Article: 8800 of sci.geo.satellite-nav Message-ID: <3BB56CED.B9263AE0@swbell.net> From: Wesley Horton Reply-To: whorton@swbell.net Organization: Let's tax ALL forigners abroad! X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en]C-SBIS-NC404 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: sci.geo.satellite-nav Subject: Re: Airport security and GPS References: <9ot2pm$kb7$1@usenet.Stanford.EDU> <3BB3E757.149DF570@swbell.net> <9p0qqh$9cs$1@bob.news.rcn.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 49 NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.32.223 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1001745172 ST000 207.193.32.223 (Sat, 29 Sep 2001 02:32:52 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 02:32:52 EDT X-UserInfo1: TSU[@I_A\S@]CRTX\BNZOQTDFRYB@GXLN@GZ_GYO^JWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 06:32:52 GMT Path: news.meer.net!sea-read.news.verio.net!dfw-artgen.news.verio.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!dca6-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: archive.mv.meer.net sci.geo.satellite-nav:8800 Terry, The idea that a person does not have a Constitutional right to fly is a red herring. First of all, interstate travel is recognized as a personal right. The issue here is if the U.S. acting through the FAA may place limits on your 4th amendment rights when using a commercial carrier. There may be some other interesting ideas to consider: * What if the plane crashes in a remote area. The use of a pocket knife may prove instrumental in your ability to survive. Also, in the event of a crash, the FAA now has mandated that you may not legally possess the means to extricate yourself from your seat belt in event of its failure. * Does any legitimate government have the right to exempt its citizens from possession of the means to defend themselves? Consider how things might have been different should even one passenger have had a firearm and a concealed weapons permit. Remember too, that to get one of these permits you must undergo an FBI fingerprint and record check. If my state trusts me to carry a firearm, why do I suddenly become untrustworthy on an airplane? (Granted, the hijackers could have conceivably had firearms under the same scheme, but are you now going to tell states that they may not allow their citizens to carry firearms. . . I bet Chuck Schummer of New York will be proposing this now.) *Now that the FFA has declared pat down searches of all passengers, what's next, are you going to have to consent to have your homes searched before you are allowed to purchase tickets? Or better yet, Why stop at pat down searches? Wouldn't we be "Better Served" if we required strip searches and body cavity searches on all passengers? -And if that would work, how come people in prison still get their hands on weapons and drugs? *Once again the issue of items being "seized" is unconstitutional. What difference does it make if it's a 49 cent nail clipper or a $20,000 automobile. And since we are now so darn safe, I want someone to explain how it is that we are not seizing ball point pens? Have you considered how much damage you could do with one of these? Or what about shoe laces? Remember, it was Ben Franklin who said "Those who trade freedom for security will soon find they have neither." Lastly, where in the Constitution does it say that the government has the right to abridge your freedoms to "provide for the common good?" Regards, Wesley Horton