What about the right to bear arms? That is obviously not the case if you fly an airline. Unconstitutional?
Constitutional rights are not a blanket covering all situations.
You have a right to own firearms. You do not have a right to carry them wherever you wish (and neither should you). An airplane, courtroom and school are a few such places that spring to mind.
Other constitutional rights are likewise restricted. Your right to free speech goes only so far (i.e. you can’t yell “Fire” in a crowded theater if there isn’t a fire…actually you can but you can expect to go to jail for such a thing since you cannot claim constitutional protection in such a case).
Just one of several reasons why it’s not unconstitutional:
You’re agreeing to a contract with the airline when you buy a ticket. They’re free to impose any restrictions they want (more or less), and you’re free to not buy a ticket if you don’t like them.
Arjuna34
An airline is property of the private corporation. They have no responsibility to allow you to carry firearms in their property.
What if you want to come into my house, but I don’t allow guns in my house? Are you going to cry “second amendment!” then?
[sub]
-Friedo, patiently cleaning his .45
[/sub]
I see. American inalienable rights are only valid on public property!
Not exactly. Nothing can take away my fundamental right to bear arms.
However, seeing as Northwest’s 747 is private property, and no fundamental right is being denied to me if I am barred access, Northwest can bar me from entering the plane for any reason they choose.
to extend friedo’s analogy:
If I tell you not to carry a gun into my house, you still have the right to bear arms. However, you do not, and never had, the right to enter my house.
Ok, I’m done confusing the issue.
askol
**askol[b/], if the right to bear arms is not in effect in your house, is the right to life and liberty not in effect as well. What is the difference?
Damn, I overstepped. This is turning into a debate. Please ignore my last question.
Your right to life and liberty cannot be suspended on private property, since it is a crime to deprive someone of their life.
In fact, it would still be a crime even if the victim signed a contract saying that he wanted you to kill him. That’s what has got Kevorkian in so much trouble.
But, I could impose a condition that you keep quiet in my house, even though the constitution guarantees free speech. Theatres have the right to expell people for talking.
Essentially, I can impose all kinds of limits on you before I give you permission to enter or use my property.
And also, there is a difference between government imposing restrictions and a private party imposing restrictions. Private parties do have some limits…they are prohibited from certain racial, religious, or gender discrimination for example.
What about MY right to free speech in my own house?
Remember-your rights are not unlimited-they only go so far as when they begin to infringe upon the rights of others.
Well, as far as it goes, I agree with everyone’s analysis regarding private property and Constitutional rights. The free exercise of religion is certainly a guaranteed right in the United States, but no one has any right to march into my living room and set up an altar and begin preaching sermons or offering sacrifices to their God without my permission.
However…The prohibition of firearms on commercial aircraft really has nothing to do with those aircraft being “private property”. It isn’t just a private regulation of the airlines or a term of the contract entered into when a passenger buys a ticket. It is in fact a federal law, 49 U.S.C. 46505 (“Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft”). Carrying or attempting to carry a gun (or a bomb) onto a commercial airliner, or attempting to conceal a gun (or a bomb) on a commercial airliner, is a federal crime punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, or 15 years if the offense is done “willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life”. Even if Wild West Airlines wanted to let passengers fly with guns (“Nosirree, Bob–Nobody hijacks Wild West Airlines! An Armed Airliner is a Polite Airliner!”) on WWA private property, it does not appear that current federal law would allow them to do so.
Maybe I misunderstood the original question, but I interpreted it more broadly. On domestic flights I’m sure all US laws (and thereby Constiutional rights) are followed. But on international flights this is not the case. So, on international flights what laws govern in-flight? And when do they start? On take-off? On leaving US airspace? For example, alcohol seems to be served freely to under-21’s on international flights.
I’m a huge fan of the “big ten” Bill of Rights, so I feel compelled to chime in with a nitpick. The Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not give you the right to keep and bear arms. It says that that right shall not be infringed by the government. Similarly, the First Amendment does not give you the right to free speech; it says the government shall make no law infringing on that right. The point is that the Bill of Rights does not say what you can do; it says what the government cannot do. It restricts the government’s power and should not be interpreted more broadly than that.
There are other Amendments, laws, etc. which apply to many of these things, but it’s an abuse of the Bill of Rights to use it to say it gives you a right to carry a gun anywhere or say anything.
Also, I believe the US Supreme Court has generally ruled along the lines of the Second Ammendment being intended for militias and the like. In other words, the Constitution does not actually guarantee that an individual’s right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed by the government. Whether it was meant to, or should be interpreted to, or will in the future, is a matter for a different forum. For here, suffice it to say that a federal law banning guns on airplanes would not be overturned on Second Ammendment grounds. Actually, I don’t think the USSC has overturned anything on Second Ammendment grounds for a while.
The prior posters have addressed the micro issue, now here’s the macro issue:
Airplanes, in flight, are governed by the law of the country which flag they “fly” (actually, the flag painted on the tail). There may be some provisions in international law that say when you are in the airspace of a particular country (which extends up all the way to the stratosphere), you are under the laws of that country.
There is a fascinating case in international law of a guy on an international flight over the Atlantic who molests a girl in the seat next to him mid-flight. When he’s arrested on touchdown, he argues that he was in the middle of the air, not in any jurisdiction, therefore U.S. cannot prosecute him.
He lost…
This is sounding more like a debate than a general question. I’ll close it rather than move it because these topics have been debated ad nauseam in GD. May I suggest Could the 2nd amendment prevented the attack on the WTC, Pentigon? or So pilots can kick anyone they want off a plane?
bibliophage
moderator GQ