New Illinios Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Drain Cleaner

Page 1 of 3  
This is how you're loosing your liberty in the USA.
One piece of ID at a time.
=================================== New Law Requires Photo ID To Buy Drain Cleaner January 5, 2012 6:34 PM
CHICAGO (CBS) A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.
Its getting a rough reception from customers and merchants alike although perhaps none more than a cashier at Schroeders True Value Hardware in Lombard.
Theyre not very happy about it at all, said Don Schroeder, one of the stores owners. One of the customers actually threatened the (cashier) and threatened to throw the acid on her.
LISTEN: WBBM Newsradios Bob Roberts reports http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/cleaners-w2-thu_mixdown.mp3
Although the customer did not make good on the threat, and no one called police, other employees of Schroeders said they would call police immediately if any similar threat is made.
The law, which took effect Sunday, requires those who seek to buy caustic or noxious substances, except for batteries, to provide government-issued photo identification that shows their name and date of birth. The cashier then must log the name and address, the date and time of the purchase, the type of product, the brand and even the net weight.
State Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock) obtained passage of the new law following attacks in which drain cleaner was poured on two Chicago women, badly scarring them.
So thats who I have to call, Schroeder said.
He said that when he called his local legislator, the legislator claimed not to know about the new law. Neither, he said, did other retailers in the area. He said he and other store personnel had to call to a number of stores before they could get details.
Non-compliance results in fines: $150 for the first offense, $500 for the second and up to $1,500 for the third and subsequent violations.
Schroeder estimated that there are easily 30 or more products in the store that must be reported when sold.
Jewel-Osco has removed the few items it carried from its shelves, but Schroeder said he does not have that option as a hardware store. He said he does not believe that the precautions written into the bill will prevent such crimes from occurring.
How are they going to find out, by asking every customer, what kid might have done that? Its not going to solve any problems, Schroeder said. Its not going to cure anything.
Link to story: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/05/new-law-requires-photo-id-to-buy-drain-cleaner /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/7/2012 8:27 AM, Home Guy wrote:

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/01/05/new-law-requires-photo-id-to-buy-drain-cleaner / Wouldn't it be easier to outlaw caustic women? ^_^
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I's say just wait a bit. Looks like just another example of a kook politician and other politicians who didn't know what they were even voting for. I predict it will soon be repealed. It apparently is very broad and applies to more than just drain cleaner. But it's a good example of the many loon politicians out there today. Anytime anything bad happens, they assume just one more half-baked law is the solution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/7/2012 8:57 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Like The TSA? o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You know how to make a northern boy so proud. You are the ultimate par excellance! Y'all write more, hear?
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .

Like The TSA? o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/7/2012 5:21 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

Or the "patriot act" which has been renewed a number of times with both "teams" holding hands.
Things aren't going to change unless folks wake up and realize the red vs blue team circus is just to keep everyone distracted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/8/2012 7:19 AM, George wrote:

I always thought The Patriot Act was Republicans giving Democrats another tool to use to destroy the country whenever they got into power. o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

The Patriot Act was a collection of some 30-odd amendments to existing law (i.e., nothing new). What provision(s) of the Act do you find troubling?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

Fascinating. It's possible those that don't like the Patriot Act lied to you also. That's what I'm trying to discover.
Once again, what parts of the Patriot Act should not, in your judgement, exist?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/10/2012 5:40 AM, HeyBub wrote:

Perhaps you should elaborate on why a law that contradicts the very core values of our nation is a good thing. Expand on why one provision enables warrantless searchesby the so called "National Security Letter" which authorizes the FBI to search US citizens without the signature of a judge with the only limitation being the search be related to a "tangible thing" is a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George wrote:

Good point that illustrates your misunderstanding.
First, there is no constitutional right to decline a valid search of a document in the possession of a third party. It's the declining of the third party that national security letters (NSLs) are meant to correct. Second, the equivalent of NSLs have been part of the law since the early 1970s. Originally meant to deal with the narcotics money-laundering trade, the law specified what places could be served. These places included banks and all financial institutions, car rental agencies, storage sheds(!), and a few other, specific, places. The amendment in the Patriot Act expanded the list of places subject to a NSL to ALL commercial entities. The forerunner to NSLs has been tested many times by the courts and always found to be kosher. Nothing new here.
During the morning of 9-11, FBI agents spread out over Boston canvassing the major hotels. Their theory was that a list of guests who checked out that morning could be compared with passenger manifests of planes still in the air, thereby possibly preventing another tragedy. Every single one of these FBI requests was denied by the hotels canvassed. The hotels uniformly offered as an excuse the "privacy concerns" of their guests.
The first point is, if you give a piece of information about yourself to someone else, you have lost control over the dissemination of that information. You no longer have a right to keep it private. The second point is that a NSL can only disgorge that which would be available via a search warrant. Since time immemorial, there has never been a right of privacy on records kept in the normal course of business (with a couple of exceptions such as legal or medical work papers). The third point is that it is not YOUR rights being compromised, it is the assumed "right" of the hotel or other commercial enterprise.
You may not LIKE the law, but virtually all courts that have studied the issue have found that it comports EXACTLY with the 4th Amendment. All that said, what, in your view, is the problem?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One small nit to pick for clarification purposes: Unless the piece of information you give up is under one of the very specific legal areas such as doc, lawyer, or pastor. Even then, there are well known exceptions. If you disclose something to a lawyer and there is another person hanging around, it may not covered by priveledge. The PATRIOT Act did nothing to over turn these.
T
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt Ullman wrote:

Correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/10/2012 11:46 AM, HeyBub wrote:

No misunderstanding.

Really, nothing new? You just explained that the patriot act *expanded* the coverage of NSLs.
You are just offering the same stupid argument as used for the increasing demands for producing an ID card "well you need it for that and another thing so what is the problem demanding it for this additional thing..."

Nice heybub story but I don't believe the patriot act was in force on the morning of 9/11..

But NSLs don't require the signature of a judge. And it isn't a good thing that their use is expanded.

So what is your point? I don't know if they were examined or not and you make up stuff to screw with people. If they were examined as you claim it doesn't mean they can't be examined by others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd say preventing another 911 isn't a stupid argument. Sounds like you'd like a return to the days where the CIA was prevented from sharing data with the FBI because of similar concerns.

Wooosh! His whole point obviously was an example of why the patriot act was passed.

I'm sure when there is a case of merit where the govt has even come close to abusing it's power, the ACLU will be there bringing a case. I say until then, when you can show it's being abused, I'd prefer to err of the side of preventing another 911. I don't exactly like the idea that I have to get fingerprinted, fingerprints run through the FBI, background checked, etc to buy a pistol, which the constitution specifically says I can have, either. But I recognize the need for it is valid.

I think his obvious point is that they have been examined and found to be legal. Meaning courts, where judges live, apparently don't have the same evaluation of the legality that you do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 1/11/2012 10:35 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

I said that? Agencies can share all of the data they want that was obtained freely or by a signed order from a judge.

No whoosh, his point was that it he thinks it is a bad idea to be able to say no to the government. I am pretty sure those folks who formed our government had included that as a cornerstone of the US government they created. Do you object to those ideas and their thinking?

So again you are claiming citizens have no right to question the actions of the government?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 07:35:44 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

<snip>
Fingerprints to buy a pistol? Where? Why?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

The first and only point is that the FBI failed your country in not preventing the hijackers from getting on the planes in the first place. There was an internal failure in the FBI to act on information it already had that something was about to happen, and who was going to carry it out.
Even if the hotels had given the FBI the info they wanted, it would have made no difference - it wouldn't have stopped those 4 planes from being used as human-guided cruise missles.
The real failure was in the turf wars and lack of communication between (and even within) your various "intelligence" agencies. Eroding your civil liberties with these new laws does nothing but paper over the real deficiencies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nah there was a lot to go around. If Immigration had found and tossed those whose visa had expired they wouldnt' have been around. The pre-TSA security regs (supposedly from the FAA) already had box cutters as not legal, but screening had become a joke (I went from Indy to NOLA and back without once having to show any ID less than 6 months before it happened).

locking barn doors after the horse is gone, but still a legitimate investigative tool at that very early point in the proceedings.

Nonsense. The laws passed in the mean time to make the agencies work together and to have one overarching Czar is what papered over the real intelligence deficincies.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

...that it was passed under the Bush administration, of course.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.