Guns and airport questions

[Jeff OTMG]

Werewolf, the constitution still holds. You are not required to fly, the compliance is only required if you fly voluntarily. If you stay in your home, away from an airport, you have nothing to worry about with TSA or complying with that section of the CFR. Now, if something happens after you have complied with all the govt requirements, as I have experienced and Oleg's friends, that is a completely different story.

 

[bfason]

Werewolf, the constitution still holds.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." Measured by this standard, much of the new TSA rules and practices fails. Check out _Terrorism and Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil_ by James Bovard. See espcially Chapter 8, "Groping for Safety" for Bovard's description of airport "security" as political theater. They've confiscated fingernail clippers, cigar cutters, toy robots, and millions of other "dangerous items." One man was arrested after a TSA search found "a tiny lighter with a one-inch folding knife that [the passenger] has bought on the street of Brazil for fifty cents." One time they seized a four-inch plastic GI Joe rifle from a 9-year-old child.

US citizens are being detained because their names appear on a do-not-fly list although they have not been convicted or even accused of committing any crimes of violence. Names are added to the list based solely on the political views of the would-be passengers.

The TSA has a penchant for operating in secrecy. It violates the very laws passed by Congress which govern it manpower and budget. It acts like cop, prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate court. It is assuming exactly the kind of arbitrary power that the Founding Fathers warned us against.

We are now being told that in the name of "protecting freedom," we can no longer afford the liberties that we once heralded before the world.

 

[ctdonath]

Jeff:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I see no exceptions for air travel in there. Simply put, the federal government has no right to search anyone without a warrant for a specific case as particularly described to and approved by a judge.

What part of "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Do you have a problem understanding "shall not be infringed" as well?

 

[bfason]

Simply put, the federal government has no right to search anyone without a warrant for a specific case as particularly described to and approved by a judge.

That is simply incorrect. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit all warrantless searches and seizures; only "unreasonable" ones.

See a recent case on this. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, United States Supreme Court No. 99-1408 (April 24, 2001).

 

[ctdonath]

bfason:

What part of "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

(Considering SCOUS throwing out "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed", I don't accept them tossing "shall not be violated" either.)

 

[bfason]

What part of "shall not be violated" don't you understand?

What part of "unreasonable searches and seizures" is unclear to you?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[Werewolf]

bfason stated:

What part of "unreasonable searches and seizures" is unclear to you?

Based on the implied interpretation above then any search and seizure is acceptable even without a warrant. All the courts have to do is say it's reasonable after the fact. The way things are going the bar just keeps getting lower and lower. No Knock Warrants anyone? Eventually any search will be reasonable.

The SCOTUS may have found warrantless searches legit but again (and yes I know my opinion holds no legal weight) the way the 4th reads to me is that a search shall only be conducted if it is both reasonable and has a warrant (the warrant is the official recognition that the search is reasonable). The applicable phrases are linked with an "AND". And is an inclusive word - if I say you and me it means both of us.

The amendment didnt' say you can search a person if it's reasonable or you have a warrant. That would be silly (one could get a search warrant even if the search was unreasonable in that case) in light of the founders' reasons for putting the 4th in the BORs. I.E. prevent the kind of searches the British did on colonials.

Requiring a warrant may prevent a few criminals from being caught but that's the price of freedom. It's either that or live in a police state. The sheeple and our elected officials have decided that they prefer a police state.

 

[ctdonath]

The point of the 4th Amendment is that the reasonableness/acceptability of a search MUST be proven to and accepted by a judge in each and every specific case, as documented by a warrant.

In the case of airports, this means that if I am to be searched for concealed weapons, a judge must sign a warrant specifically stating me as the person to be searched and specifically stating the search is for weapons, plus the reason why there is reason to believe I would have weapons illegally.

Searching me without a warrant and taking my dental floss because it "might be used as a weapon" is the high point of "unreasonable search and siezure".

 

[Jeff OTMG]

The searches are not unreasonable and do not require a warrant. When you fly, you are giving permission for the search. Using your arguement we should not have to declare unloaded firearms while flying because it is an intrusion on our privacy to have the questions asked.

 

[Werewolf]

Jeff postulated that:

The searches are not unreasonable and do not require a warrant. When you fly, you are giving permission for the search. Using your arguement we should not have to declare unloaded firearms while flying because it is an intrusion on our privacy to have the questions asked.

The searches are unreasonable. They're unreasonable because they wrongfully assume prior to the fact that everyone flying is an evil bastard with intent to hijack an airplane. THAT IS JUST WRONG! Even assuming that the searches are reasonable (which they aren't) regardless of what SCOTUS says the 4th is prettly clear. A search must be reasonable AND validated with a warrant. Unfortunately the path down which our nation has trod has erased that meaning and replaced it with something else - something more like one would expect to find in a police state.

I'm sure the government agrees with you concerning consent but then that consent is coerced - PERIOD! In many cases one has no choice but to fly. A coerced consent is no consent.

Sorry but IMO the 4th amendment is being blatantly ignored in the name of security and with increased security comes a greater and greater loss of freedom. Sometimes doing the right thing for the right reasons can lead to the wrong thing happening.

The price of living by the ideals established in the constitution can be very high. It is those freedoms established by the constitution that make us so vulnerable. It's a tough choice - live by our ideals and suffer some attacks or up the anty - turn into a police state and maybe prevent some attacks.

IMO most folks would rather live in the police state than pay the price of freedom. Most folks (or more likely their children) will someday learn the error of that choice.

George Orwell got it wrong. It wasn't 1984 - it'll be sometime in the future to be determined (next 10 years IMO). Everything else Mr. Orwell got right.

 

[davidtdm]

Thanks everyone for their comments . However, It seems that the topic is getting a bit off. Please feel free to start another thread on the constitutionality of the tsa.

I was just wanting to know what other peoples experiences were when they fly with their firearms.


thanks,

Dave

 

[Oleg Volk]

Flew with three pistols last weekend, no problems.