NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners and Criminalizes Unreasonable Searches and Invasive Pat Downs

Sweet, the NJ legislature is getting in on the nullification of criminal federal law by making it illegal to conduct illegal searches and seizures.

If that last sentence doesn't make sense, it is because this is what happens when the federal government legalizes things that are not legal and criminalizes things that are not crimes.

Orwellian insanity ensues.

www.senatenj.com...

NJ Legislation Bans TSA Scanners and Criminalizes Unreasonable Searches and Invasive Pat Downs

New Jersey Senator Michael Doherty (R-Warren, Hunterdon) announced today that he has introduced three pieces of legislation drafted to eliminate any immunity TSA agents might enjoy when violating New Jersey law during unnecessary and invasive airport screenings:“For more than a month now, the TSA has quite literally stuck their finger in the eye of law-abiding American citizens while trampling on their constitutionally guaranteed liberties,” Doherty stated. “We call upon every state legislature in our great country to immediately act to put our federal government on notice that the dignity of our citizens shall not be the cost of a failed federal open border policy.”The following bills were introduced:

Makes certain body searches third degree crime of sexual assault under certain circumstances.

Prohibits use of body imaging scanners to screen passengers and airline crew members.

Specifies that certain images generated by body scans violate State statutes, prohibiting invasion of privacy, pornography, and endangerment of child welfare under certain circumstances.

“All of these bills remove any claim that TSA agents are immune to any state statutes that they violate when searching passengers or crew,” Doherty concluded. “If we don’t take strong action against these violations, where will it lead? Today planes, tomorrow trains and buses, what then? Will the drive to the market be viewed as a ‘privilege,’ the walk to church? Will we stand upon the slippery slope of paranoia that leads to invasive searches becoming a way of daily life, or say ‘No’ and defend our rights to privacy now while we still have them.”Senator Doherty has launched an online petition to support his efforts to stop invasive TSA screening procedures at www.stopthetsa.org....

It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Of course it will not hold up at the federal level.

But that is the entire point of the legislation.

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Of course it will not hold up at the federal level.

But that is the entire point of the legislation.

I guess I missed the point. Is the point to waste tax payer money drafting legislation that won't hold up? Or are they drafting the legislation, knowing it won't hold up, so that they can challenge it in the federal courts?

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm floored as I have twice been illegally searched and well criminally harassed by NJ... Did I wake up in crazy world today? WTF?

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Wrong! Federal jurisdiction depends on the crime and whether the property is owned by the feds. There are no federally owned airports in NJ, except for McGuire AFB and a couple of USCG heliports. If a TSA agent grabbed a female passenger, dragged her into a closet and raped her, hestill would face state charges.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I guess I missed the point. Is the point to waste tax payer money drafting legislation that won't hold up? Or are they drafting the legislation, knowing it won't hold up, so that they can challenge it in the federal courts?

The point is to point out the criminality of the federal government.

And when the criminal federal government strikes it down, it will highlight the fact that the federal government is nothing but an institution of thieves, liars, and petty dictators.

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Wrong! Federal jurisdiction depends on the crime and whether the property is owned by the feds. There are no federally owned airports in NJ, except for McGuire AFB and a couple of USCG heliports. If a TSA agent grabbed a female passenger, dragged her into a closet and raped her, hestill would face state charges.

It doesn't matter if the feds own the airport property. If a flight crosses state lines, then the feds have jurisdiction. So long as NJ planes take off and land within the state of NJ, then the state would have jurisdiction. I can see making a case for small municipal airports; however, the larger airports clearly fall under federal jurisdiction.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
And when the criminal federal government strikes it down, it will highlight the fact that the federal government is nothing but an institution of thieves, liars, and petty dictators.

And that will tell the American people something they don't already know? It really is just a waste of resources IMO. But...more power to 'em.

Originally posted by Aggie Man

Originally posted by 4nsicphd

Originally posted by Aggie Man
It will be interesting to see if this holds up, as airports are in federal jurisdiction, rather than state jurisdiction.

Wrong! Federal jurisdiction depends on the crime and whether the property is owned by the feds. There are no federally owned airports in NJ, except for McGuire AFB and a couple of USCG heliports. If a TSA agent grabbed a female passenger, dragged her into a closet and raped her, hestill would face state charges.

It doesn't matter if the feds own the airport property. If a flight crosses state lines, then the feds have jurisdiction. So long as NJ planes take off and land within the state of NJ, then the state would have jurisdiction. I can see making a case for small municipal airports; however, the larger airports clearly fall under federal jurisdiction.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate air travel nor do they have any authority to seize control of airport security - which takes place on private property.

The government created the TSA in order to create another massive bureaucracy they can use to buy votes. It has no intention of keeping anyone safe, nor does it seek to protect our liberties. It seeks to take money from the productive members of society and buy votes with it.

The "regulate inter-state commerce" clause of the constitution charged the government with keeping commerce "regular' - which means ensuring the tax rates were even and states did not tariff each other. It does not mean they have the authority to micro-manage every single article that crosses state lines.

