CHL and Vehicle?

[RSJ]

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.

Agreed! I don't necessarily "like" it, but that's the way it is.

[RottenApple]

Agreed! I don't necessarily "like" it, but that's the way it is.

You won't get an argument from me on that. Frankly, the TSA ("Totally Stupid Agency" as Pawpaw calls it) is a waste of time. Too many requirements, unnecessary searches & putdowns, unsafe scanners, and lines WAY too long. We need to be using the Israeli model for airport security. They use behavioral profiling (yes, that dirty word). Multiple checkpoints starting at the Airport entrances, security personal that are looking for suspicious behaviors (not ethnicity), and if you are waiting more than 15 minutes in a security line it's because something is going on, not because "it's routine".

[steveincowtown]

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.

The Airlines are not making the free choice to have TSA screen passengers. If they were able to make that choice I would guarantee that a new airline would pop up that allowed travel with fewer restrictions.

All the methods of travel you mentioned (even walking) are regulated by the Government all ready.

Just sayin'.....

[10001110101]

Agreed! I don't necessarily "like" it, but that's the way it is.

You won't get an argument from me on that. Frankly, the TSA ("Totally Stupid Agency" as Pawpaw calls it) is a waste of time. Too many requirements, unnecessary searches & putdowns, unsafe scanners, and lines WAY too long. We need to be using the Israeli model for airport security. They use behavioral profiling (yes, that dirty word). Multiple checkpoints starting at the Airport entrances, security personal that are looking for suspicious behaviors (not ethnicity), and if you are waiting more than 15 minutes in a security line it's because something is going on, not because "it's routine".

My brother has gone through Israeli airport security before. He said it was like they knew what he had had for breakfast that morning. He also said it was the quickest he ever went through airport security (post 911).

Where are those big X-ray screens that I saw in Total Recall? That'd make it faster.

[RottenApple]

All the methods of travel you mentioned (even walking) are regulated by the Government all ready.

Just sayin'.....

And yet you still aren't prevented from using them. Ergo, your freedom to move about has NOT been restricted.

[Ameer]

Ergo, your freedom to move about has NOT been restricted.

Somebody show me where the Constitution authorizes the TSA's powers.

[10001110101]

Ergo, your freedom to move about has NOT been restricted.

Somebody show me where the Constitution authorizes the TSA's powers.

Being the devil's advocate here; show me where it says I need a CHL to carry my weapon. In my opinion, the TSA is completely ineffective as a deterrent to terrorist activities. The guys that went unnoticed by the FBI, CIA, etc. were able to get their devices on a plane right under the noses of TSA. The others were apprehended by real law enforcement before being able to even get to the airport to carry out their plan. So tell me; what do we need the TSA for? They are the sole reason I have not and will not voluntarily fly anywhere since 2001 and flying is probably one of the most enjoyable experiences to me.

[RottenApple]

Ergo, your freedom to move about has NOT been restricted.

Somebody show me where the Constitution authorizes the TSA's powers.

The closest you could get would be the interstate commerce clause, and the enumeration of the executive branch's authority to protect the nation from enemies both foreign and domestic.

NOTE: I'm not saying the TSA is doing a good job or is even necessary. I'm only pointing out possible constitutional authority for the TSA.

Now, you show me where the Constitution gives you the "right" to fly or drive.

[Ameer]

Ergo, your freedom to move about has NOT been restricted.

Somebody show me where the Constitution authorizes the TSA's powers.

Being the devil's advocate here; show me where it says I need a CHL to carry my weapon.

Unfortunately the Texas Constitution doesn't have a strong RKBA and the US Constitution's Bill of Rights doesn't apply to the states according to the feds. However, the Army Corps of Engineers ban is obviously unconstitutional and those who enforce it are enemies of the US Constitution. It's the same when TSA infringes the right to bear arms because they're Federal Government. That's not even touching the unreasonable searches or the lack of a constitutional authority to exist.

