Not legally, they weren't. Which means none of the evidence could be admissible in court, which means it would be utterly pointless to listen to us. Tho i would not doubt the government has had some nefarious techniques for intelligence gathering in the past, it's never been sanctioned like this, and couldn't be used against citizens.
As a law abiding citizen, I don't give a flying hooha if they can legally use it against me in court, I only care that they ARE listening. If the only difference between now and before 9/11 in this case, is that they can now legally use the incriminating evidence against criminals, than what's the big deal? They aren't doing anything they weren't doing before...
As I just said, this is the law as specified in the patriot act, and the new definition of "chemical weapons of mass destruction". Yes there were bomb-making laws, and if you had, say, a detonator, the 500 lbs of fertilizer in your garage could certainly be used against you. I'd go out on a limb and say that's pretty reasonable. But we're not talking about specific bomb-making or anything, they defined as contraband a lot of household chemicals that the average American would have. Normally such a law wouldn't have ever been passed, they have to be very carefully worded to avoid such conflicts. But the patriot act was passed anyway.
What i'm saying is, if the government wanted to arrest you (say, for dissidence), this would be a great reason to do it.
As far as I know, it's basically the same law as before, conerning personally owned chemicals. The only real difference is that they added a few more chemicals to the list. There for, now not only are the gardeners at risk, but so are the janitors 😱
[/sarcasm] 😉
Unless you know something specific to the contrary? I'm all up for enlightenment 😀
Tyler
Earendil