TSA Moves Closer To Rejecting Some State Driver's Licenses For Airline Travel (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Jad Mouawad writes at the NYT that a driver's license may no longer be enough for airline passengers to clear security in some states, if the Department of Homeland Security has its way the Department of Transportation will start enforcing the Real ID Act, which was enacted by Congress in 2005 following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Homeland Security officials insist there will be no more delays. In recent months, federal officials have visited Minnesota and other states to stress that the clock was ticking. The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply. "The federal government has quietly gone around and clubbed states into submission," says Warren Limmer, a state senator in Minnesota and one of the authors of a 2009 state law that prohibits local officials from complying with the federal law. "That's a pretty heavy club."

Privacy experts, civil liberty organizations and libertarian groups fear the law would create something like a national identification card. Presently twenty-nine states are not in compliance with the act and more than a dozen have passed laws barring their motor vehicle departments from complying with the law, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The new standards require more stringent proof of identity and will eventually allow users' information to be shared more easily in a national database. Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center,says he is concerned with all the information being available on the cards in a way that makes it more shareable and notes that the recent theft of millions of private records from the Office of Personnel Management did not inspire confidence in the government's ability to maintain secure databases. "You create more risk when you connect databases,"says Rotenberg. "One vulnerability becomes multiple vulnerabilities."

Comments

Voluntary?

[NoKaOi]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Re:Voluntary?

[lambsonic]

We all know that one thing the federal government doesn't have is a dictionary. Those things are like kryptonite to governments.

Re: Voluntary?

[timrod]

It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states. The "mandatory" part is that the federal government will deny highway funding to any state with a drinking age under 21, which is why every state has 21 as the drinking age. While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.

Re:Voluntary?

[MachineShedFred]

I like to refer to that as being 'voluntold' to do something.

Re:Voluntary?

[grcumb]

The message was that while participation was voluntary, there would be consequences for failing to comply.

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

Er, I think the concept you need to consider here is opportunity cost. If failing to participate in a purely voluntary practice closes the door to important benefits, then that decision can absolutely have undesirable consequences.

This is a pretty standard tactic when national governments try to influence policies that are, strictly speaking, the purview of sub-national entities. Health and education, for example, are provincial responsibilities in Canada, but funding mechanisms, subsidies and tax breaks make it possible for the federal government to set minimum standards nationwide without explicitly overstepping its mandate.

Re: Voluntary?

[AthanasiusKircher]

It's "voluntary" in the same way that the drinking age being 21 is voluntary. The federal government actually does not have the right to regulate drinking age: that actually falls to the states.

Bah -- federalism is effectively dead. We still have many places where the federal government lets states do their thing, but if anything comes up that seems sufficiently dire, a magical solution will be found in some passage of the Constitution that will authorize federal power to trump states' rights.

I mean, if you want to go down the road to that sort of argument, you have to start with the question of whether the federal government has the right to regulate air travel at all. It certainly isn't mentioned in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the 1910s and 1920s, there was much debate over whether a Constitutional amendment was necessary for Congress to regulate anything other than basic interstate commerce issues. With the Air Commerce Act of 1926, the federal government formalized its role in regulating some safety measures, only for commercial flights, and rather limited. (It's important to remember this was still in the middle of the Lochner era, when the Supreme Court routinely struck down any statute that seemed like government interfering with economic liberty.)

Of course, everything changed after the FDR court-packing threat and the Switch in Time that Saved Nine in 1937, followed by sweeping federal government expansion in 1937-42, effectively culminating in the end of federalism. (Standard example: Alcohol prohibition required a Constitutional amendment before this time; marijuana prohibition did not, since it occurred at/after this time.) Federalism still nominally exists, but not really. Wherever the feds want states to do something, they tie up huge funding issues with it, as you say, so the feds bully the states into it.... and if they deem it even more important (e.g., TERRORISM!! AHHH!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!), then they'll just magically make it a federal power by fiat.

While the feds likely could not say "no one without a Real ID compliant license flies" I'm sure they could stir up trouble in other ways with states that don't comply.

