
Gun Owners Say It's Time To Streamline TSA Rules Around Flying With Firearms
American gun owners hope Homeland Security Chief and hunter, Kristi Noem, will be able to streamline ... More air travel with firearms.
America's 83 million gun owners are hoping that review will include a streamlined approach to air travel with firearms. For millions of gun owners who fly with firearms each year, the process is seen as unnecessarily burdensome while at the same time adding little to public safety.
With nearly a third of the adult population in the country owning at least one firearm, it's not surprising that millions of gun owners want to travel with them for a wide variety of reasons ranging from recreational shooting and hunting to personal protection and competition.
The process of checking a firearm onto a commercial airline flight, however, is seen as mystifying by many gun owners because procedures lack consistency, often varying from airline to airline and from airport to airport. Too, many see the rules as targeting law-abiding citizens who pose no threat in the first place.
That is, gun owners point out that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws, so implementing more laws and regulations around traveling with firearms only impacts people who wouldn't break the law in the first place; thus, doing little to change safety outcomes.
Under general TSA rules, a person flying with a firearm must declare the weapon at the check-in counter and the gun must be unloaded and secured in a locked hard case.
Declaring a firearm at check-in requires the traveler to follow often confusing and conflicting ... More guidelines.
The approach seems reasonable and straightforward on the surface but frequently derails in the minutes following the declaration of a firearm. Case in point, some agents ask travelers with firearms to open their gun cases to demonstrate that their gun(s) are, in fact, unloaded. Other travelers standing near the check-in counter when a gun case is opened tend to recoil when seeing a person they don't know standing with a gun a few feet away. In that moment, few passengers think the process is making them safer.
Another problem with requesting that a passenger confirm a firearm is unloaded is that many ticket agents can't distinguish the difference in the first place. Relying on a passenger checking a firearm, then, to confirm that a gun is unloaded is a pointless security layer that doesn't weed out bad actors who aren't likely to be truthful about their gun's loaded status. That is, if a traveler with guns had nefarious intent, they aren't likely to tell the agent that the gun is loaded. Thus, for many traveling with firearms, this check-in procedure represents more folly than effective security measure.
Furthermore, a criminal wouldn't declare a gun in the first place, say gun owners, so the entire TSA process isn't grounded in security at all but rather creates a false perception of safety at the expense of law-abiding gun owners who are subjected to layers of TSA scrutiny.
Once your firearm is checked at the airline counter, you and your gun will be escorted to a TSA checkpoint by an airport baggage handler where they will determine that the case does, in fact, contain firearms…because, of course, you would declare that you have firearms if you didn't.
Gun owners see current TSA rules for airline travel with firearms as needlessly burdensome.
A TSA agent then opens the case, inspects the guns yet again and searches inside the case for explosives and subsequently runs the case through an x-ray to confirm the obvious one more time. It's not clear just how many terrorists have smuggled explosives inside a gun case after declaring that they were checking a firearm, but Vegas oddsmakers would likely place that chance at something near zero.
What's more, a cased firearm resides in the hold of the aircraft like the rest of the checked luggage, so passengers have no access to guns while in flight anyway.
For travelers with guns, then, the process can seem like a chapter out of Joseph Heller's Catch-22. It's not clear whether the TSA officials who implemented the current rules on flying with guns simply didn't possess basic firearm knowledge or whether they lacked a fundamental understanding of criminality. In either case, American gun owners have had enough and are looking for new Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to bring overdue sanity to the process.
As the former governor of South Dakota, Noem—a well-known hunter and recreational shooter—annually hosted a pheasant hunt in that state where hundreds of business leaders from across the country traveled with firearms to partake in South Dakota's celebrated hunting season. Little did they know at the time that she would one day be in a position to address the incoherent TSA rules around flying with firearms.
The current process of declaring firearms at the airport slows down an already taxed system.
Rather than treating all airline passengers who check firearms as potential criminals, some propose that frequent gun flyers should be exempted from advanced TSA screening if they voluntarily submit to a background check like those required for TSA PreCheck or Global Entry. That is, if someone has never broken the law, why burden an already taxed airline and TSA system with more checks that statistically do nothing to advance public safety?
As TSA undergoes its policy and procedural review in the hopes of streamlining airport regulations, law-abiding American gun owners hope their travel concerns, too, will finally be addressed.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Hill
14 minutes ago
- The Hill
6 in 10 voters view Democrats negatively: WSJ poll
The Democratic Party is viewed negatively by 63 percent of American voters — the lowest approval rating of the party in more than 30 years of The Wall Street Journal's surveys — according to a new poll from the newspaper. The survey found that while voters disapproved of President Trump's handling of a variety of issues, they generally said they trusted Republicans more than Democrats to take care of those issues in Congress. On tariffs, for instance, voters disapproved of Trump's policies by 17 percentage points, but trusted Republican lawmakers more than Democrats on the issue by seven points. Only 8 percent of voters viewed Democrats 'very favorably' in the poll. President Trump himself had an approval rating of 46 percent. The Wall Street Journal poll follows a survey from CNN released Thursday which found that just 28 percent of voters viewed the Democrats favorably. Democrats are confronting widespread voter malaise and perceptions that the party is listless ahead of the 2026 midterms as key parts of the party's national infrastructure have been rocked by infighting. Still, they are seeking to capitalize on Trump's more unpopular policies. They hope the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill,' with tax cuts favoring the wealthy alongside significant cuts to Medicaid and other social services, could galvanize voters. A slight majority — 52 percent — of voters in Friday's Journal poll disapproved of the bill. The ongoing controversy over the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein — a flashpoint for MAGA voters that Democrats have sought to exploit — may also come into play as members of Congress head home for the August recess. The Journal's poll found that voters were highly skeptical that the Justice Department had thoroughly investigated the issue, with 65 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans saying they had 'no confidence' in the department's review. The poll of 1,500 registered voters was conducted between July 16 and July 20 with a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points. It was conducted by Democratic pollster John Anzalone and GOP strategist Tony Fabrizio.


CBS News
14 minutes ago
- CBS News
More than 20% of NASA's workforce requests to leave agency
Nearly 4,000 employees, or more than 20% of NASA's workforce, have applied to leave the agency, NASA confirmed to CBS News Friday. About 3,870 employees have applied to depart NASA over two rounds through the Trump administration's deferred resignation program, NASA disclosed. The deadline for applications to the program is midnight Friday. With those deferred resignations, NASA's civil servant workforce would shrink from about 18,000 to 14,000 personnel. This figure also includes about 500 employees who were lost through normal attrition, the agency said. "Safety remains a top priority for our agency as we balance the need to become a more streamlined and more efficient organization and work to ensure we remain fully capable of pursuing a Golden Era of exploration and innovation, including to the Moon and Mars," NASA spokesperson Cheryl Warner said in a statement. According to NASA, about 870 employees applied to leave during the first round of the Deferred Resignation Program, and about 3,000 employees during the second round. The deferred resignation program was a buyout program introduced across the federal government by the White House's Department of Government Efficiency at the onset of the Trump administration in an effort to slash costs and reduce the size of the federal workforce. A White House budget proposal issued in May would see NASA's funding cut by about 25% for fiscal year 2026, from about $24 billion to $18 billion. NASA has also been roiled by a leadership crisis in recent months. In December, President Trump nominated billionaire private astronaut Jared Isaacman, a friend of former DOGE head Elon Musk, to serve as NASA's next administrator. Musk's SpaceX has several NASA contracts. However, in late May, Mr. Trump pulled Isaacman's nomination just ahead of the Senate confirmation vote, which was followed days later by a public fallout between Mr. Trump and Musk. Earlier this month, the president announced that Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy would temporarily lead the agency. Miles Doran contributed to this report.


Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
Columbia, Dartmouth, And The Politics Shaping College Admissions
Low Memorial Library and Quad, Columbia University, New York City, New York, USA. (Photo by: ... More Photographer name/Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) The 2025-2026 Common Application will launch on August 1, 2025, marking the official start of an increasingly politicized admissions cycle. This year, families are weighing more than rankings and acceptance rates. With elite universities facing federal investigations, many parents, administrators, students, and applicants are asking: How will the political climate affect application decisions, and what kind of campus experience can students expect upon arrival? Title VI Investigations Intensify Political Pressures on Campus In May 2024, the Biden administration reported that it had opened investigations into 100 higher education institutions for violations of the 1964 Title VI Act, alleging instances of antisemitism on college campuses. Now, over a year later, the Trump administration has deployed Title VI against sixty different higher education institutions, this time for infractions relating to the abolition of DEI initiatives countrywide, as well as for select cases of antisemitism. But whereas the Biden administration leveraged a cooperative approach with universities, supporting internal assessment and adjustment, the Trump administration has taken a more forceful approach. According to Forbes contributor Michael T. Nietzel, some elite institutions have experienced what he describes as 'painful' consequences following coercive 'federal shakedowns.' As a result of these conflicts, prospective students, domestic and international, face new and unexpected hurdles as they consider schools that were, just a short time ago, no-brainers for most applicants. Columbia's Settlement: A Price for Compliance On July 23, 2025, Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government and begin submitting compliance reports to an externally appointed administrator. While the Columbia declined to admit any wrongdoing, the university pledged to 'reform' its approach to antisemitism through enhanced safety measures on campus. The university framed the settlement as part of a wider effort to reinstate hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen federal funding and restore its ability to apply for regular federal funding opportunities, but current students, alumni, and prospective applicants may view Columbia's decision differently. Zooming out, this settlement may be just the beginning. Harvard, too, remains under investigation for 'allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked,' and the Department of Education has threatened to review its accreditation. Unlike Columbia's conciliatory approach, Harvard has responded to these new threats, along with $2 billion worth of federal funding cuts, by suing the administration. While some prominent voices have praised Harvard's response, prospective students may be concerned about the potential ramifications of this ongoing dispute. For Families, Culture Is Now a Key Filter As families plan college visits and students weigh whether or not to apply to their top-choice school in the binding Early Decision round, questions about the broader culture and ethical commitments of each institution are taking on a new urgency. In the past, this type of scrutiny often focused on state politics. For instance, some prospective students have reportedly avoided universities in Florida or Texas due to legislation impacting classroom content and restrictive abortion laws. Now, though, cultural and political concerns have shifted from the local environment to individual institutions themselves, even those in traditionally progressive states. For example, both the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley are facing heightened scrutiny for their responses to campus protests and federal investigations. Meanwhile, institutions in red states, like the University of Kentucky and Tulane University, have also drawn attention from the Trump administration, specifically for their affiliation with the 'Ph.D. Project,' a nonprofit