I can believe that there is indeed, somewhere in the thousands of pages of Federal Regulations, a regulation that prohibits replica firearms inside airport "security" perimeters. Probably the original intent was to keep someone from carrying a realistic replica into the airport, waving it around, and getting shot. I get it. But looking at her purse, it is pretty clear that this is not such a replica, and it is pretty clear that it is also not a weapon.
But, all of this begs the question, are we really any safer? The government now violates the rights of every American who steps on a plane. After all, we don't have to fly, they say. Flying is a choice, a "privilege." You could drive a car. But of course, you can see the slippery slope. When they start setting up roadblocks on the highway, will they then say say that you don't have to drive, you could walk? This is nonsense.
The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states:
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.
Note that the Amendment, like most of the Constitution, is pretty clearly written. A non lawyer can understand what it says. Note that it doesn't say anything about "privileges" that the government may rescind at will. Notice too that before a search begins, a Warrant must be issued, usually signed by a Judge, stating that they have probable cause, and that a specific person is to be searched, and specific things seized. Searching everyone, or even random searches of people in general, is not allowed, unless they have a reason to search a person, and have obtained a Warrant.
The government has no business placing itself into the middle of a private transaction. You purchase a ticket from the airline which entitles you to fly on their planes from point A to point B. If the airline wishes to perform a security check, they are entitled to do so. After all, it is their airplane and their business they are potentially risking. If passengers feel that the airline is not doing enough, those passengers are free to take a competing airline instead. The government does not need to get involved in this process. The airline could offer to run background checks on people as a courtesy, and have them pre-screened before they get to the airport, for instance. Such background checks would be perfectly legal as a condition of traveling using that airline. Otherwise, travelers would face airline security at the airport. All of this would be legal. What is not legal, no matter what the Supreme Court may have said, is allowing the government to search everyone who comes to the airport on the grounds that someone, somewhere, might be a terrorist.
I remember as a kid that we could go right out to the airplane to greet a passenger who had just arrived. Having come to a strange city and a strange airport, it was considered a courtesy to greet them and guide them to awaiting ground transportation. Will we ever be able to recover any of our lost liberties?
The TSA will not stop until forced to do so, by some outside agency. Whether that's a Chief Executive who's had enough of the madness and returns us to Constitutional law, or whether due to sudden & unexplained disappearances of TSA employees, only time will tell. But a sizable number of people seem to be at the breaking point, and there wouldn't be enough dollars in the world to convince me to don a blue shirt anywhere near an airport.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find the concept of both the TSA's actions and a vigilante response to those actions equally abhorrent. However, I fear we as a society may have passed the point of no return.