Airline Pilot's Expert Answers On How We (The Passengers) Can Help Stop Hijackings

Landings ^ | 28AUG02 | FedEx Captain

[savedbygrace]

I've written this here several times, but I'll repeat it: A random search of an individual is a search without reason. Therefore it is unreasonable, which makes it a violation of the Constitution.

[MindBender26]

Sorry, you lose.

Courts have ruled 2d ammendment is not absolute. Arab terrorists do not have the right to park outside your house with their .50 cal. Convicted child molester does not have the right to come after your daughter, wife with a .40 in his pocket.

Search is not for purpose of arrest, but to reasonably prevent a crime from occuring. You have no Constitutional right to be on an airliner. The search is a condition of your carrriage contract. You may refuse the search, but you will not be boarded.

[willyone]

These guys were lucky. The pissed off PSA employee brought a gun when he was getting canned boarded the plane with his company ID then crashed the plane. They found the gun with his trigger finger still on it.

[willyone]

Our Mr.Goodie Two Shoes president appointed this clown and left him in charge knowing he is an idiot. If only Reagan were still president and fifty years old. His greatest regret was picking Bush 41 for VP. Bush 43 has been a bust to.

[dcwusmc]

Actually, the second amendment IS absolute. "...shall not be infringed" does not leave much wiggle room, does it? Short of weapons of mass destruction, which, IMHO, no one needs for any reason, anyone may possess any weapon or weapons system he can afford. Article 1 section 8 Clause 11 further clarifies this when it grants Congress the power to "declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." Letters of Marque and Reprisal (see a sample at: http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~jacktar/yourown.html ) concern armed, private vessels. These vessels could most surely be in existence today, armed with the latest of naval weaponry and be fully protected under the Second Amendment.

So, in fact, Constitutionally speaking, YOU lose.

[dcwusmc]

An airliner is a private conveyance. I am STILL trying to figure out how it is that FedGov managed to usurp the power to regulate them without a huge hue and cry... nonetheless, you do NOT have to allow yourself to be searched sans warrant and you can still be boarded. The search is NOT a condition of carriage and I challenge you to back up your assertion with evidence. NOR is there any REASONABLE expectation that such searches can or will prevent any crime. This assertion is mind-boggling!

[Brian Allen]

Hi there

Funny you should ask. I am presently studying Law but don't expect to take the [CA] Bar until 2004. Pity, for I would surely do it with you Right now if I was able!

Look out for a lawyer and count on me to help best I can.

Best FReegards -- Brian

[WFTR]

I have chosen not to fly because of it. However, shortly I will be forced to do so because I can't drive overseas. I am certain that I am at great risk because of this person.

I also no longer fly because my claustrophobia has become too great to ignore. The shortness of breath and chest pains that I've had in the past are just not worth ignoring any longer. The joint pain that I often have doesn't give me incentive to fly either. I'm sure that part of my increased anxiety is a result of knowing that most of what has been done since 9/11 only makes us more vulnerable. I also may have to fly to Europe someday on business, and I am dreading that day.

WFTR
Last Flight
Bill

[MindBender26]

Actually...... no

The Second Ammendment is not absolute, as you confirm in your next sentence when you deny every decent law abiding citizen the right to possess a 280mm Atomic Cannon! { :~) } IMHO has very important meaning here. You are giving your opinion the force of law.

Remember, rights, once granted, are not just for you. They are for everyone, even those we would hold to be dangerous in the exercise of those rights.

The Constitution, as interpreted by the Courts, is the law of the land. Interpreted by the Courts, not interpreted by the NRA, the ALCU, Sarah Brady, Leon Trosky, Che Gevarra, the ADA, the American Nazi Party, you, me or Hillary Clinton.

PS, thank goodness the Constitution is open to interpretation. Without such Court interpretation, there would be no freedom on the Internet, no Rush Limbaugh, etc. The Constitution makes no mention of "Freedom of Electrons."

[dcwusmc]

WHO, in your opinion, "grants" rights? Is it FedGov? The Constitution? The Supremes? Who?

The correct answer is, "NONE of the above." RIGHTS are granted by (take your choice) Nature or Nature's God. The Constitution, for the first time in recorded history, requires government to RECOGNIZE these rights. It does NOT grant them, for the very simple reason that what gooberment gives gooberment can take away. A change in regime, in public attitude andwhoops... there it goes.

What I said is that WMDs are not, in MY opinion, suited for keeping and bearing by ANYONE. This includes gooberment. Up to that point, ANYTHING someone can afford to keep and bear, whether it be a .45 or an F-16 or an aircraft carrier battle group, is fine with me. Recall that the rationale underlying the RKBA is to instill a sense of fear into gooberment with the possession of arms by the populace. It is not and must not become the other way 'round.

[dcwusmc]

Further, it was INTENDED that anyone at all was to be able to interpret the Constitution. Why do you suppose the founders wrote it in language so easy for anyone to understand? The Supremes, in Marbury v. Madison, ASSUMED the authority to interpret and enforce it.

Further, there need be no "interpretation" of it. The Constitution is a limit on GOVERNMENT. How could limiting government possibly mean that we would not have an internet or talk radio (Brian Wilson has it all over El Rushbo)? There need be no mention of such "Freedom of Electrons;" that's covered by both the 9th and 10th amendments. Do you REALLY believe that FedGov is the source of your rights? Sad if you do!

[tahiti]

"You have no Constitutional right to be on an airliner. The search is a condition of your carrriage contract."

You are correct.

I have no problem if a private company, an airline company, wishes, as part of their marketing plan and modus operandi to attract custmers, search all their customers before they board the aircraft. And of course, the an airline, as part of their marketing plan to attract customers, encourage their customers to exert their 2nd amendment right.

That is their private property. It is their call.

I do have a constitutional right not to be search by my government without a sworn affidavit describing probable cause, where and what I am to be search for and what will be seized.

Bill of Rights, not privileges, Amendment IV.

Do you now understand the distinction? Free people live in the world I describe above. Slaves and serfs live in the world where the mass, unconstitutional searches are performed without following the instructions of Amendment IV.

"Your papers, please?"