Slashdot Mirror


Ohio Wants eBayers to Post $50k Bond

MacDork writes "CNNMoney posted a short article this morning about new Ohio regulations set to become effective May 2 this year. If you are in the state and selling on eBay, you will need to pay $200 for a license and post a $50,000 bond or face possible fines and jail time. Getting the license also requires a one-year apprenticeship. When asked to which eBay users this bill applied, the bill's author, Larry Mumper responded with these very specific guidelines.... "It certainly will not apply to the casual seller on eBay, but might apply to anyone who sells a lot.""

34 of 841 comments (clear)

  1. Typical government stupidity by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will this do anything to stop scammers?

    No.

    Will this be a HUGE burden and inconvienence on the honest?

    Yes.

    Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops. Just like gun control, this will never stop a scammer but will punish the honest.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
    1. Re:Typical government stupidity by PyWiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I completely agree. Think about it. Ebay scammers are _already_ breaking the law, so what qualms could they possibly have about "selling on ebay without a license." That would be like passing a law that makes it illegal for drug dealers to sell without a license. The best possible impact this could have would be forcing scammers to move their operations out of state.

      Meanwhile, all the honest sellers on ebay would be set back tremendously.

      But all is not despair. Do you smell that? I do, it's the smell of legislation that will never be passed. This is just another one of those bills we keep seeing that has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111" Honestly, it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing, but hey, at least they have the sense not to actually pass it, right?

      Good God I hope so...

      -py

      --
      -py
    2. Re:Typical government stupidity by nounderscores · · Score: 4, Insightful

      like passing a law that makes it illegal for drug dealers to sell without a license.

      Actually when governments pass a law like that, they're usually trying to make money. Take cigarettes, alcohol, and in amsterdam, heroin, for example.

      I think ohio has seen a big fat cash cow and has decided to get down to milk it at gunpoint.

    3. Re:Typical government stupidity by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh boy, here goes my karma.

      There are legitimate reasons to sell on ebay, but a gun is for shooting people with...

      Aside from the fact that you're implying that there is never a legitimate reason to shoot something or someone (I know people with rattlesnakes in their backyard who would disagree with your calling hunting with a handgun "bullshit"...), a gun isn't just for shooting people with. There's a lot to be said for intimidation. You should know this since you're obviously scared of people having guns.

      That's not my real issue with your shortsighted post though.

      If no one has guns, no one gets to shoot people.

      Let's skip being pedantic about bows, slingshots, etc... (It's probably easier to kill somebody at range with a wrist rocket than with a .22 if you're good at aiming).

      You're a few hundred years too late. The cat is out of the bag. People have guns. Laws don't take guns away from anybody. Some people may comply with the law, and you may try to force compliance through law enforcement, but the guns are out there. The only people you're going to take guns away from are people who obey the law. Given that there will never be another time in human history when no one has a gun, would you rather that only the people most likely to shoot you with their gun were able to carry?

    4. Re:Typical government stupidity by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So forget free market let's just regulate everything so that a few fat cats can make tons of money?

      I never said it was right or wrong I was just stating the facts.

      For some reason I don't think anyone would propose a bill with that intention let alone pass it.

      Yeah right. Unless those people passing the bill were in or were paid off by those in the industry. C'mon, just look at how many regulations there are on lawyers. And look at what the profession of most of the politicians is. Think it's a coincidence? It isn't.

    5. Re:Typical government stupidity by acroyear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      yeah, i saw it as an attempt to tax the internet without violating the federal ban on taxing the internet. of course, i didn't read the damned article, so i have no idea how scammers get into the act.

      on that latter thing, its just a control factor, the illusion that "Everything will be better as long as *we* know who's doing what.". Total garbage, gross violation of the principles on which the nation was founded, but there you go.

      --
      "But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
      -- Joe
    6. Re:Typical government stupidity by whats_a_zip · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "I think ohio has seen a big fat cash cow and has decided to get down to milk it at gunpoint." Bingo! Gov. Taft was rated the worst Governor in the United States. The state of Ohio is broke, and completely mismanaged. What you see here is desperation.