Article 1 section 8 would be entirely redundant if this was the case. If you believe article 1 section 8 is entirely redundant and they just threw it in there for s***ts and giggles, I suppose you are entitled to your opinion.

Of course, that still doesn't grant the feds the authority to micro-manage our lives.

Originally posted by mnemeth1


The federal government has no constitutional authority to regulate air travel nor do they have any authority to seize control of airport security - which takes place on private property.

I believe they do via the commerce clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.

SOURCE: The Unites States Constitution

Commercial flights certainly fall within the definition of commerce.

reply to post by Aggie Man


The jurisdiction is usually shared. Usually a County or City owns the land and airport itself. They have merely abdicated the screening rights to the TSA or via acts such as the Patriot Act.

Who'd of thought NJ would do something like this when they trample so many other rights. Well maybe it is a sign of things beginning to change. Unfortunately I doubt it will actually be put into practice as all theses state and local police receive federal bribe money to allow these federal agencies to harass detain and imprison people where they have no lawful jurisdiction. It is a start I guess eventually all these states passing anti federal abuse legislation may lead to a show down as the people keep seeing the laws passed but nothing actually changing. I am just not sure when, hopefully soon but probably not until is effects enough State legislators personally or they get voted out and enough honest people get voted in which isn't likely very soon...

Originally posted by hawkiye
Who'd of thought NJ would do something like this when the trample so many other rights. Well maybe it is a sign of things beginning to change. Unfortunately I doubt it will actually be put into practice as all theses state and local police receive federal bribe money to allow these federal agencies to harass detain and imprison people where they have no lawful jurisdiction. It is a start I guess eventually all these states passing anti federal abuse legislation may lead to a show down as the people keep seeing the laws passed but nothing actually changing. I am just not sure when, hopefully soon but probably not until is effects enough State legislators personally or they get voted out and enough honest people get voted in which isn't likely very soon...

They haven't done it yet.

The bills were introduced - but i'm sure they will not pass the liberal NJ legislature.

Criminals naturally protect other criminals.

I just love it when people fight back.

second

Originally posted by hawkiye

Who'd of thought NJ would do something like this when they trample so many other rights. )

Yeah I know that is what I was saying, I have personally been privvy to their illegal searches and criminal harrassment on a very very deep level...this and Philly doing pat downs on the street which is totally unlike philly (Philly advocates told me to sue NJ from all the harrassment they unleashed on me). So AGAIN I think I awoken in BIZARRO LAND!!!!!

It is a sad day when a state has to pass a law that is already covered by the federal constitution.

Oh yeah I forgot .... The feds don't follow that blueprint anymore.

www.alarmandmuster.com... Join and get ready! Become a Modern Day Paul Revere!

reply to post by Aggie Man


That clause is and was never intended for this type of regulation though. The regulation of the airliner and companies themselves can and does fall under that clause. This is to ensure that there is a minimum standard based upon empirical data collected over many years is put to best use. While I don't like most government bureaucracies, the FAA actually does things quite well in terms of airline safety.

The airports originally provided the security via private contracts. This gave them the ability to shop around for the best companies when things were going horribly wrong. It is also a good time to note that the TSA in its current manifestation would not stop the 9/11 hijackers* any more than the private security that failed to catch them.

Back to the Commerce Clause. This clause was to ensure that no State would hold 'hostage' to another State by creation of internal legislation or regulation. There are a number of cases to study how the Supreme Court has ruled on the Commerce Clause. So. Pacific Co. v Arizona is an excellent application of the Clause.

In So. Pacific Co. v Arizona, So. Pacific fought and won against Arizona's law that limited the number of cars of a train. This severely imposed financial distress to neighboring states and also to the company. Brief and not in depth I know, but it gets the point across.

This is an excellent source I believe in regards to the conflict of the Commerce Clause and the battle between State Sovereignty and Federal Law. Source: UCMK Law

In there, we see that they have concluded that the Courts have taken the following approach when judging upon Interstate Commerce: (Note: I have excluded the previous three interpretations. Feel free to read them at the link)

Finally, it has been suggested that the Clause by its own force divests states of the power to regulate commerce in certain ways, but the states and Congress retain concurrent power to regulate commerce in many other ways. This fourth interpretation, a complicated hybrid of two others, turns out to be the approach taken by the Court in its decisions interpreting the Commerce Clause.

Now given that, what we could see is States that cannot or are unwilling to pass a similar law will and could fight NJs law on the basis that it would cause themselves difficulties in their dealings with TSA while NJ airports are free of that bond.

The resistance has to start somewhere. I'm glad NJ has stepped up to the plate. Hopefully it's not just a tactic for later Federal squashing as others have said. S+F.

Originally posted by this_is_who_we_are
The resistance has to start somewhere. I'm glad NJ has stepped up to the plate. Hopefully it's not just a tactic for later Federal squashing as others have said. S+F.

With NJ there is always an alterior motive, believe that!
2nd line.