comment: >
  
  Nice clickbait title. The weapon was demilitarized for display purposes, had documentation with it, and was cleared by TSA.
  What are you playing at? Reddit please downvote this if you want to keep this trash off the platform.
context: Always glad when rocket launchers get picked up by security. >
  
  AKCHTUALLY it's a recoilless rifle. >
  
  many carl gustaf rounds are rockets >
  
  The weapon is still a recoiless rifle. >
  
  and it still launches rockets >
  
  You can shoot rockets out of a gun. 
  You can't shoot gun rounds out of a rocket launcher. >
  
  i don't think that's necessarily true.  pretty much all rocket launchers besides the m1 bazooka and the panzerfaust1 the rocket is ejected explosively before the rocket motor activates so that the user doesn't get a face full of exhaust.  if you can fling rockets out like that you ought to be able to fling non rocket projectiles. >
  
  
  pretty much all rocket launchers 
  
  Like the Javelin guided missile, and... uh.... hmm.... >
  
  RPG 7,  Panzerfaust3,  M72 LAW,  AT4... >
  
  I mean if this wasn’t packed with ammo this would be totally legal provided it was properly declared. 
  It’s just basically a metal tube without ammo. >
  
  Per another article, the weapon was made “demilitarized” for display purposes.
  
  The passenger was able to provide paperwork verifying the rifle’s de-militarized status. An on-duty TSA explosives specialist also corroborated that it was no longer in use. >
  
  Can’t be having that in the headline though. >
  
  Note the "problem" TSA had wasn't that it was a massive weapon, but rather that it was 'undeclared' at check in. >
  
  Man lot of airport gun stories today, but yea the issue isn't that they had a firearm in checked luggage it is that they didn't declare it. Though I believe this would be considered a destructive device. Not in the article but I'm assuming it was either an FFL holder or this was a deactivated and the owner thought he didn't have to declare it >
  
  Yup. My brother is a sheriff's deputy in CA and he just had to chat with tsa at both airports and that was that. I don't even think the ammo had to go in a separate checked bag or anything if im remembering correctly. >
  
  I didn't think you could send ammo at all. >
  
  You can.  They have to be in a container designed to hold the ammo and not in the gun, as well as the requirement to be in a locked container.  They can be in the same container as the gun, just not in the gun. >
  
  Yup sounds about right based on our experience. Gun case was locked and weapon was unloaded. >
  
  84 mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle for really big deer. >
  
  'Round about these parts the deer have taken to wearing bullet-proof vests. >
  
  They'll likely want some reactive plates for the shaped charge I'm assuming is in there. >
  
  It’s going to be tough to convince anyone that you accidentally packed that into your suitcase >
  
  It has been de-militarized it really isn't a weapon at this point.
  It is little more than a cos-play prop at this point. >
  
  Aka, not news >
  
  "She packed my bags last night pre-flight." >
  
  
  "She packed my bags last night pre-flight
  
  And I think it's gonna be a long, long time
  'Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find
  I'm not the man they think I am at home
  Oh, no, no, no
  I'm a rocket man
  Rocket man, burning out his fuse up here alone >
  
  It’s my emotional support Carl Gustoff* >
  
  JUST as the founding fathers intended. >
  
  Yeah you just take this to the postal kiosk, they give you a box and you mail it home. >
  
  was anyone else like "i really need to see what an 84mm caliber weapon looks like"? >
  
  Is it ACTUALLY a functional Carl or is it just a repro/prop?  You can't buy real ones at Wal-Mart... >
  
  Per another article, the weapon was made “de-militarized” for display purposes.
  
  The passenger was able to provide paperwork verifying the rifle’s de-militarized status. An on-duty TSA explosives specialist also corroborated that it was no longer in use. >
  
  This not a rifle. >
  
  It's a recoilless rifle. >
  
  This was properly de-miled. so I don't see what the issue is. Legally speaking it's just a lump of metal. >
  
  well the facts don't get the masses all riled up now do they! >
  
  It's not black,  it has no bump stock, and it's not semi auto. What's the issue >
  
  The pistol brace. >
  
  Isn't shaped much like a pistol, so check, no pistol brace. Don't see a burner either, so no issue with gas stoves >
  
