US Customs and Border Protection TFRs

[kkoran]

CBP just got 1 mile radius/1000 ft AGL TFRs over four of its facilities in Texas.



Given the size of the TFRs, I think the only security they provide is against people trying to use drones to see what's going on. Makes one wonder what they are trying to hide.

Unfortunately, this just shows that law enforcement can get TFRs with little or no rational justification.

 

[k9medic]

CBP just got 1 mile radius/1000 ft AGL TFRs over four of its facilities in Texas.

View attachment 74223

Unfortunately, this just shows that law enforcement can get TFRs with little or no rational justification.

Are they supposed to check in with every pilot in America before getting a TFR? Perhaps they should also put their security plans on their main website page so that everybody knows why that needed a TFR For that matter the NOTAM is supposed to read "why" a TFR was issued.

Maybe read AC 91-93

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Are they supposed to check in with every pilot in America before getting a TFR? Perhaps they should also put their security plans on their main website page so that everybody knows why that needed a TFR For that matter the NOTAM is supposed to read "why" a TFR was issued.

Maybe read AC 91-93

And possibly TFRs are sometimes overused?

 

[N1120A]

They shouldn't even have this power

 

[Dean V]

They shouldn't even have this power

Given give you have no constitution right to fly or fly when and where ever you want, I think they will ignore your opinion.

 

[luvflyin]

I hear something in the distance. It’s getting louder now. What’s that. Is it the jingle of keys on a ring? It is. I think someone is coming to lock something.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Are they supposed to check in with every pilot in America before getting a TFR? Perhaps they should also put their security plans on their main website page so that everybody knows why that needed a TFR For that matter the NOTAM is supposed to read "why" a TFR was issued.

Maybe read AC 91-93

Perhaps the CBP should be disbanded and stop harassing innocent travelers.

 

[Old97]

Perhaps the CBP should be disbanded and stop harassing innocent travelers.

What countries have you been to that had no customs or immigration enforcement? Or are you suggesting we enforce our immigration laws with the military or FBI?

 

[TommyG]

Perhaps the CBP should be disbanded and stop harassing innocent travelers.

How do they harass innocent travelers?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Yes, I think other law enforcement agencies should be used to investigate and pursue real criminals near the borders. The vast majority of what the CBP does has to do with enforcing other laws and pursuits such as our war on drug users.

The 100 mile constitution free zone they have near the borders should be eliminated as it covers something like 90% of the populace. https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone

And they routinely harass innocent full US citizens near the borders and at checkpoints. See https://reason.com/2013/12/28/americas-internal-checkpoints/

And to help with this sort of nonsense they are granted TFRs.

 

[Palmpilot]

Given give you have no constitution right to fly or fly when and where ever you want, I think they will ignore your opinion.

Perhaps, but note that the absence of a right's being listed in the Constitution is not sufficient to prove that the right does not exist.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Given give you have no constitution right to fly or fly when and where ever you want, I think they will ignore your opinion.

Some have argued that we actually do have a natural right to travel, and by extension, fly, without undue interference. Especially given the 4th amendment.

When the airways were Federalized in the 1930s, there was surprisingly little consideration given to this issue.

 

[Dean V]

Perhaps, but note that the absence of a right's being listed in the Constitution is not sufficient to prove that the right does not exist.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.​

When that was written no one owned an plane, so now one has be disparaged from a right they retained. You do though retain the right own a mule.

 

[Fiveslide]

[QUOTE="Dean V, post: 2729631]You do though retain the right own a mule.[/QUOTE]

Unless you have sex with said mule. The you breakin the law and lose ya mule.

 

[Palmpilot]

When that was written no one owned an plane, so now one has be disparaged from a right they retained. You do though retain the right own a mule.

There are Supreme Court cases that recognize a right to travel. If you know of cases that specify that a particular means of travel must be used in order to enjoy that right, feel free to cite them.

I don't know what grounds the Supreme Court has used in deciding that the right to travel exists, but Article IV of the Articles of Confederation said that "the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other state," which clearly falls within the category of a right to travel. Since the right to travel to and from any other state was formally recognized prior to the Constitution's going into effect, it would be reasonable to conclude that this was one of the rights that were "retained by the people" when the Constitution went into effect. And note that Article IV does not say that this right only applies to the modes of transportation then existing.

I'm not saying that the Ninth Amendment is sufficient by itself to determine the scope of the right to travel, but I am saying that it makes the fact that the right to travel is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution irrelevant to the issue.

 

[wsuffa]

Given that they are looking at sending the detainees all across the US and doing it soon, there is no surprise that they want to keep the media circus away.

Given give you have no constitution right to fly or fly when and where ever you want, I think they will ignore your opinion.

The government determined long ago that it effectively owns the airspace. And the radio airwaves.

 

[danhagan]

Apparently someone is unfamiliar with stadium and amusement park TFRs. Gross commericial overreach! What do they have to hide?!?

Banner Tow blocking at its finest

 

[unsafervguy]

Given give you have no constitution right to fly or fly when and where ever you want, I think they will ignore your opinion.

wrong... the constitution tells government what rights the people give them not the other way around. congress has 18 powers granted under the constitution, regulating the free movement of the populace is not one of them.

 

[Ghery]

wrong... the constitution tells government what rights the people give them not the other way around. congress has 18 powers granted under the constitution, regulating the free movement of the populace is not one of them.

The Constitution was written to limit the federal government, not to limit the people. We need to remember that and remind the government of that fact.

 

[Dean V]

wrong... the constitution tells government what rights the people give them not the other way around. congress has 18 powers granted under the constitution, regulating the free movement of the populace is not one of them.

The purpose of any govt. is to protect the people. That includes licensing and restricting pilots. None of your rights are absolute.

 

[Palmpilot]

The purpose of any govt. is to protect the people. That includes licensing and restricting pilots. None of your rights are absolute.

True, but one of the responsibilities of citizenship is to participate in the process of monitoring for governmental overreach, and to bring it to the attention of one's fellow voters when it is found. The government may, as you said, ignore his opinion that TFRs are a power that government should not have, but that's where Internet message boards come in, because they are one of the tools for persuading one's fellow voters that something is amiss.

 

[wsuffa]

The purpose of any govt. is to protect the people. That includes licensing and restricting pilots. None of your rights are absolute.

Uh, no. The purpose of any government is to protect itself. To protect the system, if you will. The US Constitution provides for "the common defense" and "promoting the general Welfare", which is different than "protecting the people".

The people are collateral and if they get hurt or killed, it's not the government's responsibility. This applies whether it's the armed forces ("protecting the people" is not accomplished by sending them to war), the local police (really, can the police truly protect you, or is the role more about bringing people to justice), or commerce (while regulations are necessary, the idea of 'public interest, convenience, and necessity' really came about with FDR and the New Deal).