RobertNashville

???  Given that he (Obama) is already a lame duck and can't run again I don't see how politics plays a part in this.  He's an idealog through and through and I think that's all that is driving him at this point.

While the titles of this thread did specifically mention “DUI Checkpoints”, I think it worth keeping in mind that the Tennessee law in question (non-refusal of blood testing) does not apply ONLY to traffic checkpoints.   Anyway, while I’ve read many assertions that these checkpoints are an unconstitutional infringement of a citizen’s right to travel and an infringement of the 4th amendment, I’ve yet to hear anyone make a convincing case for why that is actually true.  No one has even bothered to publish the rules such checkpoints must follow which per the NHTSA are:   (1) Sobriety checkpoints cannot be set up at random. Instead, they must be one facet in a departmental program designed to deter intoxication while behind the wheel.   (2) The local district attorney's office must be aware of the sobriety checkpoint and must be willing to offer its support in the prosecution of DUI/DWI offenders.   (3) The police officers who set up the sobriety checkpoint must have a specific pattern for stopping cars and must not deviate from that pattern. For example, they must agree to stop every fourth car, and stick to the fourth-car pattern.   (4) The decision to implement a sobriety checkpoint must not be made out of thin air, but should be a measure in response to a demand. For example, if there have been three drunk driving accidents outside of a neighborhood, the officers would have a need to set up a sobriety checkpoint.   (5) Police officers who decide to set up a sobriety checkpoint must adequately inform drivers that the checkpoint will be in place. While checkpoints are for the good of society, they can also deter drivers who need to reach certain destinations.   (6) As drivers approach the sobriety checkpoint, they should be able to see that the police are present. Usually, this is accomplished by starting the flashing light bars on the tops of police cruisers.   (7) If the police intend to send drivers to a test site for chemical testing, there must be an easy and fast route from the sobriety checkpoint to the test site.   (8) Police officers must be able to successfully manage the sobriety checkpoint without unreasonably halting the flow of traffic. They must use standardized procedures and follow the proper protocol for investigation.   (9) The public must be notified aggressively and well in advance of any sobriety checkpoint so that drivers can avoid them if necessary.   In addition to the above, police officers are expected to ask the drivers they stop for feedback as to the effectiveness of the sobriety checkpoint. Since the practice is intended as a public service, police officers are encouraged to be friendly and accommodating with drivers.   Others are free to disagree but as long as the above rules are followed, I fail to see how such checkpoints can reasonably be construed to be a violation of the right to be free from “unreasonable” search/seizure.  Can they be inconvenient? Yes. Are some officers not always as professional and courtious as they should be? Yes. But inconvenience or an occasional lack or courtsy (which is often just a response to a lack of respect/courtsy from the invonveniencded driver) does not, in my opinion, equal “unreasonable”.   It seems to me that what some of the posts in this and similar threads reflect is a general dislike and distrust (and sometimes outright hatred) of “government” and law enforcement as well as a bit of selfishness.  The distrust is profound enough that concepts such as “what is or isn’t unreasonable” don't even seem to be considered.  Selfish in that the safety of society at large seems to be completely ignored.   One of the basic obligations of government is to protect the citizens the government exists to serve  - as long as people chose to put others at extreme risk by driving drunk; the government has a right and a duty to act to counter that action so long as doing so isn’t a violation of individual rights…I don’t believe DUI checkpoints are a violation of those rights.  

Even if signs did not carry the force of law (i.e. even if Tennessee's laws were changed to match those of some other states) a business will and IMHO should always have the right to ban firearms inside of their business - to deny them that right is, in my opinion, just as abhorant to the concepts of freedom and liberty as banning individuals the right to carry arms or to protest their government.   No one's rihghts, even the RTKABA can be allowed to dominate over other rights...rights must strike a balance for all or they are meaningless for all.

Somebody should set this SOB up and teach him a lesson.

are you sure the thread wasn't locked and/or maybe an Admin removed the threat alltogether?   Locking it would be easy for the thread originator to do...I suspect only an Admin could take down a thread (assuming they even would act that quickly).

Whether there is or isn't such a douchbag; as far as I know, that ability doesn't even exist...although I suppose it'd possible, I'd be surprised if the forum software even has the functionality for an Admin can block a specific user from seeing a specific thread. :)   I'd say a glitch is a far more logical/likely answer!

Anybody who will not go to DC is doing themselves (and their kids/family if they them) a tremendous disservice.   There is no better way to see the history...the sacrifice...the things that document what made this country greatest that has ever existed...the amazing number of monuments, documents, exhibits, etc. that are simply not available anywhere else should be experienced and appreciated by anyone who loves this country.   The WW2 memorial and the Wall are, individually, enough to justify a trip there. I've lived in several states and spend time in every state with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii and there simply is no other place on earth like it and I doubt that there ever will be.