  Everyone knows rockets require proper vent-a-hoods >
  
  Do you have to declare a weapon that is no longer a weapon? It seems like it would be a good idea to avoid the inevitable shit show, but I don't see how this guy broke the law. >
  
  I couldn’t even take a gun to Cayo Perico >
  
  I like how in the US we discuss tremendous weapons like it's a nail clipper or something. >
  
  It's mm or caliber not both. Caliber is inches MM is obviously metric. >
  
  Pretty sure you are allowed one anti-tank carry-on so long as its 85mm or less >
  
  ~~Looks like at AT4. The model AT4, prounced "eighty four".~~
  ~~Again, because scary looking AT4s show up on reddit all the time:~~
  ~~These are a single use weapon. An AT4 once fired can't be reloaded. This is no different than a piece of spent brass, except brass can be reloaded and this cannot.~~
  ~~It is not a live weapon. It cannot be made into a live weapon. Its often decoration or a keepsake from former military, and there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these things floating around, used in the GWOT from 2001-2020.~~
  ~~The person probably didn't check it because they figured it was just a spent tube, but I guess TSA has different regulations.~~
  edit: Its not an AT4. >
  
  It’s a Carl Gustaf. Also Swedish, but reloadable instead of single-use like the AT4. It’s been demilled, though, so it poses just as much of a threat as a spent AT4 does. >
  
  Soo, someone had an AT4 tube? Was this brandon herrea lol? >
  
  Carl gustoff recoilless rifle.* >
  
  AT4 (Eighty Four) is what I always default when I see 84mm, bad force of habit. >
  
  Don’t let it happen again. (Runs finger across throat) >
  
  You laugh now, but he'll be laughing when some creep tries to mug him with a tank. >
  
  Millimeter and caliber are completely different things.
  Shitty title. >
  
  Link asks for a login. 
  It’s poor practice to mix the terms. 84 caliber would be 0.84 of an inch in diameter. E.g. for the venerable M2 you would either say 0.50 caliber or 12.7mm, but never 12.7mm caliber. >
  
  Yes. Doesn’t change what I said. There’s book definitions, then there’s real-world use and best practices. The very article you linked shows this if you read through it: “caliber of __” with no mixing of terms as the headline does.
  The journalism is shit anyway. How many people know how big an 84mm projectile is, or what it does? The writer should have just said “anti-tank weapon” and it would have been clearer and more effective. >
  
  I like how the problem isn't that the guy tried to fly with a rocket launcher, but that he didn't declare it before checking it. >
  
  Because it is perfectly legal to fly with firearms, as long as they are in locked containers and declared at check-in. >
  
  What do you mean I can't bring my avalanche cannon? >
  
  Found in checked luggage… that’s not really luggage. That looks like a Pelican case. Which can be used to transport anything, but I wouldn’t say finding weapons in a Pelican case is exactly a strange place to find them. 
  Of this shot was buried under a bunch of underwear and t-shirts in a duffel bag… then this headline would be more appropriate.
  The undeclared part is what’s worthy of mention. >
  
  “I need it to protect my house” >
  
  San Antonio will soon be infamous with their " I forgot" passengers. >
  
  “Oh this?   it’s a garbage disposal.” >
  
  What makes this one so special compared to the other 6000 found yearly? >
  
  well for starters... it's a fuckin rocket launcher... they don't find 6,000 of them in TSA baggage a year >
  
  Who doesnt travel with a heavy mortar in case they have to assault entrenched positions of...uhm...deer? Yes, lets go with that. >
  
  Sooo, practically historical, since it was first developed in what... 1946 or somewhere there abouts?
  It's an empty tube, and there wasn't any actual ammunition with it?
  Now, I'm not a huge gun nut, but beyond getting hit over the head with it, I don't see how it will do a whole lot of damage...
  Just declare that shit and put it into your checked luggage, but if you're going to be an idiot about it, people will make fun of you... deservedly... and you might just end up in the media as being a moron... again deservedly... >
  
  I think they did put it in the checked luggage.  They just didn't declare it.  Not that it matters given how some airports just cut the locks off firearms cases. >
  
  Yeah, but on the other hand we all know that the TSA aren't the most educated lot, so you can't really expect them to recognize everything in the way of arms either.
  Sorry, but if you want to bring something like that onto a plane just do your fucking due diligence and figure out how to do it correctly. >
  