[Ameer]

Now, you show me where the Constitution gives you the "right" to fly or drive.

Maybe the states can restrict it but Federal politicians and employees are enemies of the US Constitution when they try.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by The People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to The People.

[RottenApple]

Maybe the states can restrict it but Federal politicians and employees are enemies of the US Constitution when they try.

Gotta disagree here. If it requires someone else to do or provide something, it cannot be a right. Last I checked, flying requires a plane, a flight crew, ground crew, maintinence personnel, air traffic control, airport facilities, etc, etc. So there are a LOT of people necessary to get a plane off the ground and transport someone. Therefore flying is NOT a right.

How can conservatives even argue this? This is the exact same argument (among others) that we've used to refute healthcare as a right.

[sjfcontrol]

Ergo, your freedom to move about has NOT been restricted.

Somebody show me where the Constitution authorizes the TSA's powers.

Being the devil's advocate here; show me where it says I need a CHL to carry my weapon. In my opinion, the TSA is completely ineffective as a deterrent to terrorist activities. The guys that went unnoticed by the FBI, CIA, etc. were able to get their devices on a plane right under the noses of TSA. The others were apprehended by real law enforcement before being able to even get to the airport to carry out their plan. So tell me; what do we need the TSA for? They are the sole reason I have not and will not voluntarily fly anywhere since 2001 and flying is probably one of the most enjoyable experiences to me.

But, but -- without the TSA, who would confiscate all those evil knitting needles and finger-nail clippers? Oh the horror!

[apostate]

How can conservatives even argue this? This is the exact same argument (among others) that we've used to refute healthcare as a right.

Here's a hint:

There's a difference between the owner of this forum not allowing "for sale" posts by new members and the government prohibiting "for sale" posts on gun forums.

[Heartland Patriot]

Maybe the states can restrict it but Federal politicians and employees are enemies of the US Constitution when they try.

Gotta disagree here. If it requires someone else to do or provide something, it cannot be a right. Last I checked, flying requires a plane, a flight crew, ground crew, maintinence personnel, air traffic control, airport facilities, etc, etc. So there are a LOT of people necessary to get a plane off the ground and transport someone. Therefore flying is NOT a right.

How can conservatives even argue this? This is the exact same argument (among others) that we've used to refute healthcare as a right.

Well, that isn't the argument I've used in the least. The individual mandate is FORCING people to buy something simply for the reason that they are ALIVE. If they are going to TAX people to fund healthcare, then they need to quit being babies and SAY they are going to tax people to fund healthcare. (However, that might get them thrown out on their ear.) The problem is that everyone has gotten so used to the Federal government being a (mostly) benign "Big Brother" that they take it for granted that the Feds can just tell you what to do and its okay. Now, please follow me here. Can the Feds tell you what to do, in reality? Yes, because they can USE FORCE TO MAKE YOU COMPLY. However, just because they can does NOT make it RIGHT. Joseph Stalin used force to make people in the Soviet Union comply; Adolph Hitler used force to make people in conquered countries comply and so forth and so on. Did that make them RIGHT? NO! I'm not naive...the Feds physically CAN send men and women in body armor, toting fully automatic weapons, bust down my door and coerce me at gunpoint or kill me...but unless I did something to truly harm another (not some "oh he hurt my feelings" stuff), then THEY, the Feds, would be in the wrong (and likely still would be as it would probably be the State of Texas' job to arrest and try me for harming others). Making someone buy "health insurance" (what a sick joke of a term) at the point of a barrel of a gun is NOT right...and its akin to the actions of those such as Joe Stalin, only different by degree...

Sometimes I wish I were an attorney like Mr. Cotton so I would have all the fine terminology to make more sense. However, I'm just a knuckle-busting mechanic and so it comes out the way it come out.

[srothstein]

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

I strongly disagree. And the best analogy to this is that I have the right to self-defense but that does not mean i have the right to any means I desire so gun ownership and carrying can be regulated.