Weapons

[stupidpilot]

The point is that you seem to think it is illegal to have weapons aboard a private aircraft. Instead of trying to prove your point you resort to childish tactics. #1: It is totally legal to have weapons aboard a private aircraft. #2 No, the police cannot search your car without your consent unless they actually can see something inside that is illegal. It is referred to as the "Plain Sight Doctrine."

 

[TWA]

No, the police cannot search your car without your consent unless they actually can see something inside that is illegal. It is referred to as the "Plain Sight Doctrine."

The plain sight doctrine is not the exclusive way the police can legally search your car without a warrant or your consent.

 

[avbug]

The point is that you seem to think it is illegal to have weapons aboard a private aircraft.

I've said no such thing. Your comprehension skills lack.

#1: It is totally legal to have weapons aboard a private aircraft.

Irrelevant to the conversation at hand, of course, as the legality of weapons on board an aircraft isn't at issue. However, the legality of a firearm on board an aircraft is very much dependent upon the circumstance. Your assertion that "it is totally legal" is only correct under some circumstances, and quite wrong under many others.

The issue in this thread is the ability of a crewmember to carry a weapon when operating under Part 135. You may not be able to remember this from the start of the thread, of course, as there have been more than two or three posts since that time.

The fact is that the only one in this thread to raise the issue of the legality of firearms on board a private aircraft as an issue unto itself...is you. You're wrong on the issue, of course, but the issue and your insertion of it into this thread are quite irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

Stupidpilot? Yes.

#2 No, the police cannot search your car without your consent unless they actually can see something inside that is illegal.

Quite clearly you've never worked in law enforcement, and you're definitely no lawyer.

Both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are reasons to stop, detain, and search an individual and the individual's property, and have been long held up under legal scrutiny to search and seizure.

Even plain view doctrine is limited in scope, in that an officer must still have probable cause to examine what is in plain view, or reasonable suspicion thereto. You know this, of course? Plain view of contraband is not required, however, in order to perform a search based on reasonable suspicion or with probable cause.

This also is irrelevant to the topic at hand...which is, once again, the issue of a crewmember carrying a firearm when operating under part 135.

 

[stupidpilot]

Avbug,
The thread started with crewmembers carrying firearms in order to protect the airplane from being hijacked, not carrying them around at their destination. You referred to the local laws and inferred that they would be arrested if they brought the weapons with them. That is why I stated leave them on the aircraft. If you bring no suspicion on yourself or your aircraft then it is illegal to search it without a warrant. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[timmay]

I've said no such thing. Your comprehension skills lack.



Irrelevant to the conversation at hand, of course, as the legality of weapons on board an aircraft isn't at issue. However, the legality of a firearm on board an aircraft is very much dependent upon the circumstance. Your assertion that "it is totally legal" is only correct under some circumstances, and quite wrong under many others.

The issue in this thread is the ability of a crewmember to carry a weapon when operating under Part 135. You may not be able to remember this from the start of the thread, of course, as there have been more than two or three posts since that time.

The fact is that the only one in this thread to raise the issue of the legality of firearms on board a private aircraft as an issue unto itself...is you. You're wrong on the issue, of course, but the issue and your insertion of it into this thread are quite irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

Stupidpilot? Yes.



Quite clearly you've never worked in law enforcement, and you're definitely no lawyer.

Both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are reasons to stop, detain, and search an individual and the individual's property, and have been long held up under legal scrutiny to search and seizure.

Even plain view doctrine is limited in scope, in that an officer must still have probable cause to examine what is in plain view, or reasonable suspicion thereto. You know this, of course? Plain view of contraband is not required, however, in order to perform a search based on reasonable suspicion or with probable cause.

This also is irrelevant to the topic at hand...which is, once again, the issue of a crewmember carrying a firearm when operating under part 135.

Pulling a vehicle over and searching based on suspicion alone doesn't fly in court. Period. Cops can basically do whatever they want but it doesn't mean it will hold up in a court of law.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

Pulling a vehicle over and searching based on suspicion alone doesn't fly in court. Period. Cops can basically do whatever they want but it doesn't mean it will hold up in a court of law.

Depends on what they find.

 

[avbug]

The thread started with crewmembers carrying firearms in order to protect the airplane from being hijacked, not carrying them around at their destination.

The post which started this thread said nothing about hijacking, or protecting the airplane. Your comprehension continues to lack.

You referred to the local laws and inferred that they would be arrested if they brought the weapons with them.

I made no such inference regarding arrest, nor regarding carrying the weapons away from the aircraft. Your comprehension lacks.

