HISTORY: Pat Downs, Entry Searches

Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by gunsmoker, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,341
    612
    113
    With all this controversy about the TSA doing the nudie images and/or groping of passengers at the airport, I wondered if it was constitutional.

    After looking at a few circuit Court of Appeals cases, I think it probably is. The 4th Amendment has been gutted over the last 40 years, largely because the "war on drugs" is horribly ineffective unless cops have more freedom to detain, search, and scan than a strict reading of that Amendment would allow.

    But it's true that the 4th Amendment uses the word "reasonable" which means that they intended people applying the law to use their judgment about what meets that standard, and what the majority of citizens think is "reasonable."

    MY QUESTION:

    What was "reasonable" in the early days of our Republic? What did the Framers of our constitution consider a reasonable safety precaution when it comes to mass gatherings, VIP speeches, and important government buildings?

    When the Founding Fathers met at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1776 to create the Declaration of Independence, were their bags searched? Did they have to take their hats and coats off? Did anybody grope their upper thighs and "brush" their testicles with the back of a gloved hand?

    How about when they met again at that same building in 1787, over the course of many days and weeks, to hammer-out the details of the Constitution? Were they required to line up outside and only pass through the door after being individually inspected? Did they have to strip to their waists and pull down their garters?
     
  2. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    I'm sure they were not. Good point, gunsmoker.
     

  3. lynx

    lynx Member

    248
    2
    18
    My guess is that the founding fathers would have found it hard to imagine a world where someone else was responsible for their safety. I'd like to believe that, if they expected an attack to occur during their gatherings, they would simply have have been a bit more on guard, and ready to meet whatever threat presented itself, going on the assumption that there are more good people than bad in the world, and that good people will step up and do what is needed.
     
  4. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    ...shot DRT the person doing the attacking and then continued with the business at hand.
     
  5. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    The way it should be today as well. :righton:
     
  6. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,341
    612
    113
    It's not like bad guys didn't have weapons available in the late 1700s.

    Somebody could have brought a couple single-shot pistols to the meetings and pulled them out to assassinate Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Mason, etc.

    Somebody could have brought some poison powder to disperse in the air and poison everybody in the room.

    Somebody could have smuggled a dozen pounds of highly explosive black powder in a bag. Blown up the whole room full of people.

    Still, I don't think the risk of any of these things happening was enough to convince the delegates to the constitutional convention to go checking each other's undergarments!
     
  7. CoffeeMate

    CoffeeMate Junior Butt Warmer

    46,427
    9
    0
    +1
     
  8. EJR914

    EJR914 Cheezburger Operator

    44,830
    186
    63
    Well said, gunsmoker.
     
  9. Priest

    Priest New Member

    2,133
    0
    0
    This may well be the best summation one could make. Very well put my friend.
     
  10. MaricopaKid

    MaricopaKid Member

    908
    4
    18
    Andrew Jackson inauguration 1829.