Texas Legislature To Make TSA Patdowns Illegal & A Felony!

[Obama 2012 1,714]

----------

http://www.wfaa.com/news/texas-news/Airport-patdowns-118450419.html

State lawmakers are expected to begin debating House Bill 1937 Tuesday afternoon.

The bill would make it illegal for airport security screeners to conduct controversial enhanced pat downs. It extends the definition of sexual assault to include such procedures.

"TSA itself has accumulated at least 110,000 complaints," said Representative David Simpson of Longview.

Simpson filed the bill. He already has support of about one-third of the House, a coalition of both Republicans and Democrats.

"The bill is about saying enough is enough," said Simpson who explains his family also experienced some of those advanced body searches, "We've turned from prudent caution to ridiculous, excessive measures."

According to the bill, a security agent must have reason to believe a passenger actually committed a crime before they can enforce an advanced body search. Someone who conducts a search without cause could face a second degree felony charge and jail time.

The bill comes amid growing concern about those new security procedures. Last fall, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) started the searches as a way of increasing airport security. During the searches, agents slide their hands down the body, including over private areas. Male agents pat down male passengers. Female agents frisk female passengers. Since those searches began, some passengers have refused. Some have even been arrested for refusing.

"This is drawing a line in the sand where officials should go pass without a warrant; without a cause. you shouldn't touch someone's private parts as a condition of travel," said Simpson.

If lawmakers pass HB 1937, Texas will join New Jersey and New Hampshire among states that have passed legislation to limit the TSA's searches.

The bill could go into effect immediately if it earns two-thirds of a House vote.

[slim 1,514]

I'm sure there's some type of Sept. 11th security "loophole" that'll allow TSA agents to conduct "federal" business regardless of state law. The state may have a case against TSA patdowns during intrastate flights but for interstate flights... they're probably fighting a losing battle.

This is similar to the gun manufacturer in Montana producing arms for sale inside the state without BATFE approval. BATFE can't regulate intrastate commerce. Or can they?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm sure there's some type of Sept. 11th security "loophole" that'll allow TSA agents to conduct "federal" business regardless of state law. The state may have a case against TSA patdowns during intrastate flights but for interstate flights... they're probably fighting a losing battle.

This is similar to the gun manufacturer in Montana producing arms for sale inside the state without BATFE approval. BATFE can't regulate intrastate commerce. Or can they?

the thing is, the TSA agents don't have to be allowed at the airports to begin with. There's no law on the books that mandates the TSA per se. There are a few airports that use a different security company.

TSA guidelines aren't set by themselves and not by congress as well. So there's no 'law' that the state has to abide by in this situation either.

Until that happens, Texas and the other states that have done this, have the upper hand.

[mawilson 2,133]

I'm sure there's some type of Sept. 11th security "loophole" that'll allow TSA agents to conduct "federal" business regardless of state law.

They can invoke the loophole from their Texas jail cell and hope the Feds will bail them out.

[slim 1,514]

Until that happens, Texas and the other states that have done this, have the upper hand.

I'd be very hesitant to say any state has the upper hand when dealing with the federal government, especially when it comes to air travel. Like highways and other transportation, states may be "in charge" but the fed has other ways of dealing with them.

Remember post 9/11 when the federal govt. "owned" all aircraft? I wouldn't be surprised if they brought something like that to the forefront once again and touted the TSA as "protecting their investment."

[mawilson 2,133]

Texas can still charge them with a felony and lock them up.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I'd be very hesitant to say any state has the upper hand when dealing with the federal government, especially when it comes to air travel. Like highways and other transportation, states may be "in charge" but the fed has other ways of dealing with them.

Remember post 9/11 when the federal govt. "owned" all aircraft? I wouldn't be surprised if they brought something like that to the forefront once again and touted the TSA as "protecting their investment."

Feds own the highway by way of funding. If a state rebels, funding gets axed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Feds own the highway by way of funding. If a state rebels, funding gets axed.

not necessarily. States could just as easiy not send those funds to the feds to begin with.

[Karee 4,189]

Feds own the highway by way of funding. If a state rebels, funding gets axed.

Exactly. I remember a couple situations like this. One being Louisiana (I think) when they failed to raise the drinking age to 21 the feds showed at the state capitol saying no more highway funding. I think the other was Utah when they wouldn't reduce the speed limit to 55.

[Dan and Judy 614]

not necessarily. States could just as easiy not send those funds to the feds to begin with.

I don't think it would be "just as easy". The states are not collecting the funds and then passing them on to the Feds.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Texas can still charge them with a felony and lock them up.

The brilliant Texicans also ban sex toys that are phallic shaped but it is OK if they are shaped like a rabbit or a dolphin. They have a committee paid for by taxes to determine if it is shaped like a rabbit or a ####### and if it is OK to be sexually stimulated by it in Texas or not.

Does anyone here think they are really going to prevent the TSA from doing these searches at DFW airport?

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

the thing is, the TSA agents don't have to be allowed at the airports to begin with. There's no law on the books that mandates the TSA per se. There are a few airports that use a different security company.

TSA guidelines aren't set by themselves and not by congress as well. So there's no 'law' that the state has to abide by in this situation either.

Until that happens, Texas and the other states that have done this, have the upper hand.

You need to read Sections 114(d), 114(e), and 44901 of Title 49 of the United States Code. This is the law that governs screening at airports. The knucklehead Texas legislators will have to prove that the previously mentioned sections of the United States Code are not covered by Article Vi, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution (The Supremacy Clause).

[Zero Sum 305]

Where were these Texans in the year after 9-11? I am sure many were going after Sikhs and Zoroastrians. Timing is really a matter of convenience.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Feds own the highway by way of funding. If a state rebels, funding gets axed.

You said it. That's how they screwed Alaska back during George Bush Sr. day. For 30 years weed was legal here and nobody ever paid attention to it. Bush got a hard on and threatened to take away all the highway funding if it wasn't made illegal. It never even went to vote. It's like we woke up one day and on the front page of the paper it said weed was now illegal in the state of Alaska. It was nothing short of extortion. Weeds legal here again, but who knows when the next nut case is going to take office and screw us again for the same thing.