Home

Tennessee HB0212/SB0621 NIB : Mandatory Seat Belts For Dogs

March 2, 2011

Lynn Swearingen Uncategorized , , , , 3 Comments

She's old, but runs good.

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

I have to admit when I was alerted to Tennessee’s  HB 0212/SB0621 the first thought that popped in my head was “Well – That makes sense.”:

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55,
Chapter 8, Part 2, relative to the exercising of due
care by motor vehicle drivers.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF TENNESSEE:
SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 55, Chapter 8, Part 2, is amended by
adding a new section thereto, as follows:
Section 55-8-202. No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an unrestrained
animal in the front driver seat. For the purposes of this section, a restrained animal
means an animal secured in a harness or vehicle seat, confined in a box, or hard or soft
sided travel crate, or being held by a person in the front passenger seat or in a rear seat.
A violation of this section is punishable as provided by § 55-8-136.
SECTION 2. This act shall take effect July 1, 2011, the public welfare requiring it.

No person shall operate a motor vehicle with an unrestrained animal in the front driver seat – that makes sense to me. Who wants a Weimaraner behind the Wheel, especially if they might be under the influence of Alpo or something? How would that actually be possible unless the passenger was a rural USPS carrier who had dual controls? Of course things are never quite what they seem when Legislators get involved…..this has actually passed the Tennessee House with a Voice Vote!

So being the interested party, I began a little search to determine what exactly this might mean for the Canine coupe cavorters. Surely Tennessee must be flooded with unlicensed dogs dashing about the back roads on their way to secret poker parties while their humans reclined in blissful ignorance to compel State Representative Jim Cobb and State Senator Campfield to introduce HB0212/SB0621.

Okay, maybe it was the increased revenue instead? Don’t think so. According to the Fiscal Summary this is the momentous contribution that will be raked into Tennessee’s coffers to assist in alleviating the one billion dollar deficit:

Increase State Revenue – $1,100 Increase Local Revenue – $100 More

North Carolina SB 141 NIB : The Right To Conceal Carry For Special People.

March 1, 2011

Lynn Swearingen 2nd amendment, Government, Police State , , , , , , , 1 Comment

 

Left: Citizen Right: Government Employee

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Arrogance abounds in the halls of North Carolina Legislature. All citizens are special, but according to SB 141(pdf) – some are “more special” than others

State lawmakers last week introduced a bill that would allow North Carolina district attorneys, assistant DAs and investigators to carry concealed weapons while on official business. Sen. Debbie Clary, R-Cleveland, said some prosecutors fear falling victim to violence.

“They want the right to protect themselves,” said Clary, a co-sponsor of the bill. “They have a very dangerous job just as all of our law enforcement does.”

Partial Text:

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO PROVIDE THAT ANY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ASSISTANT DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, OR INVESTIGATOR EMPLOYED BY THE OFFICE OF A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY WHO EITHER HAS A CONCEALED HANDGUN PERMIT THAT IS
VALID IN NORTH CAROLINA OR WHO HAS BASIC LAW ENFORCEMENT
TRAINING CERTIFICATION IN NORTH CAROLINA IS EXEMPT FROM THE
GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST CARRYING A CONCEALED WEAPON AND
FROM THE PROHIBITIONS AGAINST CARRYING A WEAPON ON CERTAIN
PREMISES OR IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.

Here is an interesting question to ask the Sponsor(s) of SB 141 – why can’t Defense Attorneys be granted this special status along with Government Employees? More

Illinois HB 1166 NIBS : Animal Hoarding

February 22, 2011

Lynn Swearingen Government , , , , , , , , 15 Comments

Lynn Swearingen (c) copyright 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Not content with raising taxes 66%, attempting to track down those crazy homeschoolers so they can be “helped”, and sheltering Wisconsin’s missing Democrats (we hear that Indiana’s Dems are on the run as well)  Illinois actually has HB 1166 sitting in Committee right now which will criminalize individuals who own 7 or more “companion animals”.

As usual, one has to dig around a bit to find out just what the terminology contained within the proposed Law means and what the effect might be:

Companion Animal :

(510 ILCS 70/2.01a)
Sec. 2.01a. Companion animal. "Companion animal" means an animal that is commonly considered to be, or is considered by the owner to be, a pet. "Companion animal" includes, but is not limited to, canines, felines, and equines.
(Source: P.A. 92‑454, eff. 1‑1‑02.)

What will change in current law (pdf of HB 1166):

A person must obtain a permit from the Board to possess 7
or more companion animals, as defined in the Humane Care for
Animals Act. Failure to receive a permit for the possession of
7 or more companion animals is a violation of this Section and
a person is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or
subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a
violation continues constituting a separate offense.

Who is “The Board” referred to in the above change? More

%d bloggers like this: