TexasCHLforum.com

bdickens wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Time to write the legislative representatives again.

“The security at airports has increased so the bad guys are now traveling on the trains and buses,” said Robinson.

Since when is TSA's job to catch "bad guys"?

TSA doesn't want to catch the bad guys. TSA wants to cavity search them.

Anygunanywhere

Wrong.

They want to cavity search 90-year-old grandmothers and 12-year-old girls in wheelchairs while giving the bad guys a pass.

Right. We (including 90-year-old grandmothers and 12-year-old girls in wheelchairs) are the bad guys.

Anygunanywhere

anygunanywhere wrote:

bdickens wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Time to write the legislative representatives again.

“The security at airports has increased so the bad guys are now traveling on the trains and buses,” said Robinson.

Since when is TSA's job to catch "bad guys"?

TSA doesn't want to catch the bad guys. TSA wants to cavity search them.

Anygunanywhere

Wrong.

They want to cavity search 90-year-old grandmothers and 12-year-old girls in wheelchairs while giving the bad guys a pass.

Right. We (including 90-year-old grandmothers and 12-year-old girls in wheelchairs) are the bad guys.

Anygunanywhere

Oh....

philip964 wrote:Since we are talking about Amtrak, I will relate a story of an acquaintance.

Single, and a train nut. Retired from a big oil company and bought a one month rail pass and decided to see America by him self.

Got on the Amtrak in Houston headed East. The Train stopped in New Orleans for an hour layover. Got off the train and started photographing the train, the engine, etc. Amtrak employee asked him what he was doing. Kinda pestered him with questions until an Amtrak security officer arrived. Who continued to pester him with questions. Until the New Orleans police arrived where he was arrested and put in a "heck hole" of a jail in downtown New Orleans.

Got out just in time before Katrina hit. Ended up providing his home in Houston for the attorneys who got him out of jail.

Never heard how his criminal or civil case worked out. But he didn't end up seeing America on Amtrak.

So you don't have to be carrying a gun to have problems with Amtrak, a camera is enough.

Yep, surveillance is the NSA's job

philip964 wrote:Since we are talking about Amtrak, I will relate a story of an acquaintance.

Story snipped..
You're speaking of James Bourgeois:
But the bottom line is that he wasn't arrested for taking photos. He was arrested for trespassing... Of course, the area that he was trespassing in wasn't posted from the terminal where he got off.

Mr. Bourgeois was warned that he was trespassing and then arrested when he suggested that Amtrak was publically funded.

Sounds like a POP arrest to me, but the fact is that he was arrested for trespassing, not taking photos. The only thing I can see in dispute was if the PD can arrest in an area that isn't properly posted.

It's no different than getting arrested in an area like a mall, where the front entrance has 30.06 signs and you choose to come in one of the side entrances.

Amtrak has arrested people in NY for similar (harmless) activities...

Still, as a pilot,I'll take Amtrak over the TSA any day.

bdickens wrote:
Oh....

Sorry. I should have been more clear.



Anygunanywhere

cb1000rider wrote:

philip964 wrote:Since we are talking about Amtrak, I will relate a story of an acquaintance.

Story snipped..
You're speaking of James Bourgeois:
But the bottom line is that he wasn't arrested for taking photos. He was arrested for trespassing... Of course, the area that he was trespassing in wasn't posted from the terminal where he got off.

Mr. Bourgeois was warned that he was trespassing and then arrested when he suggested that Amtrak was publically funded.

Sounds like a POP arrest to me, but the fact is that he was arrested for trespassing, not taking photos. The only thing I can see in dispute was if the PD can arrest in an area that isn't properly posted.

It's no different than getting arrested in an area like a mall, where the front entrance has 30.06 signs and you choose to come in one of the side entrances.

Amtrak has arrested people in NY for similar (harmless) activities...

Still, as a pilot,I'll take Amtrak over the TSA any day.

Small world. Didn't know about any trespassing or any warnings. I may have received a sanitized version from his best friend.

Wow everything is on line now, here is a link to his story. http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=164112" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Not a retiree from oil but pharma.

philip964 wrote: Small world. Didn't know about any trespassing or any warnings. I may have received a sanitized version from his best friend.

Phil,
I don't know him. I just know that law enforcement doesn't usually arrest people for doing things that are legal. When they do stuff like that, they arrest for something that is on the books and sprinkle a little made up charge in there verbally... I took the time to look it up. I couldn't find the outcome of his charge.. My guess was that it was a wash. The PD was within their rights to legally arrest him, but there is no way he could have known from entry to the area that it was posted. He simply irritated someone in authority off.

Of course, pre-Hurricane New Orleans law enforcement has a sterling reputation, right?


Reminds me of the guy from Temple that got arrested for "rudely displaying" an AR-15. Yea, that's what they actually told me him was being stopped, detained, and eventually arrested for. At the station, the charges change..

cb1000rider wrote:

philip964 wrote:Since we are talking about Amtrak, I will relate a story of an acquaintance.

Story snipped..
You're speaking of James Bourgeois:
But the bottom line is that he wasn't arrested for taking photos. He was arrested for trespassing... Of course, the area that he was trespassing in wasn't posted from the terminal where he got off.

