Dan,Dan wrote:What's interesting is EZRider, Sandman, Sal, and a whole host of others are interested in giving all levels of government the power to regulate our "problems" away as well. History shows that less limited power to regulate often comes at the expense of liberties owned by those who have nothing to do with the "problem". Is it better to deal with the twice annual incursion onto your private property by a few OHV users ignorant to what they are doing, or deal with a government that now has the power to regulate all manner of activities on your private property, perhaps some you wish to engage in yourself?
Do you want the government telling you when and how you will landscape your property? What color you will paint your house? Whether you can pave a driveway, or when it must remain dirt and mud? How much water you can use? How much sewer service you can use? Where your thermostat may be set? How about setting them at 100 degrees in the summer, and 55 in winter, by decree by the "regulatory czar".
They're using a lot of "czars" in this Administration. These are not elected people, whose "regulations" are not subject to deliberation by elected officials, whose decisions on conformance are final, and who are accountable to no one but the President himself. These people are in no way accountable to the American public.
Comfortable with that?
I can count on one hand, the number of times I had to withdraw my pistol from it's shoulder holster and point it at someone to protect myself while working. There have also been numerous occasions where I had it in hand as a precautionary measure with the safety still on, but never had to aim at anyone. I consider myself lucky that I never had to use it for it's intended purpose. Although it can be used as a deterrent, you must always realize that at some point, you must make a life or death decision, which is a HUGE burden. Nobody can take it for granted and consider using their defensive weapon in an instinctive manner. It must always be a last resort measure before the weapon is leveled at the target and the trigger squeezed without hesitation.
"Regulation" can be necessary under many different circumstances. However, I think regulation has been taken to extreme under many different circumstances. As an example, the regulation of OHV's by the City of Hesperia was done as an "Urgency Ordinance" which didn't allow for public comment, but I really don't think it was so urgent that it couldn't have been subjected to public discussion rather than being run through in the manner it was. While SBCO Ordinance 3973 goes well beyond the statutes already imposed at the state level, it was at least given time for public discussion and a lot of give and take from both sides. I don't agree with the need for 3973, since there were already sections of the State Penal Code in effect that addressed the arguments for 3973. Based on that, I see 3973 as another unnecessary regulation that might not hold up if challenged, since the County is subordinate to the state PC in those types of matters. I'll leave that to the Lawyers that seem to be running everything
We have problems with governmental agencies that can't even agree with who's in charge of what? A good example of that is the differing opinions presented by the SBCO Sheriff vs. the California Highway Patrol. I would defer to the CHP regarding the Vehicle Code, since that is their specialty and defer to the Sheriff more for non-vehicular law enforcement since that is their specialty.
I wish to be on record that I do not condone trespassing, nor do I support anybody that conducts themselves in a manner that others might find disturbing.
