http://cryptome.org/gilmore-v-usa-cid.htm
I say, “Rock on Mr. Gilmore!”
And I will say, Sorry Mr. Gilmore, flying is not a right, it is a privlege bought with you money, but part of that purchase is that you must state who you are.
I’m sure if you want to walk to DC no one will stop you.
Narile, did you bother read any further than the first sentence?
IOW, he believes people are free to travel by whatever means without the interference of the government. He is not arguing for the right to fly, rather the right to do so while being secure in his person, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
That’s the point. The government is requiring identification, along with the searches and xrays and questioning.
If it was just a company policy, that would be different.
The thing here is the government mandating searches and identification which goes against at least the 4th and 10th amendments IMHO.
I’d have trouble classifying airport searches as unreasonable. I think given the fact that there are thousands of people out there willing to blow up a passenger plane, and we have already had thousands of deaths due to planes being bombed and hijacked, it seems very reasonable to search people getting on airplanes.
From the link provided by gruven.
I have to vehemently disagree with the quote above. How many people have been killed or maimed by this erosion of the right to travel? Now let’s compare that to the number of people killed or maimed by terrorist attacks on airplanes and airports. Hmmmmmmm.
If he had said that the right to travel is critical to protection of our constitutional freedoms, yes I would agree. But he didn’t say that. I think it’s obvious that there are greater security threats.
Please don’t misconstrue my words; I think 1st and 4th Amendment protections are vital to our freedom and that the right to travel is also vital. However, I also think this guy is wasting the court’s time.
BTW, what’s this stuff about a “secret law?” Is that just because the airport clerk didn’t know the reference number of the relevant law in the U.S. code or something else?
Put me in the “airport searches are reasonable” pile. The amendment is deliberately vague so that the definition of reasonable can change with the times. It makes me feel much safer to know that people must identify themselves before climbing aboard a plane.
As an aside, I am sick and tired of people claiming constitutional protections because
a) the government isn’t helping them with a protected act
b) a private citizen damaged by (or in disagreement with) their protected act objects to it
c) their ability to do something, anything is marginally limited.
The USSC has ruled that bus riders have less rights, so it is easy, and natural, to extend that ruling to people flying.
I always assumed this policy was to prevent the person named on the ticket from giving it to another to use. So if I want to fly someplace one way but take advantage of the round-trip fare, I can’t sell the return trip to someone who wants to fly from there to here. In addition, should there be an accident, the airline knows the passenger manifest is correct. Further, I assumed it was an airline policy.
So, is it a federal regulation? Should it be? I’m not conspiracy-minded, so I don’t see what difference it makes if The Government knows I’m flying to Baltimore next month. Seems to me if you have nothing to hide, then what’s the big deal. And if you are trying to hide something, well, dunno - do we have a constitutional right to hide our identity?
No answers - just musings…
The guy is clearly delusional if he thinks post September 01 that he’s going to hop on a commercial flight anonymously. I’d rather that passengers be armed via 50 state reciprocity agreements via CCW – we’ve been living in a wimped out, emasculated, feminized society here in the US and its bit us in the ass badly and continues much the same today.
The 4th has been gutted for quite some time anyway, I’m not sure what he’s on about, really.
While I will agree that I am against the use of the ID information for the use of profiling and similar, the requirement that he give a valid ID before he is allowed to fly is A) perfectly legitimite and not in anyway a violation of his rights.
And sorry Beelzebubba, I did read the suit, and I still stand by my statements. The airline is providing a service, part of the terms of that service is that you provide the information requested, if you don’t want to provide that information, they don’t have to provide you with the service. That they are required to get that information is no different then your having to prove you are a legal resident before getting employment.