4th of July DUI Checkpoint Video
- Thread starter SVT
- Start date
The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
- Status
Just when I thought we had this beast dead, Jack.....
Emp, put one behind the ear, please.
You mean Jack is; The Resurrector!
In the context of this thread/conversation, I view his comment of interstate commerce to be consistent with this definition of Interstate Commerce that i found:
interstate commerce n. commercial trade, business, movement of goods or money, or transportation from one state to another.
Remember, he stated: "your right to free interstate commerce", which in no way implies or even makes sense inserting article 1 section 8, which grants gov't power NOT us Rights!
No, it protects us from suspicionless unannounced investigatory seizures and searches (scotus words, not mine). So, if a seizure/search is suspicionless, I can't see how it's reasonable.
that is not completely true at all... Public Schools .--In New Jersey v. T.L.O., 108 the Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. The Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by public school officials because ''school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents.''
Additionally, we are talking SPECIFICALLY of traveling, which is addressed directly as an Inalienable Right of ours to remain secure while doing so.
If I am suspicionless, which I am indeed driving up to a checkpoint, then it's an UNreasonable (without reason to my activity) search and seizure. Philosophically, it cannot be made any more clear.
I think so. You've wrongly contextualized Motor's comments by injecting the S1A8 comments...you were wrong on your 4thA school theory...and I suppose it's debatable but I think philosophically you are wrong that suspicionless searches/seizures are reasonable.
Think of it this way...philosophically speaking...shouldn't we, as free citizens, not be subject to a gov't official to stop us "just b/c" he felt like stopping us? Doesn't that, at it's core level, seem wrong? Doesn't it also seem unreasonable for a gov't to do that to it's citizens? I mean literally, just detain us and ask us questions b/c they felt like it?
I think philosophically speaking, that is what is happening at a DUI checkpoint. They stop me at a DUI checkpoint, not b/c I've been seen driving poorly, not b/c i've broken any laws, not b/c they have a "reason" too, but only b/c they "hope" to catch a criminal. In the process of doing this, we've also turned our justice system on it's head, I'm literally guilty, and cannot freely travel until I prove my innocents to the gov't official who stopped me.
I think philosophically speaking, that is what is happening at a DUI checkpoint. They stop me at a DUI checkpoint, not b/c I've been seen driving poorly, not b/c i've broken any laws, not b/c they have a "reason" too, but only b/c they "hope" to catch a criminal. In the process of doing this, we've also turned our justice system on it's head, I'm literally guilty, and cannot freely travel until I prove my innocents to the gov't official who stopped me.
Last edited:
SCOTUS upheld the checkpoints, but you're disagreeing with them and using them as evidence to substantiate your claim? That's kinda backwards.
If the 4th doesn't protect against unreasonable searches, why does it say that bit in bold?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Not at all, 4 of the 9 agree with me! it's not that far off from majority agreement lol. Even the 5 who ruled checkpoints constitutional, said: that since checkpoint searches were equally intrusive on all drivers, no individual had a right to complain about an intrusive search. Translation: Yes it's infringement on your Rights, but since it's hurting everyone equally, have at it!!!
But that stands the Bill of Rights on its head — reading the Fourth Amendment to require the government to equally violate the rights of all citizens, rather than to restrict government violations of any citizen’s rights - is absurd!
Yes you are correct here...sorry my comments were not clear before. Yes it protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, Yes some claim there are gray areas (I don't think they have a philosophical leg to stand on), yes the courts have ruled on this matter, some against the checkpoints, some for it.
Last edited:
How is the way US citizens, and their government exact the interpretation of Constitutionality, a tin-foil conspiracy? If the debate is that simple, then those citizens that accept whatever their government officials tell them to do should have no problem. Just do as you are told and don't question it.
How did this issue go from being one that is constantly changing as time goes on (as evidenced by there still being a USSC hearing new cases every year), to it being about pissing off a hard working cop just doing his job? If the citizen doesn't want to be harassed within what he/she believes is the framework of the Constitution; doesn't the cop (as a citizen too), want that? Or does he/she want to suspend with all of this Constitutional Rights crap while just on duty?
I don't get it.
Sure we're friends, I just like dark alleys.
I believe that driving a car on a highway is a privilege. There are rules governing this and that is part of the privilege of driving. That's the way I see it. Some of you should print up your own license plates etc and hang out with that crowd. They better understand the constitution apparently.
MOTOR51
MOTOR51
I agree with this! However, if SVT is telling the truth (I have no reason to believe, disbelieve, or care), about that; remember that many people are not equipped to type their thoughts on here. No slam on them, it's just kind of like public speaking in front of a crowd. Same mindset.
And let's be serious! Some people on here are brutal in their retorts. And some people just don't give a crap enough to say anything. Most of the outspoken posters don't care or aren't the least bit intimidated by what others say. Well, some of them, anyway.
I myself, am always amazed when I see that 250 members are active and logged in, but only 15 of us are spewing BS at each other!
Well I only read u to page 5, so this may have been covered.
Can't it be as simple as , Driver, you are currently operating a motor vehicle on the highway.
I need to verify that this car is xxxooo???, and that you have the required documentation to legally operate this vehicle on the highway.
the non-compliant knows that operating a vehicle is a priviledge, and not a god given right.
Therefore when you are setting up your "Go Cameras" , remember to set up the required paperwork for when you leave your driveway and get out on public roads.
Now I can see if you set up in your driveway, and patiently wait for a policeman to come harass you on your own property, and he does.............. Now thats another story, you've got him right where you want him.
"Now did you actually see me OPERATE this vehicle ?" Yes I am sitting in the drivers seat, but I am not actually moving. OR am I
Can't it be as simple as , Driver, you are currently operating a motor vehicle on the highway.
I need to verify that this car is xxxooo???, and that you have the required documentation to legally operate this vehicle on the highway.
the non-compliant knows that operating a vehicle is a priviledge, and not a god given right.
Therefore when you are setting up your "Go Cameras" , remember to set up the required paperwork for when you leave your driveway and get out on public roads.
Now I can see if you set up in your driveway, and patiently wait for a policeman to come harass you on your own property, and he does.............. Now thats another story, you've got him right where you want him.
"Now did you actually see me OPERATE this vehicle ?" Yes I am sitting in the drivers seat, but I am not actually moving. OR am I
Last edited:
- Status
Staff online
-
340six-Global Mod-
Members online
- larryp44
- IMUA
- moomoomancow
- hunter5567
- cjt0311
- Lnw2
- D rail
- Wyldeone
- Tboy
- eman2k5
- pangris1
- kz45
- SwampyDog
- BarneyFife
- SauragePPD-31
- Vivatic
- Garrett316
- rdm227
- Saizan
- UncleBiff
- puritanize
- Bigchillin83
- hotbiggun
- McFreddieMercury
- 340six
- Kipp Castaing
- sailem
- Jaybeaux
- Mel633
- BNC3
- ArtieD
- J. W. Harris
- usmc-nav
- runner
- hdfinder47
- Thatdudechad13
- Saltchamp
- Bravo-13
- Fordfella
- Arbiterk
- Rbahlinger
- Dababy1
- Wheels
- don_mac
- Rocketmanzzz
- INTLMILCO
- GBRLA
- junior28
- big chicot
- craigmullett