TX-30 people in Austin held down by cops and having their blood taken.

[Anti Federalist]

Freedom.

Now, using the same logic as this, all those cops had to do in Houston, before vaginally probing and anal probing those women on the side of the road, was get a rubber stamp warrant.

Rubber stamp warrants, or writs, were one of the primary reasons for rebellion in Boston in 1775.

But those were men then.

Now, we have:

http://images.smh.com.au/2013/04/20/4207656/art-boston-thanks-620x349.jpg



APD: 58 No-Refusal Arrests So Far

http://austin.twcnews.com/content/news/299409/apd--58-no-refusal-arrests-so-far

Austin police arrested 30 people for drunken driving Saturday as part of their no-refusal initiative for Memorial Day weekend, bringing the total number of no-refusal arrests so far to 58.

No-refusal means police can instantly get a warrant for a blood draw for any drivers or boaters who refuse a breathalyzer test. Of the 30 people arrested Saturday, 10 provided breath tests and 20 had their blood drawn.

The no-refusal initiative kicked off Friday night and runs through 5 a.m. Tuesday in Central Texas.

Local law enforcement officials are reminding people to plan ahead and set up a safe ride home before they start drinking.

[phill4paul]

If you want to create a law, similar to beathalyzer, in which a license can be suspended for refusal that is one thing. If you want to forcibly take my blood that is quite another and it is not gonna end well for either myself or those involved in trying to take it.

[DamianTV]

No Refusal = No Rights

[Warlord]

THANK YOU POLICE

[Anti Federalist]

Not intentionally malevolent

[coastie]

...and of those, how many were with an illegal alcohol limit???

The article makes no mention of it, so I'm forced to believe the data didn't support a mention, lest the mundanes start getting all uppity and asking questions.

[Henry Rogue]

The R-statists in texas love their big government as much as the D-statists in new york. As long as they are the statist in control, they will be happy to unleash their enforcers on you.

[Carlybee]

No refusal is now 24/7 in Houston.

[euphemia]

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a constitutional right to drive. Or drink and drive. Freedom to travel around, sure. But not a freedom to drive yourself there and back.

The state has determined that it defines the right to drive. Accepting a license to drive means an agreement to operate a motor vehicle within the structure established by law.

[Keith and stuff]

I thought this was a Tennessee thing? Texas too? :(

No Refusal Part of Summer Tennessee Highway Patrol Enforcement
http://wgnsradio.com/no-refusal-part-of-summer-thp-enforcement-cms-20224


(NASHVILLE) -- Department of Safety and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons and Tennessee Highway Patrol Colonel Tracy Trott announce plans to help reduce the number of serious injury and fatal crashes during Memorial Day weekend and throughout the summer months. The strategy is part of the THP’s “Drive to Zero” fatalities campaign.

State Troopers plan to increase patrols and utilize a variety of traffic safety enforcement tools, specifically, “No Refusal” enforcement. The first is occurring during this holiday weekend. The “No Refusal” enforcement will be conducted in one county in each of the eight THP Districts across the state during the Memorial Day period. “No Refusal” allow law enforcement officials to seek search warrants for blood samples in cases involving suspected impaired drivers. Participating counties include Rutherford.

Throughout the summer, the THP will conduct seat belt, sobriety and driver’s license checkpoints statewide and use saturation patrols in an effort to reduce serious injury and fatal crashes in the state.

[coastie]

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a constitutional right to drive.Or drink and drive..

What are you apologizing for, and who was arguing for that?

Even if the Constitution "grants" rights, as you clearly believe, does that make this behavior ok for you?


Freedom to travel around, sure. But not a freedom to drive yourself there and back. .

That doesn't even make sense.:confused:


I guess you're also fine with getting the fingered in the ass and vagina on the side of the road treatment, just because they say they smell pot?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4xmsFBKHEg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8X6R3PZ0GY

No drugs were ever found in either video. But, that's ok, right? I mean, after, all -


The state has determined that it defines the right to drive. Accepting a license to drive means an agreement to operate a motor vehicle within the structure established by law.

http://i57.tinypic.com/23qyrg7.jpg

[Cleaner44]

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a constitutional right to drive. Or drink and drive. Freedom to travel around, sure. But not a freedom to drive yourself there and back.

