PDA

View Full Version : 725 More Reasons to Leave California


CharlieK
01-02-2011, 6:34 AM
Lead story on the Drudge Report today. The California legislature enacted 725 new laws in 2010.

725!!!!

While we focus on those laws that restrict 2A rights, you can bet the rest of them will result in ever increasing debt and erosion of personal liberty.

Here's an idea for a new law: For every new law the state enacts, they have to repeal three. That would be a start.

winnre
01-02-2011, 7:11 AM
But they only posted a handful of them. Where are they all listed?

CharlieK
01-02-2011, 7:23 AM
But they only posted a handful of them. Where are they all listed?

Here's a link to the list, which is from a CA gov website:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pdf/BillsEnactedReport2010.pdf

johnny_22
01-02-2011, 7:56 AM
AB 962 is not on the official list.

socal2310
01-02-2011, 8:01 AM
AB 962 is not on the official list.

Because it was signed into law on October 12, 2009 and only takes effect this year.

Ryan

wildhawker
01-02-2011, 10:05 AM
A fairly slow year for our legislators.

Window_Seat
01-02-2011, 10:09 AM
There is one of few main reasons why our Legislature has so much time to enact so many laws (being my opinion, but I strongly believe this would solve that problem)...

CA is one of 10 Legislatures that are a full time legislature, which has all the enjoyments of full staff, bells, whistles, etc. CA is one of 4 that spends the most time in session, and spends the most time "on the job".

Here is where I got that bit of info (http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16701).

If CA was a "part time" legislature as states like Utah, MT, AZ, IOWA (bolded because they just went Shall Issue yesterday), NV, OR, WA, and the others are, there wouldn't be 725 new laws enacted, and we wouldn't have lawmakers cheering about how they broke records on the number of times they trashed the Constitution. If we got rid of most of their staff, they would have to answer the phone and deal with the ones affected by their shenanigans. Imagine yourself being Tom Ammiano, and having to work with a "guy" or a "gal" who just applied for a CCW after being stalked by gang bangers and was told they can't get one because they didn't donate $50,000.00 to the Sheriff's campaign fund, and finding out that the leader of the PS Committee said no to Knight's SI legislation. That might be what it took in Iowa. It won't matter what letter is next to the name, it will more than likely get done. This is how "Government closer to the people" is supposed to be.

Look at the states in red & "red light" :laugh:.

This is where I believe a ballot initiative would be in order. We might not be able to kick the bums out, but we can make them go to work. It would probably solve the union issues as well. :D

Erik.

N6ATF
01-02-2011, 11:26 AM
Tried and failed, because Poizner wanted to lose the Republican primary in a wastefully expensive fashion rather than help the state and his own bid.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-03-30/bay-area/20827212_1_part-time-legislature-signatures

Bhobbs
01-02-2011, 12:09 PM
725 laws in one year is absolutely insane. We need to end full time legislature in this state. I wonder how many we break each day without even knowing.

PatriotnMore
01-02-2011, 12:22 PM
Does anyone know how many new laws make the violator a felon?

Along with being upset about our legislature and the volume of laws passed yearly, I am more concerned with new laws which create a new class of felons, because felonies directly effect our 2A Right privilege.

CharlieK
01-02-2011, 12:52 PM
I wonder how many we break each day without even knowing.

"The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates." – Tacitus

rromeo
01-02-2011, 2:04 PM
Having one's name on a law is like a merit badge to these a-holes. Make it cost them something to author a bill.

Bhobbs
01-02-2011, 2:37 PM
Maybe passing a law should be a similar process to currently getting a CCW. Very expensive, very long and not a guarantee.

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 2:59 PM
Just to let everyone know, (Assembly Bill No. 634) the CA government or it's employees are no longer financially liable for any hazardous activities you decide to partake in on public lands (like they ever were), like off roading or shooting a gun, etc. etc.


You can't sue us any more, naa, naa,naanaa, naa (tongue sticking out) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_634_bill_20100715_chaptered.pdf)

SECTION 1. Section 831.7 of the Government Code is amended to read:
831.7. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any
person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity,........

.........."(3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, archery, bicycle
racing or jumping, mountain bicycling, boating, cross-country and downhill
skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road
motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing, rocketeering, rodeo, self-contained underwater
breathing apparatus (SCUBA) diving, spelunking, skydiving, sport
parachuting, paragliding, body contact sports, surfing, trampolining,....."


...the list goes on and on....:rolleyes:

Curtis
01-02-2011, 3:22 PM
I think a part time Legislature is a good idea.

I don't think AB 634 sounds like a bad idea.

