Gilmore Loses Airport ID Case

smooth wombat writes "In the final conclusion to John Gilmore's fight to be able to fly on an airplane without providing identification, the United States Supreme Court, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling which said that Gilmore's rights are not violated by being required to show proof of identity. Gilmore had argued that without being able to see the law which says one must provide identification before being allowed to board a plane, there is no way to know if the regulations call for impermissible searches."

Comments

Re:Article summary wrong (surprise)

[soft_guy]

I can see why we would want to prevent explosives, but I fail to see why banning guns actually helps us. If the passengers aboard the planes on 9/11 had guns, the attacks could not have happened. The presence of guns by average citizens is often a deterent to certain types of crime. While you could argue that gun ownership does sometimes deter crimes you're really making a stretch when you say that guns on a plane would have stopped the attacks on 9/11. The terrorists had superior training in combat and weapons and would have merely massacred all the passengers on the plane before taking the cockpit. Firearms on aircraft would be a BAD thing except in the hands of fully trained air marshals.
 
John
  I don't care how much training you have: crazy arab gets a box cutter, I get a .45 == I win.