Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
..... the Ninth Circuit ruled in United States. v. Aukai that "airport screening searches, like the one at issue here, are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches because they are conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, namely, to prevent the carrying of weapons or explosives aboard aircraft, and thereby to prevent hijackings."[81] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
GO argue with the Supreme Court about it. And when you win, and the plane you or someone else is in gets blown up or hijacked, because, hey, I didn't like that they checked people for stuff. At least you'll have that?
Anyone here remember D.B. Cooper? He's the guy who carried a bomb on a plane and hijacked it. Back then, security was a nod and a wave.
Absolutely! And the court could also rule that it is constitutionally reasonable to conduct universal background checks on anyone purchasing a gun, and thereby to prevent needless killings.
No problem. I used that example for the poll because for years, airport body & bag searches as a constitutional right have been willingly given up for safety.
Yet, I am amazed that an argument against universal background checks for a gun purchase is voted against because it would be an infringement of our constitutional rights and a "slippery slope" thereon.
I'm against both the universal background check and the TSA screening. I'm not, however, against background checks for private party purchases. I can't think of a way to implement it that will work though. It should be a state issue. Why has no state implemented a private party background check system?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford
Anyone here remember D.B. Cooper? He's the guy who carried a bomb on a plane and hijacked it. Back then, security was a nod and a wave.
Back then was 1971. Prior to 9/11 the last one was in 1983.
Absolutely! And the court could also rule that it is constitutionally reasonable to conduct universal background checks on anyone purchasing a gun, and thereby to prevent needless killings.
Universal background checks did not fail because of a conflict with the Constitution, it fell because the Senate did not elect to debate it.
Absolutely! And the court could also rule that it is constitutionally reasonable to conduct universal background checks on anyone purchasing a gun, and thereby to prevent needless killings.
The court has already ruled that every individual has the right to own a gun and reasonable measures are not unconstitutional.
I'm against both the universal background check and the TSA screening. I'm not, however, against background checks for private party purchases. I can't think of a way to implement it that will work though. It should be a state issue. Why has no state implemented a private party background check system?
They could implement it by requiring private party transactions to be perfomed at a dealer who performs the check.
Universal background checks did not fail because of a conflict with the Constitution, it fell because the Senate did not elect to debate it.
We don't need the dysfunctional congress anymore. We will have the court decide that universal background checks and closing the loopholes are constitutional just as airport screenings are.
We don't need the dysfunctional congress anymore. We will have the court decide that universal background checks and closing the loopholes are constitutional just as airport screenings are.
The court doesn't make the law though. That authority belongs to Congress and the state legislatures.
We don't need the dysfunctional congress anymore. We will have the court decide that universal background checks and closing the loopholes are constitutional just as airport screenings are.
Again, the constitutionality is not the issue. A law would have to be created to make the checks mandatory, and only Congress can create laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
