and as some have pointed out, we are only hearing his side of the story.  Maybe he ran his mouth a little bit and made some sarcastic comments, which may or may not have tweaked someone’s interest.  I take note that while he was "questioned" by the FBI, ATF etc (TSA employees are not cops. The only armed police/LEO types in TSA are/were the FAM's. Baggage screeners have no arrest authority, that’s why there are uniformed cops at the checkpoints), he was arrested by the airport police.  The charges were at the State level, not Federal.  The state of Virginia then elected to drop the issue.  The guy got all his stuff back.  Tells me that the State believed there wasn't anything to pursue.  The system worked, the way it is supposed to. The police are not the prosecutors.  They bring the case to the state for potential prosecution.  Cops aren't attorneys, they are cops. They enforce the law; they don't write it or interpret it (I do believe that common sense should have factored in here, and perhaps some discretion should have been applied).

I can see their "suspicion" with the "questionable" books/literature he had. Yes, I know it's legal to have and read that stuff (wonderful thing the 1st amendment).  But it must have raised a few eyebrows, given the political/security climate of aviation security (like someone else pointed out, what if they were Arabic materials).  Should he have been arrested for them? No. Questioned? Yes, if nothing else to dispel any alarm that they may have raised. Believe it or not, the United States does have plenty of "homegrown" terrorists, and not all of them are Muslim.

Does the guy have grounds for a lawsuit? I would tend to think probably he does.  But that is an issue for him and his attorney.  Sounds to me that the cops may have felt that they had to make an arrest, since for what ever reason they handcuffed the guy (some people, including cops, think that once the bracelets are on, that's it; you've crossed the line and now you must bring charges, even if they are weak charges. Which is not always true).  They may have felt additional pressure from the federal presence by the FBI et al.

Exactly why I quit flying 3 years ago

It's good that I don't fly with weapons. I'm such a sarcastic asshole when I'm dissed, I'd probably get the shit kicked out of me for pissing on the JBTs.

Better off driving.

Once you prohibit a person from going about his own affairs, which cuffing certainly does, you [b]have[/b] arrested him. The only exceptions are detentions for Terry stops and traffic stops. This is of course different from a person's "voluntarily" staying around because it's awkward, scary, or rude to tell the police you have nothing to say and leaving (BTW, that's a great to find out whether you're under arrest - and forget the Law & Order scenario "'Am I under arrest?' 'Do you want to be?'" the proper response [assuming you aren't inclined to talk] is "I'll take that as a no. Get off my porch.").

Having cuffed you, the cops aren't under obligation to [i]book[/i] you, [i]incarcerate[/i] you, or [i]charge[/i] you, but once you've been cuffed or otherwise involuntarily restricted in your movements, you've been arrested. Governments probably save themselves a ton of money because people don't know that - and also because reasonable aren't going to sue if a cop cuffs 'em mistakenly, explains the mistake, and apologizes. In the case described, they arrested the guy, and it doesn't look like there was probable cause for jack shit except putting a non-Arab in the "investigated for possible terrorism" column. I realize that we read only one side of the story, but there is appaling lack of professionalism on display here. Commenting on people's reading material and "lifestyle" is assinine.

[rolleyes]

I don't understand your obsession with race.  This is not the first time you have acted as if I was getting all high and mighty about race, when in fact you just can't comprehend english.

I will use the words of FLGreg to paint this picture for you:



Your buddy tries to act like gun-owners are being persecuted.  The truth is much different.

I give a rat's ass if shit is "legal" or not.  You put enough "legal" stuff together in one set of luggage, and you start meeting profiles.  Such is life.  He was detained (understandably), questioned, and LET GO.

The system worked perfectly, but your "friend" in his self-righteous rage - and many folks on this board with talks of lawsuits, etc. - seems to want to make screeners more "gun-shy" in the future.  Great, so maybe they won't detain the next guy who really is planning on violence.  I think that is a bad precedent.

I go shooting all the time, I fly all the time.  I don't remember the last time I had some counter-insurgeny manual, and ASP Baton, guns, and a butterfly knife, and a "Das Reich" ANYTHING in the same set of LUGGAGE!?!?

Those of you making this out to be a gun issue, can't see the forest for the trees.

My copy arrived three days ago, haven't read more than 30 pages, but so far, so good....

Not trying to argue, but not all cuffing is an arrest.  (from: [url] http://www.icje.org/id72.htm [/url])

Handcuffing During Temporary Detention



Does the use of handcuffs turn a temporary detention situation into an arrest?



by Robert T. Thetford, JD


    Handcuffing a suspect after a temporary detention (Terry Stop) is generally considered an arrest unless exceptional circumstances exist. Bradley v. State, 494 So.2d 750 (Ala. Cr. App., 1985), affirmed 494 So. 2d 772 (Ala. 1986). The test for arrest is whether or not a reasonable person, in the suspect's position, would have understood that he was under arrest Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 442, 104 S. Ct. 3138, 3151 (1984).