    7. Re:Typical government stupidity by surefooted1 · · Score: 4, Informative
      This article not completely accurate and current...

      It was an oversight when the law was written and will be amended.

      http://www.nbc4i.com/print/4253028/detail.html

      And for the lazy...

      Ohio Lawmakers Promise To Fix Internet Sales Law Law Could Regulate eBay Users POSTED: 6:30 am EST March 4, 2005 COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Lawmakers promise to change a state law that would force some individuals to get an auctioneer's license in order to sell items over the Internet.

      The law, which goes into effect May 2, was intended to regulate auctioneers, but ended up applying to sales through an Internet auction house.

      "We never intended for this to apply to people who sell things on eBay," said state Sen. Larry Mumper, a Marion Republican who was primary author of the bill. "This was to insure that auctioneers were abiding by the established rules and regulations.

      "The bill is flawed. We will amend it and correct the problem before it goes into law."

      The law would allow Ohioans to sell their items on eBay as long as they didn't buy the items intending to sell them.

      "What does that mean?" said Brenda J. Grolle, an Elyria resident who buys used books for $1 and sells them for $4 on eBay. "If I buy something, it's mine. I own it."

      As written, the law would subject Grolle to a maximum $1,000 fine and up to 90 days in jail unless she gets a license.

      A person has to serve a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, act as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attend an approved auction school, pass exams, pay a biannual fee of $200 and post a $50,000 bond in order to get an auction license.

      Erin Davis, an aide to Sen. Tom Roberts, a Dayton Democrat, said the legislation wasn't intended to regulate eBay users.

      "It is a complete, unintended consequence," Davis said. "We did refer to Internet auctions in the bill, but we were talking about Internet auction houses, not individuals. It is important that the law be changed before it goes into effect."

      eBay spokesman Hani Durzy said the company isn't concerned about Ohio's law.

      "We do not believe the law applies to people who sell items on eBay or to eBay itself," he said.

      Gov. Bob Taft, who signed the bill on Feb. 1, has asked for a clarification, an aide said.
      Although, take note of the last sentence.
  2. I guess I missed something... by Skye16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...but why does this affect anyone other than eBay? TECHNICALLY, they are doing the auctioning. You're just putting up your item for auction. Is it illegal for you to pay an auctioneer 500$ to have them auction off your house? How could this apply to the user? THEY aren't accepting bids - the software is, and the software was created by and managed by eBay. The user isn't auctioning a damn thing, they're having ebay do it for them.

    ...aren't they?

    1. Re:I guess I missed something... by crow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not exactly.

      With a traditional auction, the auction house does some verification of the merchandise, and the items are in the control of the auctioneer, not the original owner. On eBay, it's much more like the individual sellers are running their own auctions with eBay simply providing technical services.

      So it is different.

      As to how the law sees it, that may be several different matters.

  3. I think this is a step forward, by Sialagogue · · Score: 4, Funny


    ...and a good match for other Ohio laws that mandate tickets for people who "go real fast" and jail for people who "do bad stuff."

    --
    The only acceptable defense of scientific results is to say that they were the product of the Scientific Method.
  4. Seems a bit overdone by PepeGSay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why would you have to apprentice as an auctioneer to sell something where the auction portion is run by someone else. This seems akin to making people on the Antiques Roadshow take auction classes and an apprenticeship before they can have Sotheby's auction their items. Is this really a way to back into a tax?

  5. auction school by fr1kk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    FTA: Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days.

    and a school to become a licensed seller?

    what if i go on a spree, and say, sell like 30 items that i've found in my basement over christmas break? does that constitute as someone who sells more than 'casually'?

    --
    sig: Playfully doing something difficult, whether useful or not
  6. Re:rediculous by pla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you read the summary?

    Have you lived in the US long?

    Any source of revenue a city/state/federal tax can draw on, it eventually will.

    If the law doesn't very specifically exempt anyone that sells under, say, $10k per year on eBay, you can expect to hear about this getting badly abused about six months from now.

    Or do you really consider your typical neighborhood pot dealer; eight year olds who throw a temper tantrum in school; or people who write zombie fiction - All terrorists?

    People worry about the "slippery slope" of bad laws because they can and will get applied as broadly as The Powers That Be can apply them.