I did, however, correctly state that you are also beholden to all the laws and regulations of every municipality, county, state, and airport thorugh which you pass when you fly, and permission from your Director of Operations won't relieve you from meeting the requirements of those laws and regulations.

Try reading sometime, rather than continually inventing material and putting it others mouths. Put words in your own mouth. Not mine.

That is why I stated leave them on the aircraft.

"That" is why you stated to leave them on the aircraft? Because you believe I said something I did not say?

If the weapons are in an illegal condition, in the aircraft where they are not authorized, leaving them on board doesn't make them any more legal. Are you suggesting that one should carry weapons where they're not allowed on the grounds that one shouldn't get caught if one doesn't arouse suspicion?

You're off in left field by a wide margin.

In order to carry a weapon at all under Part 135, as a crewmember, one must be authorized to do so by the certificate holder. This is a given, and a regulatory matter which needs no clarification.

With the authorization of the certificate holder, however, one holds no more authority or privilege than any other citizen when it comes to transporting that weapon across state lines, into locations where weapons are forbidden, or with respect or regard to the laws, regulations, policies, and practices of any given jurisdiction through which one passes or at which one lands. In other words, whether or not your Director of Operations authorizes the carriage of the weapon, you're still responsible to comply with all the laws applicable to the possession and carriage of weapons where ever you go.

If one fails to comply with the law, one is operating illegally, regardless of whether one gets caught.

If one is operating illegally, one need not have the weapons in plain sight in order for a search and subsequent seizure or arrest to be legally made, as both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are adequate grounds. Furthermore, at many airports anything which enters onto the airport grounds is subject to search as a condition of entry. As "stupidpilot," you may simply be in ignorance of this concept, but you are such at your own peril.

If you bring no suspicion on yourself or your aircraft then it is illegal to search it without a warrant. Is that clear enough for you?

One might say it's clear if your comment were to be taken as correct...but it isn't. One may be subject to search simply for being inside the airport perimeter fence.

Pulling a vehicle over and searching based on suspicion alone doesn't fly in court. Period.

It most certainly does, as is borne out in case law ad infinitum. Reasonable suspicion is most definitely grounds for stopping, detaining, searching, and arresting and/or seizing. You betcha.

Period.

Cops can basically do whatever they want

No, they really can't.

it doesn't mean it will hold up in a court of law.

Reasonable search and seizure, and warrantless search based on probable cause most certainly will...and do. Regularly.

Depends on what they find.

Actually, no. Finding contraband doesn't justify or make legal an illegal search.

What it does depend on is the reasonableness of the suspicion, or the probability of encountering contraband, an illegal act, or the commission of an illegal act which affects public safety or which might violate a law.

You can bet that a handgun where it's not allowed falls into that category. When a search is based on reasonable suspicion, it's not finding the handgun that makes it reasonable...it's the justification for the suspicion that's called into question. So long as this is reasonable as determined in a court of law, then the subsequent finds are also justified and admissable.

Searches and discovery of contraband based on reasonable suspicion and or probable cause are common, and definitely do hold up in court to a conviction.

 

[stupidpilot]

Yawn, you're so boring it's not even funny. I re-read your previous posts prior to responding. I'm done with you. You're probably the kid who always got beat up at school for being such a tool.

 

[avbug]

The old addage that it's better to keep your trap shut and not appear a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt would have served you well here. Alas, your screen name continues to serve you well, stupidpilot.

 

[timmay]

The post which started this thread said nothing about hijacking, or protecting the airplane. Your comprehension continues to lack.

I made no such inference regarding arrest, nor regarding carrying the weapons away from the aircraft. Your comprehension lacks.

I did, however, correctly state that you are also beholden to all the laws and regulations of every municipality, county, state, and airport thorugh which you pass when you fly, and permission from your Director of Operations won't relieve you from meeting the requirements of those laws and regulations.

Try reading sometime, rather than continually inventing material and putting it others mouths. Put words in your own mouth. Not mine.

"That" is why you stated to leave them on the aircraft? Because you believe I said something I did not say?

If the weapons are in an illegal condition, in the aircraft where they are not authorized, leaving them on board doesn't make them any more legal. Are you suggesting that one should carry weapons where they're not allowed on the grounds that one shouldn't get caught if one doesn't arouse suspicion?

You're off in left field by a wide margin.

In order to carry a weapon at all under Part 135, as a crewmember, one must be authorized to do so by the certificate holder. This is a given, and a regulatory matter which needs no clarification.

