Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss

Original URL: http://lifehacker.com/5448014/pack-a-gun-to-protect-valuables-from-airline-theft-or-loss

If you don’t like your bags being out of your sight and it makes you uncomfortable to think that airline workers are rifling through your stuff, you can take advantage of the TSA’s own security rules by—eek—packing a gun.

Most of the time, travelers are on the short-end of TSA regulations. In this instance, however, you can use travel rules to your advantage. If you’re traveling with equipment you would prefer locked up and watched more closely than your run of the mill luggage, you can pack a firearm with the equipment or luggage. Whether or not you own an actual firearm isn’t important—the TSA considers a starter pistol a firearm, and it must be checked in and secured properly. Bruce Shneier, on his security and privacy centered blog, highlights how some creative professional photographers have been using this rule to their advantage. One of the photographers writes:

A “weapons” is defined as a rifle, shotgun, pistol, airgun, and STARTER PISTOL. Yes, starter pistols - those little guns that fire blanks at track and swim meets - are considered weapons…and do NOT have to be registered in any state in the United States.

I have a starter pistol for all my cases. All I have to do upon check-in is tell the airline ticket agent that I have a weapon to declare…I’m given a little card to sign, the card is put in the case, the case is given to a TSA official who takes my key and locks the case, and gives my key back to me.

That’s the procedure. The case is extra-tracked…TSA does not want to lose a weapons case. This reduces the chance of the case being lost to virtually zero.

It’s a great way to travel with camera gear…I’ve been doing this since Dec 2001 and have had no problems whatsoever.

You can pick up a super basic starter pistol for around $16-20—really nice starter pistols can easily cost $100-200, but you’re not concerned about the quality—a rather small sum to ensure that your case of photography equipment or personal effects will be watched more carefully and only opened in your presence.

A very dear friend of mine told me, (who works for Homeland Security, in the Aviation Protection end of it) when I posed, if you do this, your name will be placed on a list. I asked him what kind of list, and he said one you don’t want to be on.

[QUOTE=Zathros;2487214]A very dear friend of mine told me, (who works for Homeland Security, in the Aviation Protection end of it) when I posed, if you do this, your name will be placed on a list. I asked him what kind of list, and he said one you don’t want to be on.[/QUOTE]

The drag queen contest winners list?
The naked poodles shaving conetestants list?

The “this guy always brings a gun along and i’m sick of filling out the forms. I think we should annoy the crap out of him each and every time he even sets foot on an airport. I don’t care what kind of law we need, but i’m bored so he’s gonna be bored as well” list?

So as a hunter, if I flew with my rifle or shotgun I’d be placed on a naughty list?

So as a hunter, if I flew with my rifle or shotgun I’d be placed on a naughty list?

Only if it’s in a camera bag. I used to travel a lot with my video camera, and I kept it in a backpack. I kept my socks and underwear in a camera bag, ‘lost’ one camera bag, three undies and six sox…

[QUOTE=olyteddy;2487455]Only if it’s in a camera bag. I used to travel a lot with my video camera, and I kept it in a backpack. I kept my socks and underwear in a camera bag, ‘lost’ one camera bag, three undies and six sox…[/QUOTE]

I’d have to get a big camera bag . . . :stuck_out_tongue:

I support the Second Ammendment & the right it gives to “keep and bear arms”.
The federal & state governments have passed UnConstitutional laws infringing on this right.
The truth is all USA American citizens should be able to be armed at all times & places inside the USA borders without “infringement”.That would include on an airplane.
If a citizen illegally abuse this right by killing another innocent citizen then they should be in prison where it wouldn’t be a problem.
I’m not even sure that prisoners Constitutionally loose this right.Let me explain that.
Prisoners keep the Constitutional rights to not being subject to "cruel & unusual punishment " .They stiil have a right to “due process” meaning they can appeal & make complaints if crimes are commited against them.They can be charged if they commit another crime while in prison.So if US citizen convicts retain some Constitutional rights where is the line where it becomes Constitutional to take them away?
We even extend these rights to non-citizen prisoners that’s why some terrorist ones were moved to Guantanamo.So the rights they would normally have could be circumvented.
Of course I understand the logic of restricted Constitutional right for convicts.
The point is if we still extend some to convicts even non-citizens.Where does the US government get off restricting the Constitutional rights of free US citizens in any way.

[QUOTE=Mr. Belvedere;2487442]The drag queen contest winners list?
The naked poodles shaving conetestants list?

The “this guy always brings a gun along and i’m sick of filling out the forms. I think we should annoy the crap out of him each and every time he even sets foot on an airport. I don’t care what kind of law we need, but i’m bored so he’s gonna be bored as well” list?[/QUOTE]

Yes, those are the lists, how did you know? Very insightful!!