  "It's a fucking anti-aircraft gun, Vincent!" >
  
  it's useless. pretty much a novelty item at that point but yeah slow day at work I guess >
  
  The fact that somebody tried this at all makes me wonder how often they succeed in shipping things like this via airlines.. >
  
  Tbf, the ONLY issue is they didn't declare it. It's perfectly legal to transport these via checked luggage. >
  
  And likely as some other people pointed out was probably a salesperson of some contractor who fucked up. >
  
  Eh it’s probably fine >
  
  Clearly for self defense purposes. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. >
  
  I'm pretty sure anything above 50 cal is considered "destructive" ordinance and might be illegal to have. >
  
  Destructive devices are legal to own as long as you go through the registration process with the ATF. >
  
  Nice clickbait title. The weapon was demilitarized for display purposes, had documentation with it, and was cleared by TSA.
  What are you playing at? Reddit please downvote this if you want to keep this trash off the platform. >
  
  I’m not trying to start a 2nd Amendment discussion, but why exactly would a citizen in the US need one of these? >
  
  This is not a weapon sir.Its just an empty tube of metal. >
  
  Got it. I was going by the title that said it was a weapon. >
  
  Don't know about you guys, but I just don't feel safe without my bazooka. >
  
  The gun owner was quoted saying: "It's for duck hunting ..." >
  
  That's not a duck that's an airplane >
  
  Or an armored limousine. My guess is that this was purposefully done so that a domestic terror organization could observe law enforcement's response and plan accordingly for next time. >
  
  The first actual threat they've found in their 8030th day of existence! >
  
  It's demilled so they're still on that goose egg >
  
  This is clearly what our forefathers meant by the right to bear arms😂 >
  
  Bro it was legal to personally own a fucking warship back then, do you really think they would have given a rats ass about a single gun? >
  
  Is it not legal to own a warship anymore? >
  
  Always chill down here in TX >
  
  It’s just their new hunting rifle…. Everything is bigger in Texas >
  
  Taking it gopher shooting. >
  
  "It's for target shooting." >
  
  Forgot he had it in his suitcase, probably >
  
  I would like to know where he's going >
  
  He’s going to a gun trade show in Las Vegas. It was going to be in a display. >
  
  Yea with no firing pin >
  
  I don't own any firearms any more and never traveled with one even when I did.
  How do they keep baggage handlers from swiping a checked firearm?  I gotta think the firearm sticker you put on the case makes them a more attractive than usual target. >
  
  They took my toothpaste too. >
  
  It's my god given right to be able to dislocate my shoulder and whang my neighbors above ground pool. >
  
  Maybe (hopefully) a domestic terrorist chickened out. >
  
  Seems a bit of overkill for deer hunting >
  
  since it was seized, does that mean ill be able to buy it if it goes up for auction? >
  
  84...correct me if I am mistaken but isn't that a fucking cannon?
  Edit: Clicked link, its a rocket launcher. Wtf? >
  
  *Recoiless rifle >
  
  Does it launch stuff? Is that stuff a rocket? >
  
  
  Does it launch stuff?
  
  Yes  
  
  Is that stuff a rocket?  
  
  No. That stuff is a shell. >
  
  Why does anyone need this other than for terrorism? >
  
  Same lawful reasons anybody owns any firearm. >
  
  Which responsible gun owner wants to claim responsibility for this? >
  
  Just casually travelling with an anti-tank weapon 
  r/asonedoes >
  
  Always glad when rocket launchers get picked up by security. >
  
  AKCHTUALLY it's a recoilless rifle. >
  
  many carl gustaf rounds are rockets >
  
  The weapon is still a recoiless rifle. >
  
  and it still launches rockets >
  
  You can shoot rockets out of a gun. 
  You can't shoot gun rounds out of a rocket launcher. >
  
  i don't think that's necessarily true.  pretty much all rocket launchers besides the m1 bazooka and the panzerfaust1 the rocket is ejected explosively before the rocket motor activates so that the user doesn't get a face full of exhaust.  if you can fling rockets out like that you ought to be able to fling non rocket projectiles. >
  
  
  pretty much all rocket launchers 
  
  Like the Javelin guided missile, and... uh.... hmm.... >
  
  RPG 7,  Panzerfaust3,  M72 LAW,  AT4... >
  
  I mean if this wasn’t packed with ammo this would be totally legal provided it was properly declared. 
  It’s just basically a metal tube without ammo. >
  
  Per another article, the weapon was made “demilitarized” for display purposes.
  
  The passenger was able to provide paperwork verifying the rifle’s de-militarized status. An on-duty TSA explosives specialist also corroborated that it was no longer in use. >
  
  Can’t be having that in the headline though. >
  
  Note the "problem" TSA had wasn't that it was a massive weapon, but rather that it was 'undeclared' at check in. >
  
  Man lot of airport gun stories today, but yea the issue isn't that they had a firearm in checked luggage it is that they didn't declare it. Though I believe this would be considered a destructive device. Not in the article but I'm assuming it was either an FFL holder or this was a deactivated and the owner thought he didn't have to declare it >
  
  Yup. My brother is a sheriff's deputy in CA and he just had to chat with tsa at both airports and that was that. I don't even think the ammo had to go in a separate checked bag or anything if im remembering correctly. >
  
  I didn't think you could send ammo at all. >
  
  You can.  They have to be in a container designed to hold the ammo and not in the gun, as well as the requirement to be in a locked container.  They can be in the same container as the gun, just not in the gun. >
  
  Yup sounds about right based on our experience. Gun case was locked and weapon was unloaded. >
  
  84 mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle for really big deer. >
  
  'Round about these parts the deer have taken to wearing bullet-proof vests. >
  
  They'll likely want some reactive plates for the shaped charge I'm assuming is in there. >
  
  It’s going to be tough to convince anyone that you accidentally packed that into your suitcase >
  
  It has been de-militarized it really isn't a weapon at this point.
  It is little more than a cos-play prop at this point. >
  
  Aka, not news >
  
  "She packed my bags last night pre-flight." >
  
  
  "She packed my bags last night pre-flight
  
  And I think it's gonna be a long, long time
  'Til touchdown brings me 'round again to find
  I'm not the man they think I am at home
  Oh, no, no, no
  I'm a rocket man
  Rocket man, burning out his fuse up here alone >
  
  It’s my emotional support Carl Gustoff* >
  
  JUST as the founding fathers intended. >
  
  Yeah you just take this to the postal kiosk, they give you a box and you mail it home. >
  
  was anyone else like "i really need to see what an 84mm caliber weapon looks like"? >
  
  Is it ACTUALLY a functional Carl or is it just a repro/prop?  You can't buy real ones at Wal-Mart... >
  
  Per another article, the weapon was made “de-militarized” for display purposes.
  
  The passenger was able to provide paperwork verifying the rifle’s de-militarized status. An on-duty TSA explosives specialist also corroborated that it was no longer in use. >
  
  This not a rifle. >
  
  It's a recoilless rifle. >
  
  This was properly de-miled. so I don't see what the issue is. Legally speaking it's just a lump of metal. >
  
  well the facts don't get the masses all riled up now do they! >
  
  It's not black,  it has no bump stock, and it's not semi auto. What's the issue >
  
  The pistol brace. >
  
  Isn't shaped much like a pistol, so check, no pistol brace. Don't see a burner either, so no issue with gas stoves >
  
  Everyone knows rockets require proper vent-a-hoods >
  
  Do you have to declare a weapon that is no longer a weapon? It seems like it would be a good idea to avoid the inevitable shit show, but I don't see how this guy broke the law. >
  
  I couldn’t even take a gun to Cayo Perico >
  
  I like how in the US we discuss tremendous weapons like it's a nail clipper or something. >
  
  It's mm or caliber not both. Caliber is inches MM is obviously metric. >
  
  Pretty sure you are allowed one anti-tank carry-on so long as its 85mm or less >
  
  ~~Looks like at AT4. The model AT4, prounced "eighty four".~~
  ~~Again, because scary looking AT4s show up on reddit all the time:~~
  ~~These are a single use weapon. An AT4 once fired can't be reloaded. This is no different than a piece of spent brass, except brass can be reloaded and this cannot.~~
  ~~It is not a live weapon. It cannot be made into a live weapon. Its often decoration or a keepsake from former military, and there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these things floating around, used in the GWOT from 2001-2020.~~
  ~~The person probably didn't check it because they figured it was just a spent tube, but I guess TSA has different regulations.~~
  edit: Its not an AT4. >
  
