US Pilot Arrested for Loaded Handgun in Carry On
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not necessarily a bad guy
You don't think someone who takes a loaded gun onto a passenger aircraft is a bad guy?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed of Sound:
I would hardly call air marshals and other officials who are authorised to carry loaded firearms onto a plane as "bad guys", in fact, they are there as quite the opposite and to deal with any "bad guys" that try anything. As West Coast says, life isnt so black and white as to assume anyone carrying a gun is a bad guy.
I would hardly call air marshals and other officials who are authorised to carry loaded firearms onto a plane as "bad guys", in fact, they are there as quite the opposite and to deal with any "bad guys" that try anything. As West Coast says, life isnt so black and white as to assume anyone carrying a gun is a bad guy.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all laws pertain to crime
Breaking the law is by definition a criminal act.
So breaking the law is not, in fact, by definition a criminal act.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: With the fairies!
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have a pilot, who by his training knows full well that he cannot take an unauthorised firearm on board an aircraft, takes a pistol in his carry on luggage through security. He is not even part of the FFDO system and the weapon is not an approved weapon either!
He has night stopped in another country and is fully cognisant of the facts that he has broken the law. But this won't stand in the way of a testosterone charged Sky God!
The arrogance is unbelievable - as are the responses of those who seek to justify it as a minor misdemeanor where it a badge of pride to say I took a knife/ toolman/ pistol through security without being detected.
Hey but what the heck,
What a lovely warm feeling you must enjoy in the US of A!
He has night stopped in another country and is fully cognisant of the facts that he has broken the law. But this won't stand in the way of a testosterone charged Sky God!
The arrogance is unbelievable - as are the responses of those who seek to justify it as a minor misdemeanor where it a badge of pride to say I took a knife/ toolman/ pistol through security without being detected.
Hey but what the heck,
breaking the law is not, in fact, by definition a criminal act
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red Plum, if you read my postings more carefully, you'll see that I am not in any way attempting to exonerate the guy who carried a gun through a security checkpoint.
I don't have a position on whether or not the guy in question was criminal, or, arrogant, or merely incredibly careless, since I don't have the facts, and neither do the rest of us.
We don't know, for example, whether or not he knew that the gun was in his bag. What I do know is that my carrying a knife through security was not a result of arrogance, nor of callous disregard for the law or security procedures, nor a product of ill intent, but simply a mistake stemming from a certain level of disorganization in packing and storing my personal property. And I don't wear it as a badge of pride; instead my reaction is more like, "<gulp> Wow, that was stupid, glad I got lucky."
People make stupid mistakes all the time. Sometimes luck favors us idiots, and those mistakes have no practical consequence. Sometimes they result in somebody inadvertently flying a planeload of people into terrain. Mistakes are not, in general, treated as criminal acts. We don't know if this guy made a mistake or if he was toting the gun around knowingly and deliberately.
I might even argue that, even if the guy didn't know the gun was in his bag, the simple fact of not knowing where his gun was, is, on the face, evidence of incredibly negligent, possibly even criminally negligent, lack of control over his firearm.
All I'm doing with my postings here is calling out people for making statements that are dogmatic but false. Contrary to what has been posted here, violating the law is not, by definition, a criminal act. Only violating a criminal law is a criminal act, and the vast majority of laws define procedure and regulation rather than crimes. Also, it's false that "anyone who carries a firearm onto an aircraft is a bad guy," because air marshals and FFDO qualified crew are not bad guys, nor is the idiot who didn't know the weapon was in his bag. How about "Anyone who knowingly carries a firearm onto an aircraft when he is not authorized to do so, is a bad guy." See the difference?
Words matter.
I don't have a position on whether or not the guy in question was criminal, or, arrogant, or merely incredibly careless, since I don't have the facts, and neither do the rest of us.
We don't know, for example, whether or not he knew that the gun was in his bag. What I do know is that my carrying a knife through security was not a result of arrogance, nor of callous disregard for the law or security procedures, nor a product of ill intent, but simply a mistake stemming from a certain level of disorganization in packing and storing my personal property. And I don't wear it as a badge of pride; instead my reaction is more like, "<gulp> Wow, that was stupid, glad I got lucky."
People make stupid mistakes all the time. Sometimes luck favors us idiots, and those mistakes have no practical consequence. Sometimes they result in somebody inadvertently flying a planeload of people into terrain. Mistakes are not, in general, treated as criminal acts. We don't know if this guy made a mistake or if he was toting the gun around knowingly and deliberately.
I might even argue that, even if the guy didn't know the gun was in his bag, the simple fact of not knowing where his gun was, is, on the face, evidence of incredibly negligent, possibly even criminally negligent, lack of control over his firearm.
All I'm doing with my postings here is calling out people for making statements that are dogmatic but false. Contrary to what has been posted here, violating the law is not, by definition, a criminal act. Only violating a criminal law is a criminal act, and the vast majority of laws define procedure and regulation rather than crimes. Also, it's false that "anyone who carries a firearm onto an aircraft is a bad guy," because air marshals and FFDO qualified crew are not bad guys, nor is the idiot who didn't know the weapon was in his bag. How about "Anyone who knowingly carries a firearm onto an aircraft when he is not authorized to do so, is a bad guy." See the difference?
Words matter.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a lovely warm feeling you must enjoy in the US of A!
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gauges and Dials is correct for pointing out that breaking the law is not necessarily a criminal act. Nor is that confined to the US...
Allow me to make it clearer. If you are stopped for speeding in the UK for being 5mph over the speed limit, you have broken the law but what criminal offence would you have committed?
Possibly driving without due care and attention but if the police considered that a crime the already overburdened courts would end up with a 5 year backlog with the number of cases. The result is minor speeding offences are dealt with as traffic violations and no criminal charges are laid hence these minor infractions are not considered criminal acts. The police issue a fine/points and thats the end of the matter.
If you are caught speeding at well over the speed limit, or over 100mph, thats a different ball game. Not only have you broken the law but you would have committed a crime and would be charged with either dangerous driving or other charge. The process would then go to court to be heard. Any conviction from a court would count as a criminal conviction.
It is therefore possible to break the law without it being a criminal act. As said earlier, words are important.
Allow me to make it clearer. If you are stopped for speeding in the UK for being 5mph over the speed limit, you have broken the law but what criminal offence would you have committed?
Possibly driving without due care and attention but if the police considered that a crime the already overburdened courts would end up with a 5 year backlog with the number of cases. The result is minor speeding offences are dealt with as traffic violations and no criminal charges are laid hence these minor infractions are not considered criminal acts. The police issue a fine/points and thats the end of the matter.If you are caught speeding at well over the speed limit, or over 100mph, thats a different ball game. Not only have you broken the law but you would have committed a crime and would be charged with either dangerous driving or other charge. The process would then go to court to be heard. Any conviction from a court would count as a criminal conviction.
It is therefore possible to break the law without it being a criminal act. As said earlier, words are important.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: USofA
Posts: 1,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know for sure but I suspect this Skywest flight was flown by a KSLC crew. It's an intersting fact that Salt lake City has the highest incidence of handgun discoveries by TSA staff at the airport of all TSA screening points in the US. Don't recall what month it was now, but recently the TSA confiscated no less than 7 guns going through the screening at the airport in one month. Amazing!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The larger point, perhaps?
This is a professional forum for practitioners of a craft in which people's lives depend upon precision, accuracy, clear thinking, and attention to detail. Therefore, anyone who makes comments, especially strongly worded comments, that are imprecise, that are inaccurate, or that display sloppy thinking, should expect to be called out vigorously.
Bottums Up
There's a big difference between a Leatherman and a gun.
For most a Leatherman is a multi tool, handy for screwing, cutting, repairing, dismantling.
For most, a gun is a weapon that kills.
I see many justifications for a pilot having a Leatherman in his/her tool kit.
I see no justification what so ever for a pilot to carry a gun.
For most a Leatherman is a multi tool, handy for screwing, cutting, repairing, dismantling.
For most, a gun is a weapon that kills.
I see many justifications for a pilot having a Leatherman in his/her tool kit.
I see no justification what so ever for a pilot to carry a gun.
If someone was trying to breach the door you might. Deny as you might, if you had one and someone hellbent on destroying you, your aircraft and potentially a lot of folks on the the ground, you'd use it.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: long island
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Respect to Gauges & Dials for some lucid, unemotional input into this subject.
I am a 'good guy' myself, but not too long ago found myself having to turn around in my driveway on the way to the airport to return something to my residence which would have otherwise created some more than the usual unpleasantness at TSA screening.
I am a 'good guy' myself, but not too long ago found myself having to turn around in my driveway on the way to the airport to return something to my residence which would have otherwise created some more than the usual unpleasantness at TSA screening.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Canada
Age: 83
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally Canadian officials are tolerant of obvious mistakes but unfortunately (that is for the offender) there has been great concern over the number of restricted weapons flooding in from the United States into Canada. That may compel prosecution. It almost certainly would at Pearson in Ontario where the gun import issue is most acute but perhaps not elsewhere. All the cases I have dealt with before involved guns carried in by car, when the weapons are always confiscated and an on the spot judgement made on further action. I cannot judge what the position will be in this case
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would hardly call air marshals and other officials who are authorised to carry loaded firearms onto a plane as "bad guys",
As a Canadian, an ex-Calgarian and a holder of an FAC (Firearms Acquisition Certificate), I have been following this thread with interest.
Firstly, for the benefit of non-Canucks, the offences that the pilot in question has been charged with are pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. So not much doubt there.
Secondly, one of the charges is related to a prohibited weapon - in this case, the barrel length is too short.
In my opinion, anyone with a loaded gun on an aircraft is bad news. Just sayin'.
Firstly, for the benefit of non-Canucks, the offences that the pilot in question has been charged with are pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada. So not much doubt there.
Secondly, one of the charges is related to a prohibited weapon - in this case, the barrel length is too short.
it does however come over in how you phrased it as a rather sweeping generalisation that anyone with a loaded gun on a plane is a bad guy in your view. Just sayin'.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Information on restrictions to the importation of firearms into Canada is easily accessed on the CBSA web site. Many pilots of all levels who cross the border for the first time avail themselves of this information. Trust me on this one.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf
There's a very old saying: when in Rome, do as the Romans. Might have helped this guy to know what the rules were where he was traveling to.
This is way off the board to contain a restricted firearm into a foreign country in your carry on luggage, ESP not declaring it. If he declared it and it was not a restricted firearm his position would be much better, if he declared a restricted firearm out of ignorance it sounds like Canada would probably be much more accepting of idiocy.
Lonewolf,
I was just observing that statistically, I am much more at risk from a loaded-gun on an aircraft (which I assume is pretty much anytime that I travel in the US) than I am from the possibility of being on a flight that might be hi-jacked.
grounded27,
I'll repeat what I said before. In Canada, the Bodyguard 380 is a prohibited weapon (due to the barrel length being under 4.1"), not a restricted weapon.
I was just observing that statistically, I am much more at risk from a loaded-gun on an aircraft (which I assume is pretty much anytime that I travel in the US) than I am from the possibility of being on a flight that might be hi-jacked.
grounded27,
I'll repeat what I said before. In Canada, the Bodyguard 380 is a prohibited weapon (due to the barrel length being under 4.1"), not a restricted weapon.
Last edited by India Four Two; 11th Apr 2014 at 06:15.
You have to be more than a bit dim to think that it's OK to carry a loaded handgun on an aircraft unless you're specifically authorised to do so.
You have to be even dimmer to try to import it into a foreign country.....
You have to be even dimmer to try to import it into a foreign country.....