UPDATE – 66% of Americans now live in a Constitution-FREE Zone. - PFA Forum

Constitution Free Zones are what The Department of Homeland Security has established. The federal agency isn't really securing the borders, but they are extinguishing the Fourth Amendment rights of nearly 197 million American citizens within 100 miles of the border….and the ocean.

Before I begin, isn't this really what "Freedom of the Press" is supposed to be about? Doesn't it exist to keep elected officials and things they do in check and expose corruption and lawlessness? Yeah, I thought so too, but we aren't hearing this on the evening news, are we? Anthony Gucciardi reports on these "Constitution Free Zones" where law breaking DHS is violating your constitutionally protected rights. According to Gucciardi, "Within this fabricated 'border', the DHS can search your electronic belongings for no reason. We're talking about no suspicion, no reasonable cause, nothing. No reason whatsoever is required under their own regulations."
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/dhs-extinguishes-197-million-peoples-4th-amendment-rights-in-constitution-free-zones/#cjLMletlUKkW4Gk7.99
http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/dhs-extinguishes-197-million-peoples-4th-amendment-rights-in-constitution-free-zones/

- Many of us do not recognize this country anymore. On that post about the DHS creating a Constitution Free Zone, the 100 mile border around the country. We have all been screaming about this BHO administration not enforcing the border and immigration laws of America.. They have allowed thousands of illegals to cross an open border almost at will. BHO have been bringing in 'refugees' from all over the Middle East. They have been quietly transporting these people into the US by the boat loads. This latest attack in Tennessee is only one example of what we can expect. Under normal circumstances we would probably welcome or even insist that the DHS must do their job by digging out these rag heads and potential terrorists. Under any other kind of Washington administration we would be applauding this "Constitution Free Zone" and the policies written in the NDAA that allow the government to arrest and detain just about any one that seems suspicious. Under any OTHER type of Administration that is. But this administration has abused that power and authority, just as they have virtually every thing else. Instead of going after these rag heads and real terrorists this administration has declared us, the US Veterans and any one joining an American Militia as the real potential domestic terrorists. Joeseph Stallin and Mao Tse Tung did the same thing, and because of that we know where this mess is heading, and it's not good. Under normal circumstance we would welcome the DHS helping to protect our borders, but this administration has turned the DHS into the new American Gestapo. America does NOT have a National Police force, and we will not start or allow one to exist now. Particularly under this administration. (And you can include the BLM and EPA in that as well.)

http://modernmilitiamovement.com/forum/topics/if-it-is-time-to-organize-this-revolution-how-can-we-do-it?x=1&id=6453824%3ATopic%3A1016231&page=10#comments

http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines/dhs-constitution-free-zones-inside-us-ignored-by-media

Glad to see you on the side of the ACLU. The links you supply are to garbage low-information extremist sites.

Here's the link to the creator of that infographic, and the details involved.

To make it easier, I'll just cut and paste the website:

Know Your Rights: The Government's 100-Mile "Border" Zone - Map

The Problem

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.

Much of U.S. population affected

Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose.

Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight

The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.
The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects any geographic limitation on agents' authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding.
Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency's practices. Given Border Patrol's lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don't know about the full extent and impact of these interior "border enforcement" operations.

Part of a Broader Problem

The spread of border-related powers inland is inseparable from the broader expansion of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans. For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.
These practices also coincide with the spread of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems (such as the Automated Targeting System traveler risk assessment program), advanced identification and tracking systems (including electronic passports), and intrusive technological schemes such as the "virtual border fence" and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka "drone aircraft"). With many of these technologies in the hands of private companies, there are powerful financial incentives for the continued "militarization" of the border zone.
The expansion of government power both at and near the border is part of a trend toward expanding police and national security powers without regard to the effect of such expansion on our most fundamental and treasured Constitutional rights. The federal government's dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security is one that is increasingly turning us all into suspects. If Americans do not continue to challenge the expansion of federal power over the individual, we risk forfeiting the fundamental rights and freedoms that we inherited—including the right to simply go about our business free from government interference, harassment and abuse.

Replies

TRUEPatriot July 17, 2015 at 5:19pm
Glad to see you on the side of the ACLU. The links you supply are to garbage low-information extremist sites.

Here's the link to the creator of that infographic, and the details involved.

To make it easier, I'll just cut and paste the website:

Know Your Rights: The Government's 100-Mile "Border" Zone - Map

The Problem
- The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans from random and arbitrary stops and searches.
- According to the government, however, these basic constitutional principles do not apply fully at our borders. For example, at border crossings (also called "ports of entry"), federal authorities do not need a warrant or even suspicion of wrongdoing to justify conducting what courts have called a "routine search," such as searching luggage or a vehicle.
- Even in places far removed from the border, deep into the interior of the country, immigration officials enjoy broad—though not limitless—powers. Specifically, federal regulations give U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) authority to operate within 100 miles of any U.S. "external boundary."
- In this 100-mile zone, Border Patrol agents have certain extra-Constitutional powers. For instance, Border Patrol can operate immigration checkpoints.
- Border Patrol, nevertheless, cannot pull anyone over without "reasonable suspicion" of an immigration violation or crime (reasonable suspicion is more than just a "hunch"). Similarly, Border Patrol cannot search vehicles in the 100-mile zone without a warrant or "probable cause" (a reasonable belief, based on the circumstances, that an immigration violation or crime has likely occurred).
- In practice, Border Patrol agents routinely ignore or misunderstand the limits of their legal authority in the course of individual stops, resulting in violations of the constitutional rights of innocent people. These problems are compounded by inadequate training for Border Patrol agents, a lack of oversight by CBP and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the consistent failure of CBP to hold agents accountable for abuse. Thus, although the 100-mile border zone is not literally "Constitution free," the U.S. government frequently acts like it is.
Much of U.S. population affected
- Many people think that border-related policies only impact people living in border towns like El Paso or San Diego. The reality is that Border Patrol's interior enforcement operations encroach deep into and across the United States, affecting the majority of Americans.
- Roughly two-thirds of the United States' population lives within the 100-mile zone—that is, within 100 miles of a U.S. land or coastal border. That's about 200 million people.
- Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont lie entirely or almost entirely within this area.
- Nine of the ten largest U.S. metropolitan areas, as determined by the 2010 Census, also fall within this zone: New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose.
Outdated Legal Authority and Lack of Oversight
- The regulations establishing the 100-mile border zone were adopted by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1953—without any public comments or debate. At the time, there were fewer than 1,100 Border Patrol agents nationwide; today, there are over 21,000.
- The Border Patrol often ignores this regulation and rejects any geographic limitation on agents' authority. At least two federal circuit courts condone Border Patrol operations outside the 100-mile zone, federal regulations and Supreme Court precedent notwithstanding.
- Federal border agents are stopping, interrogating, and searching Americans on an everyday basis with absolutely no suspicion of wrongdoing, and often in ways that our Constitution does not permit.
- For example, Border Patrol, according to news reports, operates approximately 170 interior checkpoints throughout the country (the actual number in operation at any given time is not publicly known). The ACLU believes that these checkpoints amount to dragnet, suspicionless stops that cannot be reconciled with Fourth Amendment protections. The Supreme Court has upheld the use of immigration checkpoints, but only insofar as the stops consist only of a brief and limited inquiry into residence status. Checkpoints cannot be primarily used for drug-search or general law enforcement efforts. In practice, however, Border Patrol agents often do not limit themselves to brief immigration inquiries and regularly conduct criminal investigations and illegal searches at checkpoints. The Border Patrol also frequently pulls over motorists in "roving patrol" stops, often without any suspicion that an immigration violation has occurred.
- The ACLU has documented numerous cases of abuse by Border Patrol and filed lawsuits to obtain more information about the agency's practices. Given Border Patrol's lack of transparency, and in the absence of any meaningful oversight, there is still much that we don't know about the full extent and impact of these interior "border enforcement" operations.
Part of a Broader Problem
- The spread of border-related powers inland is inseparable from the broader expansion of government intrusion in the lives of ordinary Americans. For example, CBP claims the authority to conduct suspicionless searches of travelers' electronic devices—such as laptops and cell phones—at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports. These searches are particularly invasive as a result of the wealth of personal information stored on such devices. At least one circuit court has held that federal officers must have at least "reasonable suspicion" prior to conducting such searches and recent Supreme Court precedent seems to support that view.
- These practices also coincide with the spread of numerous border technologies, including watch list and database systems (such as the Automated Targeting System traveler risk assessment program), advanced identification and tracking systems (including electronic passports), and intrusive technological schemes such as the "virtual border fence" and unmanned aerial vehicles (aka "drone aircraft"). With many of these technologies in the hands of private companies, there are powerful financial incentives for the continued "militarization" of the border zone.
- The expansion of government power both at and near the border is part of a trend toward expanding police and national security powers without regard to the effect of such expansion on our most fundamental and treasured Constitutional rights. The federal government's dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security is one that is increasingly turning us all into suspects. If Americans do not continue to challenge the expansion of federal power over the individual, we risk forfeiting the fundamental rights and freedoms that we inherited—including the right to simply go about our business free from government interference, harassment and abuse.
Oldrooster July 17, 2015 at 6:59pm

TrusPatriot, I'll accept your criticism for posting something from the ACLU, (I'm not a fan of theirs either). I merely posted what I had to a story that I thought was important. And I still think it's important. Apparently you failed to read the second half of my post. That second half where I said under any other administration this DHS authority might be acceptable, but NOT this administration. (paraphrasing - the actual paragraph is still right there.). This administration has taken what should be the coordinating structure for all other law enforcement agencies (with No actual power of their own) and turned them into a National Police force and even the new American Gestapo. At this point there have been over 6,500 reported cases of abuse of these powers and authority, (and those are only the ones that have been reported.) In the mean time DHS completely ignores the 6.5 million illegal Muslim immigrants that this administration has imported and scattered all around the country (Mostly outside of that 100 miles border perimeter.)

I still think the story is relevant, even if we don't like the sources who published it.

This reply was deleted.