Airplane Legal?

[enkidu]

Murnax wrote: Secondly, your analogy is flawed. You are quite correct that I have no right to scream "fire" in a crowded theatre, nor do I have a right to swing my fist into your nose. Both these actions harm other individuals. My right to free speach exists so long as I don't use it to harm others (i.e. slander or shouting "fire"). In the same way my right to carry knives/guns/whatever I want exists only so long as I don't use IT to harm others.

Well said! More and more laws seem to concentrate on objects and not actions. Should we legislate away Scotch and sports cars because they are potentially dangerous? Private airplanes? Empty bottles, gasoline and rags? In a free society, laws should punish those who infringe (or conspire to infringe) on the rights and freedoms of others. In a free society, laws should not punish those who respect the rights and freedoms of others. The simple act of owning/carrying a pistol, rifle, knife, sword does not infringe on anyone's rights. Are we mice or are we free men? (Don't answer that!)

If you feel tempted to say "but my peace of mind is disturbed by your carrying that pistol or knife". take a deep breath and go see a therapist for your problem. Would it be right if we banned turbans in public because it disturbs many people's peace of mind? Would you like it if your community passed a law outlawing Bowie knives because Bowie knives are by nature "offensive weapons"? Would you call such a society free?

That said, I believe that the right to keep and bear arms does not extend to taking a flight on an airplane. Airlines, despite their close government regulation, are private entities providing a private service. Just as an movie theatre has the right to post a "no weapons allowed", the airline has the right to prohibit certain carry-on items. Whether or not the current list does anything to accomplish its supposed purpose, is another argument altogether.

edit: grammar fix.

 

[Gollnick]

I suppose back in the days of our Founders, the closest thing to an airliner would have been a sailing ship.

Imagine one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence being told he couldn't take a sword, pistol or knife aboard.

As a matter of fact, Maritime law is quite clear on the subject. One can NOT bring a sword or gun aboard a ship without the captain's permission.

In fact, Maritime still applies to this day.

And, in fact, aircraft are considered Airships and covered under Maritime law. The Air Marshalls have been given blanket permission to board aircraft with guns. They actually had to secure that permission from the pilots.

But all other armed officers, FBI agents, Secret Service Agents, BATF agents, many of whom take their guns aboard aircraft with them, MUST ask the captain's permission before they board.

The signer fo the Dec. of Indp. would have expected to secure the captain's permission before boarding a ship with a weapon.

 

[Gollnick]

You have a right to freedom of speech and expression, true. But, it is well-established that employeers can restrict their employees' speech and expression outside of work. I used to work for a large company. It was well understood, it was on the agreement you signed when you hired in and on posters in the hallways in case you forgot, that you could be fired for speech or expression that was anti-company or anti-American even if it was outside of work, not on work hours, not on company property. A condition of your employment 8/5 was that you agreed not to make that kind of speech or expression 24/7.

Oh, and if you're wondering, there had been several cases where courts had ruled in the company's favor on such matters and none against.

You have absolutely NO right to employment at that company. In exchange for the benefits of employment with that company, you voluntarily give up your right to free speech and expression.

If you want to speak against that company or participate in anti-American speech or expression, then you can't work for that company. That is your choice. There are other places to work.




You have NO right to commercial air travel. In exchange for the benefits of commercial air travel, you voluntarily give up your right to bear arms.

If you insist on bearing arms at all times, then you can't travel by commercial air carrier. That is your choice. There are other ways to travel.

 

[brownie0486]

Airships, very good Gollnick.

And yes, the feds need permission to board as stated as well. Guess this about settles it. Law goes back to the founding fathers and before which have been strictly enforced in the past.

One question, those wondering about having restrictions placed upon their carrying a knife somewhere [ in the case on a plane ]-----------Do you all come from states that have no edged weapons restrictions as to the length of blade, dirks, daggers, etc? Seems that there are already many restrictions placed on knives that we carry.

Brownie

 

[Dirk]

No blade length restrictions in Ohio.

 

[enkidu]

Gollnick wrote: aircraft are considered Airships and covered under Maritime law.

That makes perfect sense. Ain't it grand how the centuries old maritime law still applies to our world?

Gollnick wrote:Regarding freedom of speech vs. employment: Oh, and if you're wondering, there had been several cases where courts had ruled in the company's favor on such matters and none against.

None? I beg to differ on your extremely pessimistic view on free speech rights. The first counter-example is Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) which upheld a teacher's right to criticize her board's policies. Note that Pickering was vastly weakened by Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) but the trend of 1st amendment rights erosion was halted recently by Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668 (1996), in which a contractor's right to criticize the County Board which employed him was upheld.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing you aren't either. Hey, any lawyers with 1st amendment expertise here?

edit: punctuation correction, grammar correction.

 

[enkidu]

brownie wrote:Do you all come from states that have no edged weapons restrictions as to the length of blade, dirks, daggers, etc? Seems that there are already many restrictions placed on knives that we carry.

That may be so, but these restrictions, in my opinion, are wrongheaded and ineffective. They only serve as a priori restrictions on personal freedom without increasing security or safety.

 

[pjenkins00]

i still have some more thinking to do about this subject, but i can't help but think of the situation in the uk and this article from Don Rearic's excellent site:

http://donrearic.com/tomyfriendsintheunitedkingdom.html

i would hate to see the situation in the us end up like that, but it seems like our rights are slowly and steadily being eroded.

Pete

 

[Safety Guy]

I would think Maritime Law also applies to my car. So be it. If I (as the "captain") don't want an armed person riding with me, that's fine. If I don't want Sarah Brady riding with me, that's fine too.

The difference between "Maritime Law" and what we have now is that while airline captains may have final say as to who boards their aircraft, they are not free to allow pocketknives, sticks or guns on board without specific Federal permission.

In fact, they are not allowed to go armed themselves on board their own craft until after they take the specific handgun training being offered. Problem is, the Feds have deliberately slowed down this process at every step, according to some pilots who want to be armed.

Go back to 1776 and tell the Captain he can't carry on his own ship.

That's what "Homeland Security" is doing now.

It's BS.

Again, I repeat, there were no "pocketknife problems" of any import before (or on) 9/11. There was no reason for the Feds to enact much of the extreme restrictions they did, except for "image" to impress the fearful. It was an idiotic kneejerk reaction.

This is not to say that we didn't need better security, mind you. The better trained security personnel (presumably better trained, that is), explosive sniffers, etc., are good ideas. But the concept of disarming everyone on planes is not valid, unless you have a plane full of convicts.

I believe we still don't have enough explosive detection machines for checked luggage. Why not? Some of this is due to the money wasted controlling those who never needed to be controlled. The Feds needed to put the money and effort on necessary security items, not feel-good BS rules. Also, go read all about how wasteful and incompetent the TSA has been regarding Air Marshals, hiring (and laying off) of airport security workers, etc.

The American Public could be the largest single resource in the "war on terror," but you wouldn't know it from the way the elitist Feds have acted. Same goes for their initial treatment of the Arab/American community. Instead of approaching them as "citizens," they were treated as "suspects." Not exactly a good example of "community policing." And make no mistake about it, "community policing" will be effective against terrorism if it is done right.

But it ain't being done right, because our glorious leadership is using "terrorism" as an excuse to further restrict many of our Constitutional rights.

Power is supposed to come from the people, not the TSA.

Karl

 

[Gollnick]

I beg to differ on your extremely pessimistic view on free speech rights. The first counter-example is

None of the cases you've raised involves my former private-sector employeer. In fact, they seem to involve public-sector employeers.

According to my former employeer, and I have no reason to doubt them, they had successfully defended all lawsuites against them in this matter. And they're only one. Employeers frequently restrict the rights of their employees even outside of work.

You have no right to employment with a certain company. As a condition of any employment you do receive, your employeer can impose conditions on you including conditions that require you to voluntarily give up certain rights. Similarly, you have no right to commercial air travel. If you choose to travel by commercial air carrier, you may be asked to voluntarily give up your right to bear arms. That is a choice you make. Like many choices we make in life, it's a cost/benefits tradeoff. Each individual must decide for himself how he sees that tradeoff.

 

[Gollnick]

I believe we still don't have enough explosive detection machines for checked luggage. Why not? Some of this is due to the money wasted controlling those who never needed to be controlled.

We're almost there.

The major reason it's taken a couple of years has nothing to do with some vague issue of "controlling those who never needed to be controlled." The issue is simply production capacity to build these rather complex machines. In the case of the advanced X-Ray machines, there's only one company, CTX, that makes FAA-approved machines. CTX could have on Sept. 12, 2001, gone out and built a huge factory capable of producing 5,000 of these machines per year. And in one year, we'd have more than enough machines to screen every bag everywhere. And then CTX would be stuck with this huge factory capable of 5,000 machines per year when demand would drop back to maybe 100 per year for expansion and replacment purposes. Furthermore, CTX designed this machine and the production processes for it with the idea that they'd make 100 per year. Things like this just don't suddenly scale up well.

 

[Alarion]

Originally posted by Gollnick
You have a right to freedom of speech and expression, true. But, it is well-established that employeers can restrict their employees' speech and expression outside of work. I used to work for a large company. It was well understood, it was on the agreement you signed when you hired in and on posters in the hallways in case you forgot, that you could be fired for speech or expression that was anti-company or anti-American even if it was outside of work, not on work hours, not on company property. A condition of your employment 8/5 was that you agreed not to make that kind of speech or expression 24/7.

Oh, and if you're wondering, there had been several cases where courts had ruled in the company's favor on such matters and none against.

You have absolutely NO right to employment at that company. In exchange for the benefits of employment with that company, you voluntarily give up your right to free speech and expression.

If you want to speak against that company or participate in anti-American speech or expression, then you can't work for that company. That is your choice. There are other places to work.




You have NO right to commercial air travel. In exchange for the benefits of commercial air travel, you voluntarily give up your right to bear arms.

If you insist on bearing arms at all times, then you can't travel by commercial air carrier. That is your choice. There are other ways to travel.

I thought that constitutional rights were irrevocable and without exception. That is, I can renounce a right given by a law, but no one can take away my constitutional rights within the country I am citizen of. Incostitutional is much stronger than illegal.
At least, it is so here in Italy (even if here as anywhere else the constitution is cited when it gives some advantage to do so and used as a rug whenever it gives some advantage to do so )
So I believed that nobody could ask you to renounce your freedom of speech... And I find it quite unfair. I can understand non-disclosure agreements, put political opinions and such...


Edited to add:
Democracy means also that the tradeoff works both ways. You may chose to force me to make the decision, and I can choose not to reelect you next time
Unfortunately, more and more it seems that the citizen is forced to make tradeoffs without having anything to say in it, like it or not.
The government should be there also to guarantee a certain equity where those who have major power can force those who have less to abide their wishes, be them fair or not. It doesn't seems o to me anymore.
What you say in too many cases can be said also in a less reasonable way, i.e. "I've got you by your balls, so you will do what I say and it's democratic because I'm giving you the choice between do what I want or getting your balls crushed".
Not very fair, isn't it?

 

[enkidu]

Gollnick wrote: According to my former employeer, and I have no reason to doubt them, they had successfully defended all lawsuites against them in this matter. And they're only one. Employeers frequently restrict the rights of their employees even outside of work.

You have no right to employment with a certain company. As a condition of any employment you do receive, your employeer can impose conditions on you including conditions that require you to voluntarily give up certain rights.

But there are many restrictions on that. An employer cannot impose restrictions which would be viewed as discriminatory, such as a non-religious institution imposing Christianity requirements. Also, in many states employers cannot restrict speech affecting the public interest.

But, in general, at-will employees have practically NO protections against termination for any reason not covered by the ADA, so you are right. This page gives a good overview of the current (sorry) state of law regarding at-will employment. Wow, I didn't know I could be screwed that easily.

 

[Alarion]

Interesting... This means then that the Coonstitution has a different value there.... You never stop learning

 

[enkidu]

Well, since this thread is already WAY off topic, I think Gollnick's assessment of

You have absolutely NO right to employment at that company. In exchange for the benefits of employment with that company, you voluntarily give up your right to free speech and expression.

If you want to speak against that company or participate in anti-American speech or expression, then you can't work for that company. That is your choice. There are other places to work."

is still way pessimistic. Reading his words, you would assume that if you were privately employed, it would be impossible to criticize America. This is obviously not the case as the bad reputation and loss of moral among employees would be detrimental to business. Such actions might not be illegal, but it would be perceived as immoral and both public and private outrage would be the result. The current state of affairs seems to have been created by the extreme interpretation of the law by the courts in creating the theory of at-will employment. Hopefully, the courts will change this as more awareness of this problem spreads.

 

[Gollnick]

The employeer in question is a defense contractor.

If you were a businessman and your company had one and only one major customer on whom your whole business depended, you would probably take great pains to see to it that your employees treat that customer very well 24/7. Being anti-that-customer would be incompatible with employment by your company. So, that gives the company in question reason to demand that employees submit to such conditions, conditions that affect their personal lives outside of work.

The parochial school where I'm chairman had to, some time ago, dismiss a teacher's aide mid-school year. Why? This unmarried lady came down pregnant. Her contract has a morality clause that prohibits that. I was a bit concerned about this thinking it might get us in trouble under Equal Opportunity Employment Law or Americans with Disabilities Act or something. So, I had a lawyer review the situation. His response was, "She hasn't got a leg to stand on." One of the benefits we sell to our customers of sending their children to our school is morality. So, that gives us a reason to demand that employees submit to such conditions, conditions that affect their personal lives outside of work.

