New Hampshire Woman Protests the TSA

We are starting to cross over into apples and oranges here.

Yes, you have to have some inkling of the law to pick which battles to fight. Basically, if it’s something that you have agreed to via a contract, you have no legal leg to stand on. So for example:

1) Purchasing a ticket of entry.
2) Entering a private establishment.
3) Agreeing to the terms of licensure or certification.

All may hold contractual agreements, or agreements to adhere to rules that violate your personal rights. These are legal because you cannot be forced to waive your rights. You always have the option to leave, do something else, or patronize another place.

Now…

If they set up a checkpoint in a public area, and start restricting your movement in some way that you have not contractually agreed to, then they are violating your rights. So, for example, if they start pulling cars off the road to search them, you can sue them, and you’ll most likely win. You have not agreed to any contract with the government that allows them to make you submit to a search for driving or walking in a public place (airports are not considered public places, they are restricted federal land BTW, which is why you cannot just go wander around on the runways).

A DUI checkpoint is considered legal, as I mention above, because you agreed to DUI checks when you applied for your driver’s license. That is also why you can refuse to take the Dui tests, but then are civilly penalized for breach of contract. That is also why they cannot site you for anything but a DUI at a DUI checkpoint.

I can actually drive into a DUI checkpoint with no drivers license, expired tags, no insurance, and they HAVE to let me go without a citation as long as I am sober.

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

Okay okay! He's a mod, I was trying to be gentle and avoid the wrath of his ban-hammer! I see everyone else has shot him down in flames so I don't feel quite so bad...

First off, mods do not moderate in threads in which they participate as members. It’s in the frames around my posts if you didn’t notice. Also, no moderator is going to ban anyone for disagreeing with them in a thread. If they did, they would not be a mod for very long, and would end up banned themselves. So go ahead and feel free to express your opinion to your hearts content.

Personally I have not seen anyone “shoot me down in flames” yet, because no one here has provided any legal documentation that I am wrong, and legally they cannot.
If you can, I’d like to see it.
I, on the other hand, have backed up my points with actual links and quotes from source material.

Look on your drivers license. Somewhere on it, it will state something along the lines of:

Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law. –Florida DL

I don’t know where in the paperwork you agreed to this (I haven’t been to the DVM in years), but I know you legally did. I know its considered a civil contract, and you can ask any police officer about it. That is why you can refuse to take the DUI test and be submitted to civil penalties instead of criminal ones. Its also why the police now have judges writing warrants at DUI checkpoints to force people who refuse to submit.

When you applied for your drivers license it certainly was not a one sided affair. You went there and applied for it, took a test, paid a fee, and they granted you your license. When you paid your fee, you provided legal consideration to them and accepted the contract.

Consideration is the concept of legal value in connection with contracts. It is anything of value promised to another when making a contract. It can take the form of money, physical objects, services, promised actions, abstinence from a future action, and much more. Under the notion of "pre-existing duties," if either the promisor or the promisee already had a legal obligation to render such payment, it cannot be seen as consideration in the legal sense.
In common law it is a prerequisite that both parties offer some consideration before a contract can be thought of as binding.

You provided consideration, and they provided you with your license. A legal contract now exists between you and the state that you will submit to a DUI check at their request.

Originally posted by maddog99
Apples & Oranges? This Thread is about the abuses of the TSA, which is a government regulated agency and it's abuses toward our freedoms...

Well, no, this thread was not actually about that, its about a woman protesting airport searches by running around an airport in her underwear.

Getting into roadblocks is something of another topic all together, and one I would certainly fight against if it begins to occur.

Originally posted by maddog99
not about how the airlines don't have a choice...I understand they don't.

Technically they do have a choice. They have the power to force the FAA into changing the rules if they so desired. The truth is though that when something goes wrong, they lose a lot of money. Families of victims and employees do not go sue the government, and the government is not the one who is out one hell of an expensive piece of equipment. That’s why the airlines used to hire their own security, and make passenger inspections even before the government got involved in it. That’s why that part of the Contract of Carriage has been in there since way before 2001.

Originally posted by maddog99
The 4th Amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches...period.

But, you see, its not only YOUR personal rights that are involved here. You also have to take into consideration the personal rights of other passengers, the airlines itself, and even civilians on the ground, that may be affected by this.

Other passengers have the right to ensure that you are not carrying something that may cause them harm, airlines have the right to protect their employees and equipment, those on the ground have the right to not have a 100ton aircraft come falling on their house, etc…

So this is not something as clear cut as a simple violation of your personal rights.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I have noticed your posts since I came to ATS 6 years ago. You ALWAYS take the corporate main stream path and I have never witnessed you take the side of the people. Yet you were made a moderator? :shk:

You have been here long enough to realize that being a mod has nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion on any given topic, and mods are expected to have various opinions and backgrounds to make a well balanced group. There is no official “party line” opinion or stance that any moderator is expected to have.

You should also realize that belonging to a site like ATS is in many ways similar to agreeing to go through airport security. Here you agree to follow certain rules that the owners set to be granted the right to be a member of the board. You actually surrender some of your Constitutional rights to freedom of speech by agreeing to the Terms and Conditions on any privately owned website you belong too. This is very much akin to surrendering some of your personal rights to fly on a privately owned aircraft.

Additionally, if you actually had been aware of many of my posts since I began here, you should realize that I am a skeptic, I am critical of the government and “big business”, I am very critical of the financial sector, I dislike unions, I believe that the US is the “Beast” of Revelation and is becoming a Police State. I have been a big opponent of the REAL ID act, and many of the police state laws here in Florida.

Through learning all of that, fighting some of it, working in certain industries, I have learned to pick my battles, and the way that both your rights and our laws work. I have explained that to you in this thread, but rather then learn from it, many have decided to try and attack me about it. I even went so far as to tell you the correct way to go about getting these laws changed if you so desire.

It seems though that many are more prone to sit an argue their point in an attempt to prove they are right about something they are completely incorrect about, and obviously do not fully understand, rather then learn how it actually works legally and how to really fight it. It seems that what you really want is someone to just sit here whining about the evils of the TSA, and agree with conspiracy theory pseudo-law.

In the “real world”, conspiracy theory pseudo-law has no bearing on the actual law, and none of it stands up in court. All this “Freeman”, “sovereignty”, “right to movement”, “tax objector” type of legal belief only works in the minds of those who write it on the internet, none of it stands up in a real court. If you really want to fight something, I suggest that you learn how it really works, how they get the right to do what they do, and how you surrender your rights without even realizing it.

Lets be honest here, what you want is a TSA bashing thread, not a thread that contains any real facts or truth about anything. Your getting upset because you don't like the real legal fact that you choose to surrender your rights to the TSA voluntarily when you choose to fly.