I Watched the Bill of Rights Dying Last Week

John/az2

New member
This reminded me of Rich's experience with the knife.

The site:
http://www.enterstageright.com/1099billrights.htm

The article:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I watched the Bill of Rights dying last week
By Vin Suprynowicz
web posted October 4, 1999

One recent morning I watched the Bill of Rights dying. I don't know if anyone else noticed; it's been on its deathbed so long that most folks don't even go visit anymore.

Following a speaking engagement in Marina del Rey the evening before, I found myself approaching the security checkpoint at Terminal 1 of LAX at 6:10 a.m. Sept. 21, preparing to catch the 7:56 to Vegas.

Approaching the baggage X-ray machine, I noted the now-familiar sign listing the facility's international red circle-and-slash prohibitions, warning passengers they'll be jailed if found in possession of a firearm or even a can of pepper spray -- this now thoroughly routine rape of the Second Amendment drawing not a single glance from the customers standing in line for their morning McDonald's coffee, despite the fact it was occurring in their full view.

In fact, after a successful evening selling and signing books, a combination of the absurd local firearms restriction of Los Angeles County and this anti-self-defense policy of the airlines and the FAA had left me wandering the streets of Los Angeles at midnight the night before, searching out an open Burger King, with $500 cash on my person. Had I been beaten and robbed of that sum, do you suppose the airline, or the FAA, or the County of Los Angeles would have made good my loss, since it was their unconstitutional conspiracy that deprived me of my right to safely and legally carry a firearm (or even a can of pepper-spray) for self-defense, as I otherwise would surely have done?

I don't think so.

Past the now-familiar notices of anti-gun tyranny, I pushed my carry-on bag through the X-ray machine, submitting to its scan of my personal effects despite the fact neither the airline nor the airport administration held any warrant to search them, nor even offered me any probable cause.

But was that enough? Not that day. As my bag came down the belt, a tall, sleepy-eyed young man with a shaved head and an ill-fitting blue blazer, standing on the other side of the conveyer belt, asked "Sir, do you mind if I search your bag?"

I replied: "Actually, I do mind. I do not consent to any search of my bag."

The young man acted as though I had not heard his question. "Sir, do you mind if I search your bag?"

"Yes, I do mind. I do not grant my consent for any search of my bag."

"Sir," he repeated, "do you mind if I search your bag?"

I still don't know how long this would have continued. Sensing that it was up to me to jog the needle on this trance-like broken record, I next asked, "Did you see something on the X-ray that looked like a weapon?"

"No sir," he admitted. "It's a random search."

"A random search?"

"A random search."

At this point, a bearded dwarf in a tweed jacket, looking for all the world like former Clinton cabinet secretary Robert Reich, appeared at my left shoulder, coming to the aid of my somnolent oppressor. "He can ask you to search the bag, and if you refuse, he doesn't have to let you continue," said this strange apparition, holding his own two suitcases and a plastic shopping bag.

"How is this any concern of yours?" I asked the dwarf. "Do you work for the airline?"

"No," he smiled proudly, like an enormously self-contented bridge-player laying down the last trump card. "I work for the FAA."

"And you're on duty here?"

"No, I'm not. But I know about this," he smiled even more broadly.

"Then you must know the security directive says they should ask to see our photo ID, but it specifically goes on to say that if we refuse, they can not bar us from boarding" I said quite firmly, drawing the attention of the sleepy-eyed fellow's lady supervisor, who now waddled over to join us. "So I assume it's the same with these 'random bag checks.' That's why they ask for our permission, right? If they don't need our consent, why keep asking for it?"

Astonishingly enough, at this point, the little dwarf's smile collapsed, and he turned and trundled away like a disturbed woodchuck. Given that he presumably took an oath before God to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution, which still contains the Bill of Rights, it's unlikely the leering little geek's immortal soul will escape as easily.

Sir," asked the tall young man, clinging to the security of his minimal training, and apparently hoping to break the record set by Paul McCartney, who once managed to find more than a dozen different ways to sing the eight words "Why don't we do it in the road?" in the same recording ... "do you mind if I check your bag?"

