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.