PDA

View Full Version : 50,000 Foot View - Legislature (All of it)


Mikeinblack
10-10-2009, 6:51 PM
One thought has been driving me a bit crazy lately... You have a group of people who's sole job is to create more and more laws every year. Yeah some of their time IS spent on budget squables, but (especially here) most of it deals with adding new restrictions on the Citizens...

How is it possible not to have more and more restriction on every aspect of our lives? How can we expect to not have everything over-controlled eventually?

Will there ever be a time when they say, "well, that's enough, our job is done here"?

I think not... Those jobs pay well...

artherd
10-10-2009, 7:19 PM
I still hope for a 1 for 1 legislative process (whereby to enact one law, an old one must be struck)

G17GUY
10-10-2009, 7:23 PM
I still hope for a 1 for 1 legislative process (whereby to enact one law, an old one must be struck)

Thats a good idea:cool2:

bulgron
10-10-2009, 7:54 PM
Just timeout all laws; everything has to be re-debated and renewed every ten years or it becomes unenforceable. Make sure the really important laws, like the ones about murder, rape, arson, etc., also timeout if not renewed. That way, the legislature becomes so busy renewing important laws that they don't have time to sweat the small stuff.

sholling
10-10-2009, 8:50 PM
As long as we have a full time legislature they will have to spend 200 days per year dreaming up new laws to justify their salaries. If you're serious about bringing this nonsense to a halt then join the part time legislature movement. The problem is that the public employees unions like having their bought and paid for minions working full time on getting them more money.

GrizzlyGuy
10-11-2009, 9:04 AM
Legislator = Flagellator: one who whips or scourges (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Flagellator). :)

joe4702
10-11-2009, 3:52 PM
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." Thomas Jefferson.

The Founding Fathers were aware of this and designed a system of self-government to minimize or prevent this progression away from liberty. Mr. Jefferson also said that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance". I think perhaps they underestimated how many citizens would eventually take freedom for granted and forget this axiom.

nobody_special
10-11-2009, 3:58 PM
Simple constitutional change: the total of all laws and regulations must be no longer than 10,000 words.

Or something like that. ;)

Mike's Custom
10-11-2009, 4:26 PM
I have been saying this for years. 25+ years ago they stopped making laws to punsih criminal and started making laws that create NEW criminals. A honset guy buys a gun and carries it in his car and it is not in a locked container he can get busted and charged. This is a new law that creates a new offense. Most all laws and bills passed anymore are creating another classification of criminal.

What I think they should be doing is proposing new laws or bills with a INTENT at the top. What does this law attempt to accomplish? Then this bill would be sent to LEGAL and it would be decided if this law or bill is even consitutionally legal to enact. If not, it is tossed and sent back to be rewritten. If it is then it goes to a panel of CITIZENS to be debated on if it is even needed and not covered under an existing law or bill. How many different laws and bills are used to cover murder? Dead is dead so whether they use a gun or rock or a government produced Chevy it is all murder so why does using a gun make it worse?

sierratangofoxtrotunion
10-11-2009, 5:49 PM
I still hope for a 1 for 1 legislative process (whereby to enact one law, an old one must be struck)

Hm, I thought I was the only one with that idea. I think it's a good one.

SkatinJJ
10-11-2009, 6:02 PM
I have been saying this for years. 25+ years ago they stopped making laws to punsih criminal and started making laws that create NEW criminals. ....

Their language even states that their new law creates new crimes.

I demand to see their study that shows how the old laws are being enforced and test their effectiveness.

If the old law is ineffective, repeal it and try again.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

Librarian
10-11-2009, 6:38 PM
I have been saying this for years. 25+ years ago they stopped making laws to punsih criminal and started making laws that create NEW criminals. A honset guy buys a gun and carries it in his car and it is not in a locked container he can get busted and charged. This is a new law that creates a new offense. Most all laws and bills passed anymore are creating another classification of criminal.

What I think they should be doing is proposing new laws or bills with a INTENT at the top. What does this law attempt to accomplish? Then this bill would be sent to LEGAL and it would be decided if this law or bill is even consitutionally legal to enact. If not, it is tossed and sent back to be rewritten. If it is then it goes to a panel of CITIZENS to be debated on if it is even needed and not covered under an existing law or bill. How many different laws and bills are used to cover murder? Dead is dead so whether they use a gun or rock or a government produced Chevy it is all murder so why does using a gun make it worse?

