Texas Proposes ‘Anti-Groping’ Law Against TSA, Feds Threaten To Ground All Flights

Texas has been the first state to propose a bill that will disallow TSA agents from groping passengers. The federal government stated that if the state were to approve such a bill, the TSA would be forced to ground all flights. Makes me think of something Thomas Jefferson stated, “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” Via The Raw Story:

A bill that would criminalize TSA agents who conduct airport patdown searches was scuttled Tuesday night after the federal government threatened to ground all flights out of Texas.

The proposed law would have levied misdemeanor charges against security agents who “intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly [touch] the anus, sexual organ, buttocks, or breast of the other person, including touching through clothing, or touching the other person in a manner that would be offensive to a reasonable person.”

An earlier version of House Bill 1937 would have made such action a felony. [Story continues]

Fox 7 reports:

34 Comments on "Texas Proposes ‘Anti-Groping’ Law Against TSA, Feds Threaten To Ground All Flights"

  1. Push it, push it, push it, push it!

  2. Push it, push it, push it, push it!

  3. Anonymous | May 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm |

    It’s a shame they backed down. Here’s hoping someone picks it back up again, either there or in another state. If they really grounded all flights in or out of an entire state, I guarantee you the industry would kick up a whole lot of dust, and since industry is the only thing the govt pays attention to anymore…

  4. It’s a shame they backed down. Here’s hoping someone picks it back up again, either there or in another state. If they really grounded all flights in or out of an entire state, I guarantee you the industry would kick up a whole lot of dust, and since industry is the only thing the govt pays attention to anymore…

    • That’s a good idea. If all the states, or at least a majority of them, enacted a law like this, I really don’t think they would ban flights all across the country.

  5. DeepCough | May 26, 2011 at 11:29 pm |

    Texas: it’s crazy, but in this case, it really does mean well.

  6. DeepCough | May 26, 2011 at 7:29 pm |

    Texas: it’s crazy, but in this case, it really does mean well.

  7. Perhaps the feds should RE-read what is written in my US passport and allow me to travel without a physical exam! 

  8. Perhaps the feds should RE-read what is written in my US passport and allow me to travel without a physical exam! 

  9. That’s a good idea. If all the states, or at least a majority of them, enacted a law like this, I really don’t think they would ban flights all across the country.

  10. Wigglebutts | May 27, 2011 at 5:38 am |

    Sounds like an embargo to me. Isn’t that an act of war or something else significant?

  11. Wigglebutts | May 27, 2011 at 1:38 am |

    Sounds like an embargo to me. Isn’t that an act of war or something else significant?

    • Interesting point, so I did some research:

      “An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and
      trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. Embargoes are
      considered strong diplomatic measures imposed in an effort, by the
      imposing country, to elicit a given national-interest result from the
      country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are similar to economic
      sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to
      be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.”    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo

      “A blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war material or
      communications from a particular area by force, either in part or
      totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions,
      which are legal barriers to trade, and is distinct from a siege in that
      a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather
      than a fortress or city. ”     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockades

      So, it appears they’re imposing an embargo. While not an act of war, it does seem as though the feds have recognized Texas as an independent country.

      • It’s not an embargo unless they also cut off trains and the highways and the harbors.

        Though your final point is amusing 😀

  12. Interesting point, so I did some research:

    “An embargo is the partial or complete prohibition of commerce and
    trade with a particular country, in order to isolate it. Embargoes are
    considered strong diplomatic measures imposed in an effort, by the
    imposing country, to elicit a given national-interest result from the
    country on which it is imposed. Embargoes are similar to economic
    sanctions and are generally considered legal barriers to trade, not to
    be confused with blockades, which are often considered to be acts of war.”    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embargo

    “A blockade is an effort to cut off food, supplies, war material or
    communications from a particular area by force, either in part or
    totally. A blockade should not be confused with an embargo or sanctions,
    which are legal barriers to trade, and is distinct from a siege in that
    a blockade is usually directed at an entire country or region, rather
    than a fortress or city. ”     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockades

    So, it appears they’re imposing an embargo. While not an act of war, it does seem as though the feds have recognized Texas as an independent country.

  13. Anonymous | May 27, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

    It’s not an embargo unless they also cut off trains and the highways and the harbors.

    Though your final point is amusing 😀

  14. That quote, i believe shouold be attibuted to Ben Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson

    “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    ben Franklin

    citation:

    This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost
    certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17,
    1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania
    Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

    An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard’s Almanack (1738): “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”
     from:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

  15. otherwise…point well taken 😉

  16. That quote, i believe shouold be attibuted to Ben Franklin, not Thomas Jefferson

    “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

    ben Franklin

    citation:

    This was written by Franklin, with quotation marks but almost
    certainly his original thought, sometime shortly before February 17,
    1775 as part of his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania
    Assembly, as published in Memoirs of the life and writings of Benjamin Franklin (1818). A variant of this was published as:
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

    An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard’s Almanack (1738): “Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power.”
     from:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

  17. Anonymous | May 27, 2011 at 4:17 pm |

    Ben Franklin actuall said that about freedoms not Thomas.

  18. Ben Franklin actuall said that about freedoms not Thomas.

  19. I would like to find out what part of the Federal Government actually said that. Be back later . . .

  20. I would like to find out what part of the Federal Government actually said that. Be back later . . .

  21. Wouldn’t laws already in place, whether state and federal, relevant to assault or harassment apply?

  22. Wouldn’t laws already in place, whether state and federal, relevant to assault or harassment apply?

    • You would think so, but according to the govt., by accepting the contract involved with buying a plane ticket, you have agreed to any and all of their security procedures. In order for it to be assault or harassment, you have to not give consent, by definition. Therefore, by legal definition, the contact with the TSA agent is “consensual”.

  23. Texas: it’s crazy… it really does mean well…

     

  24. Texas: it’s crazy… it really does mean well…

     

  25. Jmott0169 | May 30, 2011 at 12:13 am |

    TSA employees are just that..employees.  They have no control of what their job requires them to do just like a persons of a gender or skin color.  It is discrimination pure and simple.

  26. Jmott0169 | May 29, 2011 at 8:13 pm |

    TSA employees are just that..employees.  They have no control of what their job requires them to do just like a persons of a gender or skin color.  It is discrimination pure and simple.

    • Hadrian999 | May 29, 2011 at 10:21 pm |

      i seem to remember something in the 40’s shooting down that defense……what was it……..

  27. Hadrian999 | May 30, 2011 at 2:21 am |

    i seem to remember something in the 40’s shooting down that defense……what was it……..

  28. Anonymous | May 31, 2011 at 10:06 pm |

    You would think so, but according to the govt., by accepting the contract involved with buying a plane ticket, you have agreed to any and all of their security procedures. In order for it to be assault or harassment, you have to not give consent, by definition. Therefore, by legal definition, the contact with the TSA agent is “consensual”.

Comments are closed.