Just to let everyone know, (Assembly Bill No. 634) the CA government or it's employees are no longer financially liable for any hazardous activities you decide to partake in on public lands (like they ever were), like off roading or shooting a gun, etc. etc.


You can't sue us any more, naa, naa,naanaa, naa (tongue sticking out) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_634_bill_20100715_chaptered.pdf)


...the list goes on and on....:rolleyes:

CharlieK
01-02-2011, 3:22 PM
Just to let everyone know, (Assembly Bill No. 634) the CA government or it's employees are no longer financially liable for any hazardous activities you decide to partake in on public lands (like they ever were), like off roading or shooting a gun, etc. etc.


You can't sue us any more, naa, naa,naanaa, naa (tongue sticking out) (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_0601-0650/ab_634_bill_20100715_chaptered.pdf)


...the list goes on and on....:rolleyes:

Yet another example of the American ideal of equal justice being flushed down the frickin' toilet. What applies to us does not apply to them.

Uriah02
01-02-2011, 3:27 PM
Did that at least balance the budget and pass it on time? Oh wait... sorry wrong state.

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 3:29 PM
I don't think AB 634 sounds like a good idea.

Good idea or not my friend, as of yesterday, it's the law. :mad:

JimWest
01-02-2011, 4:31 PM
Here's a link to the list, which is from a CA gov website:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pdf/BillsEnactedReport2010.pdf

I can't read through a long list like that! I just want to know how many times I am legally allowed to blink.

(Yes, it will come to that)
:rolleyes:

jim293
01-02-2011, 4:34 PM
I am ready to leave now. This state is just ridiculous.

Sunday
01-02-2011, 4:39 PM
Jerry Brown'll save us.

chris
01-02-2011, 4:41 PM
CA is one of 10 Legislatures that are a full time legislature, which has all the enjoyments of full staff, bells, whistles, etc. CA is one of 4 that spends the most time in session, and spends the most time "on the job".



"on the job." :rofl2: yeah right. :rolleyes:

dustoff31
01-02-2011, 4:43 PM
The California legislature enacted 725 new laws in 2010.

I'm surprized there were that many things that were still legal.

CharlieK
01-02-2011, 4:51 PM
I am ready to leave now. This state is just ridiculous.

Yep, us too. First quarter of this year.

CharlieK
01-02-2011, 4:52 PM
I'm surprized there were that many things that were still legal.

That would be funny if it weren't so frickin' tragic.

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 5:11 PM
ATTENSION !!!

Everyone can breath a sigh of relief now.

AB1651 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_1651-1700/ab_1651_bill_20100930_chaptered.pdf) now gives state employees "retirement credit" for their furloughed days.

I know we were all worried about that...

:rolleyes:

Cokebottle
01-02-2011, 5:13 PM
Because it was signed into law on October 12, 2009 and only takes effect this year.
The first half of it took effect February 2010.
That's when retailers had to move the handgun ammo to behind the counter.

753X0
01-02-2011, 5:44 PM
Jerry Brown'll save us.

Yep. Just like last time.
:rolleyes:

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 5:51 PM
Originally Posted by Sunday View Post
Jerry Brown'll save us.

Yep. Just like last time.
:rolleyes:

Yeah, I can hear the helicopters flying over us right now. He must have found more med-flys..:TFH:.. Time to spray the varmints again.......Except this time they're in Sacramento !;)

BigFatGuy
01-02-2011, 7:35 PM
how is 634 a bad law? Why should I be able to sue the government if I hurt myself spelunking, off-roading, or shooting myself in the foot?

Southwest Chuck
01-02-2011, 9:30 PM
how is 634 a bad law? Why should I be able to sue the government if I hurt myself spelunking, off-roading, or shooting myself in the foot?

First I'll acknowledge this is not 2nd related and probably better suited to the Other Topics forum. But, since it was asked here, I'll answer it here.

I'll also assume you're question is sincere, so I'l answer you . If you're the one that's negligent, you shouldn't be able to sue. But what if the State and/or their employees are? I realize that there are many unfounded lawsuits every year. Yes, they cost the State probably millions every year. So the answer is stop allowing all lawsuits? Give government agencies and employees immunity for their actions or lack there-of? No.

Sometimes, some are actually justified. Did you read the entire list? I didn't scrutinize it, but even "Boating" (in general) is listed as a hazardous activity.

Let me give you an example. Sorry its so long, but if you really want to understand, I have to tell you this story. I have been boating at a certain public waterway off and on for the last 30 years or so. Way back when, I ran aground on a hidden reef that was submerged and unseen while leaving a public state run marina. There were no markers or warning bouys. This reef was about 500yards out of the no wake zone, and about a 100 yards from shore. I was accelerating at the time. Luckily I had a very shallow drafted boat and I "skipped" over it, sustaining only motor / prop damage. I talked to the Rangers about it after buying a new $80.00 prop. Yea, they said, they new about it, but then they said so did most other people did too that frequented that marina, so it wasn't a major problem.

