Thursday, April 19, 2012

When do lawmakers think that sentences are excessive?

When the sentences apply to the lawmakers:
CHEYENNE — State lawmakers are drafting legislation that would prevent local governments in Wyoming from passing any gun control laws, under penalty of heavy fines or even removal from office.

...

Casper City Councilman Paul Bertoglio, who was mayor when the City Council acted, opposed the ordinance against weapons in city government meetings. But he defended the City Council’s right to pass such an ordinance, citing a provision in state law stating local governments can pursue laws not addressed by the state. [That's the whole point of the proposed legislation now isn't it, punkin? - Borepatch]

Bertoglio also said the punishments laid out in Kroeker’s proposal are “excessive,” especially the threat to have a court remove elected officials from office.
I guess we know all we need to  about how City Councilman Paul Bertoglio rolls.  Sounds like a great justification for "there ought to be a law".  And how about we send a ninja SWAT team to kick in his door at 0200 to see if he has any contraband gun control laws?

3 comments:

  1. In slightly related news there is now a bill going through in CO that would take away the redundant CBI background check when people purchase a firearm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I always think of Jimmy Hatlo, comic author of the "There Ought To Be A Law" cartoon, in newspapers for years when I was growing up.
    What a weird mindset.
    Of course, this is the same Jimmy Hatlo who invented/popularized H/T or hat tip, which many bloggers use today!
    Thanks, and a tip of the Hatlo hat to...

    ReplyDelete
  3. "especially the threat to have a court remove elected officials from office."

    The fallacies lurking in that statement are enough to make my eyes water:

    The "right" of any institution to impose itself above a peaceful individual who has not requested it to do so, is an appeal to "might is right", or paraphrased to "We can, so we will" A justification, which if accepted would also justify the totally unacceptable acts of a one on one murder or rape.

    The appeal to democracy, could equally be used to justify the unacceptable acts of gang rape or of lynching - will of a majority.

    put into the form of a dilemma:

    Either a higher elected body has the right to violently coerce a lower one,

    or (and this is the position I take)

    Neither body has the right to violently coerce.

    or

    ReplyDelete

Remember your manners when you post. Anonymous comments are not allowed because of the plague of spam comments.