The state has determined that it defines the right to drive. Accepting a license to drive means an agreement to operate a motor vehicle within the structure established by law.

You seem to not even know the difference between rights and privileges.

Do you realize that the Constitution doesn't grant rights, but simply guarantees that our rights are to be protected?

Have you ever educated yourself on the subject of rights?

[Anti Federalist]

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a constitutional right to drive. Or drink and drive. Freedom to travel around, sure. But not a freedom to drive yourself there and back.

The state has determined that it defines the right to drive. Accepting a license to drive means an agreement to operate a motor vehicle within the structure established by law.

So you're OK with this?

http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NoRefusalBloodDraw.png

[Czolgosz]

Parrot.

[DamianTV]

No refusal is now 24/7 in Houston.

Coming soon: EVERYWHERE.

Probably put a mandatory breathalyzer in your car, at your expense eventually. Already considered in the Euro Zone. So if you have a sober passenger...

[Root]

Bootlicker gonna lick some boots :(

[tod evans]

Think of all the children these brave heroes saved........:rolleyes:

[Occam's Banana]

Bootlicker gonna lick some boots :(

Let's strap 'em down and check their BBC (Blood Boot-polish Content) levels ... (prolly off the charts ...)

[oyarde]

The R-statists in texas love their big government as much as the D-statists in new york. As long as they are the statist in control, they will be happy to unleash their enforcers on you.

Austin is probably the strangest city in Texas , but I do not know that there are any Pubs there .

[euphemia]

No, I'm just saying that I don't understand all the hostility. There is no guaranteed right to drive. There is also no guaranteed right to drink and drive. When you agree to hold a license to drive, you agree to drive under a defined set of circumstances. If you agree to it, then you don't get to complain about it.

I don't like the violation of personal liberties, no. But I have never run into a situation (except airport security and security cameras around) where I felt there was an aggressive assault on my constitutional freedoms. At the same time, I understand why certain laws are in place. I can think of one man who needed his constitutional liberties challenged at least once, because he illegally purchased two pitchers of beer, drank them, then got into the car and killed my sister in-law's niece, her boyfriend, and his mom. Their consitutional right to life was taken away because a 19yo jerk broke the law.

Self-government means self-control. If people do not restrain themselves and they create a public menace or nuisance, then law enforcement must restrain them. Volunteering for breath or blood tests runs a little close to self-incrimnation, but I think the public behavior created probable cause. I am fed up with having to deal with the consequences of other people's choices. We share this space. My right to security in my person, papers, and property is threatened when I am confronted with the behavior of people who choose not to govern themselves.

[LibertyEagle]

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a constitutional right to drive. Or drink and drive. Freedom to travel around, sure. But not a freedom to drive yourself there and back.

Wait a second though. The Constitution doesn't limit our rights; it limits what the government can do. You seem to be making the mistake of believing that the only rights we have are listed in the Bill of Rights. That is not true at all. To be sure that it was not misunderstood, they wrote the 9th Amendment.

9th Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


The state has determined that it defines the right to drive. Accepting a license to drive means an agreement to operate a motor vehicle within the structure established by law.

The state has no right to "define" something, unless it is an enumerated power in the Constitution.

[euphemia]

The several states are not covered by the constitution. They have their own state constitutions or charters. Each of the several states issues a driver's license under the tenth amendment. The state determines what goes on the license and the conditions under which a license may be granted.

[LibertyEagle]

No, I'm just saying that I don't understand all the hostility. There is no guaranteed right to drive.
You're wrong, here. See my earlier post.


There is also no guaranteed right to drink and drive. When you agree to hold a license to drive, you agree to drive under a defined set of circumstances. If you agree to it, then you don't get to complain about it.

If you harm someone because of your driving, yes, you should be held accountable. But how does this make it ok for the government to forcibly take your blood when you have not? If you think this is ok, what's next? Think long and hard about it.


I don't like the violation of personal liberties, no. But I have never run into a situation (except airport security and security cameras around) where I felt there was an aggressive assault on my constitutional freedoms. At the same time, I understand why certain laws are in place. I can think of one man who needed his constitutional liberties challenged at least once, because he illegally purchased two pitchers of beer, drank them, then got into the car and killed my sister in-law's niece, her boyfriend, and his mom. Their consitutional right to life was taken away because a 19yo jerk broke the law.