This statement is skimming over HUGE leaps in Constitutional law that have been changed by fiat just in the past few decades. After the terrorist threats in the 1970s, security screening was instituted with metal detectors and such at airports, but it was run by airports/airlines, NOT the feds, mostly because of Fourth Amendment concerns which would clearly prohibit such blanket searching (at least for the first 200 years of the Constitution or so). Prior to 2001, you submitted to voluntary security screening as a condition of the commercial contract you entered into with the airline.

Of course, after 2001 this whole 4th amendment concern was swept under the rug, and the crucial distinction between private voluntary search in a commercial transaction and government agents performing mandatory searches (which you could not just exit from -- now you could be detained by police even if you decided to leave after entering the security area).

But to get back to the real issue here -- you have to deal with the right to free travel within the U.S., which the TSA has arguably been disrupting since 2001. But the feds hesitated at first to stretch the Constitution that far. So -- while it was not widely known -- you could still travel domestically without ID for about a decade after 2001, as long as you made it clear to the TSA that you knew your rights and insisted.

But then the TSA closed that "loophole" (which used to be a g

Re: Voluntary?

[Coren22]

The Fifth Amendment eh?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Did you perhaps mean the Fourth Amendment?

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.

But, the real question is, is this search unreasonable, the courts have held that it is reasonable to search people before flights due to the danger that weapons pose on flights.

Re: Voluntary?

[KenHansen]

If there are consequences, I'm pretty sure that's the opposite of voluntary.

No, it's not. Brushing your teeth is completely voluntary, but failure to do so will likely result in serious dental problems. Obtaining 'adequate' healthcare coverage in the US is voluntary, for those that choose not to there are financial penalties, but it is still voluntary. Voluntary doesn't mean 'without penalty'.

Re: Voluntary?

[stoatwblr]

"the courts have held that it is reasonable to search people before flights due to the danger that weapons pose on flights."

1: In every single attempted hijacking since 9/11, passengers have overcome the would-be hijackers long before they got close to succeeding.

1a: Even before that time it was happening in some areas. I can recall a 1986 case where an enraged chinese businessman battered a would-be hijacker to death using his mobile phone as a club.

2: All the security theatre in the world is of no use whatsoever if your ground staff can slip a bomb into the cargo hold during loadout. Even bombproof cargo containers are no use if it's dropped between them and the pressure hull (which is apparently what happened in Egypt a while back)

2a: Ditto if you can subvert the in-flight catering companies. This is one aspect of aircraft loadout which is almost never inspected or the staff heavily security vetted.

3: Making a "binary bomb" is difficult under controlled laboratory conditions. Making one inflight using improvised equipment is virtually impossible. You'd have better luck trying to use thermite - and good luck getting that past a metal detector.

3a: See above for bombs in your shoes (although a few drops of putrescene on the socks might have a debilitating effect on everyone when you take the shoes off)
3b: Ditto for items in your panties.

Re: Voluntary?

[redlemming]

In addition, it is not what you or I find reasonable. The Constitution spells out that it is what the court decides those words mean.

A common misconception.

We find in Article III Section 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". Also, we find in Article VI that they are required to swear oaths upholding the Constitution: "all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution".

Thus, there are limits on the ability of the court to decide what "those words mean". If in so deciding, they are either engaging a behavior that is not good, or in violation of the "Oath or Affirmation", then they are in fact not acting within their legal authority.

As the Bill of Rights provides for unspecified rights "retained by the people" (9th Amendment), and "reserved to the people" (10th Amendment), it follows that the people have a say in determining whether either of these conditions has been met.

Further, the mere existence of unspecified rights "retained by the people" inherently places limits on the authority of the Supreme Court. If the judges were to decide to ignore the 9th Amendment, then there would be no rights retained by the people. But that's a contradiction, and creating contradictions in the legal system is unethical practice of law, and certainly a violation of a fundamental and universal right in any society based on the rule of law. Think of this as the legal equivalent of a proof by contradiction, as you might find in Euclid.