Mr. Bourgeois was warned that he was trespassing and then arrested when he suggested that Amtrak was publically funded.

Sounds like a POP arrest to me, but the fact is that he was arrested for trespassing, not taking photos. The only thing I can see in dispute was if the PD can arrest in an area that isn't properly posted.

It's no different than getting arrested in an area like a mall, where the front entrance has 30.06 signs and you choose to come in one of the side entrances.

Amtrak has arrested people in NY for similar (harmless) activities...


Still, as a pilot,I'll take Amtrak over the TSA any day.

Except Amtrak policy explicitly allows photography: http://www.amtrak.com/photography-video ... ing-policy

The taking of photographs and/or videos is permitted within public access areas on Amtrak property and as otherwise stated in Section III.

Public Area. An area open to general public access and occupancy (station areas and platforms for ticketed passengers only) that is not otherwise posted or restricted by posted signs or locking devices. Signage, building design and physical barriers, i.e. fencing, bollards, etc., may also distinguish a public area from a restricted area.

Section III

Ticketed Passengers on platforms may photograph or video record during the time they are preparing to board or immediately after alighting from a train. Equipment is limited to hand-held devices. Such photography, including equipment set-up will be done in a reasonable, safe and timely manner.

Ticketed passengers on board trains may take photos or video record on a train when it does not interfere with passengers or crew and in accordance with any directions given by Amtrak onboard train personnel.

The article cited above says he was on the platform, which, since he was a ticketed passenger, is explicitly allowed. I think the chances of being bullied by a cop rise in proportion to how far away he is from being a real cop, and I suspect the Amtrak cops don't feel like they're real cops.

More than one Supreme Court decision has held that individuals explicitly have the right to photograph anything they can see from public property they have the right to be on.

If I am standing on the sidewalk and you have no curtains on your giant picture window, I can take all the pictures I want of what's going on in your living room and you have no legal recourse.

One time, my wife and I were walking around downtown Houston taking pictures and some rent-a-cop came out of one of the buildings trying to keep us from taking pictures of it. I pretty much told him to go pound sand.

bdickens wrote:More than one Supreme Court decision has held that individuals explicitly have the right to photograph anything they can see from public property they have the right to be on.

If I am standing on the sidewalk and you have no curtains on your giant picture window, I can take all the pictures I want of what's going on in your living room and you have no legal recourse.

One time, my wife and I were walking around downtown Houston taking pictures and some rent-a-cop came out of one of the buildings trying to keep us from taking pictures of it. I pretty much told him to go pound sand.

Yes, but if you're taking that pic through the window with a telephoto lens, it may not be so clear cut. Once, seeing my son off, I spent some time waiting for the plane taking photos and videos inside the Austin airport --including photos of the TSA station and TSA personnel. No one said a word. Then, when leaving, I stopped to take a photo outside where cabs were depositing people, and got hassled by a rent-a-cop who acted like I was a potential "terrorist." I asked her, are you telling me I'm doing something illegal? She said no. I asked her if she wanted to look through the photos and she said no. So, it had nothing to do with security or the law, it was just another small minded person who felt powerful because she was wearing a uniform that said "security" on it.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-yo ... tographers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


http://content.photojojo.com/tips/legal ... ographers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://everydayaperture.com/law/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Andrew wrote:

Abraham wrote:CHL and armed on a train in Texas = Yes? / No?

Very much a no. It took an act of congress for Amtrak to allow checked weapons. Here's the policy http://www.amtrak.com/firearms-in-checked-baggage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it's actually worse than dealing with the airlines. You have to notify 24 hours in advance. If any leg of your itinerary doesn't include coaches the have secured checked bagage compartments, that nixes the whole trip.
The Texas Eagle (San Antonio to Chicago) always has superliners for secured checked baggage, as does the Capitol Express (Chicago to Washinton D.C.). If the D.C. rally does get organized I'll be taking the train. $450.00 round trip. Lounge car, Dining car, Restrooms, comfy seats, beats 3000 miles in a car. just sayin

Yes, because Chicago and / or D.C are two of the places I want to be my final destination when I am carrying a gun.....

VMI77 wrote: Yes, but if you're taking that pic through the window with a telephoto lens, it may not be so clear cut. Once, seeing my son off, I spent some time waiting for the plane taking photos and videos inside the Austin airport --including photos of the TSA station and TSA personnel. No one said a word. Then, when leaving, I stopped to take a photo outside where cabs were depositing people, and got hassled by a rent-a-cop who acted like I was a potential "terrorist." I asked her, are you telling me I'm doing something illegal? She said no. I asked her if she wanted to look through the photos and she said no. So, it had nothing to do with security or the law, it was just another small minded person who felt powerful because she was wearing a uniform that said "security" on it.

It also has to do with our state of mind as a nation. She could have easily escalated her suspicions and you would have found yourself in handcuffs detained for quite a while... In the event that such happened, you did nothing wrong, she did nothing wrong, but the constitution gets steam-rolled.

To me it's not much different than the days of the "red scare" where being called a communist would get you in lots of trouble.

