Weapons

[avbug]

without sounding like a pompous jerk and insulting a person every other line.

That would be you, stupidpilot. The only name you've been called is...your own...the one you chose.

You, on the other hand, have repeatedly hurled insults and resorted to name calling. Over and over and over. This is, of course, the essence of stupidpilot.

You have yet, however, to address the topic at hand, or offer anything meaningful on the subject.

Or be right or correct or make a truthful statement, but I digress...

 

[stupidpilot]

Liar.

 

[bizjet800]

Let me ask this: what good is a gun do you in flight sitting in your holster? Unless you have reinforced cockpit door to "slow" someone down a bit, tactically you are a sitting duck!

 

[stupidpilot]

Quite true.

 

[avbug]

Let me ask this: what good is a gun do you in flight sitting in your holster? Unless you have reinforced cockpit door to "slow" someone down a bit, tactically you are a sitting duck!

You're making the assumption that the pilot is under attack, and that this is the only reason to have a firearm. Previously, a number of situations were cited in which a firearm is of benefit in a Part 135 cockpit or a 135 environment, specificaly when it's been of value to me.

Again, numerous considerations apply regarding the aircraft being flown, the pilot, the situation, the type of operation, the location, etc.

I've flown 135 in locations where carrying a handgun was necessary just to get to the airplane, as protection from dog packs and other critters.

As for very, very stupidpilot, he or she is on the ignore list, where it belongs.

 

[bizjet800]

I understand if you are outside the airplane, but if its a "9/11" type of attack, any pilot with his gun in the holster is at a huge tactical disadvantage. There is no way to defend yourself from a gun, or any weapon when you are flying--no matter what your side arm is.

 

[erichartmann]

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.

You might want to read Heller. The Supreme court has indicated therein that the 2nd amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.

 

[stupidpilot]

As for very, very stupidpilot, he or she is on the ignore list, where it belongs.

Pansy.

 

[avbug]

You might want to read Heller. The Supreme court has indicated therein that the 2nd amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.

I'm familiar with Heller, and nobody here is challenging the 2nd ammendment, the individual or collective right to keep and bear arms, the US constitution, or the court's decision. I own several firearm safes myself, each full of handguns, shotguns, rifles, and so-called "assault weapons," including Class III firearms. I hold multiple carry permits, have carried professionally, and continue to carry firearms in various capacities.

I'm one of the last that anyone has need of preaching to regarding firearms use, ownership, or the rights thereof.

Firefly asserts that all firearms laws are illegal. This can be immediately discounted as idiotic. 100-1/2 asserts that a militia can't be regulated. Also clearly in error and contrary to the wording of the 2nd Ammendment itself.

Neither of these assertions, nor the remainder of the sentiment attached to those posts address the topic of weapons and 135 crewmembers.

I understand if you are outside the airplane, but if its a "9/11" type of attack, any pilot with his gun in the holster is at a huge tactical disadvantage. There is no way to defend yourself from a gun, or any weapon when you are flying--no matter what your side arm is.

There certainly is a way to defend, though it may cost one one's life. This isn't particularly significant, however, as in such an attack one's life is over if one doesn't defend. No attack is a sure foregone conclusion; defense is absolutely necessary, as you know, to the death, or conclusion of the fight.

When one comes under attack, one might always be said to be under a tactical disadvantage. This works both ways, however. One who is focused on an attack is also at a disadvantage, and has dedicated himself or herself to the act not only of attacking, but becoming a target. Never lose sight of that.

So far as operations under 135, few hijackings of charter aircraft in the US have occured in flight. Many have occured prior to the flight, when the pilot was approached on the ground. Far better to prevent the aircraft from being airborne, and possession of a weapon is or can be an advantage in preventing the aircraft from becoming available to someone who should not have it.

I have been involved in two situations, one a holdup and one a carjacking, either enroute to the airport or from it during 135 operations, when a firearm was central to my being here to type this.

In another unrelated case, while moving from one city to another (being transferred by a Part 135 operator, in fact), I had an occasion to use a firearm defensively when by coincidence I was confronted by an individual with a rifle in the apartment complex. The individual with the rifle had exited an apartment in pursuit of an unarmed person, and saw me in the passage way. He stopped his pursuit and aimed the weapon at me, forcing me to act. I wasn't operating under 135 at the time, though I was making the move due to employment with a 135 operator. Regardless, I'm a very big proponent on adequate, continual weapons training, ownership, carriage, and where necessary, use.

I submit that when one is faced with a large bull next to one's aircraft during the unloading of a patient into one's Part 135 airplane, it matters little whether the threat is an angry muslim or an angry bull. It's still a threat, and having been in that situation where the safety of not only myself, but my nurse, my patient, the ambulance crew, my aircraft, and the ambulance itself were at stake, the ownership and legal carriage of a firearm was not only instrumental in a successful outcome of the flight assigment, but to our collective wellbeing. One example among many legitimate ones in which carriage of a firearm is appropriate, and right.

