Originally Posted by SWCPHX

I'd suggest that some of you read about Maxwell Vs. City of New York (1992) and the Neighborhood Safety Zone checkpoints that the District of Columbia ran back in 2008. The tactics in Maxwell were found to be constitutional, an injunction was issued against the tactics in DC's NSZ checkpoints only on the basis that they would likely be held unconstitutional not that they were. That ruling was only after a circuit court agreed with the practice and didn't see a problem with it. Regardless, trained/educated legal minds both initially thought that checkpoints in both cases were constitutional and had no qualms implementing them.

Here's where I'm going with this. If you don't think that somebody at DOJ or DHS is crafting legislation restricting access to airport terminals, you're naive. I don't support or agree with that kind of legislation. The argument will be that "out of an abundance of caution" or in the "name of safety" airport terminals will be restricted to persons having legitimate business and the wording will be crafted that reflects that. The average citizen will buy into it and not care about any perceived rights being taken away because the average citizen doesn't see any reason to go to the airport unless they have legitimate business there. Furthermore, the average citizen isn't going to view somebody being trespassed off of airport terminal property for hanging around or loitering as an earth shattering violation of their rights.

Unfortunately the Government doesn't like to be openly challenged and continually poking the bear like the folks in Denver leads to consequences.

Again, I don't support any legislation restricting access to airport terminals but I'm not naive enough to think that it won't happen or that it isn't already floating around in the legal departments of DOJ, DHS, or TSA.