  7. Re:Congress might have something to say about this by museumpeace · · Score: 4, Informative

    IANAL but isn't one of ICC's or FTC's jobs to see that there is not, in effect, tariffs imposed in one state blocking commerce from another state? That parity of states in matters of commerce was a problem facing the nation when the constitution was drawn up. This proposed legislation seems to come rather close, in its effect if not its intention, to a unilateral barrier to trade imposed by one state on commerce that may go on between states.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  8. calm down by the_mighty_$ · · Score: 5, Informative

    Read the article:


    ...The primary author of the legislation, State Sen. Larry Mumper, told the paper the legislature never intended it to apply to individuals selling items over eBay....


    In other words, the lawmakers are NOT attempting to target eBay/eBay users with this law. The law is there only to make sure auctioneers are obeying other Ohio laws regarding auctions. eBay already attempts to enforce the law by shutting down illegal auctions or whatever, so it is VERY unlikely that Ohio lawmakers will need to empose this law onto eBay sellers.

    --
    VI VI VI - the editor of the beast!
  9. Another Deceptive headline.... by RaZ0r · · Score: 5, Informative
    The headline is an outright lie. Ebay was not even considered when this law drafted. It is not designed to affect ebay or ebay users. In fact, this law couldn't affect ebay users, as they are not the ones doing the actual auctioning; that is left to ebay.

    Would this law make it illegal to have an auctioneer auction off some of your property for you? NO! This would only affect someone acting as an auctioneer.

    It will, however, be interesting to see if they try to apply this law to ebay, as they (their software) does act as an auctioneer. A $50,000 bond would be a drop in the bucket for ebay, but I'm not sure if the $200 is per auction or a one-time fee for the license.... That could be interesting.

    --


    - Think for yourself, question authority.-
    1. Re:Another Deceptive headline.... by ReadParse · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's an excellent point, though there's no evidence that the headline is a LIE -- but it's certainly inappropriate, inflamatory and incorrect.

      Turns out this law is an expansion of existing auctioneering law, applying to auctioneers who only do business online. It makes sense that people who didn't want to go through the licensing process would just get some auction software and make a website, telling their seller and bidders, "sorry, I can't auction in person, or I would have to get a license". The internet has become a loophole for them and this law was intended to close that loophole.

      Why license auctioneers in the first place? Well it's all about trust. The auctioneer markets himself as a liasion betweeen buyer and seller -- he doesn't buy your property from you and then sell it as his property. He represents you as an agent while the property is still yours. This is a legal relationship and it's important for auctioneers to understand their legal responsibilities to buyer and seller. I could understand unscrupulous people seeking to take advantage of that position of trust getting around licensing and bonding laws by conducting business only online.

      Ah, but wait -- as is sometimes the case with laws, it might have had an unintended side effect -- the eBay seller. Are they or are they not an auctioneer. Well that depends. Most people selling on eBay are not an intermediary, but the seller. eBay is the auctioneer, bringing buyer and seller together and controlling the bidding.

      But then there are those people who have found that they are pretty good at selling things on eBay, and there are people who will pay them to sell their stuff on eBay for them. eBay consignment shops -- you may have heard of them. Many of them have had a certain amount of success. And some of them have heard from their local businessmen and/or governments, who are upset that their business is being infringed upon and these eBay kids don't have to get licensed or bonded.

      And obviously their relationship in the eBay picture is different -- they're not the seller and they're not the auctioneer. But they're definitely an agent of the seller and they can have significant impact on the result of the auction based on their actions. Hence they have similar legal responsibilities and perhaps licensing for these people should be looked at.

      Then there's the obvious public reaction -- $50,000 to sell on eBay? Madness! And inflamatory headlines don't help, either on slashdot or in the mainstream media.

      Any way you slice it, it's an interesting story.

      RP

  10. Re:RIDICULOUS... it's fucking RIDICULOUS by Dogtanian · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fucking Christ on a snack cracker, people.

    Didn't they sell one of those on eBay for $20,000?

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  11. Re:Congress might have something to say about this by garcia · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do you really believe there's anyone left in Congress who has a clue what the Constitution says anymore? They sure don't act like it.

    That should really have read: Do you really believe there's anyone left in Congress that cares what the Constitution says anymore? They sure are paid not to.

  12. Re:rediculous by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, most people can't run their own lives without state intervention. You'd never survive if the state didn't take care of you in some manner. That's the point of the state. You get a group of people together who are supposed to do things for the greater good of the people (that 'greater good' theoretically being indirectly defined by the people in our type of government) because it's easier to pool resources and centralize certain things like defense and transportation than to try and have everyone do their own private thing.

    The problem, of course, is that the government doesn't want to stay small because being in government gives you certain powers to act. For a good long while people kept this in check by paying attention to what was going on. Post-WWII, however, this country became a haven for drug-addled, overprotected retards because "The Greatest Generation" didn't want their children growing up with the hardships they had to face down.

    Now, sixty years later, we have a country full of emotional trainwrecks who think the world is theirs for the taking because every authority figure they've ever known has either

    a) been nothing more than an overbearing, rigid authority figure worthy of little more than angry rebellious backlash

    or, more likely,

    b) been a wet piece of toilet paper that always wanted to make sure they felt good and were never "hurt" by things like, for example, valedectorians reminding them that some people are just smarter than others.

    Now the place is filled up with characterless assholes who don't have the balls to stand up to their government and don't care enough about what it's doing to shut down the corrupt portions. So you get stupid shit like this because some asshole in Congress decided he was going to flex his political muscle and go for a money-grab. 90% of the people this affects aren't going to know until it's too late, 9% aren't going to care, and the remaining 1% will be scoffed at for speaking up against it because, after all... ...the government's just trying to protect you. Right?

    And we'll see whether or not Congressman Asshole fixes his bill. I'm betting he sends an amendment to the floor that never goes anywhere or eventually dies in committee because nobody cares enough about it to do anything more than create the amendment to try and silence the critics. Even then, if the critics come back, the blame for the bill's death is so spread around that the suits can just point fingers at each other until the critics get so frustrated they give up.

    And this is how American politics (don't) work.

    --
    Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  13. Larry Mumper -- a BG check by ianscot · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That's funny, because my first reaction was that this law sounded as sloppily written as Minnesota's recent concealed weapons legislation -- which was written in a way that left major ambiguities about who could provide the required safety courses, for one example.

    We have a passel of state Reps I'd describe as "social right wingers" who put up stuff like death penalty legislation every term. They were behind the weapons bill: it was touted as making the law fairer by not leaving it up to individual sheriffs, but really it aimed at allowing more people to carry concealed guns. The bills these folks turn out seem to have been written by 10th graders who were unfamiliar with anything but the skeleton of the issue they're talking about, and they often have unintended consequences.

    So, who is this guy?

    Senator Larry A. Mumper, Ohio Senate Republican.

    He's listed there as primary sponsor of a couple of other bills, including one that was presented as an "academic bill of rights for higher education." This bill was partly prompted by a story about a kid who wrote a "pro-America" paper and got a bad grade from his teacher... Oops, except the kid's paper was crap; he'd written a 1-page "report" that wasn't up-to-snuff, got a bad grade, and decided it was because he was patriotic that he'd been silenced. The bill itself reads like a wolf in sheep's clothing aimed at "protecting a plurality of opinion" by remaining neutral about crap like "intelligent design." It doesn't spell out how you'd decide when a topic was "controversial" -- gee, an ambiguity that could lead to unintended consequences.

    Does this sound like exactly the sort of wingnut I'm seeing in Minnesota? I mean, this is a guy who says his law "might apply to anyone who sells a lot" and "If someone buys and sells on eBay on a regular basis as a type of business, then there is a need for regulation." "As a type of business"? No ambiguity there, is there?

    --
    "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
    1. Re:Larry Mumper -- a BG check by TGK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I do not believe in double taxation. I think its a bunch of bull.

      I think the entire concept of "double taxation" is a meaningless distinction tossed around by people who think they're entitled to freebies.

