I’m pretty sure the Posse Comitatus Act only applies to active-duty Federal forces. There are plenty of examples where National Guard units have been used to do police duty after natural disasters, riots and what-not.
I suspect though, that had that business with the tank gone on much longer, they’d probably have got a NG unit to use some sort of close-range anti-tank tactic to immobilize it (make it throw a track or disable the engine), and then just waited the guy out. I’d think a good old-fashioned Molotov cocktail might have done the job on the engine actually.
That said, I don’t think there are any actual prohibitions on armed helicopters- law enforcement is allowed to have automatic weapons, and they’re allowed to have helicopters, so why not both? The real question would be one of utility- just what law enforcement role is a machine gun on a helicopter going to serve?
Interesting that nobody seems to have addressed the actual original question.
Yes, police sometimes fire weapons from helicopters, but the question was about mounting weapons on one. Several people noted that there is little reason for the police to go to the expense, but that still sidesteps the question:
In the movie Blue Thunder, Roy Scheider’s character says “I thought it was illegal to arm police helicopters.” https://youtu.be/sd3lDhyM21M?t=43s
Is this true?
A throwaway line in a fictional movie good law does not make.
It really depends on “what police, what weapons.” For instance, the US Coast Guard is a federal law enforcement agency. But they’re also one of the Armed Forces of the United States. So their helicopters are armed. Example: USCG MH-65 with door mounted M-240 machine gun. The ones in the USCG HITRON are armed specifically for law enforcement purpose (stopping go-fast drug smuggler boats).
So, we can say that federal paramilitary law-enforcement helicopters can be armed with light aircraft weapons. Doesn’t address the question of non-federal law enforcement, since the answer to that is in the various state laws, municipal codes, and local politics.
The movie is set in LA. And in California police DO fire from helicopters. So I am going to say that in real life LA, the movie is wrong (shockingly!) and arming police helicopters is legal.
Of course there could be a law that makes mounting weapons ON a helicopter illegal, but firing weapons from inside one legal, but I find that hard to believe.
Depending on how you mount the weapons there may also be a requirement to officially certify the modification to the aircraft, or at least to test it to make sure that it doesn’t adversely affect the flight characteristics. Not many police departments are going to be able to do this themselves , and I doubt that the helicopter manufacturer would see this as a cost-effective upgrade program given the very limited potential market.
The easier way would to to acquire a pre-armed military version. As a full weapon system (in the military sense), I’d expect the airworthiness certification stuff would either be (A) already in the can, or (B) a mere formality based on DoD functional testing and accreditation.
Considering you’d be altering the aircraft a lot less than a lot of normal “demilitarized” military-to-civilian transfers.
Back in the mid-80s the Philadelphia police dropped a time-bomb on a house to evict radical pains-in-the-ass terrorizing the street.
The resulting fire BURNED DOWN THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD!
[/QUOTE]
It wasn't a 'time bomb' it was a large flash-bang concussion grenade. Along with concussion it also produced a fairly large (yet quick) fireball which started a small fire on the roof. What happened is that the city (Mayor) *deliberately* held back the Fire Dept from extinguishing it in the hope that the smoke would flush the MOVE assholes out of their stronghold. But the fire quickly got out of control and burned down an entire city block.
The city absolutely screwed up and owed the displaced civilians compensation, but ultimately the legal & ethical blame lay firmly with the MOVE group. They were nothing more than domestic terrorists. Their ‘grievances’ were completely irrational and unfounded and their methods were not only violent and felonious but actually bordered on treason. Any collateral damage from their actions, regardless of whether it was due to oversights on the part of the city, were strictly their fault and they should have (and I believe were) been held legally accountable for all of it.
I’m not saying that MOVE were great neighbors, or particularly law-abiding, but treason? Was there a war formally declared that I somehow missed, or is ‘treason’ just anything that annoys you?
And, do you have any cites on MOVE being found legally responsible for the city’s arson?
To better search for terrorists hiding in the vast swampland surrounding the complex ready to shoot a portable SAM at a Shuttle (or any launch). They also have several airboats with armed personnel patrolling the area for this purpose.