Could not agree more. ^^^^ As to the original post, based on what you've stated, I would find a home where it will be loved and well cared for and would do so with a completely clear conscious.

You know I'm wondering, if the stupid Congresswoman who thought magazines are useless after they have used up their bullets had anything to do with this stupid law that considers spent/empty bullet casings as "ammunition"???  ;)   http://www.examiner.com/article/rep-diana-degette-doesn-t-know-difference-between-ammunition-magazines

Small point of order, D.C. is not a state. ;)

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would let their kids attend public schools anymore?

I wish the same for you and the others...

This is about Obama, in that he wants his agenda to keep going and the surest way for him to make that possible is to divert people from watching what is still going in in Congress.  Obamacare, Immigration "reform", our deficit and debt crisis, gun control...all those things are being worked on and many Republicans are falling in line to support them while everyone is looking the other way.   We have no business doing anything in Syria for multiple reasons, but ultimately, what we do or don't do in Syria is probably far less important to the future of this country that what the legislation sitting in Congress that no one, especially the press, is paying attention to.

It seems to me that any normal person, when discussing DUI checkpoints, might bring up that decision for the same reason that, when discussing the second amendment with someone, a normal person might bring up the SCOTUS decisions that found that the secondment amendment right to keep and bare arms is and individual right. In other words, because the fact that SCOTUS had ruled on the issue being discussed is relevant to the discussion.   Are we only supposed to bring up SCOTUS decisions that everyone here agrees with?   I know many people think the SCOTUS decision was wrong; including three SCOTUS justices; but I think it was a correct decision. As is often pointed out, the 4th amendment doesn't forbid all searches and seizures, only "unreasonable" ones and the infringement (seizure) caused by these checkpoints is so slight that I don't believe these "seizures" are unreasonable under the 4th, especially given the numerous requirements that have to be met for a DUI checkpoint to operate legally.

The only people who would think that either haven't actually read what I said or they simply didn't care what I said and just wanted to put words in my mouth so they could argue about it.  Anyone who has ever read more than a handfull of my posts in on this forum would know that the chance of me considering SCOTUS "infallible" is about as great as a herd of flying horses being discovered on some remote Greek island.

  At what time in this thread or any other have I ever said or hinted that SCOTUS is right just because it's SCOTUS?   When have I ever said in this or any other thread that SCOTUS doesn't make bad, even totally incorrect decisions or even hinted at infallability?   The correct answer is "never".   I happen to think they got the one about DUI checkpoints right; it's as simple as that; your attempt to make my position imply more than that indicates that the purpose of your post above has nothing to do with a desire for actual discussion.

One has nothing to do with the other; insinuating otherwise is a pretty cheep shot.   I am not "pro" DUI checkpoints and never said I was; what I have consistently said is that I don't have a problem with them as they fill a need necessitated by the irresponsibility of those who chose to drive drunk and put other people's lives in danger and when done as proscribed by SCOTUS, in my opinion, are constitutional.

We probably should since there are more effective ways to do something to address what is being complained about.   While just about everyone does it, complaining rarely accomplishes anything; even complaining about gun legislation that is unconstitutional.   Complaining about laws that are constitutional accomplishes even less.

  Your question has no relevance to the discussion in this thread.   The law in question that started this thread and as well as the checkpoints that people are "complaining about" relate to DRIVING a motor vehicle under the influence; not all possible modes of travel.   Therefore, my answer is as it has been; I don't have and the Constitution doesn't have a problem with DUI checkpoints conducted as proscribed the SCOTUS.   Perhaps instead of "complaining" about something already ruled (and I believe is) constitutional; people's efforts would be put to better use in working to stop the problem that necessitates the checkpoints.

You can post all the pictures you want (which is actually nothing more than your attempt to be insulting without raising the ire of the Admins). However, equating the right to keep and bare arms with the freedom of travel is then and is now an relevant and illogical comparison no matter how much anyone wants it not to be. The same supreme court that has affirmed the right to travel as a right has also CONSISTENTLY throughout its history affirmed the right of states to place restrictions on specific modes of travel; most especially driving a motor vehicle on public roadways. You do not have a constitutional or natural or "god-given" right to drive an automobile without restrictions on how/when/where and who may do so.

  Some are talking about that, some aren't.   I don't have a problem with DUI checkpoints when done as proscribed by SCOTUS and neither does the Constitution.   Moreover, as I said in the post you quoted, we have DUI checkpoints for one very simple reason, people who refuse to be responsible and not drive if they've been drinking and EVERYONE who has ever driven under the influence or has ever let a friend do so is part of that problem.   Those who drink and drive or let others do so deserve no sympathy from anyone and will receive no sympathy from me as those who do so are just as much of a thug and just as dangerous to innocent people as the thug who breaks into a another person's home at 3AM.