      Would you be happier if, rather than taxing you 10 times at 5% your government taxed you 1 time at 50%? I'll assume the answer to that question is no. Perhaps it might be a better use of funds and streamline the taxation process, but taxes are broken down and doubled up because Americans have the bizarre notion that taxes are money wasted.

      Taxes are not money wasted. They are the dues you pay to live in a civilized society. Education, Defense, Crime Prevention, Transportation, Infrastructure, these are all programs and benefits funded by your tax dollar.

      This is exactly what the founders of this nation were against - all these freaking taxes!

      It's good to know that you didn't pay attention in American History or Civics. The founders of the United States were, at least in word, against the concept of governance without representation. They were irritated that a bunch of people who didn't represent them were making laws about how they should live their lives and taking their money to do things that they never benefited from.

      They weren't against taxes. Even the Articles of Confederation, the document most against the concept of taxation in the legal history of the United States allows the Congress "to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses."

      The government can tax you on whatever it needs to tax you on. It's your government. You get to vote and decide what needs to be done. At least, that was the plan. There is a whole mess about campaign finance reform, but we'll touch on that later.

      Fundamentally, it is a meaningless distinction as to how the government gets your money. Taxing your car or taxing your income, it's all the same thing. About the only difference is how taxes impact different portions of the population, but you seem unconcerned about that.

      I suspect that your key issue is not how the government gets your money, but that it gets it at all. I suspect you are of the opinion that you shouldn't have to pay taxes because you don't like social programs like Welfare, Medicaid, etc.

      Personally, I don't benefit from any of those social programs. I hope I never have to. That said, things might not always be a rosy for me as they are right now. Things can get bad, really bad really fast. I want those government programs in place so that, should catastrophe strike, my family and myself are taken care of.

      I think it's a crime that in the leading agricultural producing nation on earth, children are hungry.

      I think it's a crime that, in the richest nation on earth, families can't afford to send their children to college.

      I think it's a crime that the US spends more money on porn than foreign aid. That we spend more money per capita on coffee than the per capita income of more than 2 Billion people.

      The United States has taken a culture of independence and turned it into a culture of materialistic consumerism. We've gone from "I don't need your help" to "You can't have my help."

      I can understand not liking income tax forms, not liking to fill out all the paperwork, not liking to deal with the red tape that comes from doing business with the government. That said, taxes are necessary to create government and, well, you get what you pay for. No taxes means no government.

      As Thomas Hobbes once famously wrote, Without government, "the life of man [is] solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short".

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  14. It already passed by voidptr · · Score: 5, Informative
    But all is not despair. Do you smell that? I do, it's the smell of legislation that will never be passed. This is just another one of those bills we keep seeing that has absolutely no chance of ever becoming law, serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111" Honestly, it's sad that this is what our "representatives" spend most of their time doing, but hey, at least they have the sense not to actually pass it, right?


    FTFA:
    The Cleveland Plain Dealer reported that the law, signed by Gov. Robert Taft on Feb. 1
    --
    This .sig for unofficial government use only. Official use subject to $500 fine.
    1. Re:It already passed by Zapman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may have already passed, but the second this comes up before a federal court, it will be struck down. The constitution forbids the states from interfering in inter-state comerce.

      Since 9 times out of 10 you won't be selling to someone inside the state...

      --
      Zapman
  15. Re:rediculous by alsta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Simply put, this (from the article) is Bad Law;

    "Besides costing $200 and posting a $50,000 bond, the license requires a one-year apprenticeship to a licensed auctioneer, acting as a bid-caller in 12 auctions, attending an approved auction school, passing a written and oral exam. Failure to get a license could result in the seller being fined up to $1,000 and jailed for a maximum of 90 days."

    Perhaps intentional, but nowhere in the article do I find one iota of purpose, let alone legitimate purpose, for this law. Presumably this is some warped view of Consumer Protection(tm). But it seems that this is more of a regulatory program for the State to bring in reveues where it thinks it is getting screwed. Pay close attention to the fact that they don't call this a 'tax'. Taxes are bad and Americans hate them. Hence a $200 fee and a $50,000 interest free loan is provided for the government.