This also follows from the early history of the Bill of Rights: if people were prepared to trust the entities defined by the pre-Bill of Rights Constitution, then there wouldn't be a need for a Bill of Rights. But the Supreme Court is one of those pre-Bill of Rights entities, and hence the Bill of Rights - by it's mere existence - must be viewed as also placing limits on the Supreme Court. They may be the Supreme Court, but they are not the Supreme Law of the Land.

For example of the "good behavior issue", if the way a law is implemented involves ethical conflict of interest with respect to the legal profession (this is true for many laws in existence today), and reasonable alternatives exist, then we can assert that allowing such a law to be implemented and enforced is unethical practice of law on the part of the legal professionals in federal office. Clearly unethical practice of law is not good behavior.

In the current political and legal climate, where most politicians are lawyers, most lobbyists are lawyers, and a lot of money is received by politicians from various organizations of lawyers in the form of campaign contributions, that creates an especially great burden on those persons selected for judicial office (by those same politicians) to recognize the importance of not allowing laws involving ethical conflicts of interest that work to the benefit of the legal profession.

The fact that this has been looked at and decided by the courts makes it constitutional.

Not true. There have been many Supreme Court decisions that were not valid. Some of these have been reversed. Others have not.

Classic historical examples such as the decisions that upheld slavery, and the Jim Crow Laws. Even at the time of the Constitutional Convention, everybody with a functioning brain knew that slavery was wrong (just go look at the speech by Morris of NY). So certainly the Supreme Court decisions that permitted slavery to continue were invalid.

Another thing to consider is the Nuremberg Precedent, which basically says that government officials have a responsibility to do the right thing in spite of what the law or their hierarchy says. Certainly a right to expect this can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, and as such, this creates an individual responsibility to do the right thing even when the judici

Anonymous travel

[mi]

Why can't I travel anonymously? In addition to airlines, Amtrak already requires ID as well. Buses are supposed to check it too, although they don't (yet?). Hitchhiking is illegal, while driving is a personal car requires a registered vehicle with license-plate scanners keeping records.

Why can I not travel anonymously, exactly? How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

Re:Anonymous travel

[davester666]

You are a terrorist. We need to track where you go and who you see and communicate with.

Re:Anonymous travel

[swb]

If the Wikipedia article on Freedom of Movement under US law is to believed, we have broad rights to go where we please. Then how did driving get turned into a privilege? Was riding a horse someplace considered a privilege? Why does flying require so much identification? If you travel on a private plane, does somebody check your ID (and I'm thinking let's say I know some rich guy with a plane, not some NetJets flunky making sure I'm not trying to glom a free ride)?

I guess you can always walk where you want to go, although it has certain limits on its practicality.

Re:Anonymous travel

[fustakrakich]

How did we allow the Statists to play us so?

By voting for party authoritarians, democrat and republican. The voters are to blame for their own situation. If they want it to change, they have to do it their own damn selves. Will this be an election issue? Doubtful. So don't blame the system for something of our own making. It is a system that you yourself shows support for. So, I don't know why you are complaining now. Did you say anything back in 2005? Did your vote indicate any objection in the elections since then? If not, then what's your beef?

Re:Anonymous travel

[currently_awake]

it's ok, tracking is just meta-data, and meta-data isn't bad.

Re: Anonymous travel

[TheReaperD]

You want to post? Papers please.

Re: Anonymous travel

[Will_Malverson]

But if you want to drive coast to coast anonymously, you can do that. Stay within the speed limit and don't have any malfunctioning vehicle parts, and you have given no one Probable Cause to see you and your license. Avoid those particular toll roads where your license plate is photographed for billing purposes.

License plate scanners are everywhere.

Well, use a passport. Unless the IRS takes it.

[dfenstrate]

If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.

I've never been sure why people hate it

[Sycraft-fu]

It makes sense to me, and it isn't like the US would be the first or only free country with a national ID. Right now there's a strange situation where the government steadfastly insists that a passport is not for general ID, it is a travel document only, yet it is one of the best forms of ID since it is hard to forge and can identify you as a citizen or national.