Gee, I wish somebody told me about it.

Over the next few years, I saw many other people hit that reef too. I guess The Park service finally put up some marker buoys after someone sustained some major damage and raised a stink.

The last time I was there, (8 years?) the buoys were nowhere to be seen. After a morning of boating I headed back into the marina. To make a long story short, a family had hit the reef in a deep V runabout and one of the children on the boat was ejected and injured. There were other cuts and gashes sustained by the family. It was a terrible accident that NEVER should have occurred. Evidently, the warning buoys were blown away/sunk during a storm the previous year and the Rangers and or Park Service never bothered to replace them. Besides, "everybody knew about the reef, anyway".

So....

(1)They knew a hazard existed.
(2) They acknowledged the hazard by putting warning buoys up.
(3) They acted negligently by not replacing the warning buoys in a timely fashion when they were sunk/swept away.
(4) As a result, an injury occurred as a direct result of the Rangers/States action/inaction when they knew a hazard existed to the public.


This law gives incompetent agencies and employees another reason "not to care" whether or not hazardous situations get addressed in a timely fashion because, well you see, they're not and cannot be held liable anymore for there own incompetence or inaction. It breed complacency.

Think this through. do you really believe this is a good law, or would it have been better to pass a law fighting nuisance lawsuits?

So now, if this exact same thing occures again, the State is immune from liability. Isn't that special.....

cmaher55
01-02-2011, 9:37 PM
How about 725 more reasons to stay and fight the good fight and make them leave....? Idaho and Utah are nice states but I don't enjoy the cold anymore.... Hopefully, when this state goes broke, the benefit checks stop coming in, all the freeloading liberal democrat voters will leave and we can get back to smaller government, a part time legislature, and self sufficient citizens. One can dream can't they......? Regards

Bhobbs
01-02-2011, 9:48 PM
Let's say this state does go bankrupt. Why would anyone believe Jerry Brown would let anything happen to the public unions? They would probably get better contracts.

Hunt
01-02-2011, 11:21 PM
one more reason to join the Free State Project http://freestateproject.org/

Helpful_Cub
01-02-2011, 11:51 PM
Anyone else get a headache from trying to read the highlights of the list of 725?

Chuck0matic
01-03-2011, 12:18 AM
Did anyone ask what this has to do with the 2nd Amendment yet?

BigFatGuy
01-03-2011, 12:37 AM
Think this through. do you really believe this is a good law, or would it have been better to pass a law fighting nuisance lawsuits?


"good" law? No.

But, do i assume all hazards are going to be clearly marked when I'm out boating (or spelunking/skydiving/etc...)? Do I think the state has a responsibility to mark everything for me? No.

Frankly, given the choice, I'd rather everybody accept more responsibility for their own safety and give up a bit of their right to sue every time they twist their ankle playing paintball.

Mind you, there's still a lot of bad laws in there... and with almost a thousand new ones, i guess it's not surprising that there's ONE I think is pretty ok. ;-)

Peter W Bush
01-03-2011, 12:58 AM
The tree of liberty is looking pretty thirsty. How far do these crooks have to go before somebody does something about it? The ballot box does not seem to be working.

CDFingers
01-03-2011, 5:10 AM
Step away from drudge. Use primary sources.

http://ca.gov/CaSearch/Default.aspx?type=All&search=new+laws

If you want to leave, I won't miss you. :chris::43:

CDFingers

Ford8N
01-03-2011, 5:18 AM
How about 725 more reasons to stay and fight the good fight and make them leave....? Idaho and Utah are nice states but I don't enjoy the cold anymore.... Hopefully, when this state goes broke, the benefit checks stop coming in, all the freeloading liberal democrat voters will leave and we can get back to smaller government, a part time legislature, and self sufficient citizens. One can dream can't they......? Regards

Never ever happen, that is all.

The tree of liberty is looking pretty thirsty. How far do these crooks have to go before somebody does something about it? The ballot box does not seem to be working.

The sheep are quite content the way things are. They are use to the way it is now, with all these laws. They have been conditioned to being told everything is against the law in California.

CharlieK
01-03-2011, 5:20 AM
How about 725 more reasons to stay and fight the good fight and make them leave....? Idaho and Utah are nice states but I don't enjoy the cold anymore.... Hopefully, when this state goes broke, the benefit checks stop coming in, all the freeloading liberal democrat voters will leave and we can get back to smaller government, a part time legislature, and self sufficient citizens. One can dream can't they......? Regards

I can only speak for myself but November's election was the last straw. While the vast majority of the country realizes our financial nightmare and loss of personal liberty, California doubled down on socialism. The Art of War tells us that when you cannot win a battle, don't fight it.

However, I do believe we can win the war. I believe the only hope for California is bankruptcy. Only a bankruptcy judge can undo these immoral and unsustainable entitlements and public sector union contracts. The best way, IMO, to bring about that bankruptcy is for those CA citizens and businesses that pay taxes to leave the state, taking their tax revenue with them. That is what we're doing.

So, by leaving, which is a sad and burdensome step for me to take, I am fighting the best way I know how.

CharlieK
01-03-2011, 5:23 AM
Step away from drudge. Use primary sources.

http://ca.gov/CaSearch/Default.aspx?type=All&search=new+laws

If you want to leave, I won't miss you. :chris::43:

CDFingers

Well, The Drudge Report did contain a link to the .gov website, a primary source.

That you feel the need to state you won't miss me is fine. The real question is will you miss my family's tax revenue and that of our business...a not inconsequential amount of revenue to the state I assure you.

CharlieK
01-03-2011, 5:29 AM
Did anyone ask what this has to do with the 2nd Amendment yet?

Several of these new laws are direct assaults on the 2A. While there are several reasons we've decided to leave the state, the ever increasing erosion of 2A rights in California, even in the face of Heller, is one of the more important factors.

It's tax issue, a debt issue, a nanny state issue, and an economic slavery issue but it's also a 2A issue. I look forward to more reasonable regulation of firearms when we leave the state.

dieselcarpenter
01-03-2011, 1:13 PM
I look forward to more reasonable regulation of firearms when we leave the state.


You shouldnt be looking for any "Regulation" you will just be happy to live with with California light.

thrillhouse700
01-03-2011, 1:29 PM
Next year there will be a list of what is legal because it will be easier to type out 18 things.........

We are so effed...........

MolonLabe2008
01-03-2011, 2:06 PM
Lead story on the Drudge Report today. The California legislature enacted 725 new laws in 2010.

725!!!!

While we focus on those laws that restrict 2A rights, you can bet the rest of them will result in ever increasing debt and erosion of personal liberty.

Here's an idea for a new law: For every new law the state enacts, they have to repeal three. That would be a start.

And the Democrats have controlled the California State legislature for decades and went even further left in November, the complete opposite as the rest of the Nation did in November. Go figure.

California is a lost cause.

MolonLabe2008
01-03-2011, 2:10 PM
Weren't there over 900 new laws passed the previous year?

How in the hell can you create so many laws?

What is wrong with these cradle-to-grave nanny-staters?

PixelBender
01-03-2011, 5:12 PM
AB 119 prevents insurance companies from charging different rates for men and women for identical coverage.
SB 782 prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or stalking.
AB 1844—informally known as Chelsea's Law and authored by local Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher—will increase penalties, parole provisions and oversight of sex offenders, including a "one-strike, life-without-parole penalty" for some. 
AB 1871 allows people to lease out their cars when they are not being used—alleviating the need to purchase additional insurance.
AB 537 will make food stamps an acceptable form of payment at farmers markets through an EBT process.
SB 1411 makes it a misdemeanor to maliciously impersonate someone via a social media outlet or through e-mails.
SB 1317 allows the state to slap parents with a $2,000 fine if their K-8 child misses more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse. It also allows the state to punish parents with up to a year in prison for the misdemeanor.
AB 715 makes a change to the California Green Building Standards code. The change will require new California buildings to be energy efficient.
SB 1449 makes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana an infraction with a penalty of a $100 fine.
AB 12 allows foster youth to acquire state services until the age of 21.
SB 1399 allows California to medically parole state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions and ultimately shifts some of the cost of care to the federal government.
AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.

Some of these aren't that bad. (BOLD)

Cokebottle
01-03-2011, 5:53 PM
Some of these aren't that bad. (BOLD)
You say that like those are good things?
SB 782 prevents landlords from evicting tenants who are victims of domestic or sexual abuse or stalking.
In addition to already existing eviction laws?

This is an easy out for deadbeat renters.
AB 1844—informally known as Chelsea's Law and authored by local Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher—will increase penalties, parole provisions and oversight of sex offenders, including a "one-strike, life-without-parole penalty" for some.
Because we all know how well Jessica's Law is being enforced and interpreted.
AB 537 will make food stamps an acceptable form of payment at farmers markets through an EBT process.
Wonderful. More entitlement.
How about making it more difficult to use food stamps.
SB 1317 allows the state to slap parents with a $2,000 fine if their K-8 child misses more than 10 percent of the school year without a valid excuse. It also allows the state to punish parents with up to a year in prison for the misdemeanor.
So parents are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Attempt to discipline your kids and they cry to the school, who calls in CPS and turns your life upside down.