    If this works out (e.g. the State thinks it's successful) you can damn well expect an eBay Lite law, which does the same thing less the requirement for certifications for ordinary people who sell their one used iPod or other junk. The objective here is the bond and the license. The Lite version of the law would most likely entail a license only at a reduced price of $25 or some silly amount to start with.

    Then other states follow. So write your politicians now (especially if you are in OH or a surrounding state). That'll allow them to bear in mind your thoughts when this sort of stuff comes to the table, rather than trying to convince them after they're already interested in the potential revenue stream.

    --
    Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. -Ayn Rand
  16. FOR VOTING OHIOANS by MisterSquid · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have somehow found myself stuck in this godforsaken swing state and am subject to the inaninties of Ohio's brand of Midwestern legislating. That said, I still vote and I pay taxes.

    Not 5 minutes ago, I phoned Senator Mumper's office to let him know that I am EXTREMELY displeased with this piece of legislation. The person on the other end informed me that changes to Senate Bill 209 were being introduced today (Tuesday, 8 March), but I continued to explain the reason for my feelngs.

    My two objections were that 1) this legislation on the face of it appears to conflict with Congress's Interstate Commerce Clause which prohibits states from enacting legislation that will impede commerce between the states, and 2) the software on eBay is what does the auctioning, not the seller, and so the seller is in fact a client of an auctioneer, not an auctioneer him or herself.

    I also provided the receptioninst with my name, address, and phone number, and indicated that I will be writing a carrier mail letter to express my EXTREME DISPLEASURE with Senator Mumper's role in authoring this legislation.

    Oh, and if you came to this post because of its subject line, here you go:

    Senator Larry A. Mumper
    Senate Building
    Room 222, Second Floor
    Columbus, Ohio 43215
    614-466-8049
    --
    blog
  17. Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go after the legit guys, the gun makers, instead of the guys who are already intending to break the law.

    So, you're also cool with going after "legit" guys like Ford or General Motors? After all, convicted drunk drivers who aren't supposed to drive can still pick up keys and drive anyway... so we'd better deprive everyone of cars, just in case. Especially since more people are killed with cars than with guns. Oh: and don't forget baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc. There are all sorts of people out there "intending to break the law" with those tools, too.

    Oh, wait: here's a thought. The vast majority of people who kill with guns are recidivist, repeat criminals. Maybe they shouldn't be walking around in your neighborhood in the first place?

    By the way, what's your angle on going after the manufacturer of a legal product than can only hurt someone when someone picks it and deliberately uses it in that way? Check in with places like Africa and Central America, where gangs there routinely kill people with machetes, knives, and bottles of gasoline. Do you think that people intent on that sort of terrorizing care, at all, what you think about their chosen tools? I can tell you one thing they do care about: not knowing which business or household may be able to defend itself. In states like Florida, the right to carry has reduced violent crime. In places like Australia, where they've confiscated everyone's guns, violent crime has gone up, as criminals can act with impunity. The exact opposite of what the gun control people wanted (no matter how many times they're told that's what's going to happen).

    If guns in personal possesion are such a problem, how do places like Switzerland, where there are more guns per household than in the US manage to have less violent crime? Not by regulating hardware, but by improving software: they have a real educational system with actual standards, they don't tolerate crime, and their culture doesn't celebrate thuggishness as a fashion. And, of course, violent criminals there know that there is a strong possibility of getting shot down like a dog while being a violent criminal: that has a wonderful impact on career choice.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  18. Re:rediculous by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Heh heh heh. I always love outrageously imprecise laws that are defended by "that's not the intent" and "we would never use it that way". The proof is in the pudding, I'm afraid. If legislators create an overbroad and ill-defined law (what's "lots" and what's "casual" and when does one become the other) they are either numbskulls or have something rather nasty in mind.

    I don't know that much about Ohio's politics, though their position on science education leads me to believe you've got some pretty goofy people running the state.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  19. Re:Imagine the in-humane despair and misery, you m by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Sure, but also consider the number of young kids these days who are medicated. Individually, they don't have any say in whether or not they take ritalin or prozac or what-have-you."

