Gun carrying Passengers
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat Boy;
Here’s a Canadian perspective (and these are Federal Statutes).
*Criminal Code Chapter C-46
2. In This Act, "peace officer includes"
(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft while the aircraft is in flight.
It further defines in-flight as:
(8) For the purposes of this section, of the definition "peace officer" in section 2 and of sections 76 and 77, "flight" means the act of flying or moving through the air and an aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following the embarkation until the later of:
(a) the time at which any such door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation*
The Aeronautics Act, Chapter A-2 stated:
* "pilot-in-command" means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time. *
<a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-2/288.html#rid-296" target="_blank">[/URL]
<a href="http://http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html" target="_blank"></a>
[URL=http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html#rid-35487]</a>
-----------------------------------------------
[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Orca strait ]</p>
Here’s a Canadian perspective (and these are Federal Statutes).
*Criminal Code Chapter C-46
2. In This Act, "peace officer includes"
(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft while the aircraft is in flight.
It further defines in-flight as:
(8) For the purposes of this section, of the definition "peace officer" in section 2 and of sections 76 and 77, "flight" means the act of flying or moving through the air and an aircraft shall be deemed to be in flight from the time when all external doors are closed following the embarkation until the later of:
(a) the time at which any such door is opened for the purpose of disembarkation*
The Aeronautics Act, Chapter A-2 stated:
* "pilot-in-command" means, in relation to an aircraft, the pilot having responsibility and authority for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time. *
<a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/A-2/288.html#rid-296" target="_blank">[/URL]
<a href="http://http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html" target="_blank"></a>
[URL=http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html#rid-35487]</a>
-----------------------------------------------
[ 08 January 2002: Message edited by: Orca strait ]</p>
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's the Criminal Code URL that did not come through on above post.
<a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html#rid-35487" target="_blank">Link</a>
---------------------------------
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]</p>
<a href="http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/35481.html#rid-35487" target="_blank">Link</a>
---------------------------------
[ 09 January 2002: Message edited by: Sick Squid ]</p>
Moderator
[quote]I don't have any problem with gun ownership in principle, boofhead. The point is not why do all these agencies require to carry weapons, but why they must be carried ON MY AIRPLANE?
I have never seen a US postal/prison/poultry inpectors/zookeepers service ID card and would have no idea whether it had just been run up on an apple-mac. Nor do I suspect have many airport security staff. <hr></blockquote>
This sums up my opinion exactly.....
[quote]Tripower455
I didn't mention the company we work for, did I? Whew! I don't need that psychological evaluation. They did say that we could not talk to the media and mention that we work for XYZ Airlines. Is this considered the media?
<hr></blockquote>
ZTR4A, I won't tell if you don't! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I HAVE had my suspicions about you though! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I have never seen a US postal/prison/poultry inpectors/zookeepers service ID card and would have no idea whether it had just been run up on an apple-mac. Nor do I suspect have many airport security staff. <hr></blockquote>
This sums up my opinion exactly.....
[quote]Tripower455
I didn't mention the company we work for, did I? Whew! I don't need that psychological evaluation. They did say that we could not talk to the media and mention that we work for XYZ Airlines. Is this considered the media?
<hr></blockquote>
ZTR4A, I won't tell if you don't! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> I HAVE had my suspicions about you though! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, it seems the Canadian Federal Law makes the PIC a law enforcement officer. Doesn't seem to say anything about requiring or authorizing being armed. Do Canadian pilots receive training in the law or use of law enforcement authority? Trying to imagine that as part of the written test for PPL.
In the U S context, the postal inspectors can be thought of as a Secret Service/U S Marshalls Service with juristiction over the U S mails. These people are the real deal as law enforcement people, so comments about armed "postal workers" are either humorous (?) the first few times or purposefully thick. When air mail started in the U S the pilots were required to wear a sidearm so that if they had to land somewhere and let the mail continue by other means they could guard it until it's custody could be passed. Look at some of the old pictures of airmail pilots and you can see the .38 revolver or some such in many cases.
Qualified armed people would be okay to have aboard in theory, but from a practical point of view it is difficult to establsh the bonafides of people from a zillion different agencies and it would be a good idea to limit it to people with proper training (done in U S to some extent) and properly preflight briefed. PIC permission should be required, another item on the preflight checklist. Just make sure they don't shoot themselves in the backside when they clear their weapons.