To me, it would make sense to have a national ID that is a standard form, and available to all for no cost. This eliminates a lot of trouble with various other IDs. For that matter, it could be the kind of thing that is extensible too. Like instead of carrying a separate driver license, simply make that status an endorsement on the national ID.

Maybe there's something I'm missing as to why it is such a bad idea, but to me it seems like something worth doing.

More Security Theater by the Gestapo TSA

[WillAffleckUW]

Yet more security theater from the Gestapo or Stasi like TSA.

We're Americans. Traveling in our own country.

None of your security measures are effective, and you know it.

Stop helping the terrorists by making Americans live in Fear, and stop this farce.

Fuck the Patriot Act

[AndyKron]

Fuck the Patriot Act. Anyone who flies buys into the bullshit that's killing this country.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, there is plenty of voter fraud. For example, in my home state (which has mail-in voting with no ID check instead of polling places), a civic group hired some stoners for a voter registration drive. From the Seattle Times:

To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.

One defendant “said it was hard work making up all those cards,” and another “said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards,” according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff’s Detective Christopher Johnson.

Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County.

It happens, but groups that support voting without identification willfully ignore instances that are reported.

Re:National ID - what's wrong with it?

[stomv]

It's one thing for Mickey Mouse to be registered. That action has no specific, direct outcome on an election. It's quite another for Mickey Mouse to vote.

You've presented examples of voter registration fraud, not voter fraud.

Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[gabrieltss]

The states have a simple solution - KICK the TSA out of the state. 10th Amendment baby! Tell the TSA to allow people on the plane - or LEAVE the state.

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!! It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution. Those that see terrorists around every corner are weak paranoid LEMMINGS! And have been FULLY brainwashed by the government!

Just remember the U.S. Government FUNDED and TRAINED Al Qada! Don't believe me - try reading your history! The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen during the 80's to fight Russia in Afganastan. Who was the head of the Mujahideen? Osama Bin Laden! Where di Al Qada come from? The Mujahideen! Oh and while we are at it where did ISIS come from? Al Qada. Who the HELL do you think is behind all the "terrorism"? Your GOVERNMENT of course! Why would they do it? Look at all the TYRANNY that they have put into place in the name of "saving us from terrorists".

Madison's statement IS coming true!
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
- James Madison

Re:Whatever TSA - YOUR FIRED!

[Yunzil]

Real ID is unconstitutional as all HELL!!

Why?

It IS a national "ID card" - which is ILLEGAL under the constitution.

Under what section?

Re:Not gonna happen.

[fustakrakich]

Oh jeeze! Another armchair Rambo...

TSA needs a remedial course in the constitution.

[jcr]

Specifically, the "full faith and credit" clause. They don't have any legal prerogative to declare a state-issued ID invalid or unacceptable.

-jcr

Re:Not gonna happen.

[fahrbot-bot]

Dear TSA: I can't wait to have you deny me, as an American citizen, my equal protection rights under the 14th amendment.
Bring it.

Test your rights now; refuse to take off your shoes for scanning. Let us know how far onto the plane you get.
We'll wait for your report.

Need a declared war for that.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

disband the TSA ... and execute everyone in charge of it for treason.

Can't convict 'em of treason - you need a declared war for that. (That's why Jane Fonda got to marry Tom Hayden, and later Ted Turner, rather than twist in the wind at the end of a rope. The Vietnam conflict was not a declared war.)

There's lots of other things you CAN hang on them, though.

I'd start with 18 U.S. Code  242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law, which seems to be right on the mark.

It's a "wobbler": Misdemeanor (fine and/or no more than a year) if no physical injury, 10 year felony if injury, use or threat of use of weapons, explosives, or fire, up to life or death penalty if death results, an attempt is made to kill, attempted or actual kidnapping, attempted or actual aggravated sexual abuse.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[squiggleslash]

Obnoxious as those examples are, they aren't a denial of the right to use air transportation. Only the No-Fly list does that, and it's of dubious constitutionality.

The Federal Government refusing to allow people from certain States to board airliners because those States don't use an ID system (itself a dubious restriction) the Feds approve of is going to result in some serious legal and political challenges, that I'd expect the Feds to ultimately lose, perhaps even with an affirmative right of free passage written into the law and possibly even the constitution. I actually hope they try.

Re:Compliance less than 50%?

[demonlapin]

The states have no influence over their DC representation and haven't since the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment. In the original design of the Constitution, the people were represented by the House, and the states by the Senate, but an obsession with tearing down a reasonably well-designed republic (not that it was perfect, but a remarkably good outcome given the real-world constraints they had to work with) in the name of greater democracy killed that.

Not Arbitrary

[Etherwalk]

If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.

(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.

Not the best examples

[mx b]

The boiled frogs weren't paying attention — that's how. Smooth-talking lawmakers were introducing these "common sense" laws, while the objections from the disheveled principled ones were dismissed as "extreme" and "partisan".

Or, you can cause a lot more damage to people and property with a motorvehicle compared to a bike or a horse, so it needed to be more regulated. People involved in car accidents likely appreciate the fact that cars are registered; remember the license plate and tell the authorities, even if they drive off, and we know who's responsible.

I imagine that trains and planes have more regulation for similar reasons; as we now know, you could potentially cause a plane to crash into a building, for example. A train derailed can hurt lots of people and destroy lots of cargo. There's large responsibility again, so we do extra checks. If something goes wrong, we now have a shortlist of people to investigate.

Not saying the system is perfect. I worry about the surveillance state too, and am not a fan of the TSA's decisions lately. But we must acknowledge that the current system evolved for reasons (like safety and responsibility) that need to be carefully balanced with our liberties. Don't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" as they say. But definitely voice concerns to your congresscritters, and keep it in mind in upcoming elections.

The official right to keep and bear arms is another — and even more painful — example. You don't need a Wikipedia article — it is right there in the Bill of Rights. And yet, even the most liberal parts of the country consider it a mere privilege...

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns. This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing. It is fine to say you have a disagreement with a stance, but let's please not demonize groups of people and pretend that we aren't what we are -- a country with a diverse set of beliefs that really isn't easily categorized.

As an aside, If you want your freedoms and the constitution respected more, vote for Bernie Sanders. He has said no to surveillance state, no to perpetual war, no to corporate control of the economy and elections, and coming from a small state, he is very moderate on gun regulation. Let's all agree to stop voting for the typical establishment candidates and vote for candidates like Bernie if we want to see real results.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.

Jesus Christ, not this line of crap again. "Regulated" in that time meant "functioning". And if there's any question as to what this was all about, take if from one of the writers of that article:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

The Federalist Papers make it very clear that the public has an unquestionable right to arms in order to defend themselves from government tyranny.

And you are wrong, there are many people who want to take ALL weapons away from law abiding citizens. Of course their method to do that, ironically, is to use gun-toting cops and military to do it.

Re:Not the best examples

[drnb]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights. Very very few people say that all guns should be taken away; instead, the argument is that we should actually follow the constitution and regulate guns.

Let me explain the meaning of those words you quote. "Well regulated" is used in the 18th century context of functioning at a certain level, at a certain proficiency. Part of that efficiency was to have firearms available to the "militia". "Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age. Although today that definition has been extended to include females who have volunteered for the National Guard.

This probably includes at a minimum some mandatory training in proper usage and storage of guns and related equipment (note that "regulated" in this context was decided by the Supreme Court to mean "training"), ...

Wrong. US Federal Law defines the "militia". It has both active components, the National Guard and Naval Militias, that do require training but there is explicitly defined to be an inactive component for "all others". This inactive component includes those who have never enlisted or otherwise signed up and who have no obligation to show up and train in any way. However during a state of emergency these inactive militia members may be called up for service in the Army or Navy. This is part of the legal foundation for conscription, the draft, taking a civilian who is legally part of the federal militia and transferring them to active duty. Now for that 18th century notion of training, not all militia members were required to show up on the town commons and drill. That's for townsfolk. Those living a more rural lifestyle were often considered to be receiving sufficient training from activities such as hunting.

