Weapons

[stupidpilot]

The FAA doesn't have the ability to authorize you to carry a weapon where any federal, state, or local jurisdiction has forbidden or controlled that carriage. If one's director of operations has authorized the carriage of a firearm in accordance with 14 CFR 135.119(b), the crewmember has been given no authority to carry the weapon concealed, into a post office, in an airport where it's been forbidden, across state lines where applicable, through a municipality where it's not allowed, etc.


DUH, that's why I said leave it on the aircraft.

 

[avbug]

Stupidpilot, stupidpilot, stupidpilot....

If one is in possession of a weapon where it's not allowed, it's still illegal. Whether one gets caught or not.

Are you suggesting that one simply illegally carry the weapon?

Why bother getting the permission of the certificate holder, then?

I'm done with you.

Apparently not yet.

DUH,

Well spoken, stupidpilot. Well spoken. For you, anyway.

 

[stupidpilot]

It is legal to have one in a plane. It is private property. That is why you can have a weapon in your vehicle but not bring it in a place that doesn't allow it. Why can't you seem to get this through your head?

 

[avbug]

I'm done with you.

Still not yet, we see. Very well.

It is legal to have one in a plane.

In some circumstances, in some places, in some types of operations, yes. However, we're talking about operations under 14 CFR Part 135. That is, after all, the essence of this thread. Your failure to comprehend this doesn't change anything.

That is why you can have a weapon in your vehicle but not bring it in a place that doesn't allow it. Why can't you seem to get this through your head?

Because your assertion is flawed, oversimplified, and wrong. That's why, stupidpilot. That's why.

 

[stupidpilot]

I believe it is your failure to comprehend.

 

[Lynxman]

Don't bother with him it's not worth it.

 

[stupidpilot]

That seems to be the consensus from quite a few guys here Lynx.

 

[timmay]

Avbug you are missing my point. From your previous posts you seem to say that if I am driving my car, minding my own business, that the police can pull me over and search my vehicle just because I look suspicious. If this is what you believe then you are greatly mistaken. My point is that the police cannot stop and search based on suspicion alone there must be probable cause, which as stated by others is different than reasonable suspicion. You dont need case law to argue that fact, only the Fourth amendment to the Constitiution.

 

[avbug]

From your previous posts you seem to say that if I am driving my car, minding my own business, that the police can pull me over and search my vehicle just because I look suspicious. If this is what you believe then you are greatly mistaken. My point is that the police cannot stop and search based on suspicion alone there must be probable cause, which as stated by others is different than reasonable suspicion.

You keep on believing that. And try to get your terminology straight.

The term is probable cause, not reasonable cause. You are confusing reasonable suspicion, and probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion is adequate for making a stop, detaining an individual, or searching a vehicle, to include an aircraft. Reasonable suspicion isn't simply a hunch. An officer who can articulate reasons for the stop and show that another reasonable officer would conclude the same suspicions, will nearly invariably be upheld in his use of reasonable suspicion.

Subsequent to the stop and search, additional probable cause will be attached when evidence is located or supporting circumstances can be shown to indicate probable cause.

PC for stopping your car may be as simple as a headlight or taillight out. It may be the way you're driving the speed limit when everyone else is doing ten over. It may be that you're in a place where you shouldn't be. It may be that you're acting suspiciously. It may be the mud on your fender in a location where there's little mud. It may be you driving with your windows rolled up when everyone has them down, or with your windows down when everyone else has them up in the winter.

Many of those items by themselves don't indicate probable cause (save for the violations cited first; the headlight and tail light out), but may be factors in reasonable suspicion when considering the big picture. It may include the way you don't make eye contact with an officer, or the nervous glance you make back at your trunk, or the way you suddenly speed up, turn away, or slow down. It may be the fact that your kids knees look too high in the minivan...indicating something is hidden on the floor. It may be a number of factors which, when combined, create reasonable suspicion.

Most definitely reasonable suspicion can be grounds for a search or detention, and no, a stop based on reasonable suspicion is NOT prohibited by the fourth ammendment.

To conduct a "Terry" search, an officer does not need probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is adequate, and this simply means that a combination of the facts of circumstance, or appearances thereof, would reasonably lead that officer to conclude that the suspected person is guilty of imminent, or past illegal activity.

If you're located in an area where you're subject to search as a term or condition of entry (the case in many airports), then you grant permission to be searched by entering into the premisis. Ever see a sign that states something along the lines of "Persons or property are subject to search?" That's your warning that you'll be subject to search if you enter. Your entry is implied permission; you've given your authorization to search by entering. Neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause is necessary from that point, as you've already granted authorization.

Now, if you think you can give the US Constitution a quick reading and know and understand the law, you're grossly mistaken. The application of the law goes far beyond the simple wording in the constitution. Your assertion that you don't need case law is quite ignorant and naive, as it's the courts which render interpretations of constitutional rights and the applications thereof. Most certainly case law is applicable.

In Ornelas v. United States, the Court stated:

This is in response to your request for a brief description of the Fourth Amendment's probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and reasonableness standards. In over simplified terms, probable cause "exist where the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found,......Under a similar gloss, reasonable suspicion is a standard, more than a hunch but considerably below preponderance of the evidence, which justifies an officer's investigative stop of an individual upon the articulable and particularized belief that criminal activity is afoot,...

While the seizure itself or arrest which might follow a stop for reasonable suspicion can't be based soley on the suspicion, it's really quite irrelevant to you. If you're carrying illegal weapons in your car or airplane and are stopped and searched, you won't really care whether it's the probable cause statement attached to your arrest report which supports the case against you, or if it was merely reasonable suspicion that started the process off. The result for you is the same.

Of course, you've failed to address or contribute, as has stupidpilot, the topic of carrying a firearm as a crewmember under Part 135...which, after all, is the topic of this thread.

 

[timmay]

You keep on believing that. And try to get your terminology straight.

The term is probable cause, not reasonable cause. You are confusing reasonable suspicion, and probable cause.

Reasonable suspicion is adequate for making a stop, detaining an individual, or searching a vehicle, to include an aircraft. Reasonable suspicion isn't simply a hunch. An officer who can articulate reasons for the stop and show that another reasonable officer would conclude the same suspicions, will nearly invariably be upheld in his use of reasonable suspicion.

Subsequent to the stop and search, additional probable cause will be attached when evidence is located or supporting circumstances can be shown to indicate probable cause.

PC for stopping your car may be as simple as a headlight or taillight out. It may be the way you're driving the speed limit when everyone else is doing ten over. It may be that you're in a place where you shouldn't be. It may be that you're acting suspiciously. It may be the mud on your fender in a location where there's little mud. It may be you driving with your windows rolled up when everyone has them down, or with your windows down when everyone else has them up in the winter.
.

This is pretty funny I now see why stupid pilot does not want to argue with you.
First reread my post I never refer to anything as reasonable cause. Second you prove my point in the last paragraph, Yes a broken tail light is PC to make a stop, that is not reasonable suspicion, however if I am driving the speed limit and everyone else is going 10 mph over how can I be pulled over. Please explain that to me. I mean you can't seriously be that STUPID. I usually don't call someone that but this time it is fitting. Also if a cop sees someone in a place they think they shouldn't be they can't pull them over for that its called Profiling and it is a big No No. Now that doesn't mean the police can't find PC to stop the person. A statute book is as big as the FARs, follow someone long enough and they will break a law somewhere.

Again the police can't use suspicion to make a stop and hope they find something to give them probable cause. This applies to aircraft as well. A aircraft is private property if it is parked, and locked up, the police can't enter it without a warrant (there are a couple of exeptions i.e. Hot Pursuit). What you are referring to encompasses Profiling, illegal searches, and our basic Bill of Rights, everything our country was founded upon prevents these very practices. This is the difference between us and the old USSR.

Follow this link it will clarify it for you. http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-11-4b-1.html

 

[avbug]

I see you're still unable to address crewmembers under 14 CFR 135 carrying firearms, but you're not the only one who seems incapable of doing that. One might say you're in good company...but of course, you're not.

however if I am driving the speed limit and everyone else is going 10 mph over how can I be pulled over. Please explain that to me.

If you're out of place or acting suspiciously, given the big picture, you can be detained based on reasonable suspicion. In the case of a driver operating more slowly than other drivers, it's a common sign of an intoxicated driver. Drunk drivers often operate at or less than the speed limit and think they're being cautious and smart...but do little more than draw attention to themselves.

Reasonable suspicion is the big picture...it's more than just driving slow. It's the context...what the other drivers are doing, what's reasonable for you, for others, and what you ought to be doing. It's where you are, it's what you're driving. You can call it profiling, but that's very often exactly what's used in determining suspicious behavior and a subsequent stop.

Probable cause is NOT necessary to make the stop.

Again, this is all quite irrelevant to the subject of crewmembers carrying firearms under Part 135. Have you something to contribute to that topic?

 

[timmay]

I see you're still unable to address crewmembers under 14 CFR 135 carrying firearms, but you're not the only one who seems incapable of doing that. One might say you're in good company...but of course, you're not.



