• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The Right to Keep and Bear... A Design

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Florida Teen Detained by TSA for Design on her Purse

Yep, that's right. It's not a production firearm. It's not a firing replica. It's not even a non-firing replica.

It's a "non-firing, non-replica, badly-simulated half-shell emblem that resembles the exterior surface of a firearm." Any five-year-old could tell you the only way it could possibly be fired is in a kiln.

Check it out:

Non-FiringNon-ReplicaDesignofaGun-double.jpg


Next up for the TSA: Throwing children in jail when they simulate a firearm with their index finger for "possession of a potentially lethal replica because we're too stupid to tell the difference between a child's hand and an actual firearm."

As defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(16) the term “antique firearm” means any firearm (including any firearm with a matchlock, flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of ignition system) manufactured in or before 1898; or
any replica of any firearm described in subparagraph (A) if such replica —
is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition, or
uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition which is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; or

A half-shell emblem on a purse is NOT a "replica."
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I was denied access into the Houston courthouse (not court room) because I had a 1911 embroidered on my cap, had to take it back to the truck.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
This young woman is being persecuted for a "thought crime". How dare a prole think that they can possess something that even artistically represents the ability of self-defense? She should be sent to a re-education camp, and taught her true place in the social order...

Because TSA really stands for "Tyranny, Seriously Applied"
 

jeeper1

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2008
Messages
692
Location
USA
[/QUThe TSA with Glocks? Good god, that would be a disaster waiting to happen. My guess is something like this would probably the result of issuing Glocks to the TSA:

http://youtu.be/uADb3NyYlSAOTE]
If you could guarantee that, then for the betterment of the country, they should be issued Glocks.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Early last week, I was in a Staples looking for something and a woman in some sort of uniform with a metal badge on her black jacket passed by me. I turned to see what LEO agency she was with and on the back of her jacket in large letters was "TSA". I passed her several times again and couldn't help wonder what she was thinking when she saw my little friend on my hip. Wonder if she was wishing she had some type of authority to detain or arrest me. You never know. A little power tripping can go a long way.
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Sounds like a good basis for a lawsuit, to me...

But then, to the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Here's what I was thinking: the emblems, designs, and pictures discussed in the prior posts are examples of what we, in the United States, refer to as "political speech", protected by Amendment One. When someone in authority acts to prohibit the free exercise of political expression, that person is denying a citizen his civil rights. That's subject to a lawsuit in either a federal district court or a state court of record for violation of a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1983, "Violation of Civil Rights under Color of State Authority". It provides for an award of attorneys' fees, by the way.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
The TSA with Glocks? Good god, that would be a disaster waiting to happen. My guess is something like this would probably the result of issuing Glocks to the TSA:

http://youtu.be/uADb3NyYlSA

That video is hilarious!! And probably true.

[/QUThe TSA with Glocks? Good god, that would be a disaster waiting to happen. My guess is something like this would probably the result of issuing Glocks to the TSA:

http://youtu.be/uADb3NyYlSAOTE]
If you could guarantee that, then for the betterment of the country, they should be issued Glocks.

Very true!

But then, to the man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Here's what I was thinking: the emblems, designs, and pictures discussed in the prior posts are examples of what we, in the United States, refer to as "political speech", protected by Amendment One. When someone in authority acts to prohibit the free exercise of political expression, that person is denying a citizen his civil rights. That's subject to a lawsuit in either a federal district court or a state court of record for violation of a federal statute, 18 U.S.C. section 1983, "Violation of Civil Rights under Color of State Authority". It provides for an award of attorneys' fees, by the way.

One a more serious note, there is no question I think you are right. I hope she cleans house; but in the long run, it's us, the taxpayers paying for it. :mad:
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
...On a more serious note, there is no question I think you are right. I hope she cleans house; but in the long run, it's us, the taxpayers paying for it.

Actually, no - the U.S. is not liable under that statute - you have to sue the people individually (and if you don't know who they are, you file against "john doe" and do some subpoenas to the agency to find out). Take their houses and garnish their bank accounts and wages; they may get the message.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Actually, no - the U.S. is not liable under that statute - you have to sue the people individually (and if you don't know who they are, you file against "john doe" and do some subpoenas to the agency to find out). Take their houses and garnish their bank accounts and wages; they may get the message.

Vicariously they wouldn't be brought in? Not arguing, but thinking out loud (yes, I know is dangerous! :lol:), but if it weren't for their employment, they would have no authority to invoke the detention of the individual. Outside the scope of their employment, the TSA agent would have no authority to detain them as they did. They could detain them outside of this scope, but then you also have assault and potential other charges, as well.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Vicariously they wouldn't be brought in? Not arguing, but thinking out loud (yes, I know is dangerous! :lol:), but if it weren't for their employment, they would have no authority to invoke the detention of the individual. Outside the scope of their employment, the TSA agent would have no authority to detain them as they did. They could detain them outside of this scope, but then you also have assault and potential other charges, as well.

There is a "federal Tort Claims Act" that could be used if it's a matter of negligence, but this is probably not negligent but intentional. The United States gets the benefit of "sovereign immunity".
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Early last week, I was in a Staples looking for something and a woman in some sort of uniform with a metal badge on her black jacket passed by me. I turned to see what LEO agency she was with and on the back of her jacket in large letters was "TSA". I passed her several times again and couldn't help wonder what she was thinking when she saw my little friend on my hip. Wonder if she was wishing she had some type of authority to detain or arrest me. You never know. A little power tripping can go a long way.

You could always try, "Good afternoon, Ma'am - How are you? I couldn't help but notice your interest in my lawfully-carried sidearm. Do you carry a firearm? No? Well, no matter. You could, you know, after you remove your uniform, if you're willing to conduct yourself like an honest, law-abiding citizen..."

On a more positive note, I dropped off a friend at the airport yesterday. It was very slow, so I carried on a rather enjoyable conversation with the TSA agent who was doing the initial screening at the scanning checkpoint. Decent fellow. Having met and chatted with several TSA agents, I'm inclined to believe most of them are simply doing their job, and that it's a few bad apples that give the agency a bad name, along with DHS Secretary Napolitano...
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
There is a "federal Tort Claims Act" that could be used if it's a matter of negligence, but this is probably not negligent but intentional. The United States gets the benefit of "sovereign immunity".

Yep, you are correct...I keep forgetting about that lil immunity thingy majigger! :cool:
 
Top