    This is particularly so when the officer testifies that the suspect was not under arrest but that he was handcuffed, with no reason given for the handcuffing. Lamar v. State, 578 So. 2d 1382 (Ala. Cr. App., 1991). This will be ruled an arrest every time.


    This does not mean, however, that an arrest takes place every time an officer handcuffs a suspect he has placed under temporary detention. Examples where courts have held no arrest are as follows:


    1. The suspect voluntarily accompanied the officer to the police station and was placed in handcuffs because of departmental policy, Darden v. State, 571 So. 2d 1272 (Ala. Cr. App., 1990). This was a close call and the court made it clear that departmental policy should not be used as an excuse - there generally must be more.


    2. Handcuffing after the suspect had disobeyed an order to raise his hands and had made furtive gestures, U.S. v. Taylor, 716 F. 2d 701 (9th Cir., 1983).


    3. Handcuffing of two men suspected of armed bank robbery where a third man was suspected to be in the vicinity and the suspects appeared extremely nervous, U.S. v. Bautista, 684 F. 2d 1286 (9th Cir., 1982).


    4. Handcuffing in light of the suspect's flight and the violent nature of the suspected crime: rape, State v. Friederick, 663 P. 2d 122 (1983).


    5. Handcuffing where the officer was informed that the suspect had threatened to kill someone and the officer verified the suspect's violent behavior, U.S. v. Merkley, 988 F. 2d 1062 (10th Cir., 1993).


    6. Handcuffing of an armed robbery suspect where the officer feared that an accomplice might be hiding in the suspect's car, U.S. v. Saffeels, 982 F. 2d 1199 (8th Cir., 1992).


    7. Handcuffing where the officer could reasonably anticipate he might have to go to the aid of his fellow officers, U.S. v. Crittendon, 883 F. 2d 326  (4th Cir., 1989).


    Even if handcuffs are properly used on a suspect during a temporary detention, they should be removed as soon as it is safe to do so. A recent Florida case held that the continued use of handcuffs after the suspect had received a pat-down and no weapons were found was illegal. The court stressed that the suspect had offered no resistance, did not make any threats and was not particularly belligerent, Reynolds v. State, 592 So. 2d 1082 (Fla., 1992).


    TRAINING TIP :  If handcuffs are used in a temporary detention situation, the officer must have a good reason for doing so and should make a notation of the reason. The officer should advise the suspect of the reasons for the handcuffing and the fact that the suspect is not under arrest. Further, the officer should tell the suspect that the handcuffs will be taken off as soon as it is safe or possible to do so.


Im not saying that this applies to this case.  I wasn't there. But in the cops mind, this might be where this got started; from there it may have escallated to where they felt they had to make an arrest or that they may have had PC to arrest.  I didn't say it was a good arrest.

Actually according to his account:

1. The officer stated he was under arrest

2. Handcuffed, transported by a police vehicle to a police area

3. Placed in a holding cell still handcuffed

4. Questioned by the FBI and ATF

5. Handcuffed and placed back in the holding cell for a few hours

6. Had his firearms and other weapons confiscated

7. Finally released after being charged with bringing a "dangerous article onto airport property"

8. Retained an attorney and appeared in court where the charges were dismissed on a motion by the prosecution for lack of evidence.

Sure sounds like a custodial arrest to me. If his account of the incident is accurate it appears he did not violate any laws and should not have been arrested and charged.  
 

I will agree with that.

I was under the impression that the guy was handcuffed "for safety" reasons.  Which could or could not be an arrest (the point I was trying to make). Once they made the decision to keep him cuffed beyond the safety thing, it clearly became an arrest.

You know, Wars have been fought over such material!!!!!!
You would want to read stuff like that would you?

OK, You guys are confusing the TSA Issue wioth the authorities that charged him

Do I think the TSA guys had every right to detain him for questions? Yes.

Should he have been arrested?  It gets iffier here - the eventual dropping of charges pretty much shows that the state had nothing on him.

Either way, to make this out to be an issue of persecuting gun owners is LUDICROUS.

From his post, and the posted responses of his "friends" on this board, I find it hard to believe he was the epitome of the cooperative citizen.

You guys remind me of the people who cry and whine when some sluttily dressed woman gets assaulted.  "She should be able to dress anyway she wants."  OK, fine - but welcome to the real world.

Yes they had the right to detain him if they had reasonable suspicion that he was a security risk. I have no issue with that. They arrested him and charged him with a crime. Do you think that a terrorist is going to walk into an airport, go to the counter and then declare his firearms as required by law?  He was not detained/arrested for entering the sterile area of the airport with any weapon.  