With the authorization of the certificate holder, however, one holds no more authority or privilege than any other citizen when it comes to transporting that weapon across state lines, into locations where weapons are forbidden, or with respect or regard to the laws, regulations, policies, and practices of any given jurisdiction through which one passes or at which one lands. In other words, whether or not your Director of Operations authorizes the carriage of the weapon, you're still responsible to comply with all the laws applicable to the possession and carriage of weapons where ever you go.

If one fails to comply with the law, one is operating illegally, regardless of whether one gets caught.

If one is operating illegally, one need not have the weapons in plain sight in order for a search and subsequent seizure or arrest to be legally made, as both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are adequate grounds. Furthermore, at many airports anything which enters onto the airport grounds is subject to search as a condition of entry. As "stupidpilot," you may simply be in ignorance of this concept, but you are such at your own peril.

One might say it's clear if your comment were to be taken as correct...but it isn't. One may be subject to search simply for being inside the airport perimeter fence.

It most certainly does, as is borne out in case law ad infinitum. Reasonable suspicion is most definitely grounds for stopping, detaining, searching, and arresting and/or seizing. You betcha.

Period.

No, they really can't.

Reasonable search and seizure, and warrantless search based on probable cause most certainly will...and do. Regularly.



Actually, no. Finding contraband doesn't justify or make legal an illegal search.

What it does depend on is the reasonableness of the suspicion, or the probability of encountering contraband, an illegal act, or the commission of an illegal act which affects public safety or which might violate a law.

You can bet that a handgun where it's not allowed falls into that category. When a search is based on reasonable suspicion, it's not finding the handgun that makes it reasonable...it's the justification for the suspicion that's called into question. So long as this is reasonable as determined in a court of law, then the subsequent finds are also justified and admissable.

Searches and discovery of contraband based on reasonable suspicion and or probable cause are common, and definitely do hold up in court to a conviction.

So just so I understand you, you are saying that if someone is driving around looking suspicious you think you can stop, detain, and search that persons vehicle without consent, probable cause, or search incident to arrest. Is that correct? If so I hope you were never a police officer.

 

[stupidpilot]

Forget it Timmay. Mr. Know-it-all there thinks he knows everything. Don't even bother arguing w/that fool.

 

[avbug]

So just so I understand you, you are saying that if someone is driving around looking suspicious you think you can stop, detain, and search that persons vehicle without consent, probable cause, or search incident to arrest. Is that correct? If so I hope you were never a police officer.

I was, yes. And yes, reasonable suspicion is a standard which may be used to stop, detain, search, and seize. Consent is not required.

Think about it. Most people who are being detained, arrested, and having their property seized don't consent. If a law enforcement officer were to wait for consent, then a great many law breakers and criminals would never be caught.

REASONABLE suspicion is a common standard, and there is AMPLE case law to bear that out...no end of convictions and legal opinions from the Bench on the subject which clearly show that reasonable suspicion is an acceptable standard. So yes, I am saying that based on reasonable suspicion an officer may search you, your car, your airplane, etc. Absolutely. Why do I say it? Because it's the truth.

Will you continue to embarrass yourself further to the point that we need to show how wrong you are (by discussing the case law of which you're clearly ignorant), or are you going to simply give up like stupidpilot attempted to do, without further disgrace? Of course, stupidpilot was unable...which is why he's stupidpilot, of course.

Better yet, you're absolutely certain that an arrest can't be effected based on reasonable suspicion...why don't you provide evidence that this is the case. We can certainly discuss a mountain of proof that it's untrue...but if you really believe it, find something, anything, that stipulates as such. You can't do it.

 

[stupidpilot]

Blah, blah,blah I'm better smarter and more important than you. What a ******************************.

 

[avbug]

I'm done with you.

So you said, three posts ago. Not only are you consistently wrong, but you can't count or abide your own dictates, either.

Blah, blah,blah I'm better smarter and more important than you.

Not necessary. It's just that without exception, everything you've stated is wrong. Compared to your wild, unfounded ideas and assertions, anybody would appear a genius. You're consistently that far off base.

I'm better smarter and more important than you.

The thread started with crewmembers carrying firearms in order to protect the airplane from being hijacked...

You referred to the local laws and inferred that they would be arrested if they brought the weapons with them.

No, the police cannot search your car without your consent unless they actually can see something inside that is illegal.

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

Also leaving them on the airplane provides you with protection from having them confiscated because the airplane is considered private property.

Unless you consent to a search then they have to get a court order to look in your plane. Same as your car.

It just seems silly to think you need a weapon on board a chartered aircraft.

So when you are traveling on a public highway law enforcement has every right to search your vehicle? You are completely wrong.

Again, the aircraft is private property and cannot be searched without a search warrant.

You don't have a clue as to what the law is.

Each statement wrong, consistently so. Over and over. Stupidpilot. Need one say more? (One need not...one need only quote stupidpilot). But then...what of the intellectual side that drives stupidpilot? From this fountain of insight we get...

Sounds like you're the stupid one.

dumba$$

you're so boring

You're probably the kid who always got beat up at school for being such a tool.

Mr. Know-it-all

fool

I'm better smarter and more important than you.

You've contributed so much to this thread. Truly so.

 

[Flying Biker]

Better yet, you're absolutely certain that an arrest can't be effected based on reasonable suspicion...why don't you provide evidence that this is the case. We can certainly discuss a mountain of proof that it's untrue...but if you really believe it, find something, anything, that stipulates as such. You can't do it.

Avbug, I don't know if you are getting two terms mixed up (reasonable suspicion and probable cause) but those two terms are NOT synonymous. You can not be arrested for reasonable suspicion. You can be detained however for reasonable suspicion so an investigation to determine if there is probable cause for an arrest. Then if PC is obtained during the course of the investigation, the arrest will happen as long as it was a felony case or if it was a misdemeanor or petty offense and the incident occurred in the presents of an officer.

As far as search and seizure, there are exigent circumstances when a search can be conducted under reasonable suspicion when the public’s safety is a concern such as when a weapon was used to commit a crime and there is a continuing threat. But without a warrant or consent or other circumstances such as furtive movement in which to conceal something or other factors, a search can not just arbitrarily be conducted. There are times where items can be seized where there is reasonable suspicion that the items were used to commit a crime or property from a crime etc. These items will be placed into evidence/property until either PC is obtained during further investigation and an arrest is made, or a property hearing has been conducted to determine if the property was illegally obtained and who the rightful owner is.

Also don't get a "terry frisk" confused with a search either. They are two totally different things also. A Terry Frisk (Terry V Ohio) is where a police officer can do a cursory search (pat down) of the suspect ONLY when he has reasonable suspicion or PC that the subject has, was or about to commit a crime. This frisk is for the officer’s protection and NOT to find evidence but weapons which may be used to harm the officer. Law has extended the Terry Frisk to include the immediate reach of the suspect if he was in a car. IE: I can not look for a weapon under Terry V Ohio in the trunk of a car but I can look under the seat of the car because that was in his immediate reach.

I have 18 years as a Law Enforcement Officer (patrol and detective). My forte was burglary. Some officers liked getting dope off the streets, some like working traffic and some liked working accidents. Mine was to get the turds off the street that stole from other people. I know what I can and can not do. And the one thing I know like the back of my hand is search and seizure law. Every arrest that you make has to have a PC statement to go along with the arrest paperwork. This statement is what goes to the judge which shows what law he broke and what probable cause you had to determine it was him. Without a PC statement the jail will not even accept them.

 

[avbug]

In Ornelas v. United States, the court stated:

Articulating precisely what “reasonable suspicion” and “probable cause” mean is not
possible. They are commonsense, nontechnical conceptions that deal with the factual and
practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal
technicians act. As such, the standards are not really, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set
of legal rules. We have described reasonable suspicion simply as a particularized and objective
basis for suspecting the person stopped of criminal activity, and probable cause to search as
existing 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. We have
cautioned that these two legal principles are not “finely-tuned standards” comparable to the
standards of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
They are instead fluid concepts that take their substantive content from the particular contexts
in which the standards are being assessed. The principal components of a determination of
reasonable suspicion or probable cause will be the events which occurred leading up to the stop
or search, and then the decision whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of
an objectively reasonable police officer amount to reasonable suspicion or to probable cause.

Quite correct with respect to a Terry search, as the concept of reasonable suspicion stems from Terry v. Ohio. However, even where probable cause is found lacking, a stop or detention, or search based on reasonable suspicion may lead to the discovery of contraband or other evidence, and subsequently an arrest. That one attaches a statement of probable cause as justification in no wise changes the fact that the detention was predicated on the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion.

Whereas stupidpilot attempted to go down a divergent road from the intent of the thread with wild assumptions and incorrect statements, his primary assertion was that lacking plain sight, a warrant, or consent, law enforcement has no way of discovering a weapon on board an aircraft...and his assertion is patently incorrect.

Whether probable cause initiates a search of an aircraft which contains firearms in an illegal context, or whether the search is performed based on reasonable suspicion, or by nature of the implied consent in the jurisdiction of an airport authority (in which, for example, all who enter therein become subject to search as a condition of entry)...the end result is the same.