So sorry for your loss. That's horrible and the person responsible hopefully was held accountable.


Self-government means self-control. If people do not restrain themselves and they create a public menace or nuisance, then law enforcement must restrain them. Volunteering for breath or blood tests runs a little close to self-incrimnation, but I think the public behavior created probable cause. I am fed up with having to deal with the consequences of other people's choices. We share this space. My right to security in my person, papers, and property is threatened when I am confronted with the behavior of people who choose not to govern themselves.

I agree absolutely that people should be held accountable for their actions in limiting/removing someone else's liberty. However, isn't the same true with the government? Why should they not be held to the same standard? Why is it alright for them to stomp all over an American's liberty by accusing them of some pre-crime and forcibly taking their blood? These aren't individual warrants they are getting like the old days, where they had to show probable cause to a judge and get a warrant. These are blanket warrants, allowing the police to take anyone's blood that they want to. I don't see how this is constitutional in the remotest sense. If we allow this, what's next?

[LibertyEagle]

The several states are not covered by the constitution.
What several states aren't covered by the Constitution?


They have their own state constitutions or charters. Each of the several states issues a driver's license under the tenth amendment. The state determines what goes on the license and the conditions under which a license may be granted.

The 4th Amendment still applies.

4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

[LibertyEagle]

You know, when they first started this crap in Austin, I called my state rep about it. He agreed that it wasn't constitutional. However, he muttered that the Texas state supreme court ruled that it was ok to do if they published when and where the stops would be, so that people could avoid them if they chose. I remember saying something like... oh, so it's ok in your estimation if the Constitution is not adhered to, as long as you announce when and where you are going to do it. It is very dangerous that we have allowed this to stand. It is a precedent that will be built onto.

[kathy88]

Emotional arguments are emotional.

[Carlybee]

It's not illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to drive with a bac of .008 and above. If you refuse the breath test they will arrest you and say you had a .008 then take you down for a blood draw..even though in Houston for example, it takes weeks to months to get the blood analysis back so you are presumed guilty during that time with absolutely no proof of bac.

[phill4paul]

Try to take my blood then you are going to give blood yourself. I will never submit to being strapped to a gurney. Ever. It's a fear of mine. To submit myself like these people...I would rather kill those that would chose to put me in that position. And those that came after for killing those that chose to put me in that position. I honestly DO NOT have a manifesto. Just leave me the fuck alone. Is that too much to ask?

[RJB]

Yeah. I'd be comfortable with those no-necked skinheads doing medical procedures on me. For the children of course.


So you're OK with this?

http://www.policestateusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/NoRefusalBloodDraw.png

[kcchiefs6465]

It's not illegal to drink and drive. It's illegal to drive with a bac of .008 and above. If you refuse the breath test they will arrest you and say you had a .008 then take you down for a blood draw..even though in Houston for example, it takes weeks to months to get the blood analysis back so you are presumed guilty during that time with absolutely no proof of bac.
Now I'm no Constitutional Law Professor, but it would appear to me that this is a violation of the Fifth Amendment.

And the procedure itself is a violation of the Fourth. No matter what some kangaroo, rubber stampers say.

[Weston White]

At any rate the BAC limit is ridiculous, it is basically the equivalent of driving with a light buzz; if that be the case driving with a migraine, the flu, or after working a long shift should also be made criminal.

The truth is that people who are too drunk to drive do not need checkpoints to catch them, their unsteady driving is readily apparent, e.g., stopping at a green light, driving 20MPH under the speed limit, swerving between lanes, driving without lights or in the wrong lane of travel, etc.

Besides checkpoints are consistently proven to be poor mechanisms for catching DWI/DUI drivers—the true purpose for having them is to devise a temporary “cherry patch” to generate much needed revenue to pay for all of those $80K++ a year salaries. Ticketing left and right for unlicensed/uninsured drivers, expired registration, darkly tinted or cracked windows, broken light bulbs, seat belt violators, loud exhausts, missing plates, catch criminal absconders, tow and impound fees, etc.

The BAC level seriously needs to be reevaluated and then at the very least legally doubled in its limit.

[kcchiefs6465]

At any rate the BAC limit is ridiculous, it is basically the equivalent of driving with a light buzz; if that be the case driving with a migraine, the flu, or after working a long shift should also be made criminal.