  It’s a Carl Gustaf. Also Swedish, but reloadable instead of single-use like the AT4. It’s been demilled, though, so it poses just as much of a threat as a spent AT4 does. >
  
  Soo, someone had an AT4 tube? Was this brandon herrea lol? >
  
  Carl gustoff recoilless rifle.* >
  
  AT4 (Eighty Four) is what I always default when I see 84mm, bad force of habit. >
  
  Don’t let it happen again. (Runs finger across throat) >
  
  You laugh now, but he'll be laughing when some creep tries to mug him with a tank. >
  
  Millimeter and caliber are completely different things.
  Shitty title. >
  
  Link asks for a login. 
  It’s poor practice to mix the terms. 84 caliber would be 0.84 of an inch in diameter. E.g. for the venerable M2 you would either say 0.50 caliber or 12.7mm, but never 12.7mm caliber. >
  
  Yes. Doesn’t change what I said. There’s book definitions, then there’s real-world use and best practices. The very article you linked shows this if you read through it: “caliber of __” with no mixing of terms as the headline does.
  The journalism is shit anyway. How many people know how big an 84mm projectile is, or what it does? The writer should have just said “anti-tank weapon” and it would have been clearer and more effective. >
  
  I like how the problem isn't that the guy tried to fly with a rocket launcher, but that he didn't declare it before checking it. >
  
  Because it is perfectly legal to fly with firearms, as long as they are in locked containers and declared at check-in. >
  
  What do you mean I can't bring my avalanche cannon? >
  
  Found in checked luggage… that’s not really luggage. That looks like a Pelican case. Which can be used to transport anything, but I wouldn’t say finding weapons in a Pelican case is exactly a strange place to find them. 
  Of this shot was buried under a bunch of underwear and t-shirts in a duffel bag… then this headline would be more appropriate.
  The undeclared part is what’s worthy of mention. >
  
  “I need it to protect my house” >
  
  San Antonio will soon be infamous with their " I forgot" passengers. >
  
  “Oh this?   it’s a garbage disposal.” >
  
  What makes this one so special compared to the other 6000 found yearly? >
  
  well for starters... it's a fuckin rocket launcher... they don't find 6,000 of them in TSA baggage a year >
  
  Who doesnt travel with a heavy mortar in case they have to assault entrenched positions of...uhm...deer? Yes, lets go with that. >
  
  Sooo, practically historical, since it was first developed in what... 1946 or somewhere there abouts?
  It's an empty tube, and there wasn't any actual ammunition with it?
  Now, I'm not a huge gun nut, but beyond getting hit over the head with it, I don't see how it will do a whole lot of damage...
  Just declare that shit and put it into your checked luggage, but if you're going to be an idiot about it, people will make fun of you... deservedly... and you might just end up in the media as being a moron... again deservedly... >
  
  I think they did put it in the checked luggage.  They just didn't declare it.  Not that it matters given how some airports just cut the locks off firearms cases. >
  
  Yeah, but on the other hand we all know that the TSA aren't the most educated lot, so you can't really expect them to recognize everything in the way of arms either.
  Sorry, but if you want to bring something like that onto a plane just do your fucking due diligence and figure out how to do it correctly. >
  
  "It's a fucking anti-aircraft gun, Vincent!" >
  
  it's useless. pretty much a novelty item at that point but yeah slow day at work I guess >
  
  The fact that somebody tried this at all makes me wonder how often they succeed in shipping things like this via airlines.. >
  
  Tbf, the ONLY issue is they didn't declare it. It's perfectly legal to transport these via checked luggage. >
  
  And likely as some other people pointed out was probably a salesperson of some contractor who fucked up. >
  
  Eh it’s probably fine >
  
  Clearly for self defense purposes. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. >
  
  I'm pretty sure anything above 50 cal is considered "destructive" ordinance and might be illegal to have. >
  
  Destructive devices are legal to own as long as you go through the registration process with the ATF.