Weapons

[pilot error]

I am willing to bet anyone that the first shooting involving an FFDO will be them self or the other pilot, not a terrorist.

if that happens, it will be because of the current regs, not despite them.

 

[avbug]

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

Do you understand that we're talking about airplanes, and not cars? Airplanes don't travel on a highway, as a rule. Perhaps yours do, stupidpilot. This wouldn't be a great surprise, given some of your other comments.

Law enforcement most certainly does have the right to search your vehicle, given reasonable suspicion, or a number of other considerations depending on location and circumstance.

Park your car inside a secure area in which you are subject to search...and yes, your car may be searched.

Park your airplane inside the perimeter fence of an airport acting as a secure area, in which weapons are prohibited, and yes, your airplane may be searched.

So far as concealed weapon permits...most do not authorize the carriage of a firearm into places where firearms are prohibited, which include locations serving alcohol, post offices, schools, government buildings, and yes...in many cases, airports. Additionally, many airports and the authorities which operate them will prohibit weapons. Land there with a weapon on board and you're in violation.

Perhaps you're simply inexperienced enough to have had a very thorough customs inspection before...but without any permission on my part, they've gutted my airplane, smashed a liquor cabinet, and left no apology...simply because they had a question about a passenger on board. As it turned out they did search him, without his permission (because they didn't need it), and he was carrying a weapon...and he certainly was caught. As was one of his traveling companions. Not only could customs have damaged the airplane (they did...during a 135 charter flight)...they could have confiscated it.

Your "private" property can just as easily become someone else's property. Don't try waving your rights around too much, stupidpilot. They're not as broad as you might think.

 

[stupidpilot]

Then perhaps you can explain to me how you can get a weapon on to checked baggage oh my wise one?

 

[TWA]

Folks, can you do us all a favor and avoid typing out a how-to guide for hijacking a chartered aircraft? Thanks...

 

[TWA]

Then perhaps you can explain to me how you can get a weapon on to checked baggage oh my wise one?

Declare it at the counter, show that the chamber is open, have the firearm and ammunition in proper containers with non-tsa locks. A very simple and easy process.

 

[TurboHonda]

Folks, can you do us all a favor and avoid typing out a how-to guide for hijacking a chartered aircraft? Thanks...

God forbid that we should know what can happen, how it can happen, and what to do to prevent it from happening.

Several sayings come to mind:

Ignorance is bliss. Forewarned is forearmed. A stitch in time. Etc.

 

[TWA]

Loose lips sink ships.

 

[timmay]

Do you understand that we're talking about airplanes, and not cars? Airplanes don't travel on a highway, as a rule. Perhaps yours do, stupidpilot. This wouldn't be a great surprise, given some of your other comments.

Law enforcement most certainly does have the right to search your vehicle, given reasonable suspicion, or a number of other considerations depending on location and circumstance.

Actually the police can't legally search your car based on suspicion. The term is Probable Cause which is a long way from a cops suspicion. That is why when you watch "cops" the police always ask if they can search the peps car.

 

[stupidpilot]

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.

 

[avbug]

Actually the police can't legally search your car based on suspicion. The term is Probable Cause which is a long way from a cops suspicion. That is why when you watch "cops" the police always ask if they can search the peps car.

You watch too much television...and yes, law enforcement most certainly can search a car based on reasonable suspicion. Moreover, the cause for making a stop on a potential violator may be made on reasonable suspicion, and the search itself may be based on reasonable suspicion, or other probable cause.

A subject's demeanor may not be probable cause, but may invite such reasonable suspicion as to do a stop. It may also cause the officer to detain a subject, perform a search, and even a subsequent seizure of property based on that reasonable suspicion.

Probable cause exists when sufficient evidence exists; reasonable suspicion doesn't necessarily need to rely upon a preponderance of evidence in making the stop or search. Both probable cause and reasonable suspicion are acceptable for search and subsequent enforcement action. Both are frequently used to establish the reason for a search, and yes, based on reasonable suspicion, your aircraft may be searched.

Then perhaps you can explain to me how you can get a weapon on to checked baggage oh my wise one?

What has this to do with the price of tea in China?

We discuss the carriage of a firearm by a pilot on board a flight in which the pilot is acting as pilot in command, and you want to know how to check your firearms as luggage?

Check them. Simple. Locked container, ammunition in a separate acceptable container. Not exactly complex. Declare the firearm. You don't know or understand this?

I check my own firearms regularly. No problem. You...given your commentary here, would probably be best prohibited from owning weapons...let alone checking them.

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.

Also irrelevant to the conversation. Why bring it up? You're making a point, then? You're surprised that TSA might allow a legal act to take place?

Apparently Stupidpilot is as stupidpilot does.

 

[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.