How come gun laws are unconstitutional but not border checkpoints or DUI checkpoints?

you're an idiot.

It's unlawful to search someone's possessions without cause.

To say that "because they're driving at this particular time" is preposterous.

Borders are fine.

What about TSA searches? Or Stop & Frisk?

no u

It's not unlawful to stop someone on government roads and ask a few questions, make observations. If they determine they have probable cause from there, they most certainly can search.

those I do think are unconstitutional

I don't know if this is what the OP had in mind, but there are "border stops" anywhere within 100 miles of the border that function essentially like DUI checkpoints, except they check if you're in the country legally rather than drunk.

These are undoubtedly unconstitutional, but the courts simply do not give a rat's ass about the 4th anymore.

>you want an optic or a carry handle my man
>just fuck my shit up

DUI checkpoints probably are.

>It's not unlawful to stop someone on government roads and ask a few questions

But apparently it is unlawful to ignore those people

failure in terminology on my part, sorry.

It's unconstitutional.

But you should know that police need to sate probable cause when they make a traffic stop. Sure, they can make one up, but they can't amke a blanket claim.

That is what DUI checkpoints say, that everyone is suspicious of something by merely being there. Which is silly.

>border checkpoints or DUI checkpoints?
Actual checkpoints at the border are fine, the 100 mile checkpoint zone is in fact a violation of 4a
>DUI checkpoints
Actual violation of 4a again

You are now aware that 2a is a mutilated corpse and 4a was a figment of our collective imagination all along. 1a going down next through the SJW movement.

a checkpoint is not a search.

marrying little girls also used to be

Because DUI checkpoints and border checkpoints(past border crossings) are unconstitutional

The constitution is supreme law as I understand it, so if something is unconstitutional, it is unlawful.
I do not think making stops is unconstitutional. If they were to make stops and subject everyone to detentions, searches, breathalyzers, etc, then yes, unconstitutional.
If the government could not make stops, then red lights, stop signs, barriers, basically every rule of the road would be unconstitutional. I make a distinction between making a stop and a detention.

Am I being detained?

Who knows with the way society is degrading we might see a return of that sooner than you think. Besides who says marriage is just between adults other than religious bigots :^)

of course not mr pedant, it's merely the means to facilitate illegal searches

One are rights granted by god the other are privileges granted by politicians why is that so hard to understand?

DUI checkpoints/TSA bullshit etc. is all easily handwaved with "You consented by driving on a public road. Read the documents you signed when you got your license :^)" and similar shit for airports.

>Dui checkpoints are most certainly unconstitutional
Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

there are many things which you can do on a privilege.

But you retain your rights while doing so.
The stop in question creates an unnecessary traffic bottleneck.

That aside, a stop sign will be there at all times, and won't ask you any questions or search you. Therein lies the distinction.

Some things are necessary for the safe flow of traffic. If two roads meet, then there is a need to mediate that traffic.

If Dui checkpoints were as quick as traffic lights, then you wouldn't get the ridiculous bottlenecks present in some areas of the country.

I'd have a lot less problems with DUI stops if they didn't back up traffic for hours at midnight, when you're trying to get home or to a party. And, of course, if you try to get out of the jam, they assume you're drunk and not just that you don't want to spend your night in a line.

>a stop sign won't ask you any questions
not yet (pic relate)

there are also certain things that are necessary for the safe flow of people/goods

I understand that there are limits, but that's what probable cause is for.

I DO believe that it is reasonable for a police officer to stop a driver who is driving erratically and see what's wrong.

Stopping someone who has ostensibly done no wrong is silly. It would be like every girl you see asking you if you'd raped anyone. Unless you're suspicious af it's unnecessary and insulting.

absolutely, I wouldn't mind most government if they could actually do it efficiently.