Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#35
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mark wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 07:32:50 -0800, Scott en Aztlán wrote: On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 08:37:14 -0500, Mark wrote: On 10 Dec 2004 13:18:54 GMT, (Gordon Burditt) wrote: It's legal if one side of the conversation is aware. Both sides need to be aware. In some instances a verbal mention of a recording must be announced. In others, an intermittent audible tone or beep is sufficient to constantly remind both parties that a recording is being made. Which of the above is accurate depends on what state you are in. Incorrect. It's a federal determination (wire tap). Local state regulations cannot apply here since one party could be in Maine, and the other in California. Local state regulations apply unless the parties ARE (not "could be") in different states. No, federal supersedes local. Always has and always will. It all comes down to this. Everything I've ever heard on this subject suggests that Gordon is correct. While states may impose their own laws IN ADDITION to federal laws, they cannot put a law on the books that contradicts federal law. Look at all the mess going on now with gay marriage and trying to make a constitutional amendment. That would eliminate any/all state laws that say it's OK. ---------------------- State rights vs federal subsumption is more complex than merely the word: "contradicts". The State cannot forbid that which is subsumed under the federal assurance of human rights or any and all high court interpretations of that effect, and of the commercial effects of over-reaching federal law, but things not so directly banned by federal aegis are game for state control. Steve |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
VOODOO CB & ILLEGAL MODIFICATION BOOKS AT 40% OFF | CB | |||
VOODOO CB & ILLEGAL MODIFICATION BOOKS AT 40% OFF | CB | |||
very irronic: cell phone eavesdropping & old tv sets | Scanner | |||
Freeband & Ham | CB |