In the U S context, the postal inspectors can be thought of as a Secret Service/U S Marshalls Service with juristiction over the U S mails. These people are the real deal as law enforcement people, so comments about armed "postal workers" are either humorous (?) the first few times or purposefully thick. When air mail started in the U S the pilots were required to wear a sidearm so that if they had to land somewhere and let the mail continue by other means they could guard it until it's custody could be passed. Look at some of the old pictures of airmail pilots and you can see the .38 revolver or some such in many cases.
Qualified armed people would be okay to have aboard in theory, but from a practical point of view it is difficult to establsh the bonafides of people from a zillion different agencies and it would be a good idea to limit it to people with proper training (done in U S to some extent) and properly preflight briefed. PIC permission should be required, another item on the preflight checklist. Just make sure they don't shoot themselves in the backside when they clear their weapons.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Out West
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iron City
Peace Officer status for the PIC stems from marine law. The purpose is not to make the PIC or Ships Captain a “Law Enforcement Officer”, but to have in place, on the vessel a figure of authority with the backing of the courts to maintain good order and in a Ships Captains case, discipline.
Consider that, when a ship or aircraft are under way, they may be crossing multi-jurisdictions nationally and internationally and are not immediately accessible by normal law enforcement means. Does that mean when we have a rowdy passenger on board that may be violating local or international law, do we go back, cuff him, arrest him and read him his rights? No. If this or these offending persons are a hazard to the safety of the aircraft, crew or passengers, the PIC can authorize to have the offender restrained (if physically possible by cabin crew and volunteer passengers), land at the nearest suitable airport, and have the local authorities arrest the offender. The PIC will relay documented events and evidence, and the offender will have his day in court.
Due to the inaccessible nature of ocean going ships on the high seas, the Captain is also granted the power and authority to use whatever force required to maintain good order and discipline on the ship. I know a few Ships Captains, and they’ve never been to Mountie school either.
I bring all this up as it seems the roles, duties and authority of the PIC have become muddled lately, in part our own fault. Rather than being seen as a professional whom not only fly’s the aircraft (along with some very competent First Officers), and CEO of a multi-million dollar company (its up to you and your crew when that aircraft pushes back from the gate), we’ve become in managements and the public eye, overpaid prima-donnas that work ten days a month.
I know I’m going to pay for that last line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peace Officer status for the PIC stems from marine law. The purpose is not to make the PIC or Ships Captain a “Law Enforcement Officer”, but to have in place, on the vessel a figure of authority with the backing of the courts to maintain good order and in a Ships Captains case, discipline.
Consider that, when a ship or aircraft are under way, they may be crossing multi-jurisdictions nationally and internationally and are not immediately accessible by normal law enforcement means. Does that mean when we have a rowdy passenger on board that may be violating local or international law, do we go back, cuff him, arrest him and read him his rights? No. If this or these offending persons are a hazard to the safety of the aircraft, crew or passengers, the PIC can authorize to have the offender restrained (if physically possible by cabin crew and volunteer passengers), land at the nearest suitable airport, and have the local authorities arrest the offender. The PIC will relay documented events and evidence, and the offender will have his day in court.
Due to the inaccessible nature of ocean going ships on the high seas, the Captain is also granted the power and authority to use whatever force required to maintain good order and discipline on the ship. I know a few Ships Captains, and they’ve never been to Mountie school either.
I bring all this up as it seems the roles, duties and authority of the PIC have become muddled lately, in part our own fault. Rather than being seen as a professional whom not only fly’s the aircraft (along with some very competent First Officers), and CEO of a multi-million dollar company (its up to you and your crew when that aircraft pushes back from the gate), we’ve become in managements and the public eye, overpaid prima-donnas that work ten days a month.
I know I’m going to pay for that last line.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penguin, link didn't work for me either.
But this should get you there:
go to: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html</a>
click on "serarch the federal register" link
when in the federal register database page,
click on 2001 for year and
search for "armed law enforcement officer"
on completed search page, click on aircraft operator security link
that should get you the complete FAA rule with comments.
