SailNet Community banner

21 - 40 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
As was mentioned earlier; because SCOTUS says so.
I've not seen an opinion that specifically identifies the reasoning of why a car and a boat are different.

Specifically Lake Michigan, it would be much more difficult for me to get to an unpatrolled boarder in a boat than a car. But however you slice it, the access is the same. There are places one can cross in a car that are unpatrolled, so the boarder argument does not stand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
I've not seen an opinion that specifically identifies the reasoning of why a car and a boat are different.

Specifically Lake Michigan, it would be much more difficult for me to get to an unpatrolled boarder in a boat than a car. But however you slice it, the access is the same. There are places one can cross in a car that are unpatrolled, so the boarder argument does not stand.
Write your congressman, I'm sure they'll change things immediately.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,803 Posts
He probably doesn’t have a congressman...don’t you have to prove residency somewhere?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
Unfortunately the Supreme Court is supreme. Fortunately it’s composition changes. Unfortunately due to life appointments usually out of synch with the prevailing wishes of the majority of our citizens. Fortunately due to some respect for “established law” and the specific wording of the constitution within some hard constraints.
Democracy is the worst form of government but it’s a hell of a lot better than everything else.

Returning to boarding you do have constraints. They shouldn’t endanger you, your boat or crew as mentioned. You can appeal their actions to their commander. As soon as the CG was formed they were given three mandates. SAR was the least concern. Preventing the avoidance of tax and protection of the integrity of our borders were deemed more pressing concerns. The right to board without prior judicial oversight devolved from those two mandates. Those two concerns remain very active concerns. The CG would not be able to perform their original and current mandates should the right to board be restricted.

We’ve enrolled in TTP, dttops and the rest. Our boat has its sticker. We’ve re-entered and cleared into the USA multiple times (when having only US citizens aboard) with no fuss nor bother. They’ve done what they can to not be intrusive. Yes, I’ve had the very rare occasion where newbies have acted inappropriately or been inconvenienced. But all in all have no complaint. Think your complaint is without merit. They don’t disclose what background intelligence or decision making precipitates a boarding. It would potentially undercut their success rate. So yes a boat is different than a car. Similarly a plane is different and you can be grounded if so requested.

BTW and FYI-once you’re within the territorial waters of ANY country in the world the same right to board has been granted to that country’s government by its laws. Sure on the high seas your vessel is considered to be your home country’s ground and subject to that home country’s laws but once in territorial waters (which includes inland waters) you’re subject to that country’s rules. In short you’re arguing for a change which has no historical precedent anywhere in the entire world!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
The Supreme Court should resolve conflict in current laws, not write new ones. They’ve resolved this one, it’s over, until a new law/amendment is written. I find it astonishing that many argue the court should evolve law. The legislative branch should do that. They won’t. The only thing that prevents crime is the perception you could be caught.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
I don't see boats, cars or houses mentioned in the constitution. Not sure how you can make an argument that they are separately defined rights, when they are not even enumerated. I have yet to here any specific argument that can specifically identify why a boat on an inland lake is constitutionally different than a car.

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

Maybe you should read the amendment you're so concerned with..? "Houses" are also mentioned in 3rd A by the way. And it's not like you're wholly free from searches in a house either, it just takes a warrant and a "probably cause" (i.e. whatever a local cop can make up).

I kind of agree it's not "reasonable" that cops/USCG/border patrol can search almost whatever they want for any reason, but this is not a battle that will ever be won..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
OK, houses, oops, but no one can explain the functional difference between boats and cars. I've not seen where the court explains the difference.

The CG has no function of its original mandate with regards to a pleasure boat sailing on southern Lake Michigan any more than a cop on the streets of Chicago. Could cops be given a mandate to randomly pull over cars searching for drugs brought across a land border?

Many claim it settled, but no can explain the logic.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,803 Posts
So how does a CG know you are a pleasure boat.....or are carrying 2 tons of blow......or 4 Al Queida operatives
 

·
Catalina 400 MKII
Joined
·
818 Posts
If you can't tell the difference between a house and a boat, ...

Some border areas might not be patrolled, but cars are still subject to search - it's just that there is no enforcement presence there. Like some boats don't get inspected. Yes, the border argument does stand. You, or I, may not agree with the law, but it is clear.

Went to the boat today. Had a lovely time. 'Bye.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
OK, houses, oops, but no one can explain the functional difference between boats and cars. I've not seen where the court explains the difference.

