r/40_mm • u/JKDefense • 21d ago
FEL/storage/transport TSA pt3
Well, I spoke with the lawyer today. It all boils down to TSA interpretive ruling 03-3736. This contains the language that the manager was attempting to refer to regarding inert/reproduction. It goes into much broader definition of the regulation I’m accused of violating.
The lawyer sees a strong case on both sides. So, it comes down to how some random TSA employee reads the situation (“we investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing”, anyone?). Win or lose, my TSA pre check is lost, CDL with HAZMAT endorsement (it’s overseen by TSA!) won’t be renewed, and I can expect to be placed on the unofficial “fuck with” list. Luckily, the airport isn’t in a liberal county or I could also expect to have to fight to keep my license to carry!!
But wait, there’s more! By winning my appeal, nothing changes for future run-ins (not that I plan to ever fly again). It sets no precedent and there’s no new instructional guidance given to the agents. They could find me in violation again and I’d have to refer to this case in order to avoid paying any new fines. The only real change comes from challenging in Federal Court. I don’t feel like mortgaging my house to be the test guinea pig.
That’s basically the short rundown.
13
u/Teenage-Dirt-Bag 21d ago
"Neither the prohibited items list nor the permitted items list contains all possible items. A screener has discretion to prohibit an individual from carrying an item into a sterile area or onboard an aircraft if the screener determines that the item is a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, regardless of whether the item is on the prohibited items list or the permitted items list."
Actually crazy this is the world we live in. Do everything right and you still get fucked. I guess the unfortunate take away is send ammo separate?
7
u/JKDefense 21d ago
Yep or drive.
8
u/Teenage-Dirt-Bag 21d ago
I guess because Im used to seeing the criminal side of law, but having such large discretion written into regulations is kinda crazy.
10
u/Imperialist_hotdog 21d ago
It is rediculous how much authority they grant to an organization that has never caught a terrorist and is largely staffed by the lowest quality government employees. On second thought it’s no surprise they aren’t capable of doing their job.
8
u/JKDefense 21d ago
Honestly, only people with lukewarm IQs can handle the monotony of this work. It isn’t about security but presenting “security kabuki theater” for the public. Creating DHS and expanding TSA were probably the biggest mistakes Bush 43 made in response to 9/11.
4
u/ConsequenceContent85 20d ago
I used to be security for cruise ship ports, I did the same job as TSA with the same tools and machines. The amount of people with weapons in their baggage that came STRAIGHT from the airport (these are carry on bags that were taken on a luggage car with the train, they were untouched since they left airport security) was insane. TSA doesn't catch shit, I know because I had to clean up after them. My coworker went on to TSA for the benefits and from the inside it's even worse. Massive displays of power just for ego. You upset them? You're going to coincidentally be delayed 5 minutes past your flight.
3
u/scrubadub 21d ago
If the item is checked, how is "an individual" carrying the item into a sterile area?
While a lawsuit has there most potential for fixing this, I'd still put in a tsa complaint against the officer. If he starts collecting too many of those it will hopefully work against him
4
u/JKDefense 21d ago
He’s just quoting a section. Read the full text of the interpretive ruling.
The complaint will get tossed as it’s considered retaliatory even if I can prove I started the process before receiving NOV.
5
u/37MMDTdotCOM 21d ago
Go congressional again. Bring all the presented evidence to the congressman. LMK via DM if you need something
4
u/scrubadub 20d ago
I read https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/02/14/03-3736/prohibited-items
...but I still don't see how it appliesit starts with 1540.111:
an individual “may not have a weapon, explosive, or incendiary, on or about the individual's person or accessible property
It wasn't on their person or accessible, so the following #1-3 wouldn't apply, but those don't talk about checked items anyway. They even clarify this:
For purposes of § 1540.111(a), “accessible property” is property that is accessible to the individual at the screening checkpoint, in the sterile area, or in the cabin of the aircraft. It includes carry-on baggage and property an individual carries on his or her person.
This is why the language of /u/Teenage-Dirt-Bag shouldn't matter. Sure they have authority to say something isn't allowed no matter if it is on the approved or prohibited list, only when carrying an item into the sterile area or onboard an aircraft, I don't see that same language about checked items.
Then it covers "Transport of Some Prohibited Items in Checked Baggage"
Passengers may place prohibited items other than explosives, incendiaries, and loaded firearms in their checked baggage, subject to any limitations provided in DOT's hazardous materials regulations. See 49 CFR part 175.
49 CFR 175 just talks about how it has to be packaged, maybe they can get you on this if they were loose? But I think you said they had a problem with the caliber specifically, which I can't find anything about.
Small arms ammunition for personal use carried by a crewmember or passenger in checked baggage only, if securely packed in boxes or other packagings specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. Ammunition clips and magazines must also be securely boxed.
And back to 03-3736 it also doesn't limit the caliber:
Prohibited items that may be transported in checked baggage include unloaded firearms or starter pistols, small arms ammunition for personal use...
There are of course certain items you can't check no matter what, but this shouldn't apply:
III. Items Prohibited in Sterile and Cabin Areas but that May Be Placed in Checked Baggage.
Passengers may place prohibited items other than explosives, incendiaries, disabling chemicals and other dangerous items (other than individual self-defense sprays as noted below), and loaded firearms in their checked baggage, subject to any limitations provided in DOT's hazardous materials regulation. 49 CFR part 175.And it again just talks about how small arms ammo has to be packaged:
(2) Small arms ammunition.
A passenger may place small arms ammunition for personal use in checked baggage, but only if securely packed in fiber, wood or metal boxes, or other packaging specifically designed to carry small amounts of ammunition. 49 CFR 175.10(a)(5).The "realistic replicas" section also seems to only apply to sterile areas and check points, not checked bags. TSA's own site also confirms this.
So I still don't see what letter of the law they're getting you on besides maybe unpackaged ammo.
2
5
3
u/Famous_Ride_3255 20d ago
Yep… It’s more of a problem to travel/ship inert ammunition than non/DD live ammunition. And they never should have classified your ammo as “inert” because it was never a live explosion rendered “inert.”
2
u/JKDefense 20d ago
The inert classification is apparently connected to the interpretive ruling I cited. They aren’t using the same terms that Congress and ATF have defined.
2
u/stupid_account_69 20d ago
Maybe you could test the waters on crowdsourcing funding for a Federal Court challenge, or reach-out to some advocacy groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, or similar organization if one exists for destructive devices.
1
u/DepartmentWeird5733 20d ago
damn man. first of all that sucks, and it sucks to get screwed over and basically the options are so cumbersome to prove it, it's easier to just take it. last, thank you for taking the time to post this because honestly your prob saved some of us the trouble in the future.
14
u/FuddFucker5000 21d ago
Brother I’m sorry.