« AD60 Watch: Another Larry Dick Reception | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- October 12, 2007 »

October 11, 2007

Comments

David L. Bahnsen

Any detail available so interested parties can see what brough Bob Huff's and even Mimi Walters's score down?

just a question

what does it mean "family rights?"

are rights being taken away from families? please explain.

Chuck DeVore

For “Just a question”:

Family rights are infringed upon when government takes it upon itself to be our nanny. For instance, bills scored by CRFI included the following:

AB 16, which removes immunization decisions from legislators, physicians, and parents, by requiring an unelected State
Public Health Officer to decide vaccine mandates.

AB 105, which bans minors under 14 from using tanning salons, regardless of whether they receive parental permission.

AB 1511, which creates a government program to train parents how to communicate with their children about "sex, sexual health, and making well-informed decisions to protect their health and safety."

SB 33, which prohibits minors from using cell phones when driving with no exemptions are made for hands-free wireless devices or parental consent. Suggests that the state sees itself as better equipped than parents to make family decisions.

ACA 8, which codifies state eminent domain privileges, allowing owner-occupied homes, houses of worship, and other
properties to be "taken or damaged for public use."

One Who Knows

What happened to Jim Silva?

just a question - answered

thanks for the clarification chuck. i hope they are successful on the items you mentioned. on a similar notice, i saw an ad on TV just the other night telling young folks to abstain from sex. the ad mentioned a dot-gov web address (which i don't recall). i hope they can do something about this wasteful expense as well.

Chuck DeVore

Re: Silva -- "Da-ohh!" My bad. I was quickly working from an old list of the legislature as it was last year and did not transfer him over. My apologies to my colleague who is a firm vote on the floor.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore

One Who Knows

There appears to be a diference of opinion over what this so-called Capital Resouce group is all about.

On the San Bernardino Blog, Senator Bob Dutton has a different take.

Here is what Dutton says about them:

"This year the group said its legislative scorecard focused on bills ranging from homosexual marriage to 'hate crimes.'

"Some of the bills tracked this year by the Capitol Resource Institute on which Senator Dutton voted no, included AB 43 (Leno) that would have legalized homosexual marriage in direct violation of Proposition 22 which was passed by the voters and recognized a marriage as that between a 'man and a woman'. Another bill was SB 777 (Keuhl) that would encourage the teaching of homosexual activity in public schools. Both of these bills are currently on Governor Schwarzenegger’s desk awaiting his veto or signature."

That sounds a little more like the group as opposed to whether or not 12 year olds should be allowed to use tanning booths. BTW, any parent who allows his or her pre-teenager to use a tanning booth should have their children taken away from them.

Chuck DeVore

Both kinds of votes were scored.

Regarding your comments about tanning booths, I'd never let my kids use them -- but then - don't want the Nanny State telling me, to the point of bans or criminal charges, what to do. The State is not my nanny -- nor should it be yours.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Publius

So Chuck,
Is it a "Nanny State" that requires the use of seat belts? Child car seats?
Would you also say that government is being a "nanny" when speeding laws are enforced? When drivers are given tickets for running red lights.
Shouldn't we, the public, be free to determine when it is safe to cross an intersection. I'm sure 99.99% of us would only proceed on green lights.
Just curious about where this nanny state begins for you. Where is the line between personal liberty and big brother?

Chuck DeVore

Publius, perhaps you'd better tell us what part of our lives should be free from government mandate.

We passed laws relating to toilet size, smoking in cars, cell phone use in cars, and tanning salons, to name a small fraction of the new laws. There was also a proposed bill to ban spanking. I see no end to the amount and number of laws we could pass to mandate and proscribe every small aspect of our lives. Why not just be like the old Soviet Union where what wasn't specifically allowed was forbidden?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

perhaps there's a middle ground

a nice test of of nanny-laws ought to be: who is harmed by the action that is to be banned or regulated?

in the case of kids driving with cell phones.. the potential victim is me. it doesn't matter if chuck thinks it's ok for his kids to talk on phones and drive. if those same kids want to go get skin cancer, have at it. just don't do your thing on top of me.

it seems silly to protest this sort of thing when we already mandate what age kids may drive and drink...etc.

Chuck DeVore

Then punish the crime of driving while distracted -- which, by the way, is already a crime!

All the best,

Chuck DeVore

Chuck DeVore

To follow up on our laws and how we should make them, there already are on the books laws against reckless driving. The Vehicle Code Sections 23103, 23104, and 23105, deal with reckless driving and injuring someone while driving recklessly (see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=2977458109+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve). 23103 below clearly gives law enforcement authorities all the latitude they need to pull over and deal with anyone they see endangering the public while driving:

23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

SB 33 makes it an infraction for a teenager to use a cell phone in a car, adding it to the section of the code passed last year which goes into effect next year that prohibits everyone from using anything other than a hands-free cell phone in their car (even though studies have shown that hands-free vs. hand-held cell phone appear to have an equal effect on driving).

So, why am I opposed to laws like SB 33 in name of public safety as the last poster suggested?

Because where do we draw the line in the name of saving us from ourselves?

Putting on make-up in a car is a distraction and has no doubt resulted in death and injury, make that an infraction?

What about reading in a car?

Eating in a car?

Drinking hot coffee in a car?

Drinking an iced tea in a car?

Conveying a crying baby in a car?

Listening to loud music in a car?

Listening to Rush Limbaugh in a car?

Smoking in a car?

Praying in a car?

Driving a car while only having gotten two hours of sleep the previous night?

Following the car in front of you closer than one car length for every 10 miles per hour you are driving?

Not driving with both hands on the steering wheel with thumbs facing inward?

As we begin to make a list and depart from the simple blanket test of Vehicle Code Sections 23103, 23104, and 23105, we begin to make law specifically proscriptive rather than giving law the general flexibility and commonsense it needs to operate effectively in these circumstances.

The logical conclusion of such a legal mindset would be to outlaw all vehicles in California that come equipped with radios, CD players and cigarette lighters as these accessories are proven distractions that have literally killed and injured thousands of people since their installation into vehicles.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Bladerunner

Assemblyman--

I didn't catch your answer about whether seat belt, red light and speeding laws laws crossed your nanny state line. Inquiring minds want to know.

And while you're at it, I'm wondering whether the nanny line is crossed by laws requiring adult women to have either a cooling off period or be required to read information before having a legal abortion?

And how about prohibiting smoking in public parks and recreational facilities?

Publius

Chuck has commented THREE TIMES without answering my question. Asked you first, Chuck. Why won't you explain your position?

Chuck DeVore

Publius, I really do appreciate you folks at TheLiberalOC.com, I really do. But early this morning, I was speaking at a Crime Survivors event and am now at the Western Conservative Political Action Conference. Long posts via Blackberry are difficult.

You don't care to respond to any of my previous posts? They do give you a bit to chew on.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Publius

Chuck-
I'm STILL waiting for a response to my questions. As is Bladerunner.
Odd that you found time at 10:07 Friday night to acknowledge my questions and turn them back on me. Then at 9:56 this morning a brief sentence. And a long, detailed, well-researched comment again at 11:04 this morning. A completely separate post in the last few hours. And now another comment to tell me that you've been too busy to reply.
I'd say your actions show that you have CHOSEN to ignore my question.
You've had plenty of time to "chew" on my comments - where is your response?
If you're dodging, just own up to it.
All the best!

Chuck DeVore

Publius,

I responded philosophically to your post yesterday afternoon. You did not respond. Instead, you want specific policy statements. I'm at a conference, as I previously wrote.

In between my early morning appointment in Los Alamitos at the Crime Survivors rally and the CPAC conference, I responded in detail to one of the previous posters about the Vehicle Code and the philosophy of specifically trying to proscribe every little thing vs. a general prohibition against unsafe driving. This discussion about how I see this actually answers many of your questions if you consider it philosophically. Rather, you seek specific policy statements on each issue. Pardon me, but that bespeaks someone who is badgering and is not willing to think about what I've already written.

Now, I'm getting ready for a panel discussion.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Sacto Watcher

Capitol Resource is just another front group in Sacramento for the likes of Lou Sheldon.

Their real agenda is to rid California of homosexuals and other so-called undesirables (see Senator Bob Dutton's post on San Bernardino Blog).

Why Assemblyman DeVore tried to obfuscate their mission by writing about cell phones and tanning booths is truly a mystery. But he brought it up, so he's stuck with it.

Most teenagers would never equate talking or texting on their phone while driving with "reckless driving" or even "unsafe driving" when we all know how dangerous it is. To suggest that parents should be allowed to decide whether their teenagers should drive and text or drive and talk at the same time does not appear to be good public policy.

We don't allow parents to decide if their underage kids can drink or buy cigarettes. We don't allow parents to decide if their underage kids can have sex with adults. We don't allow parents to decide if their kids will wear seat belts and/or other child restraints. We don't let parents decide if their kids can buy lotto tickets.

Why should we allow parents to decide if their kids can drive and use their phone simultaneously?

It is a dangerous habit which should be explicitly prohibited.

Please Governor...SIGN THE BILL.

