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