I've long had a somewhat similar opinion.

I think every law ought to describe the problem it proposes to address.

It should include a measurement of that problem, and a description of how that measurement is to be performed, and a statement of what changes in that measurement would show that the law was 'working'. Proposing to measure a thing that made no difference or was unmeasurable would require that the bill be rejected.

The bill should explain exactly how the changes it would make to existing law, or additions to law, would accomplish the change in the measured 'things'. If it could be demonstrated that the proposed changes couldn't do that, that would require that the bill be rejected.

The law should appropriate funds to perform that measurement at repeated intervals (not longer than 2 years) AFTER the law might be enacted, and specify a time for reporting the results to the legislature. If two successive measurements of what the law was supposed to make 'better' come back with 'no change' or 'worse', the law would be repealed.

The legislature then requires a standard of 'how big' a problem is, and all proposed bills would be ranked in descending order by 'how big'; bills would be considered in 'how big' order.

And 'gut and replace' would be banned - change the subject of a bill, and it goes back to the beginning of the bill process in its house of origin.

Comments on bills would go to the Legislative Analyst's office as well as to legislators and committees, and the LA would be required to compile and publish honest tallies of communications for/against a bill.

And there must be a pony in here somewhere ....

Robb
10-11-2009, 6:42 PM
Vote!

Mstrty
10-11-2009, 6:51 PM
Vote!

I love seeing a post that makes a quiet member speak up.
Great first post. Welcome to CalGuns
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/attachment.php?attachmentid=34973&stc=1&d=1255315806

Mikeinblack
10-11-2009, 6:59 PM
Vote!

Find me a candidate that feels that no new restrictions are needed... I will CAMPAIGN for them. I will be holding my breath here...

SkatinJJ
10-11-2009, 6:59 PM
Vote!

Welcome to Calguns.

Please take a few minutes and call in to the Governor to oppose legislation that sucks.

916-445-2841 then go through the prompts 1-2-2-2 for AB 962 ammo registration
AND the same number to call 1-2-3-2 for SB585 to save the Cow palace gun shows.

Semper FI!!!

JJ

(sorry for the attempted thread jack :chris:)

Mikeinblack
01-01-2010, 8:42 AM
Check out the LA Times Page A3 for the latest list of new laws these Jack-A**es put into play for '10...

vantec08
01-01-2010, 9:22 AM
About 25 years ago or so, criminality began being "explained away" because of "underlying reasons for crime" - - - in other words, criminals became the constituency of a political party, and it was far safer for the politicians of that party to demonize inanimate objects. Some former felonies were misdemeanorized, some misdemeanors became infractions, some infractions were declared unconstitutional and deleted from the penal codes. The entire criminal law code slipped one whole cog on the morality scale. As has been said in this discussion, politicians feel the need to appear to earn their keep so when criminal law was relaxed, it was only natural for them to turn to In-Prohibitum laws to appear to be doing something constructive. Where it gets further compounded is that many voters (mainly in the major cities who carry most elections in CA) keep chasing the something-for-nothing illusion, and will gladly accept such nonsense for their piece of the treasury. By the way, after 15,000 years as a species and 250 as a society, we know what causes crime. Criminals cause crime.

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. -- C.S. Lewis

Dont Tread on Me
01-01-2010, 11:41 AM
I like the write one repeal one idea.

I'd love to gun control laws written with a metric that defines their success criteria and they are automatically repealed if they don't meet it.

PonchoTA
01-01-2010, 1:13 PM
I still hope for a 1 for 1 legislative process (whereby to enact one law, an old one must be struck)

:iagree: AND, a bill must be written so anybody can understand it, and on one sheet of paper. Make the language plain and direct. No attachments, no riders, just the intent of the bill.

.

bigcalidave
01-01-2010, 1:23 PM
The function and operation of state legislature needs to change. Part time, no pay, no campaign donation BS. Or they will forever HAVE to create new laws and be paid off in new ways. That's just the survival of their jobs. If we all think they failed we need a RESET.

One question... Wouldn't the legislature need to come up with the bill that would fire them all and reduce the job position to volunteer pay and part time???

timdps
01-01-2010, 1:28 PM
I still hope for a 1 for 1 legislative process (whereby to enact one law, an old one must be struck)


Because we have far too many laws on the books now, this needs to be a 1 for 2 legislative process (whereby to enact one law, two old ones must be struck).

tim