Again, you have no right to work for the defense contractor in question. In exchange for the privilege and the benefits of employment with that company, the company demands that you voluntarily give up some of your rights. The company has a valid reason for doing that. And it is reasonable for you to do so if you want to work for that company and receive the benefits of that employment.

You have no right to work for St. Paul Lutheran School either. In exchange for the privilege and the benefits of employment with the school, we demand that you voluntarily give up some of your rights. We have a valid reason for doing that. And it is reasonable for you to do so if you want to work for the school and receive the benefits of that employment.

Again, if you don't like the conditions of employment at either of these employeers, there are other places where you can work.

Similarly, you have no right to commercial air travel. In exchange for the privilege and the benefits of commercial air travel, you must voluntarily give up some of your rights. There is a valid reason for that. And it is reasonable for you to do so if you want to travel by commercial air carrier and receive the benefits of that mode of travel, i.e. fast travel at reasonable prices.

If you don't like that condition, then there are other ways for you to travel. Some of them aren't as fast. Some of them are a bit more expensive. But you have other options.



My original point here is that the recent changes in airport security are not a case of the government taking away some sacred right. Sometimes we voluntarily give up some of our rights in exchange for some benefit.

 

[Blue Jays]

Good Evening All-

PeacefulJeffrey, this portion of your post on page four of this thread is outstanding...

Originally posted by peacefuljeffrey
As your argument goes, every time they infringe on our right to be armed for our defense in some venue, we who oppose such infringements should simply no longer use that venue. "Don't like flying without your knife? Don't fly. Don't like going to the observation deck of the Empire State Building without your knife? Don't go." The trouble is, we will never again get that right back once it is ceded. And every time you accept and DEFEND the taking away of that right, it is further weakened -- and more importantly, it is EASIER for them to rationalize taking away your rights in additional venues. Soon it may be shopping malls. We know it already goes on at Six Flags amusement parks.

How long before they take away your right, Brownie, to have a knife in a place where you CAN'T really avoid going?

As it stands, the only tool that an honest man or woman can use on an airplane to mimic a decent pocketknife is their teeth or car keys. The other option is to trade-up to First Class and get a real steak knife. Before you laugh at that last comment, I recently flew with a Lufthansa partner between Austria and Germany and got just that with my inflight dinner.

Getting back to PeacefulJeffrey's point, the emasculation of America is running wild. I went to see a movie and was asked by the 16 year-old ticket collector to open my bag so he could inspect for "weapons" potentially being brought into the theater. I told him to forget it and if he has a problem, he can call both his manager and the police and the three of us would sit down to discuss it after the movie. The sad part of this true story is that there were grown men and women obediently listening and then sheepishly opening their bags for this man-child. Security, my foot.

What exactly was this pimply-faced, 128 lb. beanpole going to do when he encountered a nice Benchmade AFCK, or perhaps even his first Ruger SP-101 in .357 Magnum loaded with hollowpoints, anyway?

Getting back to the original question...fly ONLY if you have no other alternatives. Use your aforementioned teeth and car keys to open unanticipated (gee, that happens sometime...) blisterpacks of medicine. Vote with your wallet because I'm willing to bet there were thousands of airborne knives that didn't create any problems on September 11, 2001.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Gollnick]

You will not receive metal cutlery on commercial US Domestic flights, or on international flights originating in, transitting, or terminating in the US in any class.

United Airlines recently sold off all of their metal cutlery on eBay. Unfortunately, it was sold in case lots of like 500 forks so folks like me who might have fun with United Airlines service for eight or something were simply priced out. My guess is it got bought by commercial food service establishments.

 

[Blue Jays]

Good Morning All-

Originally posted by Blue Jays
...The other option is to trade-up to First Class and get a real steak knife. Before you laugh at that last comment, I recently flew with a Lufthansa partner between Austria and Germany and got just that with my inflight dinner...

~ Blue Jays ~

Gollnick, I remember hearing about the various airlines selling or melting-down their metal cutlery in the news. The point about my recent trip is that that not everyone has become irrational about "potential" weapons. I am fully aware that one will not receive metal cutlery in flights that have anything to do with coming near the United States. Heck, we received full-blown, serrated steak knives!

Sadly, it looks like the only choice will be to use our teeth while on aircraft. The media sensationalizes everything and the sheeple buy it.

I remember how the late James K. Mattis used to say something along these lines about the need to always have a knife handy, "Well, you need something with which to cut open your bagel and spread your cream cheese..." RIP, James.

~ Blue Jays ~

 

[Gollnick]

Heck, we received full-blown, serrated steak knives!

The real question is: Did you receive a steak to go with that steak knife? And, if so, was it real?