From an airline perspective, the only use of the firearm is defense of the cockpit. The scope of 135 operations is considerably broader and presents far more unique situations in which carriage of a firearm is appropriate. Whereas a 09/11 style attack hasn't yet been forthcoming in modern 135 operations, other situations have occured in which possession of a firearm by a trained and prepared crewmember may have made a difference.

A fairly recent event involved the hijacking of a helicopter. The pilot was alble to make a run for it to preven the helicopter from being used, at the same time a tactical team was setting up. The pilot took gunfire in the back from the perpetrator, who was then shot by law enforcement. One might postulate that the pilot may have had a better chance from the outset while armed, though it's impossible to say with a certainty.

The fact remains that whether it's an individual surprising people in the night who are siphoning avgas from airplane tanks (a problem, locally...particularly with the economy) and running into trouble, a hijacking, or a dog pack, many applications exist in which possession of a firearm is warranted and certainly recommended. If one flies in locals such as Alaska, it's formerly the law, and regardless, a darn good idea.

I worked for a company years ago that did a large number of tours. During one of the tours, one of our pilots was confronted by a passenger with a knife. The passenger didn't attack the pilot, but attempted to kill his wife during the flight. The flight took place in a light airplane with no cockpit doors or barriers. Had the pilot been armed, the pilot would have had an opportunity to intervene decisively. Another example of an airborne 135 application of a firearm.

The list of possibilities is extensive for reasonable, legal ownership, carriage, and even use or employment of that firearm.

I flew for one company that had it's own FFL, or Federal Firearms License to deal and sell firearms. One could approach the parts counter in the shop to check out an Aeroquip mandrel to fabricate a fuel line, or one could approach the parts counter to select, purchase, and order a handgun...and every one of us did both. It wasn't uncommon for people during a lunch break when working in the shop to travel to the far end fo the runway and shoot targets on the airport fenceline. I did so on many occasions.

Heller affired what most of us already knew, and didn't improve or take away rights for most of us in free states. It made a difference in places that are restrictive, such as Washington DC where the suit took place, and it was a positive decision. It didn't change the application of the 2nd Ammendment nor discount the wording or requirement for a well regulated militia, but simply reinforced the individual freedom to keep and bear arms...exactly as per the wording of the Ammendment.

As for those who assert that firearms laws are illegal...think it all you want. If you intend to do something about it, then seek to change the view of the courts by legal means (ala Heller, Emerson, or Parker). Until then, you're obligated and have a duty to uphold and support whatever legislation, codes, laws, and regulations apply...whether you think them legal or not.

 

[bizjet800]

I think some people just have way too much time on their hands!

 

[gearjockey]

Here's some more gristle for you guys to fight over:
Supreme Court scales back police right to search cars
The ruling limits searches to cases when there may be a weapon within the suspect's reach or evidence related to the arrest. The decision sets aside broader powers granted by the court in 1981.



http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus-carsearch22-2009apr22,0,1967319.story

 

[Fly91]

That's correct Timmay! Also I've had hunters bring weapons on my aircraft and TSA just watched us walk into the FBO with them and didn't utter a word.

I carry my gun with me almost every single time I fly. The only places I will not take my gun are those states where I do not have reciprocity with my Florida concealed permit. Currently, I'm good to go into 32 states. But you have to be careful where you take hunters with "handguns", because transport of "handguns" and some long-guns across state lines, in some states, is illegal. And in some states, the people with the guns can get up to 3 years in prison mandatory. Possible you could get into trouble for allowing it, don't know. Take people into New York State with a handgun, look up the Sullivan Act. New Jersey has something just like it. Bad trouble.

I also do not carry my gun to just any foreign country. I have in the past gotten written temporary authority to carry my gun into a country from that countries officials. You simply ask and apply. Its a yes or a no. Caribbean countries are the easiest.

A good question you have is whether or not a cop can walk up to your private plane and just start going through it. I would guess "no way". That means they can search cars, hangars and peoples offices. The FAA can;t even search a plane, they are just allowed to check and look for specific items. I highly doubt it inside the United States. Only time there's nothing you can do when law enforcement wants to search your plane is when you clear back into the USA. There's no way I'd ever let a cop search our planes at a corporate jet served airport at an FBO in any state. I'd lock it and tell them to get a search warrant, unless the boss said it was ok. If they find a gun, who cares. As long you are not posessing it illegally...meaning concealing it on your person without an acceptable license or its a state where handguns are simply not allowed, who cares if they see it. Even in New York/New Jersey long-guns are ok to own and carry from place to place, just not handguns.

I used to fly for a company out of Orlando, everywhere we went, regardless of which state, my boss had armed gaurds with him, but they all had federal license which allowed them to carry in every state.

But...what FBO do you fly out of that has TSA standing there? Just curious. I've never seen them at an FBO anywhere.

