Alaska House Bill Opposing Body Scanners and Pat-Downs

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by phoebepontiac, Feb 13, 2012.

  1. An email from Sharon Cissna this morning brings good tidings:

    First hearing this Wednesday.
  2. Doober

    Doober Original Member

    David Simpson from Texas plans to resubmit his bill to curtail the TSA if he is re-elected in November.
    TravelnMedic and phoebepontiac like this.
  3. Nice! If a bunch of states do it, can they really threaten to make big swaths of the country no-fly zones?
  4. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    So ... potential jurors would still have to put up with this? Otherwise I like it.
  5. You probably know about this stuff better than I do, but I suspect that part is to ward off potential (or actual) criticism of the bill. Don't you think?
  6. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    The rationale is probably to prevent people from carrying guns into courtrooms - but metal detectors take care of that problem. Maybe to give police more leeway?

    But yeah, they're probably trying to segregate the TSA shenanigans from other places where the machines are used.
  7. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    But really, the courts surely don't think this is appropriate in their own house? I mean, how many times do we effectively hear, "So long as it happens to someone else?"
  8. TravelnMedic

    TravelnMedic Original Member

    Well it will be a uphill battle as dewhurst and perry will try and block this. This would go alot way to stop TSAs BS and abuse.

    I would help him campaign if i could but thats a no go thanks to the latest OIG bulletin I got from my disaster response team ... its :trash: but way above my paygrade
  9. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    This bill allows this offensive behavior everywhere but the airport. That sucks.
  10. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I think they're picking their battles. There's nothing to prevent them from introducing a bill at a later date that addresses the other problems.
    phoebepontiac likes this.
  11. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    I hope they do threaten that. It just might be the catalyst that the US Congress needs to smack them down once and for all.
  12. Yeah, I think their approach is very well focused. This was also in the email I received about it:

    Up here, it's highly impractical (and in many areas, impossible) to drive or ferry out of state, either for vacation, business, or medical reasons, and Sharon Cissna seems to have made that a key point. Medical costs up here can be 2-3 times more than elsewhere in the country, which makes it increasingly necessary for people to receive serious medical treatment in the lower 48. Many of our health insurance policies are turning to this as policy, in fact.

    Of course, not to mention how isolated many of us become up here. Personally, I wouldn't have moved up here if I knew a gauntlet of ritual humiliation was going to be required to fly out to visit family. I'm contemplating a drive/ferry trip down to Oregon to visit the inlaws at some point, but allowing as much as a week of travel on both ends of what used to be an easy trip (remember, I have little kids, it would be a long, inefficient drive!) makes it something we really almost can't do, especially if I keep teaching.
  13. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    While exempting the use of these techniques in some locations may not seem like the most desirable situation, there is a sound basis for this. Unlike airports, courthouses, correctional facilities and police stations have a large number of criminals passing through them. It would be hard to get this passed if people could just waltz into prisons or courtrooms.

    Having gone through security at a few courthouses, there usually isn't the wholesale application of these techniques or random groping of the people who enter. Most I've seen are more like airport security circa 1995 with more emphasis on bag inspection than people.
    KrazyKat likes this.
  14. Affection

    Affection Original Member

    I go to a lot of courthouses, and I've never had a hard time, nor seen an AIT.

    KrazyKat likes this.
  15. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    Well, at least some courthouses are already using scanners. As we know, those in whatever city in Florida were using them and somebody leaked the images that supposedly can't be stored. Then there's attorney Gary Fielder in Colorado, who refused to go through a scanner at the courthouse, and they wouldn't let him in to represent his client. So he's embroiled in a lawsuit over that. It's been a couple of years since I read about him, so I have to look up the reports.

    Okay, here's one account:

    And here are some more:,0,1026917.story
  16. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    I get that this is focused on TSA. That the TSA is a target is good. But it is highly likely that TSA's procedures and equipment will spill over to other venues, such as those exempted in this bill, and that some courthouses already have this equipment and similar procedure. Then the battle has to be fought all over again. We've been down this road before. Still, if the bill passes, it'll have a national impact, and the negatives, well, I probably have a slim chance of ending up in court in Anchorage.
  17. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

  18. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    Often with motive. Pretty clear distinction between and airports and these other facilities. I wouldn't call this a loophole, but common sense.
    I've never seen other than "circa 1995:" belt buckles alarming the metal detector, my zippered boots. Remove and clear. I have never, ever seen people patted down much less imaged.
  19. KrazyKat

    KrazyKat Original Member

    So I see that some courthouses got sold the new toys. The thrust of the AK bill argument is on impeding travel. Does it make sense to split off these other facilities? I think it does if that's the basis for argument.
  20. I do agree with you all -- I don't want to see these machines anywhere. But in this case, I think it's politically very wise to separate the other facilities from the bill. The old boy, "hang 'em high" contingent is still very powerful up here, and Sharon Cissna is on their naughty liberal list for other reasons. It would be a shame for another one of these bills to go down for political reasons.
    Fisher1949 likes this.

Share This Page