organization that supports students from underrepresented backgrounds. It's still too early in the admissions cycle to know whether these dynamics will significantly shift application numbers. But one thing is clear: families are increasingly weighing brand alignment alongside more traditional concerns like rankings, costs, and location. Ivy League schools, in particular, are being compared based on cultural and political identity. Just as consumers might think twice about supporting a company based on its social stances—whether that's buying a Patagonia vest or eating at Chick-fil-A—students and parents are using college selection to express values and identity. What These Federal Crackdowns Mean for Campus Life When assessing colleges, students and families should consider how increased administrative oversight may directly shape campus life. The impact will vary widely depending on a student's identity, field of study, and the kind of college experience they're seeking. STEM-focused undergraduate students, and graduate students in all fields, are most likely to feel the effects of the Trump administration's funding cuts because they will directly impact research and teaching assistant opportunities. For example, the $2 billion removed from Harvard University's budget threatens a number of high-profile medical and scientific studies. And in March 2025, the University of Pennsylvania lost a significant source of funding when Trump issued an executive order that affected the National Institute of Health's revenue and found itself in the awkward position of having to rescind graduate student offers. Indeed, it's telling that Columbia's Office of the President cited federal grant eligibility as a key reason for agreeing to the administration's demands. Students who claim a minority identity and/or are not U.S. citizens will need to research individual school policies as well as any current pending legal action on the part of the administration. Harvard's quarrel with Trump is the extreme example: in March, the administration revoked the university's ability to grant travel visas, though Harvard's deal with the University of Toronto may circumvent this issue for now. Students seeking identity-based communities on campus will need to stay informed about current school policies that may affect these organizations and affinity groups. Currently, universities are unclear about whether they will be able to provide financial support to clubs that specify a membership identity, such as those affiliated with the University of Michigan's Office for Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs. At elite institutions, students may feel increased scrutiny, not only from the press but also from within their universities. If other schools follow Columbia's lead in appointing an external monitor, it could signal broader shifts in how disciplinary matters and protests are handled—something to consider for socially minded prospective students. Increased oversight may also change how student data is handled: many of the universities under investigation, including Columbia, the University of Virginia, and George Mason University, have been asked to hand over international student and disciplinary records. Prospective students with infractions on their record or who are not U.S. citizens may need to consider how this increased oversight could affect them directly. The silver lining to this instability could be a diversification in where top students choose to apply and ultimately study. Families looking for a top-tier education without the harsh glare of the national spotlight are considering the 'New Ivies,' small liberal arts colleges, or Canadian options like the University of Toronto or the University of British Columbia, which have seen a notable rise in U.S. applicants. Dartmouth: A Contrast with Columbia Dartmouth College Admissions Office in Hanover, New Hampshire. (Photo by) While many colleges and universities nationwide are feeling the effects of mounting federal oversight, Columbia and Dartmouth offer two of the most visible and contrasting case studies to make headlines this month. Under President Sian Beilock, Dartmouth College has adopted a policy of 'institutional restraint,' emphasizing that administrators should speak on behalf of the college only sparingly. The approach draws on the University of Chicago's 1967 Kalven Report, which argued that universities should refrain from taking public stances on political issues to protect academic freedom and viewpoint diversity. Dartmouth, dubbed the 'Ivy League's Switzerland,' has declined to join peer institutions in signing public letters condemning recent federal actions related to higher education. This includes a widely circulated April 2025 statement opposing what academic leaders described as 'unprecedented government overreach.' Beilock and her administration have framed Dartmouth's decision not as a political endorsement but as an effort to preserve dialogue across perspectives. While praised by some as a strategic move to avoid federal sanctions and preserve campus continuity, Dartmouth's choice has also drawn critique. 'Dartmouth's stance of 'institutional restraint' is a double-edged sword for prospective students and their families,' says Maria Laskaris, Senior Private Counselor at Top Tier Admissions and former Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Dartmouth College. 'Some may appreciate the focus on academic freedom and diverse viewpoints, but others will see the new policy as a lack of engagement on critical societal issues. Either way, the policy likely influences their perception of the College's values and alignment with their own.' For many prospective students, Dartmouth's approach to this political moment will shape not only whether they apply, but how they imagine their place within its community. The Bottom Line for Applicants For students and families navigating a high-stakes, emotionally charged admissions process, these developments represent yet another curveball. What does a school's public stance, or strategic silence, say about the campus experience it offers? Whose voices are protected—or policed—once students arrive? This application cycle, students are being asked to weigh not just where they'll thrive academically, but what kind of institutional culture they're stepping into and how that decision will reflect on them.