Arrest him for what (assuming his account of the events is accurate)?  What did he do?  He complied with every aspect of the law.  



I'm not his friend.  I’m only commenting on the "facts" as he presented them.  

The TSA merley detained him, it was clearly cops of some flavor or another that decided to arrest him.

This thread turned into a TSA bashing thread.

The TSA acted properly.  I would have done the same thing.

Did the cops overreact?  Like I said, this get iffier, and I would need to see both sides of the story.

You gotta love it though.  As a cop - if you are emotionless or impartial - you are a "Jaack Booted Thug."  If you act friendly, you are "Obviously Flirting."  She sounds a little full of herself, I know the type.

I had my own little adventure with TSA this spring.  Due to a glitch on my drivers license the state pulled mine and issued a temporary one without a picture while the new one was being processed.  It so happened that I had to fly out on a business trip before the new one arrived.  I have a CCW issued by the State of Michigan complete with my mug shot.  In advance of the trip my travel agent called both the airlines and the TSA about my picture id issue.  Both said no problem, government issue photo id.  On the way out there, I had no problems, other than the are you carrying now question.  On the way back I ran into a severe hassle.  The TSA pulled me out of the security line and interoggated me about why I did not have a drivers license.  I showed him my temporary one.  They searched everything I had and then three more higher up agents came to discuss my situation.  Now, I am a professional and was professionally dressed carrying a laptop and other business paraphanalia.  I reiterated the story to these three and they asked why I needed a CCW.  I told them that my home state required it for hunting with handguns.  I also said that in order to get a CCW that you have to go through an extensive amount of background checks and cannot have a criminal record.  Not good enough for these guys.  My continuous question was government issued photo id.  My CCW says State of Michigan and bears my picture.  The kicker was when one of the more brilliant dudes asked me if I made it up myself.  My response was for him to call the Michigan State Police and ask them for my file.  After a long discussion between the three of them they finally let me pass through.  I barely made my flight.  Needless to say, my respect for these guys is not very high.  However, I did fly out on a hunting trip and they did not hassle me with my guns.  Other than the check to see if they were unloaded they were absolutely courteous.

Comments like this are why our freedoms and liberties are vanishing quicker than free cookies at a weight-watchers convention.  
TNFrank, All you can think of to do is sue the Airlines???? The FBI, TSA, and airport cops were the abusers. Not the airlines.

In a government "of the people, for the people" you are much more to blame. Sue yourself

To paraphrase the DNC: "It's Your GOVERNMENT Stupid!"

People who whine about suing for every wrong annoy me.  
Those big bad companies that you are trying to hurt consist of millions of workers, plus their families.

"punative damages" "Sue everybody"
give me an f'ing break.

Why? By the time they got to him, they knew that his guns had been declared & were unloaded, and the knew that his asp baton was not a bomb. So tell us just what the justification was for detention and questioning.

The t-shirt, the weapons, the manual, the destination (Montana) - for all the TSA guys knew, they could have just found uncovered a link to some huge domestic terrorist plot to do something in DC.  Timothy McVeigh no doubt traveled less suspiciously than this guy.

I'm not blaiming the victim, but he clearly exercised poor Op Sec and common sense.

Rifles, check..ammo,check...ASP, check...Counter insurgency manual, check...handcuffs, check...attitude, check...chip on shoulder, check...

Sounds like he was on the way to a mall ninja convention.

None of the items are illegal.  All items were declared as required. The ATF, FBI, local idiots and the keystone cops have no clue and this is very troubling.  

It make a good point to NOT getting on a Freaking plane.  Driving may take longer but eliminates the hassles and the unconstitutional searches and the unwanted feeling a=of wading through 400 feet of pure bullshit.

Infantry tactics?  This would be required reading.  If you are going to own a firearm then knowing how to best use that firearm is not only proper but required.  The FBI not only has their head up their ass, but would have a hard time finding a snowball in a blizzard.

Congress passes laws to make ordinary people criminals for ordinary acts.  Then the criminals do not have to play by the law.  Ordinary people become the targets of lazy, insipidly stuipd law enforcement ego-maniacs and prosecutors who will ask, " when did you stop beating your wife?".  Then when you answer they will not believe yoru answer what ever it is.  You will always be the liar.

This homeland security is pure nonsense.  It was when it started and it still is.  The federal government only wants the illusion of doing something while wasting not only peoples time and our taxmoney.

YEAH!!!  He might have even been Osama Bin Laden in disguise.

THey should have just shot him, and sorted it out after surgery.

Actually, Adam, I never stated that I was 'friends' with him. I said that I KNOW the guy and his girlfriend. KNOWING and being FRIENDS are 2 different things. I am well acquainted with Kit, and have met John on several occasions. I haven't been out drinking with them, or even shooting with them. I happen to work where they shoot.
I am a 'friendly acquaintance' of theirs. Big difference.