While I don't disagree with SB1317, I strongly disagree with the "nanny" philosophy that has removed many of the tools that parents have available to deal with problem children.
AB 715 makes a change to the California Green Building Standards code. The change will require new California buildings to be energy efficient.
There's more of the state economy down the "green" tubes.
SB 1449 makes the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana an infraction with a penalty of a $100 fine.
I am strongly opposed to this. The roads are hazardous enough with drunk drivers. Pot possession and use is still a Federal crime.
AB 12 allows foster youth to acquire state services until the age of 21.
Are you serious?
Let's create another entire class of citizens who are dependent upon the government.

How about... Foster parents provide for their foster children until they are 18, same as they would their own children, and at 18, the ADULTS take care of themselves like the rest of us?

We need FEWER people on the public dole. We can't afford the ones we already have, and they're adding more?
SB 1399 allows California to medically parole state prison inmates with physical incapacitating conditions and ultimately shifts some of the cost of care to the federal government.
Another way to get criminals back on the street. I don't want them on the street with me.
AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.
That should be my choice if I wish to avoid trans fats.
Maybe I happen to LIKE food prepared with trans-fats?

More nanny laws. I don't need the state of California to tell me what is best for me. I am perfectly capable of deciding that for myself, and deciding what risks I am willing to take in exchange for what benefits.

It's going to be a wonderful world when our diet consists of processed, tasteless "goo" out of a tube, that is formulated by the state of California to contain the proper balance of nutrients, and rationed to us in strict 2000 calorie per day quantities.
Some of these aren't that bad. (BOLD)
Yes, they are.

Cool Hand Luke
01-03-2011, 6:13 PM
It's about time inland California, Orange and San Diego counties create our own state lest we be dragged down in flames by the idiocy of coastal California. :chris:

N6ATF
01-03-2011, 6:42 PM
Orange and San Diego counties are ruled by victim disarming sheriffs. Our counties are part of the problem, not the solution.

Write Winger
01-03-2011, 8:05 PM
Government cannot control law abiding citizens, so they make enough laws until we're all criminals.

SAN compnerd
01-03-2011, 10:18 PM
I would say we are taking a page out of Atlas Shrugged, but we are taking the WHOLE BOOK!

Oh well Kalifornia Uber Alles
you'd look nice as a draw string lamp...

emcon5
01-04-2011, 10:23 AM
Wonderful. More entitlement.
How about making it more difficult to use food stamps.

No, not more entitlement, it lets them use an existing entitlement to buy overpriced "organic" crap. :D


But hey, the good news is it is now a crime to impersonate someone online:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/01/california-bill-criminalizing-online-impersonations-in-effect-starting-today/

:rolleyes:

rodeoflyer
01-04-2011, 11:09 AM
You say that like those are good things?

In addition to already existing eviction laws?

This is an easy out for deadbeat renters.

Because we all know how well Jessica's Law is being enforced and interpreted.

Wonderful. More entitlement.
How about making it more difficult to use food stamps.

So parents are caught between a rock and a hard place.
Attempt to discipline your kids and they cry to the school, who calls in CPS and turns your life upside down.

While I don't disagree with SB1317, I strongly disagree with the "nanny" philosophy that has removed many of the tools that parents have available to deal with problem children.

There's more of the state economy down the "green" tubes.

I am strongly opposed to this. The roads are hazardous enough with drunk drivers. Pot possession and use is still a Federal crime.

Are you serious?
Let's create another entire class of citizens who are dependent upon the government.

How about... Foster parents provide for their foster children until they are 18, same as they would their own children, and at 18, the ADULTS take care of themselves like the rest of us?

We need FEWER people on the public dole. We can't afford the ones we already have, and they're adding more?

Another way to get criminals back on the street. I don't want them on the street with me.

That should be my choice if I wish to avoid trans fats.
Maybe I happen to LIKE food prepared with trans-fats?

More nanny laws. I don't need the state of California to tell me what is best for me. I am perfectly capable of deciding that for myself, and deciding what risks I am willing to take in exchange for what benefits.

It's going to be a wonderful world when our diet consists of processed, tasteless "goo" out of a tube, that is formulated by the state of California to contain the proper balance of nutrients, and rationed to us in strict 2000 calorie per day quantities.

Yes, they are.

I owe you a beer. ;)