No, the difference is that they are different...i.e. not the same.

The incorrectness of the original story aside, the bottom line here is that Obamacare if it is fully enacted (and I see little hope that it wont be) is the final puzzle piece in turning this country into a socialist society.and will cause the nation's looming financial collapse (if something else hasn't triggered it before hand).   Oh...leaders will still claim it's a free society founded on the principles of free market capitalism and a representative democracy all while you are told what doctors you can see and given medical treatment based on your "worth" to society...we'll still celebrate independence day and shoot off fireworks (if they aren't too loud or present a negative environmental impact) and we'll still, probably, be allowed to pray and worship as we chose (so long as we do so privately and/or our houses of worship don't overtly support its religious principles) but it will be nothing more than window dressing for a dead body that once was a republic.   I am just thankful that I'm old enough to have had at least a fleeting glimpse of what America used to be.

If citizens have a right to travel/movement but not a right to any specific mechanism of movement, then it follows that government, for the good of and safety of the public it exists to protect, as stated by our own Tennessee constitution, has a both the right and the duty to regulate specific modes of transport when a mode (i.e. driving a motor vehicle on public roadways) can present a significant danger to others when not done properly (such as driving without full faculties, without following the rules of the road, etc.).   Licenses the require a demonstrated minimal level of competence and an understanding of traffic laws, and regulations against drunk driving, or excessive speed are not restrictions on the "right to freedom of movement" any more than a city requiring a permit to use a city park, or march down a city street or prohibitions against inciting rioting are restrictions on freedom of speech.     As to your "lets try something"...it's still an apples/oranges (and therefor incorrect) comparison no matter how many times you try to compare the two issues.

