california ammo law

[fabsroman]

I'm not going to do the research for the powder transport questions, if that is alright with you.

Regarding term limits, I agree completely with you. Nobody should be able to make a career out of being a politician. Now, what we need is for EVERYBODY in this nation to vote out those that are in power right now. Do you think that will happen. Heck no, because the Republicans will be worried that the Democrats will gain control and the Democrats will be worried that the Republicans will gain control, and I am not talking about the politicians worrying about it, I'm talking about the voters worrying about it.

Regarding lobbying, I am against that too. I don't see why we cannot elect somebody to put these things on the floor of Congress, allow them to vote for it to make it an Amendment, and then make it public how our Representatives and Senators vote on it. Good Lord, that would be some serious change. Mind you, the Supreme Court has recently held that big business can endorse any candidate they want, and advertise on that candidate's behalf, because that is freedom of speech. So, we can't get rid of big business completely.

As far as government wanting to "control" me, good Lord. That gun legislation you wrote about is older than me, and where is the control? If this country turns into a gun grabbing country like Nazi Germany, I think there will be a lot more problems than what records they have on people. Plus, how hard is it really to hide a gun? You don't even need to keep all of them at your residence. So, if we get to that point, at which I am sure you will give them the bullets before the gun, are you really that worried because you would probably die anyway by fighting a completely corrupt government that it out of control and is probably a dictatorship at that point. About the only thing I can really see bringing that about is the national debt and ridiculous inflation.

The reason nothing gets done in government that is beneficial is because of all the fear mongering on both sides of the aisle, and I am talking about voters. Another reason is that because the majority of Americans are uninformed and/or ignorant. Death panels, please.

My issue with health care is that the cost of health care is growing faster than GDP, and at an alarming rate. If that continues, and it is supposed to, this country is doomed and/or nobody but the rich will have health care. A health care bill might not pass now, but wait until Medicare is cut, or eliminated, and more working stiffs are without health insurance. When the number of people without health insurance becomes the majority, you can bet that a health care bill will get passed and it will probably be single payor at that point.

Do you think the cost of health care is going to go down, or remain even.

As far as your smart ass comment about the OBGYN not actually delivering a baby, there is an agreement with all OBGYN's practicing at the hospital that they will take turns being the "house" OBGYN and covering each other's asses, so my OBGYN gets to bill for that. $4,800 is still ridiculous and I am not at all happy about how it went down. If I post about how my wife's OBGYN was late and the reason for it, I will be here all night.

Just so we are clear on this, I am all for common sense legislation. In fact, if I decide to run, I'm not going to run on a platform of "Hope and Change", but on "Common Sense and Long Term Stability".

[skeet]

As far as your smart ass comment about the OBGYN not actually delivering a baby, there is an agreement with all OBGYN's practicing at the hospital that they will take turns being the "house" OBGYN and covering each other's asses, so my OBGYN gets to bill for that. $4,800 is still ridiculous and I am not at all happy about how it went down. If I post about how my wife's OBGYN was late and the reason for it, I will be here all night.

Fabs that wasn't meant to be amart assed comment...Seriously you are the attorney. I think it is wrong that you or the ins co should have to pay for services NOT rendered by a doctor.. Some way some how that is just wrong

As far as medical costs part of the rise in medical costs is because of government regulation and meddling and of course..everybody wanting to sue docs for possible mistakes. If the doc was incompetent i understand...but too many people justwant to cash in. Part of the cost of the OB docs is insurance costs arising from too many lawsuits. When my daughter was born the doctors charge was 400 dollars. Hospital charge was 700 bucks.

Please don't run for office...You seem to like too much regulation..I'd have to send Vinnie...from Philly..to visit you.

[fabsroman]

That's alright, my son Luca, will be all grown up by the time I decide to run for dictator of this country.

Malpractice insurance costs are pretty high for OBGYN's. That I will admit, but malpractice insurance and the cost associated with it isn't really increasing at the rate that medical costs in general are increasing. So, that really isn't the problem. If malpractice insurance costs increase at a rate slower than inflation, then that really isn't the problem that is causing medical costs in total to increase quicker than inflation.

Now, you are one for less regulation, correct. Well, about 12 years ago Maryland passed a law capping the recovery for pain & suffering in any tort case. Back then it was $350,000. Now, I believe it is $500,000. Are you for this regulation or against it. Based upon what you wrote, I would guess you are for it. Me, I'm against it. A jury should be able to award any amount it sees fit, without the General Assembly putting a cap on it to keep auto, homeowner, and medical malpractice insurance premiums lower for the society in general. So, a select few get screwed so the majority of people can have their auto insurance bill be $100 cheaper every year.

So, are you for regulating when a plaintiff can bring a medical malpractice case? If so, you are in favor of MORE regulation. In Court cases there is something called Summary Judgment. If the case has no merit after all the discovery is done, and there is no dispute of material fact that a jury needs to decide, a Judge can throw that case out on Summary Judgment before it ever gets to trial in front of a jury. It happens. I was in on a $10 million auto accident case where it happened. Luckily, I was defending the insurance company and the case got thrown out.

We conservatives say we are not in favor of more regulation, but how about the law passed in Maryland wherein people (i.e., anti hunters) cannot interfere with a lawful hunt on public property? Are you in favor of that regulation? I bet you are, as am I. We just pick and choose the ones that suit us.

How about the seat belt law that reduces medical costs for society in general. Is it more important to reduce those costs to society in general and help save lives, or should people have the freedom to drive without wearing a seatbelt? How about speed limit? Should people be allowed to drive any speed they want. Then you and I would have to worry about the morons that have nothing to lose driving way too fast to get to their next crack deal. Again, regulation is fine when it suits us.

How about the regulation of drugs. Should we regulate those, or should they just be legalized? Should people have the will to choose drugs if they want, without any legal ramifications. The current drug laws are definitely hindering free choice.

The only reason gun regulation can even be shot down, no pun intended, is because of the 2nd Amendment.

Society is a bunch of regulations, starting with the criminal code.