TexasCHLforum.com

RottenApple wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:The right to travel and freedom of movement is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Using your logic that flying is "voluntary" and therefore can be regulated, then the Federal government should be able to regulate everything down to the shoes on your feet.

...wait a second, they already do.

You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to travel using just any method you wish.

Airlines are (for the most part) private corporations and can restrict their services to those whom they choose. For "safety" (ok, really it's the ILLUSION of safety) reasons, the government has placed certain requirements on air travel. If you don't like those requirements, you have other options. You can drive, take a bus, walk, or even buy your own plane. The government has not abridged your freedom to move about.

...at least not yet.

57Coastie wrote:

RSJ wrote: ...and airports are voluntary consent, you have the right NOT to fly or to leave

If you are indeed a lawyer in the making, RSJ, you may be privileged to observe first hand the consideration of a significant question of Constitutional Law and Federal/State relations.

Yours is the same legal argument the State of Texas makes with respect to requiring ladies desiring an abortion to arguably be raped by a physician. Yes, having an instrument of any kind inserted into her vagina without her consent is now considered by the FBI to be rape:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/sto ... 52398350/1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suspect this issue about whether the lady's consent is truly voluntary will be addressed by the courts during your lifetime, if not mine.

Jim

Heartland Patriot wrote:

i8godzilla wrote:

Longshot38 wrote:The simple answer to the original question is no. We can make up scenarios all day long but if you are not in or about your vehicle then the officer has no probable cause of search your vehicle and you DO NOT have to consent to a search. And personally I would not. We do not live in a police state and you did not give up your rights when you got your CHL (rather you exercised them). Thus if a Police Officer wishes to search any of my property he will require a warrant it is that simple.

On the topic of the alcohol related scenarios. Again, if you are not in or about your vehicle the officers does not have probable cause to search it. And I would not allow him to do so. Also he has no reason to "disarm" you or seize you weapon without you consent. And there is no way I'd let that happen without a court order. Alcohol or not you still have certain right and the constitution still protects you.

Really? Have you been on an airplane lately? After my last encounter trying to pick-up my grandkids at Ft. Hood I'll take exception to your statement.

Yeah, but that's "the Feds", not LEOs in OUR state...personal opinion only, of course, and it shouldn't be this way, but two different sets of rules seem to apply.