• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

The newest feel-good legislation for schools

Tess

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2006
Messages
3,837
Location
Bryan, TX
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).
 

dng

State Researcher
Joined
May 25, 2007
Messages
1,290
Location
, , USA
imported post

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

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.?
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
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...
 

openryan

State Researcher
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,602
Location
, Indiana, USA
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.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
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.
 

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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.
 

imperialism2024

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2007
Messages
3,047
Location
Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
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.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
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.
 

CA_Libertarian

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 18, 2007
Messages
2,585
Location
Stanislaus County, California, USA
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.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
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
 

Wynder

State Researcher
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
1,241
Location
Bear, Delaware, USA
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.
 
Top