RadioGirl

IANAL, either, but I know that legislation is largely useless if there's no method or no will to enforce it. So while this bill represents a desire to Do Something about the scanners, I don't see it being any more effective than TSA's current "requirement" to have appropriate signage.

I see nothing in the bill that describes how the signage will be monitored, any penalty for TSA not providing the signs, or who should be notified if the signage is not there.

First, passengers have to know that there should be a sign at the NoS. (Actually, before that, they have to recognize a NoS when they see one.) If the sign is not there, who do they talk to? TSA screeners at the checkpoint? Uh, yeah. "Not my job." "It's here somewhere." "We have different rules at THIS airport."

Call a LEO? Well, okay. And maybe they get the TSA to pull the sign out of the closet. Do you think the sign will still be there tomorrow? Or the sign doesn't have all the required components listed in the bill. What is the LEO going to do about it?

If a passenger reports the missing signage after the event to TSA, to the police, to state gov't, they'll just be told "TSA says the sign is there." or "You must have missed it."

Good intentions, but not very practical.

bajajoes

And in the meanwhile, what about the poor citizens who are being arrested? Sure, maybe they won't be prosecuted if the gov't is telling the truth ( ) but the process of being arrested must be terribly traumatizing for anyone. Gosh I am so distraught. Ignorance really is bliss.[/QUOTE
__________________________________________________ _______________
IF it comes down to being busted for Med MJ in Calif. the Feds better make it a BIG Bust because there are many people here who if they were on a jury regarding Med MJ would show the Feds the meaning of "JURY NULLIFICATION"

nachtnebel

Calif LEOs have already been at loggerheads with their Fed counterparts on some high profile medical MJ cases. To the point of not allowing them to confiscate or remove MJ plants..

When Calif legalizes MJ and taxes it, getting much needed revenues from it, the federals won't dare show their faces in the state on this issue.

KCK

I think the real question is whether or not the federal government is subject to state laws such as this.

nachtnebel

Take a look at the federal Fugitive Slave Act and how it was not allowed to be enforced in Wisconsin by the state of Wisconsin in the Joshua Glover case in 1850 and in other northern states after that.

Take a look today at the various medical marijuana laws in many, many states and cities in defiance of the federal statutes. Take a look at how the federals are not pressing the issue.

I think you can read the cannabis leaves. The federal government exists only with the good graces of the states and the people. When states pass laws against TSA strip searches of any kind and of the TSA sexual gropings, the federal level will stop or modify their behavior. It's that simple.

Ellie M

I agree. Although the bill doesn't state who has to put up the signs. I wonder if the onus could actually be on the local airport authorities. In that case, would TSA actually prohibit state or local employees from constructing and putting up signs before the checkpoint?

sbm12

Agreed for the most part. That said, I wonder if the state can theoretically prohibit operation of the airport because of a lack of compliance. They cannot force the TSA to comply but they can shut down the facility for failing to comply, right?

Justruss

The fedss do not trun a blind eye to medical marijuana shops, by any means.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-raids/?page=1

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/137971...marijuana-case

http://www.lvrj.com/news/federal-cha...9.html?ref=679

nachtnebel

I didn't say they were turning a blind eye. some cases for window dressing, sure. But consider the hundreds and thousands of locations they would have to hit and they get zero help from local law enforcement as it is not a local crime. that is HEAVY lifting indeed.

Ellie M

Thanks for posting those links. I didn't realize that they were still prosecuting medical marijuana--I believe there were some news stories with Holder stating they were backing off. I apologize for any misinformation. As an aside, I read an article recently that stated that there were a lot of IRS audits on medical marijuana dispensaries in a thinly veiled attempt to shut them down.

KCK

Not really applicable as they essentially involve states not complying with or enforcing a federal law. The question about the Colorado law is whether or not a state can require the federal government to do something.

nachtnebel

Think about the cost shifting that is occurring. States, esp California, has no money for arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning these people, in fact, a disincentive as Calif is dumping inmates right and left out of their prisons. They have no interest nor funds to prosecute and lock up an even higher percentage of their citizens.

So, now the entire law enforcement burden on this is being taken on by federals, who are under a financial pinch of their own. Think of the cost to the variously impacted federal agencies budgets for federals to investigate, arrest, pay FEDERAL court costs, lawyer costs, costs of incarcerating these people at FEDERAL prisons and in a scenario in which this kind of enforcement will make little headway. They will be drowned if they try to drink from that firehose.

The fact that this is happening shows the medical mj people have already won on this; it just has to play itself out in a very predictable course.

KCK

In that case, they'd have to close the airport because the airport authorities don't have the necessary information and the TSA won't tell them because:

• It is SSI
• Public knowledge of the information would embarrass the TSA
• It would force them to actually follow their own rules

Even if the TSA told them what to put on the signs, the airport might be liable for having incorrect signs if (let's be realistic...WHEN) the TSA didn't follow the procedures.

nachtnebel

ah. got it. thanks.

Justruss

It's a message though, isn't it?

I don't want to Google Colorado right now because I'm attempting to convey a concept, but I think you'll find the same if you take the effort.. With very few exceptons, federal law always take precedence over state law on such issues.