"Listen," I said, "I do not grant my consent, and I'm not going to grant my consent. If you believe you don't need my consent, then do what you have to do."

At this point, with his supervisor looking on, the young man went through the motions of unzipping and re-zipping the two small side compartments on my bag, barely glancing at, in turn, a clean pair of white socks and a plastic bottle of Pepto-Bismol. He never undid the straps or unzipped the main body of the bag, at all. "Thank you," he said.

"I'm not going to thank you," I replied, "because we still have a Fourth Amendment in this country, which protects us from warrantless searches. You do know that, right?"

The bald young man looked right through me, focusing on the far wall, his heavy-lidded eyes blinking slowly. His companion, a grossly fat black woman in the ill-fitting rust-red jacket of a "supervisor," who had been puffing up to say something before the FAA troll butted in, looked disgusted but averted her eyes, refusing to meet my gaze.

These are the faces of tyranny, bored and uncaring. When instructed to load us political nonconformists onto cattle cars bound for the internment camps, they will do so in unquestioning, shuffling boredom, eyeing the clock to make sure they don't work a minute into their next scheduled break.

Thus are our precious constitutional rights daily rendered null and void by uncaring stooges, like dying rest-home patients clutching their bedframes in silent agony, writhing their death throes in their own excrement as the bored orderlies play cards in the break room down the hall, the sound turned up on the cheerful idiot morning TV calisthenics show, hoping their shifts will end before someone comes in and orders them to go change the sheets. [/quote]

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!

www.quixtar.com
referal #2005932
 
John-
From the repetition to the blank, see thru stare, it's exactly what I experienced. Vin just says it so much more clearly.

His heartbreak is evident.
Rich
 
This was writing done very well... Rich - yours was good too - but writhing in fecal filled sheets - You missed that one! :D

------------------
Not all Liberals are annoying... Some are Dead.
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
The Critic formerly known as Kodiac
 
there is a great quote in Unintended Consequences about how other people will covet & desire what you can own and will use petty powers to take it from you or keep you from possesing it...

dZ
 
My take on this - generally - is the airlines own the airport and airplanes; they are private companies; they can do what they want to. If they want to search your stuff, and you don't like it, then drive to your destination. This is subject to the caveat that any particular airline should be permitted to allow passengers to be armed if that airline wishes, if they have the clout from market-derived powers to get it done (in other words, NO gov't-imposed outright ban on all flights) - don't know what the real deal is, as I rarely fly. I suspect this IS some federal BS, so in that event, I would be adamantly opposed to any such blanket restrictions - if a particular airline wants to allow weapons, then that airline, for example, could be required to disclose that fact to passengers; it could be required - and would probably voluntarily undertake to, enacting strict security procedures/precautions on the plane itself - there are any number of viable ways to make the plane with armed passengers just as safe as any other airplane from would-be hijackers. When you get the realm of common carriers, they are held to a higher standard when it comes to not violating people's rights. I can see the argument that the second is violated if ALL common carriers for a particular mode of travel ban arms, esp. where gov't imposed.

NOW....

The part about being jailed if found with the offending contraband is absurd! What charge would they have? If they find something on you which they don't want on their plane, then fine - they can refuse admittance, and ask you to leave the airport. But charge a crime? The traditional law of trespass to property is that you must first be specifically ASKED to leave the property, followed by an intentional refusal, before a crime has occurred. Once again, I suspect the crime part is some federal crap that obviates the prosecutor's traditional duty to prove some kind of evil intent. Prob all they have to show is (1) you have a weapon; and (2) you walked through the metal detector. No mens rea required. I'd like to know, really. Anyone have the regs handy?
 
Municipal airports are public property and are governed by the regulations of the FAA.

More than one person has been busted for forgetting that they have a gun in their carry-on luggage. The one that comes to mind is the last coach of the Dallas Cowboys (the coach between Jimmy Johnson & Chan Galey) - he got busted in Dallas when he forgot he placed a firearm in his duffel bag to keep it away from his kids. It also happened a few years ago to Hosea Williams in the Atlanta airport. Now, if the coach of the Cowboys can get busted in Dallas, and Hosea Williams can get busted in Atlanta, what chance do the rest of us have?

