Smith County Sheriff's reaction to Gov. Perry's comments

[Doug.38PR]

If I were setting the policy, I would make an exception for secured areas.

Personally, I think those metal detectors are highly unconstitutional unless you have a warrants for each individual passing through. The right of people to be secure in their property and on their persons. I don't care what some judge on the supreme court says.

BUT that's another argument for another day.

I personally WOULD allow CHLers through into "secured" areas (what areas are truly secured?). CHL holders need only show their license to the officer at the metal detector and pass on through.



Oh and the women and boos and guns comment, the reference was indeed to guys fighting over woment in a drunken state.

[frankie_the_yankee]

If I were setting the policy, I would make an exception for secured areas.

Personally, I think those metal detectors are highly unconstitutional unless you have a warrants for each individual passing through. The right of people to be secure in their property and on their persons. I don't care what some judge on the supreme court says.

But how anout what the Constitution ITSELF says.


Amendment IV
"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. "

See it? It says people have the right to be secure, "...against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures,.....", NOT against ANY searches or seizures.

It doesn't say we have an absolute right against being searched, only against being unreasonably searched.

It doesn't use the wording of the (recently shredded) 1st Amendment which begins with, "Congress shall make no law....". And I think that if the Founder's had INTENDED to use that construction for the 4th Amendment, they certainly could have.

But they didn't.

Many people would argue that going through screening to enter a secure area is perfectly reasonable.

It's true that deciding whether something is "reasonable" or not is a matter of opinion. And you are certainly entitled to yours. But I believe the evidence shows that very few others share it.

By that I mean that these areas exist, that the courts have consistently upheld the screenings, and that large numbers of people submit to them every day without protest. So I think that most people believe screening is reasonable.

FWIW, I happen to believe it is reasonable myself. Just my opinion.

[1TallTXn]

From the article I read, Gov Perry did say airports and I believe he said courthouses too. Seeing as the the secured area in an airport is federally controlled, I don't see how the state can over-ride that.

Courthouses should be open unless the judge says otherwise. he's the "king" of his courtroom, so let him decide.

If I've done nothing wrong, how is a metal detector a "reasonable" search? if they have reason to believe that I've committed some crime, then I understand. I'm just trying to get on my flight.

Overall, I think the 30.06 should remain in place. allowing private business/individuals to restrict access. 100% their right.
Otherwise, it should be open. Schools should be open (unless private, see above)

[frankie_the_yankee]

From the article I read, Gov Perry did say airports and I believe he said courthouses too. Seeing as the the secured area in an airport is federally controlled, I don't see how the state can over-ride that.

But he didn't specifically say "the secured areas" of airports and courthouses. Words mean things. And sometimes what is unsaid carries as much or more meaning than what IS said.

"My cousin has a terrific personality." (In other words, "He's as ugly as sin.")

And within the secured area of an airport, federal law would apply as you pointed out, as it would in federal buildings.

Courthouses should be open unless the judge says otherwise. he's the "king" of his courtroom, so let him decide.

Sure. And if he decides he wants to set up a secure area inside the court house, I have no problem with that.

If I've done nothing wrong, how is a metal detector a "reasonable" search? if they have reason to believe that I've committed some crime, then I understand. I'm just trying to get on my flight.

Because it is judged by almost everyone to be reasonable to search ALL persons before they board an airplane for weapons, explosives, etc. in light of recent events and the nature of the enemy we face.

To some extent this is a matter of broad consensus. What nearly everybody THINKS is reasonable, IS reasonable.

Overall, I think the 30.06 should remain in place. allowing private business/individuals to restrict access. 100% their right.
Otherwise, it should be open. Schools should be open (unless private, see above)

I don't. I think that places fitting the definition of "public accommodations" like most businesses and workplaces should allow for carry by CHL holders. This includes schools and almost anywhere except truly "private" property like your own home, land, etc. that is NOT open to the public.