« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

New Hampshire Vs. TSA.

In Skip’s article of February 28th., he wrote about the abuse of the powers granted to the TSA. Skip credited me with the idea for the article, which in turn was inspired by a ‘Back to Basics’ piece by Gonzalo Lira, which depicted the search of a totally innocent looking family after traveling by train.

I guess the title was down to me. After reading Mr Lira’s article I said to Skip, “What the heck is up with the TSA?” My actual thoughts were slightly more Bidenesque, along the lines of “This is a big ******* deal!” However, call me old-fashioned if you wish, but I leave those expletives to the opposition.

You can imagine our delight yesterday, when we read about the New Hampshire bill which was read to a house committee in Concord. If passed, invasive pat-downs where private areas are touched, or images of such areas are viewed, would be regarded as sexual assault. Anyone found guilty of such acts, without probable cause, would be added to the State Sexual Offenders Registry.

The new act would essentially be the addition of Subparagraph (d), which states:
“When the person, acting in his or her role as a security agent of the federal, state, or local government, touches the genitals or breasts of any other person or touches or views with any technological device the genitals or breasts of any other person without probable cause for such touching or viewing. For purposes of this subparagraph, the following shall not constitute probable cause: discussing or possessing a copy of the Constitution, discussing the security apparatus of an airport, being on the premises of an airport, possessing an airplane ticket or any other type of ticket for access to mass transportation, driving a motor vehicle on a public way, or ownership of firearms.”

Interesting wording… It makes it sound as though a Constitution carrier is regarded by some people (Federal, perhaps) as more of a risk than a Koran carrier.

The TSA have consulted with their lawyers and sources have indicated that their response is that Federal law supersedes State law. Well, TSA lawyers, the Fourth Amendment is Federal law. If you’re not familiar with it, you are welcome to check it out on our website.

While I wholeheartedly support this move in New Hampshire, it should not be necessary. Why are states being forced to introduce new laws when they are already covered at the federal level… in this particular case, by the Fourth Amendment? The same question can be applied to the Arizona immigration bill.

While the White House and the Senate are controlled by those who have little or no regard for the freedom of the individual, or for the Constitution that guarantees that freedom, there will be many more state bills to come after New Hampshire’s. Meanwhile, we await the president’s next executive order with bated breath.

(Editor Dee is in for Skip today)

Get Alerts