PDA

View Full Version : Cost to California of bad laws...


NotEnufGarage
02-19-2012, 9:25 AM
An article in the Bee today about the $2 million it cost the state to settle (lose) the lawsuit over Leland Yee's attempt to ban violent video games got me thinking.

Is there a list somewhere of all the costs the state and/or counties have had to incur and/or reimburse to CGF, SAF, NRA, etc. in the last few years for other bad legislation that has been overturned?

With this issue front page in the Bee today, it would be nice to point the writer to additional cases where the legislature has wasted taxpayer funds in their zeal to make California a gun free utopia, regardless of the legality of that.

Article - Failed legal fight over video games costs California nearly $2 million (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/19/4274796/failed-legal-fight-over-video.html)

pontiacpratt
02-19-2012, 9:32 AM
That's where fighting laws sucks. It cost me money to challenge the law while they use my tax money to defend the law.. lose lose really.

SilverTauron
02-19-2012, 9:33 AM
An article in the Bee today about the $2 million it cost the state to settle (lose) the lawsuit over Leland Yee's attempt to ban violent video games got me thinking.

Is there a list somewhere of all the costs the state and/or counties have had to incur and/or reimburse to CGF, SAF, NRA, etc. in the last few years for other bad legislation that has been overturned?

With this issue front page in the Bee today, it would be nice to point the writer to additional cases where the legislature has wasted taxpayer funds in their zeal to make California a gun free utopia, regardless of the legality of that.

Article - Failed legal fight over video games costs California nearly $2 million (http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/19/4274796/failed-legal-fight-over-video.html)

One man's fiscal disaster is another man's idea of money well spent.

Liberals committed to the goal of establishing a benevolent government that makes all the decisions for the greater good of everyone would see those expenditures on gun lawsuits as money well spent. Ensuring the security of California's citizens is a "priceless effort" after all.

We cannot attack a system of thinking based on emotion with facts,any more than we can attack a singular bee with a .44 magnum Desert Eagle pistol.

NotEnufGarage
02-19-2012, 10:10 AM
One man's fiscal disaster is another man's idea of money well spent.

Liberals committed to the goal of establishing a benevolent government that makes all the decisions for the greater good of everyone would see those expenditures on gun lawsuits as money well spent. Ensuring the security of California's citizens is a "priceless effort" after all.

We cannot attack a system of thinking based on emotion with facts,any more than we can attack a singular bee with a .44 magnum Desert Eagle pistol.

While I agree with your sentiment and that of the previous poster, getting more of this information out to the public might help to enrage a few that are either marginally supporting the nanny staters or downright apathetic enough to inspire them to vote against any more of this. Given that we'd have to fight the entrenched media to get the message out, it wouldn't be easy, but painting it as a scandal might be enough to get a few to pick it up and run with it.

proclone1
02-19-2012, 10:15 AM
Calling DeLeon, crackpot assemblyman Deleon....

vantec08
02-19-2012, 10:18 AM
Somehow, some way, we have to make it cost the very politicians and bureaucrats who attempt to tamper with the Bill of Rights. Simply extorting more taxes to pay for such nonsense means they risk nothing. Which is the entire basis of modern "progressive-ism" . . .. shotgun everything and everyone and hope something sticks at no cost to the shooter.

Lone_Gunman
02-19-2012, 11:06 AM
I would rather my tax money go to a hard working attorney who is advancing our Second Amendment rights than to some do nothing slob on the government teat.

vantec08
02-19-2012, 11:33 AM
I would rather see the perpetrator(s) be on the hook for some of it (civil OR criminal).

sfbadger
02-19-2012, 2:33 PM
I recently read that the cost to the taxpayers of San Francisco to fight (and lose) the battle over Prop H, (handgun ban in SF), was approx. $800,000, mostly to the lawyers on both sides, (NRA and a private firm for SF).

When will they learn?

NotEnufGarage
02-19-2012, 2:51 PM
Somehow, some way, we have to make it cost the very politicians and bureaucrats who attempt to tamper with the Bill of Rights. Simply extorting more taxes to pay for such nonsense means they risk nothing. Which is the entire basis of modern "progressive-ism" . . .. shotgun everything and everyone and hope something sticks at no cost to the shooter.

But how do we do this, short of the invocation of the true purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

I assume they already have some kind of immunity from prosecution and civil suits. The cost means nothing to those who vote to elect them, since they're either behind them or pay nothing in taxes anyway.

CCWFacts
02-19-2012, 5:21 PM
Read the article:

Leland Yee, who crafted the disputed law, says the legal fight was worth the cost.

"I think we felt the issue was so important that it warranted the costs associated with it," said Jim Humes, Brown's chief deputy at the time and now his executive gubernatorial secretary.

"I felt it was important that the state take an active role in protecting kids, because that's our responsibility," Yee said.

But the law never kept any child from buying any video game because a judge blocked its implementation in 2005, launching a long legal fight.

"I think it absolutely was worth it," Steyer [of Common Sense Media ] said.

It's so easy to feel that when when you're spending Other People's Money.

Window_Seat
02-19-2012, 6:56 PM
Tough on Crime (on the State's Dime) (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1871427)

While it doesn't mention the effect of gun control's miserable failures, the paper does briefly mention the effect that policy-driven incarceration has on the state's budget. The main point of the article is the massive amounts of $$ that the counties are costing the state from incarcerating "the people".

And then there's this:

The Past and Future Role of the Second Amendment and Gun Control in Fights Over Confirmation of Supreme Court Nominees (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1879297).

Erik.