From the USAToday:
That’s the headline from the Toronto Star which is reporting that Marnina Norys, a 39-year-old Ph.D. student in Canada, was stopped by security and prohibited from wearing her necklace into the terminal.
Last week, security officials at Kelowna International Airport in British Columbia forced Norys to remove a silver necklace with a pendant in the shape of a Colt .45 pistol.
The 2-inch pendant apparently was deemed a security risk.
“When the woman pointed at the pendant I had no idea what she was talking about,” Norys told the Star. “They made me feel ashamed, as if I should have known that it was wrong to wear this type of jewelry.”
An airport security official told Norys was told that replica firearms are banned from planes and that she’d have to check her jewelry.
According to the Star, Dave Smith, director of screening operations with the Canadian Air Transport Authority (CATSA), issued a written apology to Norys and wrote that the screening officer “made a judgment call, rather than refer to CATSA’s standard operating procedures. In retrospect, your revolver-shaped pendant is not a threat and should have been allowed on board the aircraft.”
Huh?
The pendant was only 2″ wide but since it was in the shape of a gun the professional security screener deemed it a threat to air safety. No bullets or moving parts, just a replica.
The Canadian Air Transport Authority said that the screening officer made a judgment call? Exactly what level of judgment did the idiot screener use?
I need a drink.
Marnina Norys, Canada, Kelowna International Airport, pistol, firearm, revolver
1 response so far ↓
1 teqjack // Jun 11, 2008 at 12:59 pm
It was a bit worse than this report. Earlier version noted that the original screener allowed it to be stashed in carry-on (where it would not scare other passengers?), but at another checkpoint she was told it had to go in checked baggage - entailing a mad scramble to comply.
Now, a cursory examination would have shown it to be non-firing: one of the examiners was quoed as not knowing whether it could be, and was laughed at - but firing guns of such size are indeed made by hobbyists (though I suspect they are less dangerous than a ball-point pen), and a flare pistol of this size is widely available (and if fired at a person could possibly do quite a bit of damage).
But non-firing replicas are banned, for whatever reasons. Which raises the question of just what a “replica” is: something that actually appears to be the original, or anything that bears any resemblance? That (possibly phony story) T-shirt last week?
As far as know, there is no definition given to TSA and other screeners. Perhaps they could copy one from elsewhere: I used to own a replica imported from Japan, where collectors must use them rather than ANY real gun, and it came with a document from a Federal agency (I think FBI, not ATF) stating that i was a replica, not a weapon.