The truth is that people who are too drunk to drive do not need checkpoints to catch them, their unsteady driving is readily apparent, e.g., stopping at a green light, driving 20MPH under the speed limit, swerving between lanes, driving without lights or in the wrong lane of travel, etc.

Besides checkpoints are consistently proven to be poor mechanisms for catching DWI/DUI drivers—the true purpose for having them is to devise a temporary “cherry patch” to generate much needed revenue to pay for all of those $80K++ a year salaries. Ticketing left and right for unlicensed/uninsured drivers, expired registration, darkly tinted or cracked windows, broken light bulbs, seat belt violators, loud exhausts, missing plates, catch criminal absconders, tow and impound fees, etc.

The BAC level seriously needs to be reevaluated and then at the very least legally doubled in its limit.
It's funny, I've never seen so many people slam on their brakes until a fascist is most buried, radaring from a sand 'dune.'

How unsafe is that?

Their tactics promote an unsafe driving atmosphere. They are hardly concerned with safety. Quotas being a large push, revenue being another, safety coming third.... they break the law more than anyone I've ever seen. No headlights when it's dark, speeding, no turn signals, the countless other reckless things they do.

[devil21]

No, I'm just saying that I don't understand all the hostility. There is no guaranteed right to drive. There is also no guaranteed right to drink and drive. When you agree to hold a license to drive, you agree to drive under a defined set of circumstances. If you agree to it, then you don't get to complain about it.

I agree with most of this but for different reasons than what you probably do. Signing up for the state's "services" do bind one to certain rules that they could avoid otherwise. However, DUI laws have been extended to the point where you don't have to be driving a car to end up with a needle in your arm, jammed in by some guy that looks like Herc from The Wire. Surely you've seen the reports of horse DUIs, bicycle DUIs and others. Your whole argument goes out the window then.



I don't like the violation of personal liberties, no. But I have never run into a situation (except airport security and security cameras around) where I felt there was an aggressive assault on my constitutional freedoms. At the same time, I understand why certain laws are in place. I can think of one man who needed his constitutional liberties challenged at least once, because he illegally purchased two pitchers of beer, drank them, then got into the car and killed my sister in-law's niece, her boyfriend, and his mom. Their consitutional right to life was taken away because a 19yo jerk broke the law.

I would rather attend to the inconveniences of too much liberty than too little of it. Paraphrasing Jefferson. Do rights only matter until someone else's rights upset you or violate your rights?



Self-government means self-control. If people do not restrain themselves and they create a public menace or nuisance, then law enforcement must restrain them. Volunteering for breath or blood tests runs a little close to self-incrimnation, but I think the public behavior created probable cause. I am fed up with having to deal with the consequences of other people's choices. We share this space. My right to security in my person, papers, and property is threatened when I am confronted with the behavior of people who choose not to govern themselves.

And there it is...^^^^^^ When I typed TJ's paraphrase I hadn't even read that paragraph yet.

People that behave irresponsibly tend to take themselves off the planet and avoid polluting the gene pool further. No, they shouldn't be protected from themselves. Yes, they will take other people with them sometimes. Nature had this figured out long ago. It's unfortunate but restraining everyone's freedom in the name of protecting "potential" victims is essentially prosecuting thought crime, not actual criminal actions that have harmed someone. I assume the drunk that harmed your family was punished accordingly for his actions, yes?



The several states are not covered by the constitution. They have their own state constitutions or charters. Each of the several states issues a driver's license under the tenth amendment. The state determines what goes on the license and the conditions under which a license may be granted.

You should read up on the legal term "incorporation" in the context of rights, if you think state constitutions override US Constitutional rights.

[Danke]

No, I'm just saying that I don't understand all the hostility. There is no guaranteed right to drive.

You are confused.


Yes if you look up the statues, there is no guarantee to "drive." as "drive" is a legally defined term. But there is the right to travel in one's own conveyance. That means anything, car, plane, boat, etc.

If you are not involved in interstate commerce, you do not need a license.

[oyarde]

You are confused.


Yes if you look up the statues, there is no guarantee to "drive." as "drive" is a legally defined term. But there is the right to travel in one's own conveyance. That means anything, car, plane, boat, etc.

If you are not involved in interstate commerce, you do not need a license.

I do not need one , but I think I have one . I would let you fly me anytime , even if your license is expired .