[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"The Democrat Meltdown Continues"

"Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process"

"Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working"

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes

"Greg Gutfeld Cooks Jessica Tarlov and Liberal Media in Brilliant Take on Trump's First Day"

"They Gave Trump the Center, and He Took It"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles

Title: Laws Named After Victims Are Always Well-Meaning, and Usually Bad Policy
Source: Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/laws- ... lly-bad-policy/article/2009169
Published: Aug 5, 2017
Author: Jim Swift
Post Date: 2017-08-06 04:55:55 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 1843
Comments: 11

More than a few times in recent years, tragic—and seemingly preventable—deaths have led to bills and legislation named after the victims. “Megan’s Law” gave us problematic sex-offender registrations. “Kate’s Law” was a failed attempt to deter illegal immigration. Such proposals are frequently bad policy that the government shouldn't be engaged in.

And now we have “Kari’s Law." It's based on a Texas law, and sponsored in Congress by the political odd couple of Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) in the House, and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) in the Senate. It's a bill that would "require multi-line telephone systems to have a default configuration that permits users to directly initiate a call to 9-1-1 without dialing any additional digit, code, prefix, or post-fix."

Why is it named Kari's law? I suspect you know. Because of a gruesome murder in 2013 in Texas:

The measure was named for Kari Hunt Dunn, who in 2013 was stabbed multiple times in a hotel room by her estranged husband, as her children watched. Her then-9-year-old daughter repeatedly dialed 911, but was unable to reach emergency responders because the hotel phone required her to first dial 9.

The downside of seizing on an emotions stirred by a gruesome murder to make sweeping changes to federal law are especially apparent here. The decline of landlines and the rise of cell phones mean that almost anyone can call 9-1-1 immediately without having to unlock a device, much less actually dial 9-1-1.

I don't know whether Dunn or her children had cell phones. But while her death is tragic, it's a statistical rarity. Should it result in a law that affects the more than 50,000 hoteliers in the country?

Landline systems are are an increasingly less relevant in today's world, but businesses that use them might face costly upgrades under Kari's Law.

Further, it’s impossible to know if such laws could have prevented the tragedy that spawned them, or curtail future deaths.

Dunn’s estranged husband Brad has basically said that if Kari's Law were around, whe would still be dead because he was intent on killing her.

"Nobody could have saved her," Dunn said. "I stabbed her 21 times ... in five minutes. ... If my daughter would have dialed 911, it would not have saved her. ... Even if a doctor would have showed up ... there was no way to save her.

Brad Dunn still thinks the Texas version of Kari's law is good because it could help people save precious seconds if somebody were to have a heart attack in a hotel room. Yes, Kari's Law has the endorsement of Kari's killer, even though ... it wouldn't have saved her.

Larger chains like Marriott are catering to millennials who hate phone calls (seriously) and prefer text messaging. In fact, Marriott allows people to check into their room via an app, and some hotels even send automated texts to guests after they check in to make sure their stay is going OK. Those sorts of hotels are even getting rid of landlines completely.

But imagine a rural motel with an outdated system—a classic low-margin business. They're faced with a potential federal law that gives them two years to upgrade a system made by a company that went out business a decade ago. If it can't be upgraded, it'd have to be replaced, and not for cheap.

Wouldn't Kari's law, if enacted, give that hotelier the incentive to just get rid of landlines altogether and just put a placard with the front desk phone number?

And if a murderer came and cell reception was bad, what would happen?

We'd probably need another law, I'd guess.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: Tooconservative (#0)

"Such proposals are frequently bad policy that the government shouldn't be engaged in."

Not the federal government. But if a state wishes to pass these kinds of laws, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? It's their state and they can write a specific law that suits them.

We have that for car standards and gun safety, for example.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-06   9:41:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: misterwhite (#1)

Not the federal government. But if a state wishes to pass these kinds of laws, who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do? It's their state and they can write a specific law that suits them.

We have that for car standards and gun safety, for example.

And marijuana too! Good idea.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-06   10:36:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Pinguinite (#2)

And marijuana too! Good idea.

Alcohol, by the way, is regulated at the state level.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-06   11:00:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: misterwhite (#3)

Unless you want to lower the drinking age below 21. Then the feds will withhold your highway money. Montana got the same treatment when they defied the fed's request to keep their speed limit above 55 back when 55 was the rule.

Something to keep in mind when Trump cuts off grant funds to sanctuary cities. He'll be relying on the Supreme Court precedents set in those cases.

Tooconservative  posted on  2017-08-06   11:35:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Tooconservative (#4)

Something to keep in mind when Trump cuts off grant funds to sanctuary cities. He'll be relying on the Supreme Court precedents set in those cases.

Karma. It was a lousy ruling. Glad to see it will finally be put to good use.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-06   11:41:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: misterwhite (#3)

Yet you are opposed to states passing their own marijuana laws, claiming that states should not attempt to undermine federal law when it comes to marijuana.

I agree that fed jurisdiction should only cover those issues that need to be covered at the fed level out of pure necessity, such as with the military and international trade. But 911 systems, alcohol & marijuana issues have no business being regulated at the federal level. States are states for a reason. If everything is supposed to be the same between all states, then what's the point of having state governments?

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-06   11:43:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Pinguinite (#6)

"Yet you are opposed to states passing their own marijuana laws, claiming that states should not attempt to undermine federal law when it comes to marijuana."

Yes. That's the primary reason.

But, secondarily, it wouldn't work. What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.

Prior to Prohibition about half the states banned alcohol. But alcohol was smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states. The only solution was to ban alcohol at the federal level.

That wouldn't happen with drugs? And if each state should be allowed to make their own decision on marijuana, why limit it to that? I'm sure Nevada would love to legalize all drugs -- to go with their legalized gambling and prostitution.

You're opening a Pandora's box, and you don't seem to care.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-06   12:10:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: misterwhite (#7)

But, secondarily, it wouldn't work. What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.

Prior to Prohibition about half the states banned alcohol. But alcohol was smuggled from the "wet" states to the "dry" states. The only solution was to ban alcohol at the federal level.

... to accommodate the dry states at the expense of the wet states, as though the wet states had any such obligation. That's not a "solution" for states that had, in retrospect, wisely not banned alcohol.

In your mind, there is a utopian world that is within reach where all laws are perfect solutions to all the world's problems. Simply ban things that you think are harming the world, and all those bad things will go away. That is traditional liberal thinking but one you insist on making just like they do.

What's more, YOU KNOW it wouldn't work yet you unabashedly promote it.

What doesn't work is prohibition. It didn't work with alcohol, and it's not working with marijuana. I am personally opposed to rec use of marijuana, but I am even more opposed to people getting killed or imprisoned and their homes raided by SWAT teams simply because governments decided it's bad for you. The USA is supposed to be about freedom, and with freedom comes responsibility. If you take away people's responsibility, you also take away their freedom.

But you don't care about that.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-06   13:43:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Pinguinite (#8)

... to accommodate the dry states at the expense of the wet states, as though the wet states had any such obligation.

You're making my point. If "wet" states had no obligation to keep alcohol in their state, then they would have no obligation to keep drugs in their state.

"Simply ban things that you think are harming the world, and all those bad things will go away."

Banning something sends the message that society does not accept it.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-06   16:22:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: misterwhite (#9) (Edited)

If "wet" states had no obligation to keep alcohol in their state, then they would have no obligation to keep drugs in their state.

Of course they don't have any such obligation. If your next door neighbor decides he doesn't want any crickets on his property, does it become obligatory for you to prevent any from moving from your yard to his?

Your line of thinking here is very much "liberal democrat" in nature. You feel it's okay to outlaw something for everyone just because some people can't handle something.

Banning something sends the message that society does not accept it.

In that case, when society, in the form of a majority of states, decide that they don't want marijuana criminalized or at least want it recognized for medicinal value, the fed gov should "get the message" too. But they don't.

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-06   17:08:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Pinguinite (#10)

If your next door neighbor decides he doesn't want any crickets on his property, does it become obligatory for you to prevent any from moving from your yard to his?

If my neighbor wants the law changed such that he can keep garbage on his property, then I expect him to keep the garbage on his property, not let it spill over into mine. Don't I have rights, too?

"In that case, when society, in the form of a majority of states, decide that they don't want marijuana criminalized or at least want it recognized for medicinal value, the fed gov should "get the message" too. But they don't."

Most of the states legalized medical marijuana by referendum, not the legislature. "Mob rule", as someone once called it, whereby a small percentage of motivated voters turn out to vote in favor. For example, 5 million people in California (population 40 million) passed medical marijuana.

Now to you, the State of California passed medical marijuana. Sane people look at that as 8% of the population of California voted in favor -- and they were probably all the dopers.

misterwhite  posted on  2017-08-06   18:14:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com