Another one I recall is a guy that got a big hassle when his son dropped a dummy grenade (one like you buy at an army surplus store) into his carry-on bag without telling him. His son just wanted it to play with on the trip, and didn't think/know about the rules. Airport security was not amused. It took hours to convince them he wasn't a terrorist or criminal, but they released him.
 
The way I read it, Vin's was PO'd because it was a "random" search, i.e. we don't suspect you, we just wanna see what you got even though we don't have the right. THAT is where I agree with him. The X-raying of the luggage I can put up with a "reasonable" (forgive me) safety procedure.

My luggage has been searched on more than one occasion because the X-ray machine barfed at all the electronics or handloading dies I was carrying. Luckily, I was treated
courteously and once, apologetically, by people who didn't have a clue and took my word as to whether the stuff was dangerous.

What compounds the outrage is when these people who don't have a clue beyond their rote routine push their "authority". Then, to me, it's your DUTY to put them in their place.

------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
 
Indeed the airports ar owned by some governing authority (city, county, Feds) and are subject to FAA regulations.

As much as I really don't like it, I also believe that in light of the risks, the "xray" search is "reasonable" (sorry folks). But lately, I have been selected for a "random" check of my luggage for "explosive" residue. Since that has begun, I don't go to the range the day I'm traveling, or even handle any firearm or reloading related material. I think this is a bunch of S**T but since I'm usually needed where I'm headed, I can't afford to put up wiht the inconvienience of an argument. How many of us are able to spare that time (and possibly money)? This is how they whittle away at our freedoms.

Many is the time I've been asked to make my phone do something ... so I push 1 button and it lights up or displays something...what about the other 14-16 buttons?

Security at airports in general is a joke, yet most feel "safer" for it.

I also think that detention for forgetting you had something in your bag is silly, but they've got you over the barrel on that one.

This was a good article. Perhaps there is a book that summarizes the various regulations etc... so the average person can fight back without getting put in the small room with the vertical bar motif? If not, maybe it's time to put one together.
 
here is the UC quote:
"You got to realize, Ray, a lot of people operate on envy. Guys like that jerk would never spend
the money to buy a rifle like this, let alone the cost of a safari, no matter how much he had
in the bank. Even if someone gave it all to him, he wouldn't have the nerve to go, which is why
he'll never have any real money in the first place. He works for some steady wage, and always will.
Guy like that gets very uncomfortable at the notion of someone who makes things happen for himself.
Suddenly he feels like his own life is pretty shabby. Problem is, people like him, they get half a chance,
they'll do their level best to screw it up for anyone else. You gotta watch out for them all the time.
Envy and resentment are terrible things."

dZ
 
I find nothing reasonable about having my property searched without my consent when I am not even under suspicion. I certainly don't feel any safer because of it; on the contrary, having to declare a firearm to the clerk at the check-in counter certainly makes your firearm less safe than if no one knew you had it.

I live in rural Alaska, in a town that has daily air service to Anchorage. We have to go through metal detectors before boarding, due to FAA regulations. We have to have our IDs checked before boarding, thanks to FAA regs. WE CANNOT DRIVE ANYWHERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO ROAD CONNECTING MY TOWN WITH THE REST OF THE STATE! Sorry I yelled there, but obviously you can see how moronic these "safety" regulations are. What am I going to do, hijack the plane and make the pilot take me to Fairbanks?

These FAA regulations have as much to do with safety as gun control does. It's about control and power. When was the last time a flight originating in the US was bombed or hijacked by a passenger? Do you actually think that these trifling "security" checkpoints staffed by bored incompetents would stop a determined attacker? I have accidentally walked through checkpoints with loaded .375 H&H rounds in my pockets, undetected. I have passed a fanny pack full of survival gear (matches, lighters, knives, railroad flare) through an xray machine undetected.

You can be held for 24 hours for joking about a gun or bomb or hijacking while in an airport= 1st amendment violation. You must declare your firearm= 2nd Amendment violation. You must submit your baggage and person to search without cause= 4th amendment violation. You must show ID before being allowed to board= 4th amendment violation. Feel safer? I feel violated.

If you don't feel safe flying with me or my personal belongings, drive to where you want to go. You have roads.

No offense intended. Rant mode off.

------------------
"...the probability of the people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation."
Prof. Frank H. Knight
 
Ipecac, you forgot to mention the fact that none of the bush flights leaving your town are hijacked. Virtually EVERY passenger on those flights are armed.
I am from the same town as you and I find it intersting that I must show my ID to the lady at the airport even though she knows me because I teach her daughter! Its a hilarious senario...When I'm at her station she calls me by my first name, askes about her daughter in my class...and then asks to see my ID!! I have joked about not having a current "flight license" as I pulled out my wallet, but she didn't get the joke.
Hope you're doing well. We're half way done with having to be in the lower 48 and will be back home soon!!
 
There is a great degree of what my friend and I call "tink tink" in the argument above. When we say it, we throw our hands out to the sides as if we were getting nailed to the cross personally. I love guns and love owning them. I also have a concealed handgun license. But there is a great deal of self-importance being spoken here. What's the matter? Has there not been a plane blasted out of the sky recently enough by those fanatic Islamic terrorists for you to realize why they actually are doing those security checks? Airport and airline security was incredibly tight during the Persian Gulf War, and it wasn't because the Airlines and the FAA wanted to stick in the craw of the NRA. Will the FAA take responsibility when you lose your precious 500 bucks? What? Do you know how many people died on the Lockerbee (sp?) flight? Are you willing to take personal resonsibility for all the dead and those who are left in life-long grief when the next plane slams into the ground so that you can carry your personal sidearm? If you are that concerned about being mugged in a strange city, you need to find a martial arts class and take the appropriate action to become proficient in other defensive methods. They can be quite successful. I am extremely concerned with the whittling away of our second amendment rights. I am very scared about the current trend of a politically correct witch-hunt against guns and descrimination against the law abiding gun owners in this country. But guys, we need to pick and chose our fights when they really apply to us. And take my word for it, this one doesn't.
 
Howitzer-
Well stated; well reasoned; well argued. Well, now...do you own any full body nomex? :) Oops...In-n-n-n-coming!!! ;)

I think the point is the fact that "spot searches" that are unConstitutional, though laudable, desensitize people to other spot searches that are equally unConstitutional and less laudable....like when you're walking down the street or watching TV in your living room.

Note that the author, Vin, didn't refuse to have his baggage searched. He only refused to assent to the act. If he got that one baggage handler (or two passengers) to think, his statement had merit.
Rich
 
Hey Rich,

Yeah, you are right, of course, about the domino effect of losing constitutional rights little by little when we start to put up with the "little inconvienences". But the one thing that disturbs me the most about Vin's article is that it plays right into the preconceptions that the "sheeple" have about gun owners in this country. He fell right into the media stereotype. How did he act toward those common workers at the airport? They were only doing a spot check on his baggage, and he had nothing to hide or be ashamed of. Yet, BECAUSE he was a gun owner, he chose to treat these people in a manner that was A:Aggressive B:Intolerant and C:Agitated. He may be able to sleep well at night thinking that he opened the minds of a few more average Americans toward our basic constitutional freedoms, but lets get real here. The only thing that he did effectively was to convince a few more voting Americans that what they see and hear every day from the media about gun owners is correct. He showed those people that gun owners are agitated, intolerant, aggressive people that don't cooperate with others and hold themselves to a higher value of importance than their neighbor on the left or right. My god, if that is the way we are going to shove our beliefs in the face of the average Joe and Jane in this country, our days are numbered. That's what I meant about picking the fights that apply to us. The international airline industry is DIRECTLY targeted by terrorists all across the world as an effective way to get their message out into the public limelight, and they owe a duty of care to those who fly them to try to limit the ability of those terrorist to succeed. It does not matter if the last successful terrorsist attack was a long time ago or even on an airline flight in another country. The danger is real. So this gun owner goes into an airport, and rudely and abrasively asserts his "rights" to just walk on to the plane without anyone checking his baggage. (He doesn't give his consent to the search, but allows it). The American public does not respond well to that kind of attitude. As responsible gun owners we owe the average American public the courtesy of cooperation, kindness, and respect (even if we don't "respect" them). We all know how much that guns and gun owners in general are given a negative stereotype these days by the public medium, and we should all bend over backwards to try to belie that image. (Leave the militantism to the Michigan Militia) That way, when the issue of guns goes public, (as it does all to often these days) the two citizens at the airport would not have a badly misconstrued attitude about who gun owners really are. I really don't think that people like Vin are doing the rest of us any favors.

Hey Rich, I'm new to the line, and really love it. I hope you send me another artillery round soon.
P.S. How do you do the smiley faces?
 
Howitzer...
So, Vin protests, though he didn't deny the search...yet that, in your assertion falls into the redneck evil gunowner stereotype. Ok, so how far will you allow unconstitutional actions go unverbalized challenged? How about if the police just choose to search your house...not dynamic entry, just that they wish to reassure themselves that your place is ok..."Excuse me Mr. Howitzer, you don't have to assent, but we really want to search your house just to make sure"....that ok?

How about..."excuse us Mr Howitzer, there isn't a problem, but we'd like to search your bank records....not that you are a suspect, but we'd feel more comfy knowing you aren't cheating on your taxes or have more money than you should"

Then maybe we get to the point..."Excuse us Mr. Howizter, we are here to examine your baby daughter's genitals...not that you are suspect, but we'd like to make sure you aren't abusing her. You don't have to but....well, we are here and if you don't allow it well, we might think you are abusing her"

Point being...let's stop this PC politeness crap..if the airlines want to search, quit this artificial voluntary jive...say..."We search or you don't go"....let's get back to capitalism instead of fascism. I trust you understand the definitions.


Just out of curiosity, you know, it is voluntary...but, how come you are so pro-search but not forthcoming with an e-mail address? If you have nothing to hide, right?

See what I mean? ;)

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!



[This message has been edited by DC (edited October 08, 1999).]
 
Whew. DC, you play too hard for me-- can we wear pads next game of "touch football"?

Excelent points, all.

So well made, I seriously feel like crying.
 
I agree with the basic points made by BOTH Rich and Howitzer, but would like to interject a bit of the spirit of last week's freedom march in DC if I might.

Howitzer, searches of checked and carryon bags at airlines is in fact necessary. It is also in fact unconstitutional. So why has no Amendment to allow it been proposed? I submit it is for the same reason that no Amendment has been proposed to outlaw drugs (cocaine, etc) as there was to outlaw alcohol. Which would be, that somewhere between the beginning of Prohibition and now our government has decided it does not NEED to pay any attention whatsoever to the Constitution any more.

I, for one, consider that a much more threatening situation than the potential of terrorist bombs.

By the by, I saw no reference to any way Vin could have been identified as a gunowner, so I don't see how his challenge could be considered to reflect on gunowners as a group either positively or negatively.
 
Ditto to what Larry P. said, Howitzer.

Vin made no references to a gun or being a gun owner. Gun owners are not the only ones aware of the Bill of Rights' wording. And unlawful search and siezure have a much broader scope than just guns.

------------------
John/az

"The middle of the road between the extremes of good and evil, is evil. When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
 
At teh risk of being called for the foul of piling on, I also want to point out that Vin did in fact, assent (passively) to the "xray" search of his luggage. It was only the actual physical search of his luggage and the "randomness" of it that bothered him.

It's as if someone came and said "Mr. Howitzer, we were driving down your street, and noticed that everyone had children. So, we picked your house, at random, to search for evidence of child abuse."

Oh, and there is that statement again ... "If he had nothing to hide..." I have nothing to hide, but find it an inconvienience at the least to be slowed in my pursuit of happiness.
 
I got a couple e-mails that felt I was a bit too rough and aggressive on Howitzer. Upon reflection, they may be right.

So, I apologize Howitzer, it wasn't meant to be personal...I tend to get a bit passionate at times.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Back
Top