I have a friend. He's a software guy and a US citizen. English is his 2nd language, although he was born here. He's a brown man. He's big into guns and 2nd amendment rights. Lots of ARs and "assault" looking weapons. One day coming back from the gun range I teased him that it wouldn't be very pleasant for him (in the current state of the world) if he was stopped due to being reported as suspicious... I wouldn't do that to him, but I bet that he'd be in for one heck of a ride with a trunkful of AR-15s, even if he could prove he was coming from the range... It's just the nature of our society these days to label anything we don't like with "terrorist" and use that word to trample on basic rights.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Yes, but if you're taking that pic through the window with a telephoto lens, it may not be so clear cut. Once, seeing my son off, I spent some time waiting for the plane taking photos and videos inside the Austin airport --including photos of the TSA station and TSA personnel. No one said a word. Then, when leaving, I stopped to take a photo outside where cabs were depositing people, and got hassled by a rent-a-cop who acted like I was a potential "terrorist." I asked her, are you telling me I'm doing something illegal? She said no. I asked her if she wanted to look through the photos and she said no. So, it had nothing to do with security or the law, it was just another small minded person who felt powerful because she was wearing a uniform that said "security" on it.

It also has to do with our state of mind as a nation. She could have easily escalated her suspicions and you would have found yourself in handcuffs detained for quite a while... In the event that such happened, you did nothing wrong, she did nothing wrong, but the constitution gets steam-rolled.

To me it's not much different than the days of the "red scare" where being called a communist would get you in lots of trouble.

I have a friend. He's a software guy and a US citizen. English is his 2nd language, although he was born here. He's a brown man. He's big into guns and 2nd amendment rights. Lots of ARs and "assault" looking weapons. One day coming back from the gun range I teased him that it wouldn't be very pleasant for him (in the current state of the world) if he was stopped due to being reported as suspicious... I wouldn't do that to him, but I bet that he'd be in for one heck of a ride with a trunkful of AR-15s, even if he could prove he was coming from the range... It's just the nature of our society these days to label anything we don't like with "terrorist" and use that word to trample on basic rights.

It was getting there, because when she said no to both questions and continued to hassle me, I started to get angry, and defiant. Ultimately I just walked away and that ended it. And yeah, he'd have a worse time, but any of us might well have a hard time today. When I was in HS me and a friend of mine used to drive around back roads with a car full of guns, stopping, and shooting at things off old back roads. In particular, there was an old shot up car body off a back road where we liked to go shoot. In those days it wasn't a problem, now, we'd probably be in jail and in the news. It's getting hard on an old man because I'm not used to being obedient, and when I was younger the police didn't demand obedience if you weren't a criminal.

VMI77 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Yes, but if you're taking that pic through the window with a telephoto lens, it may not be so clear cut. Once, seeing my son off, I spent some time waiting for the plane taking photos and videos inside the Austin airport --including photos of the TSA station and TSA personnel. No one said a word. Then, when leaving, I stopped to take a photo outside where cabs were depositing people, and got hassled by a rent-a-cop who acted like I was a potential "terrorist." I asked her, are you telling me I'm doing something illegal? She said no. I asked her if she wanted to look through the photos and she said no. So, it had nothing to do with security or the law, it was just another small minded person who felt powerful because she was wearing a uniform that said "security" on it.

It also has to do with our state of mind as a nation. She could have easily escalated her suspicions and you would have found yourself in handcuffs detained for quite a while... In the event that such happened, you did nothing wrong, she did nothing wrong, but the constitution gets steam-rolled.

To me it's not much different than the days of the "red scare" where being called a communist would get you in lots of trouble.

I have a friend. He's a software guy and a US citizen. English is his 2nd language, although he was born here. He's a brown man. He's big into guns and 2nd amendment rights. Lots of ARs and "assault" looking weapons. One day coming back from the gun range I teased him that it wouldn't be very pleasant for him (in the current state of the world) if he was stopped due to being reported as suspicious... I wouldn't do that to him, but I bet that he'd be in for one heck of a ride with a trunkful of AR-15s, even if he could prove he was coming from the range... It's just the nature of our society these days to label anything we don't like with "terrorist" and use that word to trample on basic rights.

It was getting there, because when she said no to both questions and continued to hassle me, I started to get angry, and defiant. Ultimately I just walked away and that ended it. And yeah, he'd have a worse time, but any of us might well have a hard time today. When I was in HS me and a friend of mine used to drive around back roads with a car full of guns, stopping, and shooting at things off old back roads. In particular, there was an old shot up car body off a back road where we liked to go shoot. In those days it wasn't a problem, now, we'd probably be in jail and in the news. It's getting hard on an old man because I'm not used to being obedient, and when I was younger the police didn't demand obedience if you weren't a criminal.

What has changed is the definition of a criminal. Not in the law books or the statutes that were passed by the Legilslatures but in the practices that happen on the street. Things that are supposed to be enforced are not because there is "discretion." A lot of the stuff that is enforced is done in the name of "safety." If you are a safety risk (in someone's mind), you are a criminal. People who think for themselves are definitely safety risks.