The CG has no function of its original mandate with regards to a pleasure boat sailing on southern Lake Michigan any more than a cop on the streets of Chicago. Could cops be given a mandate to randomly pull over cars searching for drugs brought across a land border?

Many claim it settled, but no can explain the logic.
Have you tried to read the SOTUS opinion?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
So how does a CG know you are a pleasure boat.....or are carrying 2 tons of blow......or 4 Al Queida operatives
Precisely the same way the police know my Jeep is not carrying 2 tons of blow.

I don't believe the boarder patrol can stop me on the streets of Chicago and search my Jeep without probable cause.

https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone
I don't agree with their specific agenda for writing blog, but there is information that supports my opinion. The CG has no more legal authority than the boarder patrol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
Dave you’re entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. As suggested above please read the charter for the CG. They do indeed have greater footing for unrestricted boarding on legal grounds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Haven't read the SCOTUS opinions, but couldn't the logic be something like?
- houses can store stuff > probably cause; warrant
- cars can move stuff, across land borders: Unrestricted search at border. Warrant otherwise
- boats can move stuff across border that's hard/impossible to monitor fully: unrestricted search

Yeah I get that a dinghy on a lake this applies poorly, but guess they didn't want to make it complicated..

ps: I'm not saying I agree or disagree, or even think this is good logic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
The it’s ok if I tell you feel free to not buy that stuff, however don’t call the taxpayer funded CG to rescue you or put their life on the line because you choose to not have safety equipment required.]

By your reasoning, I shouldn't call the police or the fire department to my house if I have an emergency, because I haven't allowed them unrestricted access to it.

And, who said I don't have safety equipment on my vessel? I just don't want to be forced to do it, and include unreasonable searches so I'll qualify for assistance. I do pay taxes, after all.

I am certainly no Trumpofile, but how do we know you are not smuggling illegals or terrorists across the boarder if they don’t have the right to board you don’t you think that leaves a loophole.
You mean the Wisconsin border? You think I'm smuggling cheese?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,051 Posts
Being a liveaboard is not like owning a house. There is no comparison for discussion.

You don’t pay any taxes. You don’t support the infrastructure of the community. You have made that choice knowing that the CG can board you at anytime. You aren’t required to live like that. If you don’t like it either buy a house or work for change through the process available to you. In doing that you won’t have my vote
The constitution doesn't say anything about taxes. Or for that matter, supporting the community.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Being a liveaboard is not like owning a house. There is no comparison for discussion.

You don’t pay any taxes. You don’t support the infrastructure of the community. You have made that choice knowing that the CG can board you at anytime. You aren’t required to live like that. If you don’t like it either buy a house or work for change through the process available to you. In doing that you won’t have my vote
I respectfully disagree that a liveaboard does not support the infrastructure of the community or pay taxes. A liveaboard in a marina is going to pay slip or mooring rental, which is the same as an individual who rents an apartment. The marina owner (like the owner of the apartment) is going to pay property taxes and income taxes. The rent that a liveaboard pays is set by the marina owner, who includes the costs of property taxes and income taxes in the calculation. In the case of a municipal marina, the rental payments go directly into the government's coffers. Moreover, every purchase of groceries and necessities of life by the liveaboard benefit the economy and the community.

I noticed that the revenue act of 1790 was mentioned as the authority for the boarding and others talked about Supreme Court. Does anyone have the actual cites for the sources of the government authority?

Particularly for those who live on houseboats that are "stationary" and never moved, I can see a good argument that those houseboats should be treated the same as a home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,643 Posts
I respectfully disagree that a liveaboard does not support the infrastructure of the community or pay taxes. A liveaboard in a marina is going to pay slip or mooring rental, which is the same as an individual who rents an apartment. The marina owner (like the owner of the apartment) is going to pay property taxes and income taxes. The rent that a liveaboard pays is set by the marina owner, who includes the costs of property taxes and income taxes in the calculation.
I agree with your reported disagreement. Commercial high density real estate taxes, reflecting the multiple tenancy of a marina, are typically much higher than if the waterfront land were a single family property. The tenants are actually paying them, via pass through, not the landlord. Of course, the landlord is ultimately responsible for them, if there are no tenants.

