[babyface00]

The judge, for consistency sake, also should strike down New York's gun laws, (Amendmendt II) so citizens can open carry to deter crimminals and terrorists from preying on unarmed citizens.

Interesting though, that the language in the second amendment;

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "

is far more strongly worded than that of the fourth;

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

In the second amendment, the right is more absolute. In the fourth, it is subject to the undefined term "unreasonable". Quite a hole, especially considering the times in which the amendment was written.

[combat_boots]

Hey, the paradox is that if someone sees you with a weapon, they figure you both know how to and will use it if necesseary, and leave you alone. Amazing. No threats, no promises. Just plain facts.

[BikerNYC]

In the second amendment, the right is more absolute.

Kind of like the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[tahiti]

"Interesting though, that the language in the second amendment;...is far more strongly worded than that of the fourth;"

I understand your point.

Let me offer the following explanation to the contrary.

Just as the first part Second Amendment states the reason for the Second Amendment (A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State) the first part of the Fourth Amendment does the same. (The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,)

The second part of the Second Amendment then states what the mechanism will be needed to secure a free state: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The second part of the Fourth Amendment then states what the mechanism will be needed to prevent unreasonable searches and seizures: "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."

That being the case, I would say there isn't "quite a hole" in the wording of the Fourth Amendment.

Government needs to have a warrant, supported by oath or affirmation (probable cause) before government can search a citizen's person/property or seize a citizens property.

Thus, all searches and seizures by "federalized" security personel at airports are unconstitutional.

Any "blanket" search of citizens by government employees, (police, SS, IRS, DEA, TSA, FBI, BATF, etc) on public or private property without a warrant is unconstitutional.

Any "blanket" search by a private property owner by private property owner personel is perfectly legal because the constitution has no jurisdiction on private property over actions by private citizens.