[QUOTE=cholla;2487464]
The truth is all USA American citizens should be able to be armed at all times & places inside the USA borders without “infringement”.That would include on an airplane.
[/QUOTE]

:eek:

If I already didn’t have enough reasons not to fly, that alone would be enough to keep me on the ground…

After the explosive decompression of the aircraft I don’t think that there would be very much to put in prison, do you?

[QUOTE=pipemanid;2487571]:eek:If I already didn’t have enough reasons not to fly, that alone would be enough to keep me on the ground…[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Nick.C;2487594]After the explosive decompression of the aircraft I don’t think that there would be very much to put in prison, do you?[/QUOTE]
I’ve only ever seen explosive decompression in movies.I would like to see an actual test to see how bad it was.I think it is probably overhyped.
Also at an altitude where the terrorists could fly the aircraft into a building explosive decompression wouldn’t be a problem.
I understand air marshals are armed .So what’s the difference?Their bullits are no less likely to cause a problem.
If everyone that wanted to bear arms was allowed then it is a deterent to terrorists.Who would have to look at attack on them from all sides.
One more point the arms do not have to be a gun.I might choose a Samari sword instead.I would try not to poke it through the hull only through the terrorist.

If I already didn’t have enough reasons not to fly, that alone would be enough to keep me on the ground…[/QUOTE]Yes.
Same here.

A bullet hole wouldn’t cause the kind of damage that a baseball sized hole would cause when it comes to explosive decompression. You never know what that bullet could hit though and if it hit a window someone could get sucked out of it, then anything goes.

My friend just got promoted (Homeland Security). He is training on average 300 Air Marshals at any given time. Saying that you would end up on a list was made fun of and sounds funny. It isn’t though. Things have changed. There are people on “No Fly” lists that are really having a hard time getting off of them. There is an 8 year old boy on the list because he has the same name of someone on one of those lists. If you don’t think that being “listed” as a person who caries guns on aircraft all the time is of any concern, then you are probably one of those people that other people should be concerned about. The lists will follow you home also. The information is disseminated.

I personally don’t want guns on aircraft unless it is an Air Marshall. I could easily stick a pen in a person’s corotid artery if I needed to and the situation called for it. There would be no explosive decompression either. If there other passengers involved in trying to subdue this person, just think how much easier it would be. After what happened on 9/11 I believe a lot more people do and will get involved than before. The situation has changed.

If everyone were allowed to carry machine guns and bombs on planes, no terrorist would dare try anything, and everyone would be totally safe!!! :stuck_out_tongue:

…or maybe not! :disagree:

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2487643]If everyone were allowed to carry machine guns and bombs on planes, no terrorist would dare try anything, and everyone would be totally safe!!! :stuck_out_tongue:
…or maybe not! :disagree:[/QUOTE]

Those are both already restricted even on the ground.As far as I know any bomb you have will get you arrested.
Even if machine guns should be allowed under the US Constitution right now a permit for one is hard to get.So I think citizens that wanted to bear arms on an airplane would carry a pistol & probably concealed.
My opinions are those of a US citizen & pertain to the USA.In other countries their laws would have to be obeyed.

I understand air marshals are armed .So what’s the difference?Their bullits are no less likely to cause a problem.terrorist.

You have to under stand that air Marshall’s, bullets use a low grain powder so as not to exit the body, and there is a very good reason for that [B]RAPID DECOMPRESSION, [/B]what starts as a small hole enlarges quite rapidly at high altitude. if your at the altitude that the 9/11 terrorists were at, it wouldn’t matter one way or the other.

The bullets air marshals use are specifically designed to kill people. Anyone who knows about guns has undoubtedly seen these bullets and knows what I mean. They would cause very little collateral damage.

Apologies if it sounded if i mocked your friend. I’m never sure what to say to people when it seems they threaten with unspecified lists or books “that hold the absolute truth”. :slight_smile:

[QUOTE=Zathros;2487638]I personally don’t want guns on aircraft unless it is an Air Marshall.[/quote] Personally i’d rather have no guns at all, but i guess that’s utopia.

I could easily stick a pen in a person’s corotid artery if I needed to and the situation called for it.
or explode your laptop batteries, or pinch eyes out, or fart the whole plane to death, or break your glasses and start cutting, or take the plastic spoon and fork and start using them, or break of your tv screen and start cutting, break your iphone in half, strangle people with your shoelaces, etc.etc. Why do i get the feeling there’s only safety on paper but not in reality and never has been?

The bullets air marshals use are specifically designed to kill people
There are bullets which are designed for other purposes?

Before this topic starts deteriorating into a terrorism versus safety threat i’d like to point out the sole reason for posting this was that people found out a nice way to use a problematic law to their benefit. It shows innovation and hopefully whole humankind can learn of that.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Before this topic starts deteriorating into a terrorism versus safety threat i’d like to point out the sole reason for posting this was that people found out a nice way to use a problematic law to their benefit. It shows innovation and hopefully whole humankind can learn of that.

[/QUOTE]
:iagree::iagree::iagree: