A Symptom of the Problem

The Nevada Assembly passed Tuesday, and sent to the Senate (who sent to committee on Wednesday), a bill requiring a “cooling-off” period between the time a State Legislator leaves office and the time said former legislator becomes a paid lobbyist.

It passed the Assembly 40-1 with 1 vacant seat.

As I tweeted last night, I oppose this measure on principle. The chief principle being, that if our legislators had principles, lobbyists would never exist.

I’ve written before (although I can’t find it now) that the way our Republic ideally should work is that each candidate should say, essentially, either “I want the Government to take care of you,” or “I want the Government to leave you alone.” Then the elected representatives would stick to that principle on all proposed laws and policies. Rather than a representative saying “you sent me here, what should I do?” they’d say “you sent me here to do this, and that is what I’ll do.” Therefore, lobbying would be ineffective.

Idealism aside, I oppose the idea of a “cooling-off” period. Either the practice should be banned outright, or it should be unrestricted. It is illogical to have people wait a few months. It is even more illogical to make exceptions such as those included in Amendment No. 565 (which partially appears as Subsection 2 of Section 1 of the bill as passed by the Assembly).

I was going to conclude with a comment about sending this post to my State Senator, but realized that was against my principles. HA!

To Win the Heart

“Angel and devil” by Dreamambul

 The great Professor Mondo today has highlighted an article discussing how science is treated through moral filters on both the right and the left (perhaps among other things). The Professor’s conclusion is that in the left-right battle, each side is trying to impose its morality on the other (or on everyone).

One of the quotes within the quoted article has a leftist writer advocating policy to “minimize risk”. My takeaway from the paragraph was that to leftists, it is immoral to expose individuals to the risk of the consequences of their own actions. To me, it is immoral not to do so.

Selected Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Regarding Motor Vehicles

NRS Chapter 483, Section 230
Anyone who operates a motor vehicle on streets and highways in the State must be licensed as a driver.

NRS Chapter 483, Section 550
Anyone convicted of being a driver of a motor vehicle on a public street or highway in the State without a valid license shall be required by the court to obtain a valid license (or show reason for disqualification).

NRS Chapter 483, Section 620
Violation is a misdemeanor.

NRS Chapter 193, Section 120
A misdemeanor is “punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than 6 months”.

Nothing here precludes punishment for death, injury, or damage caused by irresponsible operation of a motor vehicle. Those crimes are defined and prohibited, and punishments proscribed, elsewhere in the law. Also, I expect there are plenty of people driving around without licenses. In fact, the practice is so widespread that our housing area put up a notice that drivers of work crews in the area must have a license, or the crew would be asked to leave. As long as they are responsible and don’t cause any damage, nobody (else) bothers them.

Now replace motor vehicle with firearm, and driver with shooter.

This would serve to “regulate the militia” by requiring licensees to demonstrate proper knowledge and skill, and yet not infringe on any citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. One could own and carry firearms in any responsible manner, which means keeping it concealed in most situations (because open carry tends to make people nervous).

Only when a person actually uses a firearm in public—where “in public” can be defined as narrowly as on a street, or as broadly as anywhere outside one’s home—would he or she be subject to having a license or committing a misdemeanor. The shooter would still be liable for any non-justifiable harm done to others or their property. (And, of course, a jury would have to decide what is justifiable.)

I’d rather not spend 6 months in the county jail, but I think $1,000 is a pretty cheap price to pay for saving a life.