Yes - and per that page it clearly states in the Orthopedic shoes section:

(emphasis mine)

I am not incorrect. The MNAA is a quasi-governmental entity. It is not like GE, GM or IBM, each of which has shareholders. After all the Board of Commissioners is the mayor and nine others appointed by the mayor. This is not dissimilar to how many other airports are run. Your airport is not privatized.

The restrictions contained in the Constitution against governments impinging individuals' rights are applicable to the MNAA. As such, the right to evict someone off MNAA property is a much higher standard than an owner of a retail store evicting an individual. The standard for removal from MNAA property accessible to the public is akin to removing someone from a public sidewalk.

Although quasi-government, we are also quasi-private. I do not see as needing a "higher standard" to remove someone off of our property. We can remove (or ban) anyone from those loitering, to cabbie's, to folks who attempt to operate on property without a permit. Bottom line, if you are at the airport strictly to photograph (and not there for any airport-related business) and you do not get clearance from the proper MNAA representatives, you will be escorted off property. If you refuse, then you risk being arrested for trespassing. I imagine you can stand on a city sidewalk anyday and take as many photographs as you want without being bothered by LEOs. Not the same in my book.

If you don't see the higher standard, then you don't understand constitutional law. An example - a retail store does not have to set aside space for a person to do soliciting; your airport does. And on a public sidewalk you can also remove those loitering and those using the sidewalk to run a business. Not much difference.

This primer on photography rights might help. And no, BNA is not quasi-private.

That wouldn't interfere. I am talking about people taking pictures within the CP.

Yep, we got lots of cameras. They are on the ceiling, and you don't even notice that they are there. They don't crowd around the handwand stations, with 18 carryon bags spread out on the floor around them, asking TSO's to pose and smile, while blocking the flow of passengers who just want to go. If you can Spiderman it up to the ceiling to take photos...have at it.

Ah... so the real issue is that photography does not always interfere, but does when it blocks traffic.

So, by your reasoning, if traffic is already blocked by an unreasonable TSO insisting on the removal of orthopedics and intentionally concealing their credentials... all should be fine for a pic, correct?

EDIT: I'll go further and suggest that TSO credetials should be worn with an apparatus that does not permit concealment. Chains should be disallowed. Only mechanisms that present credentials to the fore at all times to all observers should be permitted. In my army days, my response to the one or two disciplinary threats I received in my 6 year contract was "make sure you spell my name correctly on the report." None were submitted.

In my experience, it doesn't happen that often that people want to take pictures in the screening area, but it has always interfered. I have never agreed with TSO's insisting on the removal or orthotics, nor have I ever agreed with TSO's hiding their name badges. Don't put words in my mouth. Stick to the topic at hand.

WASTE OF TIME bothering with, but it's YOUR time. good luck.:rolleyes:

If you'll re-read my earlier post, you'll see that I believe there is some conflicting information in our SOP.

It seems to say, "We won't ask you to take your orthopedic shoe off, but if it alarms the ETD and can't be sufficiently cleared -- which probably means X-rayed -- you won't be allowed into the sterile area."

Remember, there is such a statistically small possibility of this happening that the TSA is probably OK with advising passengers that they won't have to remove orthopedic shoes, as there is an overwhelming probability that they won't.

Incidentally, a supervisor (not a TSO) would be the one making the call here.

Ah, that old canard again; when LE gets something into their collective heads, they just won't let go of it. The notion that Ali bin Wotsit would openly lurk around checkpoints photographing GKW for his fellow plotters is laughable.

Expect we'll be hearing about 'probes' next.

Stay in your little safety bubble and let the adults handle the hazardous work. It's impossible to believe that we actually have folks conduct surveillance in an airport isn't it? Keep believin...I guess it was always safe to fly pre 9/11 too....;)

I am fully aware of constitutional law. I also understand what I can and can't do at our airport, as well as what we have always done at our airport. I do not take lessons from someone from Houston on an internet forum about what I can and can't do.

The primer you mention is simply an educational tool posted on the internet by an attorney. He knows policies and laws are open to interpretation just as any other attorney, judge, or court knows.

Just because we allow folks to solicit at a certain time and place, does not mean we allow anyone to do whatever they like. I am not going to get into a crap shoot with you. Media, professional photographers and the like are subject to certain rules and practices when taking photos on airport property, whether it is in the main terminal or surrounding properties (i.e. runways, commercial buildings). Failure to abide by our rules results in removal from property. Refusal to leave when told to do so leads to a trespassing charge. If you think I am wrong, feel free to challenge the arrest in court.

Scotty's fallen hook, line and sinker for DHS's propoganda.

My statements have nothing to do with DHS (or TSA). I have personally been involved in stopping surveillance for those who were conducting large scale criminal plans. Same guys were caught days later several hundred miles away (in another state). There is much more going on around airports than those simply wanting to grab an aircraft or get a weapon through. Unless you are in my line of work, I do not expect you to know.

Well you have already proven that you don't even know how your airport is owned and the ramifications it has with respect to constitutional law. And whether it is Houston or Nashville, the US Constitution is equally applicable. Perhaps you should review cases such as Lee v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, 505 U.S. 830 (1992), which says that a ban on distribution of literature inside an airport is unconstitutional.

Do you disagree with what he says? What law would you cite for trying to stop an individual for a non-business purpose from taking photographs on airport property when that person is in a public place?

I never said that you can do anything you would like on airport property and you also can't do anything you would like on a public sidewalk either. I am not saying that the airport is a public sidewalk, but there are more similarities between it and an airport than to a private retail store. And just what are your "rules" with respect to private photographers?

Were the "large scale criminal plans" involved with directly disrupting the air transportation sector? If not, then it is not germane to the issues at hand. If it was, then I would certainly like to know the particulars as I am sure that it ended with arrests and convictions, which are public records. But I would be surprised if that was truly the case since the TSA is known to heavily promote minor instances and instances that turn out later to be untrue.

I was involved in LEO activities and I kept my MP's in focus with proper reality checks. The problem is that too many LEO's and intelligence officers see a terrorist behind every tree and that is just not the case.