Quote:
Originally Posted by Team Sergeant
And what could go wrong?
|
IMO, the commission might have better served the interests of its constituents by stipulating that compliance with new "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," would require a thorough review, study, debate, and additional voting first.
Instead, as the new bill "nullifies" future "federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations," what happens if a 'grand compromise' is reached in Washington D.C, that works to the benefit of responsible gun owners and also reduces the prospect of violence against children?
Potential examples include:
- Tax deductions for expenses such as gun safety training, gun safes, trigger locks, and liability insurance.
- Incentives (and subsidies) for counties and municipalities to facilitate placing armed security staff on school campuses (provided the staff members follow certain rules and meet standards.
- Tort reform that limits the liability of counties and municipalities in case a member of a school security staff involuntarily wounds or kills innocent civilians while attempting to stop an assailant.
- Amendments to the Affordable Health Care Act for America that specifically shield the privacy of gun owners from their insurers if they seek mental health care.
- Rules for manufacturers that mandate standards for quality control and customer service.
While Franklin County's Board of Commissioners could nullify the nullification, the backtracking would undermine not only the board's credibility but it could also spill over to other groups as well.
MOO, in a policy discussion, especially one of signal importance, you don't say "no" until you know
exactly to what you're saying "no."
YMMV.