But this should get you there:
go to: <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/index.html</a>
click on "serarch the federal register" link
when in the federal register database page,
click on 2001 for year and
search for "armed law enforcement officer"
on completed search page, click on aircraft operator security link
that should get you the complete FAA rule with comments.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: New York
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Next time an armed law enforcement office boards your airplane and wants to retain his weapon, ask these questions. I'll bet the answer to each will be "NO."
1. Do you have frangible bullets in your weapon?
2. Are you protecting a witness on this flight?
3. Are you transporting a prisoner?
4) Are you protecting a political dignitary?
5) Are you a trained Air Marshall and did you advise dispatch that you're on board?
1. Do you have frangible bullets in your weapon?
2. Are you protecting a witness on this flight?
3. Are you transporting a prisoner?
4) Are you protecting a political dignitary?
5) Are you a trained Air Marshall and did you advise dispatch that you're on board?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boofhead I like yourself visit the US quite frequently and personally have never had any problems with crime, although someone did gun down and kill and officer 1 bblock up from my hotel last year whilst I was there.
I thik to say that carrying a concealed firearm is the reason crime is dropping in the US is a pretty sweeping statement, we all know countries that allow their residents to carry firearms that have a major problem as well. At the end of the dayits down to a lot of factors including social ones.
The 2001 British Crime Survey (produced by the Home Office) prelim results are availiable and show:
Burglary -17%
All vehicle related theft -11%
Household Theft -16%
Violent crime -19%
All BCS offences -11%
Av between '95-'00 -6%/Yr.
Seems also that their is abit of a debate going on at the mo between the UK and Us on the report you mention, see below from the BBC website...In fact if you look at the firearms stats in you will see that it appears the US has a bt of a problem!
The Home Office has dimissed an American television report's claims that Britain is more violent than the US as a "simplistic comparison".
The TV report, which followed news of an apparent drug rape of an American teacher in London, described the streets and shopping centres of Britain as a "battleground" of crime.
CBS News called the UK one of the most violent urban societies in the western world, where people were more likely to be burgled, twice as likely to be robbed and two-and-a-half times more likely to be assaulted than in America.
Charles Clarke: report is "absolute nonsense"
But the Home Office has hit back at the statistics, claiming that the average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than their British counterpart and 60 times more likely to be shot.
The row came as government sources confirmed a crime summit will be held at Downing Street next week at which Prime Minister Tony Blair will urge police to cut violence and disorder.
It is reported that chief constables from the Metropolitan, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire forces will be given £20m to crack down on street crime.
'Trivialised comparisons'
Home Office Minister Charles Clarke dismissed the CBS News report as "absolute nonsense", saying the way offences were defined and collated varied from country to country.
He told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "Violent crime is a very serious issue and needs to be very seriously addressed, but I don't think it's helped by the trivialised comparisons the CBS engaged in."
Mayhem is on the way
CBS News
Home Office figures showed the murder rate in the US in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in England and Wales.
The murder rate in London is 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 8.6 per 100,000 in New York and 49.15 per 100,000 in Washington DC.
A report produced by the US Department of Justice in 1998 would appear to support the Home Office's claims.
It shows the murder rate was 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate was about three times higher.
I thik to say that carrying a concealed firearm is the reason crime is dropping in the US is a pretty sweeping statement, we all know countries that allow their residents to carry firearms that have a major problem as well. At the end of the dayits down to a lot of factors including social ones.
The 2001 British Crime Survey (produced by the Home Office) prelim results are availiable and show:
Burglary -17%
All vehicle related theft -11%
Household Theft -16%
Violent crime -19%
All BCS offences -11%
Av between '95-'00 -6%/Yr.
Seems also that their is abit of a debate going on at the mo between the UK and Us on the report you mention, see below from the BBC website...In fact if you look at the firearms stats in you will see that it appears the US has a bt of a problem!
The Home Office has dimissed an American television report's claims that Britain is more violent than the US as a "simplistic comparison".
The TV report, which followed news of an apparent drug rape of an American teacher in London, described the streets and shopping centres of Britain as a "battleground" of crime.
CBS News called the UK one of the most violent urban societies in the western world, where people were more likely to be burgled, twice as likely to be robbed and two-and-a-half times more likely to be assaulted than in America.
