Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: The newest feel-good legislation for schools

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    Its full text is not yet available; this was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday:
    By Mrs. LOWEY:
    H.R. 4163. A bill to provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Anybody else see this as another attempt to regulate, at the federal level, guns on school property?

    I'm certain there would be those who felt intimidated, and while a gun isn't, the ammunition would be "explosives" on school property.

    Further, enhanced penalties for threats could make "zero tolerance" policies even more ludicrous (if that is possible).
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  2. #2
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    Well, I felt safe at schools before, and now I feel bullet proof...no pun intended... (sarcasm)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    I'm more concerned that the legislative branch is overstepping its bounds by regulating what the judicial branch must do. With the current trend of legislating both sentences and guilt (through "zero-tolerence" laws), soon there will no longer be a purpose for a judge or jury, as a clerk can just boot up the computer and the trial will consist of, "well, given the conditions the police found, the legislature says.... you pay a $836.19 fine and go to prison for 534.8 hours."

    See http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum46/5927.html for another slaughter of checks and balances.

  4. #4
    Regular Member VAopencarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The 'Dena, Mаяуlaпd
    Posts
    2,147

    Post imported post

    I can hear the criminals and emotionaly disturbed now.............Oh Darn!!! , enhanced penalties!!!......
    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    Is she trying to make kids safer, or is she trying to protectteachers unions?

    The language seems to go out of its way to include adults. I guess teachers and administrators are now just asimportant as police. Kill a cop--enhanced penalty. Threaten a teacher with an explosionor fire--enhanced penalty.

    How many kids have called in bomb threats or yanked a fire alarm to get attention or get out of class, exams, etc.?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    So if I am at school and I threaten to hurt them after class at the mall, am I still subject to these enhanced penalties!?

    This seems a tad too unproductive for me. How about just a zero tolerance policy? I mean honestly schools are so hit and miss on how they enforce things as it is, maybe if they enforced the rules they do have, they wouldn't need to do this...

  7. #7
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    Is she trying to make kids safer, or is she trying to protectteachers unions?

    The language seems to go out of its way to include adults. I guess teachers and administrators are now just asimportant as police. Kill a cop--enhanced penalty. Threaten a teacher with an explosionor fire--enhanced penalty.

    How many kids have called in bomb threats or yanked a fire alarm to get attention or get out of class, exams, etc.?
    No, you can still threaten your teacher, just call him/her at home, don't tell them about your plans at school.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Mag-bayonettes!, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,407

    Post imported post

    Isn't gunpowder not classified as an explosive because it burns rapidly instead of exploding? (semantics, but remember that from some reloading thread awhile back).
    -Unrequited

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    The difference is between 'deflagration' and 'detonation' IIRC the difference between supersonic and sub-sonic - remember that as temperature and pressure increase so does sonic speed.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.4163:
    The text of H.R.4163 has not yet been received from GPO

    Bills are generally sent to the Library of Congress from the Government Printing Office a day or two after they are introduced on the floor of the House or Senate. Delays can occur when there are a large number of bills to prepare or when a very large bill has to be printed.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    If i ever have kids i am homeschooling.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,964

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Its full text is not yet available; this was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday:
    By Mrs. LOWEY:
    H.R. 4163. A bill to provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Anybody else see this as another attempt to regulate, at the federal level, guns on school property?

    I'm certain there would be those who felt intimidated, and while a gun isn't, the ammunition would be "explosives" on school property.

    Further, enhanced penalties for threats could make "zero tolerance" policies even more ludicrous (if that is possible).
    I am not sure if this tramples the 2A. It grossly violates the 10A. When enumerated powers are ignored, lots of bad nanny state law can happen.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Thundar wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    Its full text is not yet available; this was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday:
    By Mrs. LOWEY:
    H.R. 4163. A bill to provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Anybody else see this as another attempt to regulate, at the federal level, guns on school property?

    I'm certain there would be those who felt intimidated, and while a gun isn't, the ammunition would be "explosives" on school property.

    Further, enhanced penalties for threats could make "zero tolerance" policies even more ludicrous (if that is possible).
    I am not sure if this tramples the 2A. It grossly violates the 10A. When enumerated powers are ignored, lots of bad nanny state law can happen.
    Well, the courts have proven that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 can in fact be used for the national (calling it "federal" is a joke) government to legislate whatever they want, unfortunately.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    These numbnuts don't get it. The type of people who are going to attack teachers and children at a school are not thinking about the consequences regardless of what they are. Numerous of them are suicidal and the few that are not know they are going to get caught and be charged with murder. Murder already has at least life sentence if not death penalty possible so how is another law about another variable of this going to change a darn thing? This is more "feel good" legislation to make the soccer moms think the legislation cares about them. The mantra "for the children" will be the next talking point. The sheep are fully in control.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  14. #14
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    Tess wrote:
    Its full text is not yet available; this was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday:
    By Mrs. LOWEY:
    H.R. 4163. A bill to provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Anybody else see this as another attempt to regulate, at the federal level, guns on school property?

    I'm certain there would be those who felt intimidated, and while a gun isn't, the ammunition would be "explosives" on school property.

    Further, enhanced penalties for threats could make "zero tolerance" policies even more ludicrous (if that is possible).
    I think the key word here is "threatening." It looks like this bill would only cover threats of violence or property damage in a school.

    I don't like 'ehancement' penalties in any case. They are always based on flawed arguments, usually appeal to emotion fallacies. (Such is the thinking that resulted in the CA "Gun-Free School Zone Act" which prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000' of schools.)

    I say either leave the law alone or fix the original law. We don't need 2 laws to cover 1 crime.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    Tess wrote:
    Its full text is not yet available; this was introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday:
    By Mrs. LOWEY:
    H.R. 4163. A bill to provide an enhanced penalty for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school property; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
    Anybody else see this as another attempt to regulate, at the federal level, guns on school property?

    I'm certain there would be those who felt intimidated, and while a gun isn't, the ammunition would be "explosives" on school property.

    Further, enhanced penalties for threats could make "zero tolerance" policies even more ludicrous (if that is possible).
    I think the key word here is "threatening." It looks like this bill would only cover threats of violence or property damage in a school.

    I don't like 'ehancement' penalties in any case. They are always based on flawed arguments, usually appeal to emotion fallacies. (Such is the thinking that resulted in the CA "Gun-Free School Zone Act" which prohibits possession of firearms within 1,000' of schools.)

    I say either leave the law alone or fix the original law. We don't need 2 laws to cover 1 crime.
    I disagree about the key word(s).

    Much like the Second Amendment, this proposed legislation has commas. Commas are important.

    While IANAL and there is nothing yet available regarding "legislative intent" it seems to me that what Mrs. Lowey is concerned with is enhancing penalties for threatening to kill, injure, or intimidate an individual, or to cause property damage, by means of fire or an explosive on school property. I say that because I am reading it just like the antis read the Second Amendment.

    I do not think this has anything to do with guns on school property, as guns are neither fire nor an explosive. I do not think that it attempts to regulate the presence of ammunition on school property, as modern smokeless powder ammunition IIRC is not classified as an explosive ( www.atf.gov/forms/notices/e5-7183.pdf )-it's just the way the mechanism of how the bullet is propelled from the cartridge and out the barrel is described.

    Just goes to show you that "feel good" laws do not even address what folks think is making everybody feel good about.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  16. #16
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    By my reading, it's purpose is for the penalty of people who call in bomb threats -- nothing to do with the Second Amendment. We used to get these quite often at the college where I work.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •