Dear Fellow Members:
Below in quotations is a copy of a recent notification that is posted on AOPA's website.
"Random security checks at air carrier airports include GA points of entry
The Transportation Security Administration has adopted a new security screening program to catch explosives, incendiaries, weapons, and other prohibited items at direct access points to air carrier airports, including general aviation access points.
The program is called Aviation Direct Access Screening, and it involves random checks aimed at finding prohibited items intended to be smuggled on board commercial aircraft. Some of the larger air carrier airports have been doing random screening checks since October, but all air carrier airports will do so in the near future.
"AOPA has met with the TSA to discuss what this means for general aviation," said AOPA Rob Hackman, AOPA director of security and regulatory policy. "While GA access points will be randomly checked with all other points of entry, GA is not being targeted."
AOPA was informed that TSA inspectors understand that GA operates differently than the airlines. The TSA will not prevent GA pilots from carrying items in their aircraft that may be prohibited on airline flights — they are just attempting to ensure that those items do not end up on commercial aircraft. AOPA continues to watch the situation and asks that members report any issues that they incur if they encounter security screening in the future."
I, and probably many of you, have permits to carry concealed weapons in your state of residence and any other state that has reciprocity. For example, I can legally carry a concealed weapon in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and several other southeastern states in which I frequently fly.
As pilot in command of my own aircraft, I can find no regulations that prohibit the carrying of weapons within my own aircraft, and no regulations that dictate how those weapons may be carried.
Also, I can find no federal regulations regarding the carrying of weapons on airport property. The only prohibition that I can find is one can't carry their weapon past the TSA security checkpoint wherever those checkpoints exist. For example, I am perfectly legal carrying my concealed weapon into the Atlanta Hartsfield terminal, as long as I don't attempt to carry that weapoin past the TSA checkpoints.
Some city's have adopted local ordances that prohibit weapons on their local airport, but these same cities have in that same ordinance, the prohibition agaists dogs on airport property. The legalilty of these ordances are questionable on several points. First, most states with concealed concealed weapons laws prohibit local governments from being more restrictive than the state law. Also, even if these local prohibitions were enforceable, their violation is not a criminal offence but only an offence where supposedly the city could terminate your hanger lease, etc. In other words, they are not criminal statutes and can only be enforced contractually.
I have talked with the local state's attorney and he agrees that if one has a carry permit, they are not violating any laws that he is aware of if they carry at an airport on their person or in their private aircraft, as long as they don't go into the areas controlled by TSA.
I have asked AOPA for their assessment of this question both by calling their legal department and writing to their regulatory affairs officer, but, they really pass the buck on this one and will not venture an opinion. I like AOPA but you can tell they don't want to touch what they consider to be a "hot potato", that is, weapons carried by private pilots who are licensed to do so at airports and on private aircraft. Chickens!
My fundemental question is very simple. Are we violating any federal, state or local criminal laws when we have a permit to legally carry a firearm and we do so within our private aircraft and to/from that aircraft through a private, non TSO controlled point of entry?
Regards,
Curt
TSA to Perform Random Security Checks of GA Points of Entry
Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher
Curt, this sounds like a good question to run by the NRA. Seems to me that a pilot would be protected under the McLure Volker act (Firearms Owner Protection act?), that protects the transport of legally owned firearms across multiple states, as long as they can be legally possessed at the origin and destination states.
'53 170 B
N3134A
N3134A
Does TSA Even Have a Legal Right To Search?
Setting the concealed weapon issue aside for a moment, I question whether TSA even has the right to search you, your bags, or your aircraft, without your consent? If I am entering the airport through a private FBO, I am not aware of any federal or other laws that would require me to submit to a search. I also know of no laws that would allow TSA to keep me from gaining access to my private aircraft simply for refusing to allow a search.
For example, even at the TSO security checkpoints at common carrier airports, it is perfectly legal to refuse to allow them to screen you or your bags. The result will be them legally refusing you entrance, but, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the screening we submit to is fully "voluntary" and can't be forced.
I don't believe that we check our constitutional right against unreasonable search anywhere on a public airport.
I have noticed some signs at FBO's that give notice that they reserve the right to search any vehicles entering the airport. So, I presume that if it were posted, they might be able to make the same argument that they can refuse entry to someone how does not submit to a search. Maybe.
However, if I land my aircraft at the airport and taxi up to the private aircraft FBO, I don't believe that anyone has the right to search my private aircraft without my permission or a search warrant. I know that when federal agents used to search for drugs on aircraft at an airport that I used to be based at in Florida, if the pilot had violated no laws, such as entering the country without stopping at customs, a warrant with probable cause was needed to search private aircraft.