Charles Clarke: report is "absolute nonsense"
But the Home Office has hit back at the statistics, claiming that the average American is seven times more likely to be murdered than their British counterpart and 60 times more likely to be shot.
The row came as government sources confirmed a crime summit will be held at Downing Street next week at which Prime Minister Tony Blair will urge police to cut violence and disorder.
It is reported that chief constables from the Metropolitan, West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire forces will be given £20m to crack down on street crime.
'Trivialised comparisons'
Home Office Minister Charles Clarke dismissed the CBS News report as "absolute nonsense", saying the way offences were defined and collated varied from country to country.
He told the BBC's Newsnight programme: "Violent crime is a very serious issue and needs to be very seriously addressed, but I don't think it's helped by the trivialised comparisons the CBS engaged in."
Mayhem is on the way
CBS News
Home Office figures showed the murder rate in the US in 1998 was 6.3 per 100,000 people compared with 1.4 per 100,000 in England and Wales.
The murder rate in London is 2.9 per 100,000 compared with 8.6 per 100,000 in New York and 49.15 per 100,000 in Washington DC.
A report produced by the US Department of Justice in 1998 would appear to support the Home Office's claims.
It shows the murder rate was 5.7 times higher in the US than England and Wales and the rape rate was about three times higher.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Julian, I agree that with an agenda you can use statistics to 'prove' anything. But there does seem to be a trend in the figures that show an increase in crime wherever the authorities remove guns from the honest citizen, while leaving the criminals free access. It makes sense that if the 'bad guys' do not have to fear their victims then they will be bolder. Most reports show this link, and they also show that where a liberalisation of gun regulations is in place the crime rates drop.
You will note that in your figures, the highest murder rate is in cities in the US that have a complete ban on private ownership of guns. Leaving only the criminals armed.
And on airplanes, if the crew and passengers are completely disarmed, with scissors, nail files and such being taken from them, they will be defenceless against the terrorist, who will ignore the rules and take whatever he wants on board with him. It will be a long time, perhaps never, before the criminal loses the edge. No matter what rules you might want to write, criminals will always find a way around them. They always have, and the insanity in "security" after Sep 11 must show you that they always will.
I for one am sick and tired of being treated as a criminal, searched and prodded and pushed around even though I am in uniform, wearing an offical ID card and about to command an airplane with 400 plus passengers on flights of 9,000 kilometers or more. By people who have been through a few hours training and are trying to show they are better than the federal minimum-wage replacements.
It must be some satisfaction to the passengers who read about shoe bombs and smuggled weapons, despite the increased security, and who are told that to protect the President and the White House, they can be shot down by F16s, orbitting all the time just for the chance.
Armed passengers will always be welcome on my flights; I consider them to be an asset. If some crazy gets up with a liquid explosive or box cutter, I would expect my man with a gun to walk up and blow him away. I am prepared to deal with any damage his bullets might cause, after they have been slowed down by passage through the crazy's cranium. Better a .38 or two than fifty 20 mm cannon shells!
You will note that in your figures, the highest murder rate is in cities in the US that have a complete ban on private ownership of guns. Leaving only the criminals armed.
And on airplanes, if the crew and passengers are completely disarmed, with scissors, nail files and such being taken from them, they will be defenceless against the terrorist, who will ignore the rules and take whatever he wants on board with him. It will be a long time, perhaps never, before the criminal loses the edge. No matter what rules you might want to write, criminals will always find a way around them. They always have, and the insanity in "security" after Sep 11 must show you that they always will.
I for one am sick and tired of being treated as a criminal, searched and prodded and pushed around even though I am in uniform, wearing an offical ID card and about to command an airplane with 400 plus passengers on flights of 9,000 kilometers or more. By people who have been through a few hours training and are trying to show they are better than the federal minimum-wage replacements.
It must be some satisfaction to the passengers who read about shoe bombs and smuggled weapons, despite the increased security, and who are told that to protect the President and the White House, they can be shot down by F16s, orbitting all the time just for the chance.
Armed passengers will always be welcome on my flights; I consider them to be an asset. If some crazy gets up with a liquid explosive or box cutter, I would expect my man with a gun to walk up and blow him away. I am prepared to deal with any damage his bullets might cause, after they have been slowed down by passage through the crazy's cranium. Better a .38 or two than fifty 20 mm cannon shells!
