USCG Legal Search Question?

[goboatingnow]

In general the world has changed, good guys don't wear white hats and bad guys black hats. I tolerate these "visits" as I am confident that they reduce the odds of my grandchildren living through another large scale terrorist attack. Additionally, these "visits" help stem the tide of illegal aliens.

Looking in on this debate from outside, unfortunately , were it that simple.

The vast majority of "overt" security is for public consumption. calming the masses. This si because after every atrocity, there is a call "to do something". ( as if the authorities had been doing nothing).

As a general issue, The US position on boarding is similar to many other countries, Most countries do not afford you protection, that you receive in your tutelage, in a means of transport. In fact most laws specifically authorise random searches, specifically because it is a means of transport, i.e. it gives you an ability to flee. This is true for random road stops as it is for boats.

The issue of over zealous boardings is a somewhat other matter.

dave

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

hmmm, a lot of Cork men just got seriously pi$$ed off

Oops! You're right. My mistake. And my apologies to the men of Cork. My great-grandfather (born somewhere in Ireland, though I'm not certain where) is probably rolling over in his grave. The Royal Cork Yacht Club is located in Cork, Ireland.

Nonetheless, the point remains. It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that there was no such thing as a pleasure yacht at the time that the U.S. Constitution was being written.

[goboatingnow]

Nonetheless, the point remains. It is complete and utter nonsense to suggest that there was no such thing as a pleasure yacht at the time that the U.S. Constitution was being written.

The new york yacht club, mentioned 1801, I suspect yachting in the US in the late 1700s was an almost invisible activity and certainly not on any law makers "radar". Even in Europe , from whence it originated, it was a sport of the very privileged few.

dave

[carstenb]

I guess I'm just living a sheltered life. I've traveled all over the world, passed through I can't count how many customs/immigrations etc. I've been stopped by police (warranted I was going too fast etc), but I have only had one incidence of law enforcement being rude or overzealous. That was a US immigration officer in Washington DC who had her panties twisted the wrong way and had really bad attitude. No just to me, but to everyone. I heard her going at the person in front of me without reason.

I've found that if I'm polite, answer the questions asked adn produce the papers they've asked, law types are just as polite back again.

Regarding USCG right to stop and search: these laws were written to stop smugglers way back when - oh and they were also used to free americans who had been unlawfully impressed on board foreign warships (particualrly, if I remember correctly - british warships).

It's a fact of life - learn to live with it.

[goboatingnow]

Regarding USCG right to stop and search: these laws were written to stop smugglers way back when - oh and they were also used to free americans who had been unlawfully impressed on board foreign warships (particualrly, if I remember correctly - british warships).

The primary reason was to prevent smuggling , yes, I don't believe impressment had any bearing since the USCG, wasn't really able to do anything about it until into the early 19th century. Boarding RN vessels would have started the American British war all that sooner,!!

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

I suspect yachting in the US in the late 1700s was an almost invisible activity and certainly not on any law makers "radar".

I give our founding fathers more credit than you apparently do, for being aware of what was going on in the world around them. I suspect that it occurred to them that there might be the possibility of pleasure yachting in the United States some day.

But regardless of that, it is still complete and utter nonsense to say (as two posters have) that pleasure yachts did not exist at the time that the U.S. Constitution was being written. Clearly, they did exist, even if only in relatively small numbers.

[Blue Crab]

I loved Capt Snore's story (and Geo's too): Snore departs Miami at 0200 (that's like in the middle of the night for new folk) arrives near Bimini at 1300, does a 180 and heads back home!!!!!!!

A 100+ mile solo nonstop trip crossing the Gulfstream twice. People wait weeks to cross the Stream once.

That's real daysailing for ye! Good on you sir! Elliot Key is a challenge for many.

I bet the eye in the sky had a drone tailing you from the 180 on. You are lucky it was the USCG. Black helos and missiles wouldn't have surprised me at that point. I'm guessing you were not armed with even a Cuban cigar. You had to know they were coming. Good stuff!

[carstenb]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

The primary reason was to prevent smuggling , yes, I don't believe impressment had any bearing since the USCG, wasn't really able to do anything about it until into the early 19th century. Boarding RN vessels would have started the American British war all that sooner,!!

The war of 1812 comes to mind

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by carstenb

The war of 1812 comes to mind

but well after the constitution, really up till the arrival of a few small frigates , the nascent US could do little about pressing.



dave

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

I give our founding fathers more credit than you apparently do, for being aware of what was going on in the world around them. I suspect that it occurred to them that there might be the possibility of pleasure yachting in the United States some day.

But regardless of that, it is still complete and utter nonsense to say (as two posters have) that pleasure yachts did not exist at the time that the U.S. Constitution was being written. Clearly, they did exist, even if only in relatively small numbers.

Yes but it is utter nonsense to suggest that the founding fathers or the authors of the constitution had any cognisance of such tiny activity at the time, it would arguably be akin to arguing that the constitution mention snuff taking etc. In other words , all shipping and boating was in their minds, commercial or derived from commercial activity and hence the need to secure the efficacy of the taxation system.

dave

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

I'd like to hear more about how a state law stops the Coast Guard from boarding.

That wasn't the point. The state laws stopped the LEOs, NOT the CG, from repeated boardings.

[Snore]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

did they really say that?

Yes!! As I said, looking at their deck gun, I decided to be courteous

@bluecrab- thanks for the compliment. When I saw them as a speck on the horizon and no AIS data coming in, I figured them as USCG and that they would be coming by. No arms are ever on board, but there are things that could--- well never mind.

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by Snore

Yes!! As I said, looking at their deck gun, I decided to be courteous

Indeed. Besides, they do have the authority.

I can see Capngeo's story ending far differently with different skippers on the Army boats. How many of us would have refused the boarding like George did? If the water cops can board at will, why not the Army?

I also question the need for Army SF divers. What's next? Air Force SF divers?

There's a reason we always send the SEALs.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by goboatingnow

Yes but it is utter nonsense to suggest that the founding fathers or the authors of the constitution had any cognisance...

As I said, I give them more credit than you do. We will have to agree to disagree on that, I guess.

[goboatingnow]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

As I said, I give them more credit than you do. We will have to agree to disagree on that, I guess.

If you think so , then direct me to the relevant passage or amendment. I have read the document, I remember no such protections being afforded boats, or yachts or whatever watery object you desire.


dave