Does anyone know the law here? We better wake up people and assert our constitutional rights ro big brother is going to just get more oppressive.
Regards,
Curt
For example, even at the TSO security checkpoints at common carrier airports, it is perfectly legal to refuse to allow them to screen you or your bags. The result will be them legally refusing you entrance, but, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the screening we submit to is fully "voluntary" and can't be forced.
I don't believe that we check our constitutional right against unreasonable search anywhere on a public airport.
I have noticed some signs at FBO's that give notice that they reserve the right to search any vehicles entering the airport. So, I presume that if it were posted, they might be able to make the same argument that they can refuse entry to someone how does not submit to a search. Maybe.
However, if I land my aircraft at the airport and taxi up to the private aircraft FBO, I don't believe that anyone has the right to search my private aircraft without my permission or a search warrant. I know that when federal agents used to search for drugs on aircraft at an airport that I used to be based at in Florida, if the pilot had violated no laws, such as entering the country without stopping at customs, a warrant with probable cause was needed to search private aircraft.
Does anyone know the law here? We better wake up people and assert our constitutional rights ro big brother is going to just get more oppressive.
Regards,
Curt
Where the "war on terror" is concerned, the government has been successfully asserting its right to do whatever it deems necessary, e.g. warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions without charge, suspension of habeas corpus, coercive interrogations, etc., for several years now. An airport is no place for confrontations, and GA's interests won't be helped by non-cooperation on our parts.
Happy flying!
Happy flying!
John Renwick
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
I disagree, John. An out-of-control government agency should be questioned, confronted and resisted (short of where they start shooting, though) at every opportunity.jrenwick wrote:Where the "war on terror" is concerned, the government has been successfully asserting its right to do whatever it deems necessary, e.g. warrantless wiretapping, indefinite detentions without charge, suspension of habeas corpus, coercive interrogations, etc., for several years now. An airport is no place for confrontations, and GA's interests won't be helped by non-cooperation on our parts.
Happy flying!
Rights not exercised are easily lost. The TSA is in violation of our Constitution; they need to know where their authority stops. Whether GA's interestes are supported is irrelevant. That's how the government gets powerful; people are too concerned about their welfare to insist that our 'servants' behave themselves. The servants have become the masters.
Edit to add: I almost forgot to say that governments have no rights. They have powers; the people have rights. There's a big difference.
Jon B.
I'm flying a Champ 'til I get the 170B!
-
Bruce Fenstermacher
- Posts: 10321
- Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 11:24 am
I'm somewhere in the middle of Jon R and Jon B.
I understand Jon R.'s point that a unprepared "battle" on an airport ramp is probably not the time or place and probably wouldn't do GA any good after the news media spins it the way they want.
Jon B. you are correct as well and that is what our Alphabet orginizations are doing. Resisting constructively.
I understand Jon R.'s point that a unprepared "battle" on an airport ramp is probably not the time or place and probably wouldn't do GA any good after the news media spins it the way they want.
Jon B. you are correct as well and that is what our Alphabet orginizations are doing. Resisting constructively.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
Those who trade...
"As Ben Franklin said, "Those who trade liberty for security will have neither, and deserve neither."
I'll be damned if I'll ever consent to any unconstitutional search, ever, anywhere.
Curt
I'll be damned if I'll ever consent to any unconstitutional search, ever, anywhere.
Curt
Reply to John Renwick
John:
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the government has been doing "whatever it wants for several years."
If you'll research each assertion more closely, you'll find that the actions you describe have been primarily used against non-U.S. citizens outside of the U.S., and with the few exceptions where the government has been caught, the courts have usually upheld our rights and ruled against the government. For example, you imply "warrantless searches" are an example of the government doing what it wants. As a point in fact, there have been no cases of warrantless searches that have been upheld as legal against U.S. citizens that were not the direct result of a foreign intelligence search and ultimately approved by a court after the search. My point here is, a TSA search conducted randomly at an airport would not fall under the narrow definition of a foreign intelligence search, and therefore, would not be constitutional.
Curt
I respectfully disagree with your assertion that the government has been doing "whatever it wants for several years."
If you'll research each assertion more closely, you'll find that the actions you describe have been primarily used against non-U.S. citizens outside of the U.S., and with the few exceptions where the government has been caught, the courts have usually upheld our rights and ruled against the government. For example, you imply "warrantless searches" are an example of the government doing what it wants. As a point in fact, there have been no cases of warrantless searches that have been upheld as legal against U.S. citizens that were not the direct result of a foreign intelligence search and ultimately approved by a court after the search. My point here is, a TSA search conducted randomly at an airport would not fall under the narrow definition of a foreign intelligence search, and therefore, would not be constitutional.
Curt
Clarification from AOPA
Dear Fellow Members:
I talked with a very helpful person for AOPA today named Paul Deres, and Paul said that AOPA has had very recent discussions with TSA on this topic, including another meeting this afternoon, but, here is what he told me so far:
1. The only place that TSA has the authority to search on any airport is in one of the following 3 designated areas: Steril areas, Secure areas, and SIDA areas (where identification must be worn). Those areas are clearly marked and regulated at carrier airports and usually a general aviation FBO does not fall within one of these areas. Outside of these areas, TSA has no right to search you, your belongings or your aircraft.
2. Even if you or your aircraft are within one of these 3 areas, and TSA searches you, they have no right to confiscate any item that you are legally carrying, including firearms. Paul said that they had specifically discussed the issue of firearms with TSA and since state laws regulate firearms while on the ground, TSA has no authority. What TSA can do is "profile" you, that is, ask you questions as to why you are carrying a weapon, but they cannot detain you or confiscate a legally carried weapon.
3. As for transportation of weapons on a private aircraft, Paul said that there are no federal regulations that apply and it is entirely at the discretion of the pilot-in-command.
4. Paul did mention that there was always the possibility of an over zealous TSA inspector that is not clear on the law, but, they will be working with TSA and would like feedback from their members if any member is ever "inspected."
Regards,
Curt
I talked with a very helpful person for AOPA today named Paul Deres, and Paul said that AOPA has had very recent discussions with TSA on this topic, including another meeting this afternoon, but, here is what he told me so far:
1. The only place that TSA has the authority to search on any airport is in one of the following 3 designated areas: Steril areas, Secure areas, and SIDA areas (where identification must be worn). Those areas are clearly marked and regulated at carrier airports and usually a general aviation FBO does not fall within one of these areas. Outside of these areas, TSA has no right to search you, your belongings or your aircraft.
2. Even if you or your aircraft are within one of these 3 areas, and TSA searches you, they have no right to confiscate any item that you are legally carrying, including firearms. Paul said that they had specifically discussed the issue of firearms with TSA and since state laws regulate firearms while on the ground, TSA has no authority. What TSA can do is "profile" you, that is, ask you questions as to why you are carrying a weapon, but they cannot detain you or confiscate a legally carried weapon.
3. As for transportation of weapons on a private aircraft, Paul said that there are no federal regulations that apply and it is entirely at the discretion of the pilot-in-command.
4. Paul did mention that there was always the possibility of an over zealous TSA inspector that is not clear on the law, but, they will be working with TSA and would like feedback from their members if any member is ever "inspected."
Regards,
Curt
Curt,
It's good that you got that information from the AOPA; it eases my mind a lot.
With all due respect, you've misquoted me, and maybe misunderstood. I'm saying that the government has claimed awful lot of power over our lives in the interest of stopping terrorism, and it behooves us to be cooperative. That means that if we want to protest, we need to do it through the established political process; to do otherwise won't serve our interests very well. AOPA is doing the right thing.
It's good that you got that information from the AOPA; it eases my mind a lot.
With all due respect, you've misquoted me, and maybe misunderstood. I'm saying that the government has claimed awful lot of power over our lives in the interest of stopping terrorism, and it behooves us to be cooperative. That means that if we want to protest, we need to do it through the established political process; to do otherwise won't serve our interests very well. AOPA is doing the right thing.
John Renwick
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
Minneapolis, MN
Former owner, '55 C-170B, N4401B
'42 J-3 Cub, N62088
'50 Swift GC-1B, N2431B, Oshkosh 2009 Outstanding Swift Award, 2016 Best Continuously Maintained Swift
I was surrounded by police one time and asked to exit the airplane! Not sure what would have happened if I had not obliged.
The commute to work involved a 4 mile walk to the office after tying down the airplane. And, of course, a 4 mile walk back that evening. I parked at the North end and the office was South of the airport several blocks. The first/last part of the walk was on the airport grounds watching take offs, landings, looking at various aircraft, etc. as I briskly walked. It was GREAT fun and good exercise for many years before the company built a new complex in another city ending the flying commute. One evening a year or two ago, after I entered the airport thru an open gate and was walking across the different FBO's ramps a sedan with a big heavy guy started following me, staying way back. He was driving where the fuel trucks follow beside the taxiway along side the long runway. Eventually, he pulled his car behind me about 50 or so yards, vs beside me or in front of me, and asked me to come to him. I waved him to come up where I was and kept walking - had to get home to pick my daughter up just like every other day for the last 5 or so years. He started shouting wanting to know why I was not coming back to him, and not knowing who, why, what, or anything about him, I just ignored him and continued towards the airplane. I had taken the manager of the tower flying, attended airport meetings, and knew alot of the airport people there just because I went in there every day for years. When I got to the airplane he was still following me in his car way back, so I untied the plane, preflighted, and got in to get my Class B clearance. About that time, 4 or 5 police cars rushed up and surrounded the airplane. The police got out with their hands on their weapons and one of them approached my window and asked me to exit the airplane. After I got out, he asked " Is this your airplane?" I replied that it was always sitting here in the same spot for the last 5 years after I got off of work, so I had just been hopping in it and flying home over to Grand Prairie. He started laughing pretty hard, but some of the younger guys still looked grim, and still had their hands on their weapons. He said, so you fly back and forth here every day to work, and I replied yes. At that point I said why don't you guys climb in and I'll take you around the patch or we can fly around downtown Dallas. They all put their hands straight up in the air and said you are not getting me in one of those things. He quietly said that the heavy guy sitting about 50 yards off to the side in the sedan was the assistant airport manager and had over reacted before. He wished me a good trip home and that was that.
The commute to work involved a 4 mile walk to the office after tying down the airplane. And, of course, a 4 mile walk back that evening. I parked at the North end and the office was South of the airport several blocks. The first/last part of the walk was on the airport grounds watching take offs, landings, looking at various aircraft, etc. as I briskly walked. It was GREAT fun and good exercise for many years before the company built a new complex in another city ending the flying commute. One evening a year or two ago, after I entered the airport thru an open gate and was walking across the different FBO's ramps a sedan with a big heavy guy started following me, staying way back. He was driving where the fuel trucks follow beside the taxiway along side the long runway. Eventually, he pulled his car behind me about 50 or so yards, vs beside me or in front of me, and asked me to come to him. I waved him to come up where I was and kept walking - had to get home to pick my daughter up just like every other day for the last 5 or so years. He started shouting wanting to know why I was not coming back to him, and not knowing who, why, what, or anything about him, I just ignored him and continued towards the airplane. I had taken the manager of the tower flying, attended airport meetings, and knew alot of the airport people there just because I went in there every day for years. When I got to the airplane he was still following me in his car way back, so I untied the plane, preflighted, and got in to get my Class B clearance. About that time, 4 or 5 police cars rushed up and surrounded the airplane. The police got out with their hands on their weapons and one of them approached my window and asked me to exit the airplane. After I got out, he asked " Is this your airplane?" I replied that it was always sitting here in the same spot for the last 5 years after I got off of work, so I had just been hopping in it and flying home over to Grand Prairie. He started laughing pretty hard, but some of the younger guys still looked grim, and still had their hands on their weapons. He said, so you fly back and forth here every day to work, and I replied yes. At that point I said why don't you guys climb in and I'll take you around the patch or we can fly around downtown Dallas. They all put their hands straight up in the air and said you are not getting me in one of those things. He quietly said that the heavy guy sitting about 50 yards off to the side in the sedan was the assistant airport manager and had over reacted before. He wished me a good trip home and that was that.
Joe
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
51 C170A
Grand Prairie, TX
Response to John
John:
I think we still disagree and I am O.K. with that.
If presented with a request to perform a search that is not legal from anyone, be they TSA or law enforcement, my firm belief that to refuse the search on the spot is in fact the correct way to handle the problem. That doesn't mean that the "authority" present may not force a search. But what it does mean is that by not consenting to be searched, if the search turns out to be in fact illegal, then I have preserved my rights under the law, that is, I preserve the right to sue for damages and anything that is found by the illegal search cannot be used against me.
I firmly believe that AOPA and other organizations have a role in helping preserve our rights, but, that in no way does away with the obligation of each of us to stand up individually when the situation calls for it. And in my opinion, if a TSA employee attempts an illegal search, that is the time to stand up. I will not abdicate my responsibility for preserving my constitutional rights to anyone, including AOPA. The responsibility for preserving our God given constitutional rights is, like those rights, an individual duty, not a collective duty.
Best regards,
Curt
I think we still disagree and I am O.K. with that.
If presented with a request to perform a search that is not legal from anyone, be they TSA or law enforcement, my firm belief that to refuse the search on the spot is in fact the correct way to handle the problem. That doesn't mean that the "authority" present may not force a search. But what it does mean is that by not consenting to be searched, if the search turns out to be in fact illegal, then I have preserved my rights under the law, that is, I preserve the right to sue for damages and anything that is found by the illegal search cannot be used against me.
I firmly believe that AOPA and other organizations have a role in helping preserve our rights, but, that in no way does away with the obligation of each of us to stand up individually when the situation calls for it. And in my opinion, if a TSA employee attempts an illegal search, that is the time to stand up. I will not abdicate my responsibility for preserving my constitutional rights to anyone, including AOPA. The responsibility for preserving our God given constitutional rights is, like those rights, an individual duty, not a collective duty.
Best regards,
Curt
One more point of clarification....
And one more point of clarification. When I say refuse the request to be searched, I am not suggesting that we be anything but polite and professional. I'm not suggesting that we resist with force or violence. What I am saying is that I believe that the proper couse of action, when presented with what is believed to be an illegal search, is to make it clear that you are not giving your consent to be searched. Again, the benefit of this is that it preseves all of your legal rights. Refusing to grant permission to search is never a criminal offense. Either the authority requesting to conduct the search needs your approval or they do not. If they do not need your approval, that is, they have a warrant or there is some other law prevailing, then your refusing to give permission is still not a criminal offense. They just conduct their legal search. If however, their search is illegal without having your approval, by not giving your approval, you have preserved your legal rights and also lived up to your duty to protect your constitutional rights. Once you give approval, you have lost both your legal objections to the search and also allowed abusive government to go unchecked.
Many (wimps I might add) will say that if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem with allowing a search? To those I respond that they are missing the point. If they (wimps) wish to comply with an illegal search, I have no problem with that other than they are wimps. The point is, I am under no obligation to comply with an illegal search and the fact that I do not wish to surrender my rights doesn't mean that I have anything to hide, just that I chose not to surrender my rights. It is as simple as that.
Regards,
Curt
Many (wimps I might add) will say that if you have nothing to hide, what is the problem with allowing a search? To those I respond that they are missing the point. If they (wimps) wish to comply with an illegal search, I have no problem with that other than they are wimps. The point is, I am under no obligation to comply with an illegal search and the fact that I do not wish to surrender my rights doesn't mean that I have anything to hide, just that I chose not to surrender my rights. It is as simple as that.
Regards,
Curt
Reply to Joe
Joe:
Interesting story. You did exactly the right thing to comply with a police request to exit your aircraft. Complying with a request by law enforcement to exit any vehicle, whether a car or plane, is the correct thing to do and complying with that request is not a violation of your constitutional rights as the police are within their authority, under most circumstances, to make this request. I would agree that under the circumstances that you described, the police were acting reasonably in their request and you were absolutely right to comply.
However, the request by any law enforcement authority or government agent/employee to conduct a search of you, your baggage, your home or your vehicle/aircraft, is a very distinct area under the law that is addressed specifically in the Bill-Of-Rights in the U.S. Constitution. You have much more protection under the law to respectfully decline to give permission for any of these searches than you do to not comply with a police order to exit a vehicle. The two instances are not equivelent under the law and your legal duty to comply with each is very different.
That said, once again, I want to emphasize that I am suggesting a very polite, professional and calm refusal to grant anyone the permission to conduct a search if you feel that search is not legal. As I pointed out before, if the authority has the legal right to search without your consent you are in no legal jeapordy for refusing to give your consent, but, if they do not have a legal right to search without your consent, you give up important constitutional protections by granting permission.
Best regards,
Curt
Interesting story. You did exactly the right thing to comply with a police request to exit your aircraft. Complying with a request by law enforcement to exit any vehicle, whether a car or plane, is the correct thing to do and complying with that request is not a violation of your constitutional rights as the police are within their authority, under most circumstances, to make this request. I would agree that under the circumstances that you described, the police were acting reasonably in their request and you were absolutely right to comply.
However, the request by any law enforcement authority or government agent/employee to conduct a search of you, your baggage, your home or your vehicle/aircraft, is a very distinct area under the law that is addressed specifically in the Bill-Of-Rights in the U.S. Constitution. You have much more protection under the law to respectfully decline to give permission for any of these searches than you do to not comply with a police order to exit a vehicle. The two instances are not equivelent under the law and your legal duty to comply with each is very different.
That said, once again, I want to emphasize that I am suggesting a very polite, professional and calm refusal to grant anyone the permission to conduct a search if you feel that search is not legal. As I pointed out before, if the authority has the legal right to search without your consent you are in no legal jeapordy for refusing to give your consent, but, if they do not have a legal right to search without your consent, you give up important constitutional protections by granting permission.
Best regards,
Curt