Particularly for those who live on houseboats that are "stationary" and never moved, I can see a good argument that those houseboats should be treated the same as a home.
I can’t say I’ve ever seen the CG conduct a random inspection of a vessel that wasn’t underway. Has anyone else? We’ve been approached and asked a question and have had numerous Harbormasters approach to insure were aware of an approaching storms, etc, but never to be boarded. I have heard of stationary vessels that were boarded for reasons of actual or reported suspicion, but that’s not the point that being debated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,069 Posts
From Wikipedia
“The history of the United States Coast Guard goes back to the United States Revenue Cutter Service, which was founded on 4 August 1790 as part of the Department of the Treasury. The Revenue Cutter Service and the United States Life-Saving Service were merged to become the Coast Guard per 14 U.S.C. § 1 which states: "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times." In 1939, the United States Lighthouse Service was merged into the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard itself was moved to the Department of Transportation in 1967, and on 25 February 2003 it became part of the Department of Homeland Security. However, under 14 U.S.C. § 3 as amended by section 211 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, upon the declaration of war and when Congress so directs in the declaration, or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates as a service in the Department of the Navy.”
But if you pull up the language of of 1790 law ( get it from Cornell law school-can’t figure a way to post link) it would seem the original mandate was to prevent avoidance of taxes. That mandate still remains. All the business about safety equipment, SAR and the rest isn’t relevant to the original revenue service which had been given the right to board. Conflating these other issues doesn’t speak to the original mandate. Additional services with the various mergers and shifts in which department have never changed the original revenue mandate.
In terms of Wisconsin may be smuggling drugs, tobacco or liquor. Or maybe trying to get around our current tariff war with Canada concerning dairy products. Don’t know and don’t care. Sorry.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,803 Posts
I respectfully disagree that a liveaboard does not support the infrastructure of the community or pay taxes. A liveaboard in a marina is going to pay slip or mooring rental, which is the same as an individual who rents an apartment. The marina owner (like the owner of the apartment) is going to pay property taxes and income taxes. The rent that a liveaboard pays is set by the marina owner, who includes the costs of property taxes and income taxes in the calculation. In the case of a municipal marina, the rental payments go directly into the government's coffers. Moreover, every purchase of groceries and necessities of life by the liveaboard benefit the economy and the community.

I noticed that the revenue act of 1790 was mentioned as the authority for the boarding and others talked about Supreme Court. Does anyone have the actual cites for the sources of the government authority?

Particularly for those who live on houseboats that are "stationary" and never moved, I can see a good argument that those houseboats should be treated the same as a home.
You are only speaking of a small segment of live aboard. To those who are stationary sitting permanently in a marina you are right. They could claim residency and even vote. They are only a segment of liveaboards and I’ll bet a small segment as many marinas in the mid Atlantic and north east do not allow liveaboards.

But there are many other types of live aboards. Cruisers, for one who travel place to place. Are also live aboards. People camped at anchor in the communities of SC, Georgia, Florida, are live aboards. Yes they support the community by spending some money there, but no they do not contribute to property taxes or help financially support the infrastructure of the community ie schools, law enforcement, sewer and utilities.

Understand I am not saying this with any value judgement.

The mobility of the boat is why it falls under the jurisdiction of the CG. Like has been said, I have never seen the CG board any houseboats or vessels at the dock.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
11,803 Posts
I am still not really understanding the argument that because you pay rent in a marina that you are paying taxes to the community. I’ve heard that before and don’t buy into it. Everyone in the marina is doing that.

BTW you can’t claim residency on that argument, unless you establish that marina as you permanent residence.
I think for voting purposes you can do that.

Every boat in the marina therefore is paying taxes to the community then. The marina is a for profit enterprise. In its P/L under disbursements it has a section for property taxes, mortgage , rent , insurance etc. All for profit
stores, enterprises etc are built the same. Let’s take a car was for example.....do you consider every patron of the car wash contributing to the real estate taxes in the community. Doubtful you would view every time you spend money anywhere you believe you contribute to the taxes in the community. If you do believe that then everyone is contributing. However the people who own real estate pay double then.

In the case of permanent live aboards like houseboats, etc. where people live full time in one spot and are not cruising I can sede your point of view. Like I said previously I believe that is only a very small segment of liveaboards as many more marinas restrict people from living aboard than allow it.

The concept of municipal marinas with liveaboards is a west coast thing I think. I haven’t see any on the east coast in my limited travels
 
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
Top