... as well as proper background checks (which effectively is a check that a person has the appropriate training and discipline, and hasn't violated such discipline and laws in the past). The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

While I'm personally all for safety training, safe storage and background checks for criminal and mental problems ... that is *not* what "well regulated" was referring to.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

Actually people tend to not know what the "militia" is nor what "well regulated" means. We merely have the blind leading the blind saying the militia is the National Guard and that well regulated means paperwork and approval were intended for firearms ownership.

Also, I dislike the generalizations and use of the word "liberal" as if its always a negative thing ...

In general perhaps but on this topic being "liberal" overwhelmingly involves being particularly misinformed about the 2nd amendment and firearms in general, in embracing placebo "gun bans" and such that like the TSA are security theatre. The left has their dogma that ignores facts and science just like the right, they merely choose different topics where politics trumps reason. And firearms is one such area for the left.

Re:Not the best examples

[AthanasiusKircher]

Let me quote the 2nd Amendment for you:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Note that phrase "well regulated" in the actual literal text of the Bill of Rights.

Yes, it is. But it's also part of a prefatory phrase separated by a comma, which makes clear **A** reason for the latter part of the sentence, not **THE ONLY** reason for the latter part of the sentence. Notice the separate references to "Militia" and later "the right of THE PEOPLE." There's a reason they changed the wording there.

Anyhow, I don't want to go over all of this again. You can choose your interpretation if you want, and some SCOTUS justices agree with you. After reviewing the actual writings of the Founders from that time and similar passages in state constitutions, as well as the legislative history and debates among the Founders for the 2nd amendment, it seems pretty clear that they were authorizing a broad power for "the people" to "keep and bear arms." The "well-regulated militia" stuff is just ONE reason why it's important to maintain that right... one reason important enough that they felt the need to mention it (even if they didn't mention others).

Or, to use my standard example, suppose you had a text that said:

A well-educated Electorate, being necessary to the democratic function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.

Does that mean the federal government only has to allow registered voters to have books? Or might it just be saying, "the people have a broad right to own books, and here's one good reason -- though perhaps not the only reason -- why."

I can't say for certain what the 2nd amendment meant, but I think in historical context it makes more sense to read it as a broad-based right, with the Militia stuff as a prefatory clause, and it's perfectly rational to do so (even if you disagree).

The free-for-all we currently have, particularly in the form of gun show loopholes, is the opposite of "well regulated" and should be fixed.

I ABSOLUTELY agree! I think firearms should be much more regulated than they are, and I wholeheartedly endorse introducing mandatory safety, training, and licensing measures, as we already require for similarly dangerous things like cars and heavy equipment. Whether the federal government could mandate that without a Constitutional amendment is an open question, but I would support an amendment to make it possible.

People tend to forget the first half of the 2nd Amendment about the regulated militia, but it is important.

I don't forget it at all -- it's essential to the text and had an important impact, particularly in the early Republic (before a standing army existed for the federal government). I just think you're potentially reading it completely wrong.

More importantly, I'd rather live in a somewhat antiquated world that actually respects its Founding laws and works to change or clarify them as necessary, rather than one in which those laws can be arbitrarily rejected on a whim (as they basically have been for the past 75 years or so). The danger in allowing the Constitution to just mean whatever you want because it would allow the sort of changes or regulation you want is -- what happens when the feds want to break other laws you care about? I'm glad women have a "right" to an abortion, but I also think the Constitutional basis of the "right to privacy" is rather flimsy, and I think it's rather dangerous that such things depend on the whims of 9 people in black robes, rather than something more explicitly articulated. Any "right" that is found or modified through textual "interpretation" that disagrees with previous interpretation could always be reversed by judicial fiat.

Re:Not the best examples

[Anonymous Coward]

Militia" in those days and today refers to all able bodied male of military age

So if you are the right age why aren't you in Iraq?
See what happens when you try to put a meaning on something other than what it actually has?
A "well regulated Militia" is what it says and not some silly bullshit about who could join up to a Militia and fight for their country if they had the courage to do so, but do not.

This silly sports club definition of a "Militia" being everyone has only stood up so far because they have been donating to the people that should be calling them out on the bullshit.

They are right. This isn't some "silly sports club definition", it's the literal law of the land in the US. 10 USC S113:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Get rid of the drivers license!

[blindseer]

Well, a state doesn't have to get rid of the license completely, just don't require it for travel within the state. Get other states to go along with it so people can drive state to state. We've been seeing "mission creep" on the drivers license for a long time. Even people that can't drive, or don't want to drive, still get to experience the DMV to get an ID to vote, get a bank account, or any of a number of things. This DMV issued, non-driver, ID is increasingly needed to travel by bus, plane, boat, or train. It's not a drivers license any more, its an internal passport.

The federal government can only push the states around as long as the states allow them to. Case in point, marijuana possession is illegal but yet no federal agency will even dare prosecute for this in those states that legalized it. The states have considerable power over the federal government, they can tell them where to go if they only grew a backbone.

Perhaps getting rid of the drivers license is too much just because the TSA wants to use it as an internal passport. What this is though is just one of many reasons on how what is supposed to be a record that one can pilot an automobile safely has gone well beyond this and has become a means by which the federal government can impose itself upon us.

Also, what few people will tell you is that it is perfectly legal to travel by commercial aircraft without government ID. You don't need an ID to fly, but everyone will tell you that you do. You might get hassled, delayed, and searched thoroughly but it's not illegal to travel without ID. As of yet we don't have a requirement to carry ID to travel, but the powers that be are working to change that.

Re:Not gonna happen.

[zippthorne]

It doesn't have to say it anywhere. The extraordinary position is that a right to travel is limited to only some specific subset of all methods of travel that the traveler can afford.

In the US, non-enumerated rights are explicitly recognized to exist.

Re:From your quote:

[KGIII]

You appear to be advocating the re-interpretation of an amendment to the Constitution. I dare that that is proposing something. And no, they're not fooling me. I don't *like* them but i support their right to bear arms so long as they do so in a safe and lawful manner.

Me? I came from a family of Marines and Navy (said that way on purpose). I spent eight years serving to demonstrate my willingness to put my life on the line in the name of freedom, for myself or for others. Just because they didn't serve doesn't mean they don't get those rights. In fact, I served so that they don't have to.

What next? Freedom of the press for only those who served in a government printing office? No, people have provided you link after link after link. This has been covered, gone over many times, and hashed out by people who are far better versed in the subject than you (or I). However, nothing indicates that it is the singular reason and the courts have determined this to be true.

Advocating a re-interpretation is, indeed, a proposition. Doing so, the act itself, will result in a civil war. There is no maybe about it. It's not like I'm going to start it but it's going to be started. It's going to be bloody and may not end the way you want. It's very tough to fight an insurgency or guerrilla warfare. More problematic will be that the enlisted people will not follow an unlawful order along those lines. GI Joe's not going to kill his wife's uncle, brother, mother, or children.

In short, through no fault of mine and I wish you no ill will, this sort of stuff is the stuff that will likely get someone killed if they start running around and perverting justice. That will be the straw that breaks the camel's back - for many, many people. I am not prepared to deal with that and I don't think you are either.

At any rate, I didn't serve for a set of rights. I already have those. I served because I was willing to ensure you also had those rights - without needing to serve. No amount of trying to hand wave it away, no ignoring the links you've been fed, and no attempt to re-interpret the Constitution (which is rather clear in a plain English reading - it lists a single, solitary, reason but does not make it the exclusive reason, it cites it as an example) is going to change that.

If it had said something along the lines of: "in order to ensure discourse between the government in the people, the government shall make no law that infringes on the right to speech, blah blah blah" then what would you think? How about privacy? It's not mentioned at all, by name, and yet we've interpreted it as being in there by inference from other documents and multiple parts. Not only are you selectively reading this one with a bunch of biases, you're also not interpreting it correctly - as is evidenced by the many links you've been given but declined to read.

It doesn't read like you think it does, no matter how you read it. That also includes their not needing to serve in order to have those rights. Those rights are, well, held to be self evident.