As mentioned earlier by someone, you're not supposed to take a weapon into a secured area of an airport "terminal" known as the "sterile area" of an airport. But there's no law that says you cannot carry a weapon, concealed on your person with a permit or in a proper case unloaded and locked anywhere on the grounds of airport that does not have a passenger terminal. An FBO is not a passenger terminal controlled under the same laws as an airline terminal at a large airport with "security checkpoints and defined sterile areas."
This is who I ask all of my law related questions regarding firearms, airports or transportation. They answer any questions and they do it for free. The best attorney for firearms questions in the country.
http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/m...ry_Code=Analysis-Florida-New-Self-Defense-Law

 

[Fly91]

Let me ask this: what good is a gun do you in flight sitting in your holster? Unless you have reinforced cockpit door to "slow" someone down a bit, tactically you are a sitting duck!

I only carry my gun everywhere I go as to protect myself in the hotel and in the city, just like I do at home.
Arming pilots in cockpits, I think, is plain stupid and will stop nothing anyway. Most of the boobs I know will kill themselves first up there.

On a corporate jet, I know everyone that boards it. Or I trust my people to allow non-terrorists to fly with us only.

 

[Fly91]

You might want to read Heller. The Supreme court has indicated therein that the 2nd amendment conveys an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Also, in most cases where firearms are being posessed illegally....but were used in self-defense, there are usually no criminal charges ever filed. Like Leo Goetts in New York City. Killed like 3 attackers and got off scott free. Used a concealed handgun.

So really, it falls back on the whole "right to bare arms". How can you prosecute someone that saved their own life from an attacker.

 

[stupidpilot]

Signature @ ORD has a TSA checkpoint there. Score one for the Daly political machine to waste more taxpayer money.

 

[avbug]

Also, in most cases where firearms are being posessed illegally....but were used in self-defense, there are usually no criminal charges ever filed.

Wrong.

Like Leo Goetts in New York City. Killed like 3 attackers and got off scott free.

"Leo Goetts" was a character in a Mel Gibson movie. You may be thinking of Bernhard Goetz. He was charged with attempted murder and assault. He did serve a brief 8 month prison sentence, and did not get off "scott free." Ultimately he was convicted of criminal possesesion of a firearm. Of course, he also lost the subsequent law suits against him, suffering 43 million in damages based on the jury award against him, and declared bankrupcy.

So really, it falls back on the whole "right to bare arms".

That's the "right to bear arms," genius.

No doubt you also have the right to go sleeveless if you want, however. That's up to you.

How can you prosecute someone that saved their own life from an attacker.

An honest, but naive question, as it happens all the time. Including the situation which you just cited, with Bernhard Goetz. The circumstances dictate.

Historically there's a high probability that you will see your firearm confiscated and face prosecution if you injure or kill someone, even defensively. Where, when, what, and how it occured are important factors. Whether you go to jail or not, there exists also a high probability that you'll face a civil law suit. If the charges don't get you, the expenses will. The crowd loves to parrot phrases such as "molon labe" and "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." Those who do have never been on the unpleasant end of a law suit against which it's out of their pocket to defend.

Press the trigger, and nobody wins.

 

[Sandhawk]

That's the "right to bear arms," genius.

Press the trigger, and nobody wins.

It's "Pull the trigger" - genius


:smash:

 

[erichartmann]

Avbug,

The following quote from your post #76:

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

clearly implies you believe belonging to a militia is a prerequisite for the "right to keep and bear arms" as enumerated in the 2nd Amendment. The so-called requirement to belong to a militia was one of the anti-gunner's classic arguements. Heller says otherwise. Unfortunately the court left somewhat open the meaning of "shall not be infringed" by indicating that some police regulation might not be out of the question. Personally, I think "shall not be infringed" means just what it says any law which restricts my right to "keep and bear" infringes that right. Getting that through a court in, say D.C. or MA. is another thing. I prefer to not fight battles I can't win.

 

[erichartmann]

(partial quote)

Historically there's a high probability that you will see your firearm confiscated and face prosecution if you injure or kill someone, even defensively. Where, when, what, and how it occured are important factors. Whether you go to jail or not, there exists also a high probability that you'll face a civil law suit. If the charges don't get you, the expenses will. The crowd loves to parrot phrases such as "molon labe" and "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." Those who do have never been on the unpleasant end of a law suit against which it's out of their pocket to defend.

Press the trigger, and nobody wins.

None-the-less some might see that as preferable to being killed, seriously, perhaps permanently injured or maimed even after the court cases.

I believe I have a right to defend myself. The fact that current law might allow me to be charged and/or sued is a travesty. The solution is to change the laws. There are people working on that.

 

[stupidpilot]

If you read some of the framer's thoughts regarding the right to bear arms, as opposed to just the verbiage in the 2nd amendment. It is clear that they thought each individual should have the right to bear arms.