Kremmen

No, it's a good thing that nobody considers having a gun to be a right. About a dozen people a year are killed here with handguns. About 1000 times that in the USA. If you can't work out which one is better, that's your problem.

Spiff

It doesn't have to be one or the other. @:-)

Keep your guns, keep your identity: the government can go to hell on both counts.

Trollkiller

Well this has been a passionate display. Can we all calm down a bit and get back to the topic of what the TSA does that is unconstitutional?

n4zhg

Problem is, there are 20 states where you are required to identify yourself on demand of law enforcement, no PC or RAS required. Technically all you have to do is provide Name/DOB verbally, but you can be detained/arrested for "verification purposes" if the cop is in a bad mood. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has upheld this practice.

LegalEagle

Fortunately, Congress can address this issue legislatively. And I think this issue is better addressed in the new Congress, rather than making constitutional claims in the federal courts.

First, the requirement that your government issued picture I.D. NOT BE EXPIRED can simply be changed by Congress. The idea that an expired U.S. passport is not sufficient proof of identity for domestic air travel; or that an expired state driver's license is not sufficient proof of identity for domestic air travel, is absurd. The expired passport is not being used to cross international borders; the expired state driver's license is not being used to drive --these government issued I.D. are being used to show who you are. As long as the photos are not too out of date, they serve that purpose. So what is the legitimate government interest for travel security to require that they not be expired? Clear example of TSA overreaching.

Second, no I.D. Congress can simply provide that air travelers with no identification undergo extensive secondary screening for the protection of the public, rather than denying them transportation. Ever lost your wallet while traveling? Ever want to travel without the media learning that you are en route (i.e. Sarah Pallin traveling to the lower 48 on a comercial flight rather than a charter flight to meet McCain for the announcement press conference). (i.e. former Senator Fred Harris campaigning low budget for president, flying as stewardess' anonymous friend), Etc.

xanthuos

I would think that the Constitutional right to free travel applies to all forms of public conveyance, to all forms of common carriers. As commercial air travel has been deemed a common carrier, meaning that I cannot be refused transport if I have paid the requisite fare and are not acting in violation of any laws (such as being intoxicated or carrying an undeclared firearm), it is my opinion (since I am not a judge nor lawyer) that air travel is a protected form of travel. Granted, there are more serious security issues with air travel. A reasonable approach to those security issues includes a limited scope search of a passenger and his belongings only concerned with whether a passenger is in possession of a prohibited item. It should not include an identity verification requirement by the government because that hinders the right to free travel. It CAN include an identity verification requirement by the airline if I have purchased my ticket prior to arrival at the airport. This is to ensure that the fare paid & the ticket I hold is for my conveyance.

It seems as though knotyeagle's experiences are in direct contradiction to your assertion, and he offered up evidence of that.

• He was not required to file a flight plan.
• He was not required to show an identity document to take control of his aircraft.
• Nor was his passenger required to show an identity document to any government entity to board the aircraft knotyeagle was piloting.
• The government has no record of who the passenger was.

So what was that statement about protecting the airspace? Although it didn't happen, the passenger could have overwhelmed knotyeagle, taken control of his aircraft, and crashed it into Disney World's Cinderella Castle, likely killing people. Although it was an accident, the recent incident where Yankee player Cory Lidle's plane crashed into a Manhattan high-rise shows that even single engine aircraft can be a danger to "public safety." That doesn't, however, give the government carte blanche to overstep the Constitution.

MarcPHL

In response to your 2 points above, I think/assume the rationale behind #1 is that an expired credential is more likely to be discarded by the original owner and subsequently more likely to be "recycled". For those that feel ID should be required to travel--I do not--it would seem they would expect a determined terrorist to alter the picture but not the expiration date.

Secondly, I fail to understand why knowing who someone is should alter the level of screening/scrutiny one receives. If John Doe is screened and determined to be free of threats to aviation, then does it matter if his name is Moe Szyslak or Apu Nahasapeemapetilon?

law dawg

I would agree with you 100% except for the fact that only people traveling (as far as I know) on civilian air carriers are screened for dangerous items. Why is that? Why is someone traveling on plane with a gun more dangerous than someone traveling on a bus or train or boat? Why is the public safety need so much greater on a plane?

I'm asking here. I assumed (and yes, I know what happens when you assume ) that it was due to national airspace. It's the only thing that made sense to me. And, if that's true, then that would explain a lot of other rationale for many of the things TSA does. Apparently this is not correct. Apparently airspace has zip to do with anything. So that leaves me back at the start - the G has to have a rationale that passes some sort of Constitutional muster to be able to do what it wants. Sometime, somewhere there had to be a reason given for why the government can enact stricter measures for civilian aviation than for other public conveyances.

So, begging the question, what is it? Anyone?

Bueller?

ralfp

(The latter examples are private transactions. And an SSN does not verify identity. A valid SSN card verifies that such a person is alive.)

A license is required to drive because the operation of a motor vehicle in public presents a real danger, independent of any intended harm. On the other hand, being a passenger on an aircraft presents no significant danger of unintended harm.

The reason that implementation of ID checks was tolerated is that the airlines implemented them for revenue protection before the TSA existed.

There are no "gun rights" in Australia, and, much is it may annoy the NRA, I doubt there is a universal human right to own firearms.

ND Sol

Are you sure about this? Under the statute that was upheld in Hiibel, Nevada Revised Statute § 171.123(3), the LEO has to find circumstances reasonably indicating that person has committed a crime before he can ask for identification.

Superguy

The OKC courthouse bombing would disagree with that assertion. With a truck, McVeigh was able to get right up to the building.

FWAAA

Why the hell would private contracted security break locks? Checked bags weren't searched by the G until 2002. Bags were locked and handed over to airlines and placed on the plane.

doober

Apologies if someone has address the SSN issue - I've not read the entire thread.

The SSN is required for tax purposes, not to verify identity. However, since the inception of the wonderful Patriot Act, we now need a DL (or some "official" ID with a picture) to open a bank account, apply for a mortgage.

DWNewman

No you don't the whole idea behind the black ones is that you don't hear them

Spiff

That option is equally reprehensible.

All should be screened the same, whether they provide ID or not.