You've already made that argument. I understand your position; I don't agree and repeating it isn't going to change my mind.   Driving a motor veicle on public roadways is not a "right" (nor is any other particular form/method/mechanism of transport for that matter). As such, attempting to compare a method of transportation with the right to keep and bare arms is an apples and oranges comparison.   As far s your use of horses as comparrison goes, as DaveS already pointed out, laws regarding how/when/where/by whom people could travel by horseback/horse-drawn wagond, etc. have existed even long before the motor vehicle was invented; some examples are...   In Omega, New Mexico, every woman must "be found to be wearing a corset" when riding a horse in public. A physician is required to inspect each female on horseback. The doctor must ascertain whether or not the woman is, in fact, complying with this law!   In Hartsville, Illinois, you can be arrested for riding an ugly horse.   In Pattonsburg, Missouri, according to the Revised Ordinances, 1884: "No person shall hallo, shout, bawl, scream, use profane language, dance, sing, whoop, quarrel, or make any unusual noise or sound in such manner as to disturb a horse."   A Wyoming community passed this one: "No female shall ride a horse while attired in a bathing suit within the boundaries of Riverton, unless she be escorted by at least two officers of the law or unless she be armed with a club." And continues with this amendment to the original: "The provisions of this statue shall not apply to females weighing less than ninety pounds nor exceeding two hundred pounds."   A misworded ordinance in Wolf Point, Montana: "No horse shall be allowed in public without its owner wearing a halter."    A Fort Collins, Colorado Municipal Code: "It is unlawful for any male rider, within the limits of this community, to wink at any female rider with whom he is acquainted."   West Union, Ohio: "No male person shall make remarks to or concerning, or cough, or whistle at, or do any other act to attract the attention of any woman riding a horse."    Abilene, Kansas, City Ordinance 349 declares: "Any person who shall in the city of Abilene shoot at a horse with any concealed or unconcealed bean snapper or like article, shall upon conviction, be fined."   1899 vintage law from Waverly, Kentucky: "Any person who shall ride a horse in a public place while wearing any device or thing attached to the head, hair, headgear or hat, which device or thing is capable of lacerating the flesh of any other person with whom it may come in contact and which is not sufficiently guarded against the possibility of so doing, shall be adjudged a disorderly person."   A 1907 Cumberland County, Tennessee statute reads: "Speed while on horseback upon county roads will be limited to three miles an hour unless the rider sees a bailiff who does not appear to have had a drink in thirty days, then the horseman will be permitted to make what he can."    Figure out this 1913 Massachusetts law: "Whosoever rides a horse on any public way-laid out under authority or law recklessly or while under the influence of liquor shall be punished; thereby imposing upon the horseman the duty of finding out at his peril whether certain roads had been laid out recklessly or while under the influence of liquor before riding over them."    Male horse buffs in Basalt, Nevada, are prohibited from eating onions between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. while out riding.   Law specifies only men! Ice cream lovers beware in Cotton Valley, Louisiana. Citizens aren't allowed to eat an ice cream cone while on horseback in public places.    An antiquated city ordinance in Quartzite, Arizona, prohibits anyone from playing cards with a pregnant woman, a child, or an Indian, "lest they acquire a taste for gambling!"   In McAlester, Oklahoma, it's taboo for a woman over 235 pounds and attired in shorts to be seen on a horse in any public place.    It's illegal in Marion, South Carolina, to tickle a female under her chin with a feather duster to get her attention while she's riding a horse!    It's a violation of the law for a married man to ride on Sunday in Wakefield, Rhode Island. Married women aren't mentioned, so it must be okay for them.    A newly married man in Kearney, Nebraska, can't ride alone. The law states that he "can't ride without his spouse along at any time, unless he's been married for more than twelve months."   It is strictly against the law in Bicknell, Indiana, for a man to leave his new bride alone and go riding with his pals on his wedding day. The penalty is a week in jail.    In Bismark, North Dakota, every home within the limits of Bismark must have a hitching post in the front yard.    Budds Creek, Maryland, has an antique law which prohibits horses from sleeping in a bathtub, unless the rider is also sleeping with the horse.    In Headland, Alabama: "Any man on horseback shall not tempt another man's wife. An unmarried horseman should not stop overnight when the woman is alone."    Bluff, Utah's legislation regarding the Sabbath: Women who happen to be single, widowed or divorced are banned from riding to church on Sunday. Unattached females who take part in such outlandish activities can be arrested and put in jail.    Citizens are prohibited from buying, selling or trading horses "after the sun goes down" in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania, without first getting permission from the sheriff.    In Schurz, Nevada, they have an old law which prohibits the trading of a horse after dark.    In Pee Wee, West Virginia, people are prohibited from swapping horses in the town square at noon!    A unique law in Pine Ridge, South Dakota where horses are banned from neighing between midnight and 6 a.m. near a "residence inhabited by human beings."    And in Pocataligo, Georgia, horses aren't allowed to be heard neighing after 10 p.m.   Paradise, California, retains a most unusual law that says it is illegal to let a horse sleep in a bakery within the limits of the community. What about goats, cows, etc.?? Only horses are mentioned.   In Sutherland, Iowa, a law governs how horses may be seen when on the streets during evening hours. The animal must always have a light attached to its tail and a horn of some sort on its head.   No rodeos in this town! No man is allowed to ride his horse "in a violent manner" if he happens to be in Boone, North Carolina.   Female riders in Clearbrook, Minnesota, be aware of this one governing the heel length of a horsewoman's shoes. Any such woman can wear heels measuring no more than 1-1/2 inches in length.    A loony clothing ordinance in Upperville, Virginia, bans a married woman from riding a horse down a street while wearing "body hugging clothing." A $2 fine can be imposed on any female rider who wears "clothing that clings to her body."   An attorney can be barred from practicing law in Corvallis, Oregon, should he refuse to accept a horse in lieu of his legal fees.    Trying to find a wife? Watch out in Tranquility, New Jersey that you don't violate this law. The law states that a person can't distribute handbills while on horseback as a means of advertising for a wife.   It is against the law in California for horses to mate in public within five hundred yards of any church, school or tavern! The penalty can be a $500 fine and six months in jail. This law isn't clear as to whether the horse or the owner is fined and jailed.    McAllen, Texas, has outlawed citizens from taking pictures of horses on the Sabbath. Any person who "disturbs" or "otherwise antagonizes a horse" in this manner will be subject to a fine of at least $1.50 and can be jailed for as much as "three full days and nights."   In Burdoville, Vermont, it states that "no horses are allowed to roam loose between March 1 and October 20!    In case you have an accident in Hortonville, New York, here's their antique law: "The rider of any horse involved in an accident resulting in death shall immediately dismount and give his name and address to the person killed.    Watch out in Rhinelander, Wisconsin if you are riding a horse while intoxicated! An old ordinance takes care of the problem. Such a horseman, per the law, must be given a "large dose of castor oil." Who doles out the penalty? The horseman's wife! Refusal to take the castor oil results in a fine!   In comparison to the above, I'd say our current laws regarding when/where/how/by whom motor vehicles can be operated on public roadways are pretty ligical and unobtrusive (not to mention, pretty necessary for the good of society at large)...maybe I'm wrong but I also doubt that our ancestors who lived when horses were the primary means of transportation and who had to live under some of these laws ever argued that these laws were an unconstitutional infringement on their right to travel.   And if you are referring to DUI checkpoints, no one is being stopped illegally.  The supreme court has said, and I agree, that they are constitutional if done under the guidelines they set forth. In any case, I would suggest that for anyone who is upset that we have DUI checkpoints; their anger and frustration should be directed, not at the checkpoints, but rather, at their friends, family, acquaintances who chose to drive under the infulance. We have DUI checkpoints for one simple reason; the irresponsibility of those who chose to get behind the wheel of a car and drive while drunk. DUI checkpoints are a respons to that irresponsibility.