It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Irishhaf
Probably my paranoia, but it looks more like a how much can we get away with before the people snap move.
If people passively roll over because it only effects those right next to federal property, how long till it gets expanded.
People should be outraged and not just go well we have more terrorist attacks so this makes sense, our answer should be Ell NO!
But most will not ever been aware it happened, and those that do probably two thirds will say meh doesnt have any impact on me, and whats left is not enough to make the fed back up.
originally posted by: jonnywhite
As I understand it, this bill has a provision only applying to federal land. Has this shown to be false? Doesn't jibe with the thread title.
originally posted by: 3n19m470
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: loam
No they didnt. A warrant is still required unless it meets a 4th amendment exception. Secondly what they are referring to is law enforcement working a lawful call that requires them to come onto private property where the property / property owner in question are not the subject of law enforcement action.
IE a train derails and police come onto private property to investigate the derailment.
Or a terrorist jihadi is caught with a bomb on a train, escapes, and law enforcement knows he couldn't have escaped the tight perimeter and must be in one of two city blocks.