If you're out of place or acting suspiciously, given the big picture, you can be detained based on reasonable suspicion. In the case of a driver operating more slowly than other drivers, it's a common sign of an intoxicated driver. Drunk drivers often operate at or less than the speed limit and think they're being cautious and smart...but do little more than draw attention to themselves.

Reasonable suspicion is the big picture...it's more than just driving slow. It's the context...what the other drivers are doing, what's reasonable for you, for others, and what you ought to be doing. It's where you are, it's what you're driving. You can call it profiling, but that's very often exactly what's used in determining suspicious behavior and a subsequent stop.

Probable cause is NOT necessary to make the stop.

Again, this is all quite irrelevant to the subject of crewmembers carrying firearms under Part 135. Have you something to contribute to that topic?

Avbug I see what you are saying now, however the way you were describing things earlier it didn't make sense. My only point of contention was that the police can't search the airplane without a warrant, then we got sidetracked. As others have said carrying a firearm even with a CC on board an airplane is not a good idea, and I don't think anyone can debate that.

 

[avbug]

The police or other authorities can indeed search the airplane without a warrant. As stated previously, there are many circumstances under which this may be conducted. Among them are many airfields where being subject to search is a condition of entry, or use of the airfield. One has granted permission for the search simply by landing there or entering the airfield premises.

As for carriage on board being a good idea...I can think of many circumstances when carriage of a firearm on board is an excellent idea, and a wise one as well.

A number of hijackings of light airplanes have taken place over the years, some very recently. This is not a commonplace activity, but never the less should not be ignored.

I have carried firearms in survival kits, and in some locations, this is a requirement of law. I have carried firearms for protection against dog packs and other threats in some locations. I have chased a bull off a runway using a handgun, in order to takeoff. I have flown into locations where I have sustained damage to the aircraft from gunfire...and that includes domestically.

One one occasion I transported a very wealthy individual to appear in federal court. He chartered the aircraft I flew, and it was operated under Part 135. He was going to court to be indicted on federal charges. Half way the destination I heard a familiar mechanical sound behind me, and turned to find this individual, a very objectionable, well-heeled person with substantial income from the oil business, with a handgun. He was struggling with it, had his finger inside the trigger gaurd, and had just chambered a live round. The handgun was pointed at my head; not intentionally, but because he was struggling to cycle the slide and wasn't watching where he was pointing the weapon. I immediately told him to put it away, but I can also reasonably see a circumstance in which other means might be required to resolve the problem.

On board a particular type of domestic flying, all of us carried firearms due to the nature of the personnel we were transporting. I have also performed work in rural areas in which security of the aircraft was a big concern, and in which occasionally I would encounter individuals who did not have my best interest in mind, or the activities of whom I was not a welcome party.

In another type of operation, we were required not only to take certain personal security precautions, but also to have means of disabling the aircraft. Have had various occasions when carriage was both warranted and advisable, and where legally appropriate, I have done so. I shall continue to do so.

Certainly valid circumstances may arise in which one may wish, or be well advised, to carry a firearm during the performance of duties under Part 135.

The particulars of when this should be done or may be done, and when and how it may legally be done, vary with the individual and circumstance. While you may not find it advisable in the type of flying which you do or the locale in which you fly, this doesn't negate the need or suitability for another individual or operation.

 

[Firefly]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Most gun laws are illegal anyway no matter what some idiot judge, politician or lawyer says.

 

[stupidpilot]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Most gun laws are illegal anyway no matter what some idiot judge, politician or lawyer says.

Don't waste your breath. Avbug knows more, has done more than anyone else here, and he is always right.

 

[avbug]

Most gun laws are illegal anyway no matter what some idiot judge, politician or lawyer says.

You're a militia, are you? To which militia do you belong? You belong to a well regulated militia?

You hear what you want to hear, and appoint yourself to interpret the constitution. You disregard the government established under the constitution, and the judiciary which was established as one of the three divisions of government...and which was established not only to adjudicate the law, but to interpret it, and the constitution.

Fortunately for those of us who honor, uphold, and obey the law, your opinion on the matter has no weight nor authority...and does nothing to change the efficacy or legality of firearms legislation and code...nor the fact that this thread is about crewmembers with weapons when operating under Part 135...to which you've contributed nothing.

As for stupidpilot who was done with this thread a number of posts ago and can neither contribute to the topic or quit...the name still fits.

 

[100-1/2]

"You belong to a well regulated militia?"

LMFAO!!!!

