Are we required to disclose a firearm at a suspicionless DHS internal checkpoint?

[henschman]

70 years ago, we were placing Japanese-Americans in internment camps. A lot of Americans were fine with that. That was absolutely a civil rights violation.

But in Korematsu, the Supreme Court said it was OK to put Japs in concentration camps too. Who are you to disagree with them and say this is a violation of those people's rights, if it is the Supreme Court who gets to decide what our God-given rights are, as you believe?

Glocktogo, you're right that these suspicion-less checkpoints are not searches... but they are definitely seizures. The notion that the cop at the checkpoint is no different than a friendly guy chatting you up on the sidewalk is ridiculous. The difference is illustrated by what would happen if you politely decline to converse with the officer and drive on down the road. You will definitely wind up getting chased, pulled over, cuffed, and stuffed, and everybody who stops at these things knows it. Since that is the case, a checkpoint is obviously not a voluntary stop, since force will be used against you if you do not stop. Even the Supreme Court recognizes that this is a temporary seizure of a person and their car and implicates rights protected by the 4th Amendment... they just think the search is "reasonable" because the necessity of stopping drunk drivers or illegal immigrants outweighs the liberty of the individual (BTW they used that very same rationale in Korematsu). In answer to that, I quote William Pitt:

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave."

 

[dutchwrangler]

What part of "the fawking Constitution is dead" don't most of you understand?

BTW... they did have checkpoints along the Canadian border after 9/11. I nearly took out a ton of agents with my semi as I rolled south from Montreal on I-87 south of Plattsburgh. The dumbfawks set it up beyond the crest of a hill without any road signs to give warning. Typical of stupid government employees...

 

[Glocktogo]

But in Korematsu, the Supreme Court said it was OK to put Japs in concentration camps too. Who are you to disagree with them and say this is a violation of those people's rights, if it is the Supreme Court who gets to decide what our God-given rights are, as you believe?

Glocktogo, you're right that these suspicion-less checkpoints are not searches... but they are definitely seizures. The notion that the cop at the checkpoint is no different than a friendly guy chatting you up on the sidewalk is ridiculous. The difference is illustrated by what would happen if you politely decline to converse with the officer and drive on down the road. You will definitely wind up getting chased, pulled over, cuffed, and stuffed, and everybody who stops at these things knows it. Since that is the case, a checkpoint is obviously not a voluntary stop, since force will be used against you if you do not stop. Even the Supreme Court recognizes that this is a temporary seizure of a person and their car and implicates rights protected by the 4th Amendment... they just think the search is "reasonable" because the necessity of stopping drunk drivers or illegal immigrants outweighs the liberty of the individual (BTW they used that very same rationale in Korematsu). In answer to that, I quote William Pitt:

"Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave."

The system is only as good as the people running it. It can be the best system in the world (and I believe ours still is), but the quality of the people running it is FAR more important than the system itself. Fear has a way of ruining good judgment.

You CAN politely decline to converse with the officer. You can simply stare at them like a bug from outer space if you want. You can hold up a sign stating that you're exercising your 1st Amendment rights by staging a silent protest if you choose. I can assure you the stalemate will not last forever. You'll either win and they'll wave you on, or they'll make a mistake and take you into custody, in which case you can file a tort claim against them that you'll most likely win. If they have jurisdiction to request a DL, you'll have to give them that, as driving has been decreed a privilege regulated by all 50 states. In the BP checkpoint case, they didn't ask for a DL because they aren't empowered to enforce state traffic laws. However, being combative and arguing about it is silly. You might "win" and get to go on your way with no more consequence than pissing that officer off, but at what cost? Perhaps you just alienated someone who might empathise with your plight, but no longer does? perhaps you were another straw on the camel's back and they'll wind up violating someone else's rights when they can't deal with the bad attitudes that are misplaced?

Ultimately we all have decisions to make. I know where my line is and it may come to pass that I have to draw it out for someone in my chain of command. This ain't it.

 

[Double Tap]

OK, so would it be ok with you if the step on your first amendment rights “a little” if the reason was just, and the supreme court said “we know it’s a little infringement, but the end justify the means”. Something like, “you cannot publicly say you hate the President, because it causes unrest.”

 

[Double Tap]

Because the Supreme Court chief Justice even said “we know it’s a minor infringement on the 4th amendment violation, but the end justifies the means”. So they even admit that it is a violation, they just made it ok to do so. A little at a time, piece by piece. Easier to have someone give you something than to take it. I had my line in Law Enforcement, they crossed it and I walked, my values and the fact that I am an American first and I was a cop second. And another thing, before I took my oath as a cop, I also took an oath to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You may argue next that the “government is the government” my answer will be so was Hitler.

 

[Fatboy Joe]

OK, so would it be ok with you if the step on your first amendment rights “a little” if the reason was just, and the supreme court said “we know it’s a little infringement, but the end justify the means”. Something like, “you cannot publicly say you hate the President, because it causes unrest.”

Hasn't this already been done. Take out an add in the newspaper tomorrow threatening the President and see what happens.

What if you don't believe in the "Creator?" Do you have any rights at all? Who granted them?

 

[Glocktogo]

OK, so would it be ok with you if the step on your first amendment rights “a little” if the reason was just, and the supreme court said “we know it’s a little infringement, but the end justify the means”. Something like, “you cannot publicly say you hate the President, because it causes unrest.”

Saying you hate the president is politically protected speech. Saying you hate the president and they need to be eliminated will net you a visit from the Secret Service. You already accept infringement on your 1st Amendment rights if you're an absolutist. What about the SCOTUS telling you that you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater? Sounds like something an anarchist such as yourself would be all up in arms about?

Yet the BP checkpoint never once stepped on anyone's 1st Amendment rights. They were always allowed to say whatever they want. Once again, I fail to see that you have any point at all.

Because the Supreme Court chief Justice even said “we know it’s a minor infringement on the 4th amendment violation, but the end justifies the means”. So they even admit that it is a violation, they just made it ok to do so. A little at a time, piece by piece. Easier to have someone give you something than to take it. I had my line in Law Enforcement, they crossed it and I walked, my values and the fact that I am an American first and I was a cop second. And another thing, before I took my oath as a cop, I also took an oath to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic. You may argue next that the “government is the government” my answer will be so was Hitler.

Well you sure seem quick to hit the [Broken External Image] button. Is that why you bailed on your law enforcement career? Is that why you failed to stay on and stand up with your convictions in defense of The People? Apparently you had a choice and chose big talk on an internet forum, as opposed to standing up for what's right when it counted for real. I've enjoyed the opportunity to tell my bosses "I Will Not Do That". I didn't do so by turning in my badge, because I know that it will happen again, and that if I leave, the next guy might not say no. I can do more from within to protect the rights of the people than I can on an anonymous internet forum. Apparently, your convictions didn't run that strong.

 

[Billybob]

What part of "the fawking Constitution is dead" don't most of you understand?

BTW... they did have checkpoints along the Canadian border after 9/11. I nearly took out a ton of agents with my semi as I rolled south from Montreal on I-87 south of Plattsburgh. The dumbfawks set it up beyond the crest of a hill without any road signs to give warning. Typical of stupid government employees...

Is it dead or just "morphed"

Justice Scalia

"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did. We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time. But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution,” judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way - they lied about it. They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.

It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution. And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.” We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes. I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs."

Continued...

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

 

[Billybob]

And who came up with the "Living Constitution" (Law) theory?

According to the Nazi legal theory, the legal system should not contain fixed rules of law but evolve in continuous flow as a ‘living law’.

http://creation.com/darwinian-roots-of-nazi-legal-system

 

[Double Tap]

I bailed on LE because I didn’t sign up for the Gestapo. I’m not going to get into the long and the short of it. You are obviously full of S#%T just like most “you will obey” cops that think because you have a badge and a gun you can make up for all the time you spent in a locker in high school. You can take personal shots at me all you like, while you’re at it hold your breath and stomp your feet. But you STILL haven’t answered my question. Call me an anarchist all you like, take shots all you like. But just because you are not smart enough to see the point and/or too afraid to answer it, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Now that you felt the need to make an intelligent conversation personal, let me just add, I’m not going to get into an insult match with you or anyone else. So jump up and down and tell everyone that you win, but remember getting into a personal insult match on the internet with someone that you have never met and claiming you won is like winning the special Olympics. Sure you won, but your still a retard