Re: Cell Phone Jammers are Illegal in USA

[JoeRaisin <joeraisin2001@xxxxxxxxx>]

G. Morgan wrote:
> JoeRaisin wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that I think these checkpoints are my favorite things,
>> but since court precedent deems them legal this guys actions smack of
>> useless petulance.
>>
>> The agents at these checkpoints are not jack-booted thugs.  They are
>> just normal guys doing a legal (as deemed by court precedence) job they
>> are told to do.  Giving them a hard time and backing up traffic making
>> other people late just so he can post inflammatory videos that do
>> nothing to change the law is childish.
>
>
> It's not childish to stand up for your rights.  The checkpoints that were
> 'cleared' by the Supreme Court are those which are "Fixed and permanent", not
> the temporary types that can be removed on a daily basis (such as the one in
> AZ).
>
> http://supreme.justia.com/us/428/543/case.html
>
> You may be thinking, "it's no big deal" just answer the questions to make it
> easy on everyone.  It is a big deal.  I don't want to give up my rights for
> the convenience of those sitting behind me in traffic, or to make the
> officer's day less difficult.  Every little time we waive our rights, we are
> inviting more opportunity for them to take advantage of us.
>
> I think Ben Franklin said it best:
> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
> deserve neither liberty nor safety."
>
>

You've convinced me that the checkpoints are bullshit but I still think
he's going about it the wrong way.

I'd be a lot more sympathetic if he was saying (in a polite tone),
"Agent (so-and-so) I don't believe this checkpoint is constitutional and
as so I am under no obligation to answer your question.  Am I being
detained or am I free to leave?"

I still think his rude and confrontational approach is an attempt to
invite a (well deserved) pop in the nose so he can get his payday in court.

We live in a country of laws and those laws are interpreted by our courts.

If this guy really believes that the checkpoints are illegal then he
should simply not stop at it.

They would, of course, charge him with a felony which he could contest
on the grounds that the checkpoint was illegal and take it all the way
to the supreme court.

Hell, I'd even kick in on the defense fund.

When he stops acting like a petulant child, sucks it up and puts his
money where his mouth is I'll start listening to him.