That is the whole concept of a malitia, NO REGULATION!

The problem with this country is people like you that think the Constitution of the United States is of no consequence or irrelevant to your own ideals or agendae.

No one man, agency, or group can ratify or amend the Constitution. Every change requires a 3/5 majority of congress and 75% of the States.

Unless, you're in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court or Nancy Pelosi. Then you can say or do whatever the hell you want and call it Law by "popular vote".

100-1/2

 

[avbug]

That is the whole concept of a malitia, NO REGULATION!

It's militia, brightspark.

You'll not be contributing to the thread by discussing the carriage of weapons by crewmembers operating under CFR Part 135 either, then? Very well.

While you're busy expounding on the constitution, you might consider that the 2nd ammendment is just what it sounds like...and ammendment. If you're one of the "constitutionalists" who can't fathom or stand for anyone or anything adding to, interpreting, or ammending the constitution of the United States...bear in mind that the 2nd Ammendmant is just such an act. The Constitution was intended to be a living document.

That said, while you're quite certain that a militia can't be regulated, why do you suppose it is that the 2nd ammendment speaks to a "well regulated militia?" You really can't have it both ways...you can't stand on the 2nd ammendment and then suggest that a militia can't be regulated...as the right to keep and bear arms is predicated on the requirement for a well regulated militia. You understand this concept? You might like to pick and choose the parts of the law you'll obey or support...but you really can't. Especially when they're found in the same paragraph.

 

[LivestockTony]

I really shouldn't open my mouth but way back at the beginning of the thread:

The aircraft is private property. Noone has the authority to enter it without your consent ...

The key word in this discussion is consent.

Avbug has not been saying that in all situations, LEOs have the right to search the aircraft, he has been saying that in some jurisdictions they do. The thread segued into reasonableness and probable cause but that was a mistake-- the doctrine at question is implied consent. In some jurisdictions, merely by virtue of landing at a [public use] airport you may have consented to a search of the aircraft. The onus is on the pilot/operator to know the regulations that pertain at each airport they visit. He's at least mostly right.

Implied consent gets applied often in DUI cases-- in many states you have consented to a breathalizer (a type of search) merely by operating a vehicle on public roads. This has been routinely upheld! In other cases such as search of a vehicle or apartment, the doctrine is sometimes upheld and sometimes denied by the courts. I am not aware of any case where it has been applied to an aircraft search, which may be part of the problem with this thread.

Often in legal cases where limited precedent exists, the question of the alleged infraction is measured against the actions of the 'reasonable person'* in the same situation. Pt 135 pilots being presumed professionals they would be held accountable to higher standard than a pt 91 owner/operator.

I think it's entirely reasonable to suppose in absence of cited precedent that:
In the case where flight goes from ABC to XYZ where XYZ does not permit firearms on airport property and there exists an implied consent law:
pt 91 pilot is let go
pt 135 pilot is charged and found guilty because the 135 would be expected to have known that he was flying into a location where his firearm was not permitted (absent other conditions such as federal deputizing, etc), since as a professional he is assumed to take greater care in his planning than an amateur (not a dig at professional 91 guys!)

In the case where the flight was intended from ABC to DFG but diverts to XYZ where DFG permits firearms, but XYZ does not:
both would be let go (but probably after long and costly legal proceedings), since the pilot did not expect to be at an airport where he could not posses the firearm.

The issue does not need to be as fracticous as firearm rights-- in the freight world we're moving to the point where some airports will have local regulations requiring anyone moving on the ramp to have high-visibility vests. I can not imagine that 'We didn't know [or attempt to find out].' would be an acceptable excuse from a commercial operator, though I imagine the transient GA aircraft pilots probably won't start racking up fines. Somewhere in the GOM for my company is a line which states that the most restrictive of FAR/GOM/state/local regulation is what we're required to adhere to. I can't imagine it's different with anyone else.

It's a fine thing to stand up for your rights, or even excersise civil disobedience if you think a law is unjust. Really! But I can't imagine any working pilot who can afford to fight a legal case like this just on principle, and if your job truely does require you to carry a firearm on your plane, and your job is worth having, then it's worth the time to check the local and state regulations of the places you fly through and get clearance from the sherrifs department or whatever to carry your gun while in the SIDA.

Not a lawyer, 121/125 pilot in any case, my opinion only, etc, etc,

-TF

*-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person [I hate citing wiki, but whatever..]

 

[stupidpilot]

Thanks for the post Tony. It's nice to see someone on flifo post an intelligent, reasoned well thought out reply without sounding like a pompous jerk and insulting a person every other line.