This of course brings us back to the original question regarding crewmembers carrying weapons on board aircraft when operating under the provisions of 14 CFR 135.

 

[gret]

Has anyone thought of asking the FAA what they thoughts are?

 

[avbug]

Has anyone thought of asking the FAA what they thoughts are?

The FAA already beat you to it:

§ 135.119 Prohibition against carriage of weapons.

No person may, while on board an aircraft being operated by a certificate holder, carry on or about that person a deadly or dangerous weapon, either concealed or unconcealed. This section does not apply to—
(a) Officials or employees of a municipality or a State, or of the United States, who are authorized to carry arms; or
(b) Crewmembers and other persons authorized by the certificate holder to carry arms.

 

[stupidpilot]

Nice way to contradict yourself there idiot.

However, you are also beholden to all the laws and regulations of every municipality, county, state, and airport thorugh which you pass when you fly, and permission from your Director of Operations won't relieve you from meeting the requirements of those laws and regulations

If 136.119 is the regulation that allows it, then they can't just come up to your aircraft and demand you give them up.

 

[avbug]

If 136.119 is the regulation that allows it, then they can't just come up to your aircraft and demand you give them up.

You know, I haven't called you a name yet...despite your use of "tool," "idiot," "dumba$$," "stupid," and so forth. I've just called you by your chosen name, stupidpilot. It fits you so well.

The regulation is 14 CFR 135.119. Not 136. Part 135 is the FAA regulation which governs the operating requirements for commuter and on-demand operations, and the rules governing persons on board those aircraft.

Part 136 is the FAA regulation which governs commercial air tours and national parks air tour management.

So...again you're wrong. However, setting that aside, you have a very poor understanding of both law and regulation. 14 CFR is Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and establishes Administrative Law. In this particular case, it's the regulation administered through the FAA.

This is not the same as the USC, or United States Code, which is actual law. Break a "FAR," and you're breaking a regulation. Break a code/law, and you're a criminal.

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.

No contradiction here.

Nice way to contradict yourself there idiot.

However, you are also beholden to all the laws and regulations of every municipality, county, state, and airport thorugh which you pass when you fly, and permission from your Director of Operations won't relieve you from meeting the requirements of those laws and regulations

The FAA hasn't provided an authorization in 135.119. The FAA has provided a blanket restriction, and then a clause in 135.119(b) which states that the restriction doesn't apply to crewmembers whom are authorized by the certificate holder.

The certificate holder does not have the authority to grand permission outside the scope of their certificate. That is, the certificate holder can't excuse a crewmember from any law. The certificate holder can give permission to carry a firearm on board the aircraft, but the crew member is still at all times beholden to comply with the law of each jurisdiction, municipality, county, state, or facility through which he or she passes or where he or she lands.

Again, no contradiction at all. That you seem unable to comprehend this is perhaps what drove you to name yourself stupidpilot. Fitting.

For some reason you elected previously to bring airline passengers into the conversation...for reasons apparently known only to you. Now's as good a time as any to introduce you to the troubles of Mr. Gregg Revell, of Salt Lake City. He was traveling to Allentown, PA by airline in March of 2005, and had legally checked a firearm with his luggage. Appropriately it was cased and locked, and of course, unloaded.

Mr. Revell ended up staying in NJ overnight due to no fault of his own; it was due to the airline. Now bear in mind that Mr. Revell was a paying airline passenger, travelling with a firearm that he could legally check as luggage under the Firearms Owner Protection Act (which is a law, incidentally...not a regulation). Mr. Revell was also a concealed weapon permit holder, though it's not applicable in this situation. The following morning he attempted to check in with the airline as he had done in Salt Lake City.

Mr. Revell was arrested for possession of a firearm without a New Jersey State license. He spent five days in jail. Charges were dismissed several months later.

You are still held accountable for your firearm where ever you go. In the case of Mr. Revell, he had legal relief under the law...a real law, not an implied clause excusing him from an administrative regulatory restriction. Never the less, he was still arrested, jailed for five days, and put to a great deal of difficulty.

Your answer seems to be that if one doesn't get caught, then it's okay. You seem to base your lack of understanding on the concept that without your permission, no one could possibly search your aircraft and learn that you're a criminal.

The fact is that the FAA has restricted firearm carriage on board a Part 135 airplane with a few exceptions. These exceptions grant no permission nor authority nor excuse from any law established by any other legal authority. The only thing the exceptions do is excuse those to whom it applies from the restriction of 135.119.