You say that I have problems with understanding what you type, but you just pull crap out of your ass and want to make it gospel.

FTR, John is a nice guy, and Kit is a nice girl, but what happened was stupid

Ahaa, you had been doing a good job of covering your JBT'ism until now.  I was trying to hold judgement on you despite your previous comments because you almost had a good point.  Agreed that the TSA had reason to further question the individual but the rest of it was a fishing expedition

Yeah, he was carrying what might appear to them to be questionable but it's never been alright to violate someone's rights because of what they chose to read or wear and it never should be.

I realize that authorites like yourself have to make tough decisions in short amounts of time but it's never ok to remove someone's rights because they believe, read, think or dress differently than you.  

In your defense of the way this was handled you are coming across as the elitist authority that believes that because someone is different, they are less than yourself.  I have to give you the benefit of the doubt simply because you are here and as you've stated, we've only heard half the story,  but the police and the TSA had NO right to hold this man beyond verifying that he had correctly filled out his paper, and verifying that the ASP as not an explosive.

I'm sorry if I've misread you but that's how you're presenting. If the presentation is accurate, you are part of the problem of government run amok and loss of indiviual liberty because you don't fit someone's idea of "normal".

I'm from Idaho and so if I were flying with my weapons I might have been branded a skinhead (unless it'd been a while since my last haircut) and put through the same wringer.


I agree with you that the TSA had right to further question him but we part company there.  He SHOULD sue for damages, he's out a pile of money for lawyers fees and other stuff and he shouldn't be liable for that.


Just because someone comes from a certain area of the country and likes to read non-mainstream material doesn't make him a criminal.


Matt
CrashBurnRepeat

ps-tell me if I've misread, I've been wrong before (only once though [:-)] and probably will be again....

1. The "T" stands for "transportation. Before this man was approached and detained, they had determined that he posed no threat to transportation, and had violated no laws related to it.

2. You are overlooking the fact that the man was detained against his will - eventually arrested - based on nothing more than a bare suspicion. A collection of lawful possessions, determined to pose no threat and to constitute no infraction, led to the forcible detention of an American citizen based on a woefully uninformed guess that he might in the future do something wholly unrelated the job of the TSA dopes involved. It is illegal to detain people because the "may" be connected to hypothetical conspiracy [i]whose existence is not supported by any evidence at all[/i]! Hmmm. He has legal guns, constitutionally protected literature, a shirt with a German phrase on it ---HOLY SHIT! This guy's neck deep in the July 1944 Hitler assassination plot! In America, we don't hold people just to see what they're up to.

It's a brave new world you'd have us inhabit, Adam. If you are out detaining people against their will on that kind of evidence, be sure your union dues are paid up. You're going to need the legal coverage.

[size=2]Stories always have 2 sides.  I wonder what the story looks like from the side of the Police/TSA/Feds.  In their position, I might have handled the situation similarly, but they might have puckered their ass cheaks a little to much and crossed a line.  It will be interesting to see if this goes to court and what the outcome is.  I bet he could get some cash out of it.  Lost wages, $$$$, and heaven forbit if someone touched him improperly while he was in lockup![/size=2]

Well, if you do a quick Google search for "Dulles" and "detained," you can't help but wonder if they aren't a little on the One-Bullet-Barney side.  A Yemeni businessmen's group detained for five hours, eleven Pakistani musicians pulled off a plane for "looking suspicious" and more of the same.

1.  I always use a passport for I.D.

2.  There is no expectation of privacy at an international boarder.  They can do anything they want including body cavity searches and detain you based on a reasonable suspicion.

While I still disagree with the fact that this guy was detained, there does appear to be some legal justification for it, buried deep in the (what else?) Patriot Act.

"Section 563(K)(27)(j)(ii)[b]Antidork Authority:[/b] Whenever any adult person is known or reasonably believed to have voluntarily employed unfathomably stupid phrases, "baby talk," or other annoying figures of speech in reference to activities, ideas, or objects which are adequately described by pre-existing ordinary English words or phrases, such person shall be detained without charge or counsel at the pleasure of the Secretary. Violations of this section include, but are not limited to the following usages:

[b]for sex:[/b]  fucky muchness, dickie waghappy, rubba-rubba, grunt'n'poke, stinky crankdip

[b]for a meal:[/b]  eatameataveggie, pump-a-tummy, snacky munchy gobble-down, spoony din-din

[b]for shooting:[/b]  gunny leadfling, bangy-banangy, cordite flapdoodle, [red]shooty goodness[/red], rifley-wifely-wicket"

The list goes on, but it would seem that the guy was begging for it.

[ROFL2]

On THAT we can agree!

[beer]