Publius

Funny, I don't recall asking the details of your busy schedule, but thank you for sharing.
You complain about government as a "nanny state" but have no problem with government in the business of issuing marriage contracts, so long as they are given only to one man and one woman.
I'd rather not try to extrapolate your positions from your writings, because the line seems to be hazy for you. I'd rather read directly, so I'll repeat some earlier questions that you have FAILED to answer.
Do you, Chuck, believe that The State should be my nanny and yours (your phrasing) with respect to:
- requiring adults to wear seat belts?
- requiring safety seats for children?
- speed limits on public thoroughfares?
- requirements to stop at a red light?
What about Bladerunner's examples with respect to abortion?
Please explain where you draw the line, Chuck.
I'm starting to wonder if Chuck's nanny state is something he brings up only when convenient for a larger agenda.

Chuck DeVore

OK. I have a break now from the conference -- although I am on my Blackberry, so I apologize for any typos.

Seat belt laws,
Red light laws, and
Speeding laws.

I'm not a fan of seatbelt laws. I would have voted against them when they came up for a vote. I would prefer a form of private enforcement, in other words, allow insurance companies to withhold medical payments for policyholders deemed to be violating their terms of coverage. Seatbelt use could then be a condition of medical payments in the event of an accident with injury. People would quickly figure out the devastating financial implications of being irresponsible -- but they would still have freedom to drive without seatbelts. Btw, this same logic applies to helmet laws, which I am no fan of.

Laws proscribing running a red light are of a fundamentally different nature than new laws against cell phone use. Traffic lights were initially created for two purposes: improve traffic flow in intersections and reduce accidents in intersections. Suggesting that the logical end of my philosophy would somehow allow everyone to chose how to go though a controlled interesection is silly. Having a right of way rule, (a tradition, no doubt), works -- just like contract law and respecting private property works (two concepts mostly alien to primative cultures). Running red lights cause a high degree of damage and death. Traffic signals should be obeyed. Cell phone use causes far less accidents and reckless driving when on the cell phone is already illegal. I say punish the unsafe behavior (reckless driving) not a potential contributor to reckless driving. The list can be endless for the latter, as I have previously suggested: talking, listening to loud music, reading, putting on make up, etc. Why not make all those illegal? The reason is, of course, is that reckless driving is already illegal.

As for speeding laws, some of the same thoughts as stop lights apply: effecient and safe use of the roads. Roads are designed for certain speeds. These speeds can be lower in inclimate conditions -- which is why law enforcement can cite you for unsafe operation if you drive under the speed limit but in an unsafe condition such as snow and ice at night.

That should answer your 3 main questions Publius/TheLiberalOC.com Don't be unreasonable -- name one other elected official who would give you the same sort of response and time!

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

Publius

Thanks a million, Chuck!
Appreciate your thorough explanations. Although our opinions differ on most issues, I do respect your willingness to clarify your positions in an open forum of this sort.
I was starting to wonder if you really did wish me "all the best."
Now I know.
I look forward to changing your mind on gay marriage in the future!

Bladerunner

Assemblyman,

Whenever you have a minute, my questions are still pending........

Chuck DeVore

Bladerunner, geez, you reiterated other questions, which I answered, then threw in your own questions too. I answered the ones about driving. What the heck do you think this is, a White House press conference? Sure, let me just spend all day cobbling together policy papers for you... ;-)

I think a “cooling off” period is a fine idea before someone makes an irrevocable decision to end another person’s life. I also favor my having the same right as a parent that I have to give my minor daughters permission to have an aspirin at school, or to take a field trip, as I would if they were to ask for an abortion at school – but I don’t in California. Ridiculous to an extreme, I say.

As for restricting smoking in public parks and recreational facilities (i.e., government-owned parks), I believe the government, meaning the peoples’ elected representatives, have the right to set the rules for the use of public facilities, so long as that use does not discriminate. By the way, in my book, this means that the Boy Scouts can use a park as well as the local chapter of the ACLU or Atheists United (although those two groups may have the same membership these days).

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Bladerunner

Assemblyman: Thanks for your response. I don't mean to create more work for you but you did bring the nanny subject up.

As for banning smoking in parks, your agreement that this is acceptable and non-nanny because the government " has the right to set the rules for public facilities,"is hard to argue with. Of course its the same rationale as restricting behavior and activity in and on other public facilities, like highways and streets(read cell phone laws, seat belts), public buildings and schools.

On the abortion questions(you didn't respond to the requirement of reading certain material so I'll assume you like that one to)I didn't think the ultimate value of restricting the activity was relevant to you. It was whether the state was going to intervene in a private and legal decision of an adult. If it looks like a nanny, and walks like a nanny and talks like a nanny, it usually is a nanny.

Is it fair to say that for you nanny laws regarding minors have more validity then with adults?

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories