on the one hand we we're talking about the legitimacy of enforcing that Louisiana law...(and since it's on their books,it's valid which is what I talked about in the premise)
and now, we're talking about "why in the world would/did anyone let that become a law"? Is that right?
In which case, changing that vs enforcing that are two totally different things...
as far as your question "why would they accept that"?? well, I think that goes back to what Tom said when he talked about operating from "fear vs an educated perspective".
And quite simply, I think we were far too shocked as a nation to consider anything at that moment other than solutions originating from a place of fear.
So there we we're following 9/11 in a complete state of shock (between grilled cheese sandwiches and ice cream in those months, I single-handedly kept Borden in business) and on the whole I believe the general consenus was all we really wanted was for someone, anyone, to prevent it from happening again.
Hence the PA Act etc.........then again, now that some of the dust has settled and people are taking a moment to read what's in place - they're thinking the WTH is this?
(if you happen to be someone who did read first, fine)
So if we want to change what's already in effect, then it's up to us!
And as far as the "Aly incident", I would label that an "abuse of power"...which is found in all arenas, unfortunately.