    Yeah...you know, I'm sure there are some kids out there that are ADD...but, I'm really of a mind that most of them are just aflicted with what we used to refer to 'back in the day'...as being a KID. Seems like they want to medicate everyone these days. Most every kid I knew growing up, had wild spurts...getting into some trouble (nothing bad)...it was called being a boy. Now...if a kid is anything but comatose...they seem to want to drug them...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  20. Re:Modded insightful? Gun control stupid? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

    OK, you want to split hairs? Let's split hairs.

    baseball bats are made for hitting baseballs, kitchen knives are made for preparing food and occasionally opening envelopes, and guns are made for moving little pieces of metal very fast into people.

    A baseball bat is actually just an optimized club. Its purpose is to violently intercept a round, mostly organic object, and radically alter its inertia. The energy delivered is tremendous, and hence its appeal as an alternative weapon. But wooden clubs go way, way back - and no doubt first saw action as weapons: to hunt or defend against animals (bipedal and otherwise). Most of the hit-the-object-with-a-stick games go back to combat training or simulation in one form or another. It's just that the season lasts longer when both teams survive.

    As for kitchen knives: a special case of all things with sharp edges. Originally put to use to: kill, main, dismember, chop up, etc. There's a reason that versions of knives (like machetes) remain such fearson weapons in the third world: they're cheap, effective, and you don't need to reload. And, you can claim that it's in your car because you need it at work (say, cutting cane or whatnot). But edged tools are designed to separate material into pieces. Who uses it, and on what, is completely beside the point.

    Guns, on the other hand, are complicated devices of recent invention.

    If by "recent" you mean "over 600 years ago," then you're right. But the since you cited the Bronze Age when talking about knives, it seems that 2000 years is your magic number for making a weapon natural, OK, and reasonable for everyone to have or use. I, though, think that any tool that projects or enhances your personal flesh-and-bone native self is pretty much philosophically neutral, and it's what you choose to do with it, not how old the technology is, that merits discussion. Certainly the crossbow, sling, spear, and other goodies go back longer than firearms... where do you draw the line? Maybe there's no point in doing so, and we should focus instead on culture, not culture's hardware?

    they were designed on the concept of shooting people

    Except, I use mine to put dinner on the table. I actually, literally, shoot things and then eat them. With some fava beans, and a nice Chianti. Seriously: quail, venison, turkey, pheasant... you can't eat better meat, and you'll never appreciate it more than when you (and your dog, in my case) get your hands/paws bloody along the way. It's a connection to reality that most people never, ever make. And the tools I use to quickly dispatch game are guns. Not pointy sticks, not deadfall traps, not poison, not fire, not clubbing over the head - nope: high speed lead objects, some applied physics, and dinner.

    I've also used a gun to run off a seriously broken, drug-addled person that was beating our sliding glass door at 2:00AM. I have no doubts that the city police would have been 15 minutes arriving on the scene, and the guy's behavior was truly frightening - and likely to wind up in several people getting hurt. Brandishing a shotgun like I meant it took care of things, and the police found him sneaking out the back of the neighborhood's woods about 30 minutes later. He was trying to get into our house because they were already looking for him, and he knew it. I can't imagine the consequences otherwise, but the same tool that I use to put tasty dinner on the table helped keep that guy out of our house. And should he be out on the street again (no doubt he is), I'm sure that somewhere in the back of his mind is the thought that he'll never know when some house he might want to invade is going to be the end of him. That's a deterrent, and it works just as well on the neighborhood scale as it does internationally.

    Guns are fundamentally different from the other items you mentioned, which is why they're treated differently.

    But they're not so much, really, and to the extent that they are, it'

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  21. Imposing arbitrary licensing law is not a right! by rolofft · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > ...Ohio has EVERY right to do this.

    States do not have the right to impose arbitrary licensing laws. E.g. Arbitrary licensing laws on hairbraiders, casket sellers, and jitney drivers have been struck down.

    The first question to ask when a new licensing scheme is proposed is whether its true motivation is rent seeking rather than consumer protection. I'd be interested to see whether Mr Mumper's has received any recent contributions the from brick and mortar antique seller's lobby.

    --

    "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

  22. great lawmaker! by Heisenbug · · Score: 4, Funny

    serving the sole purpose of allowing the senator to say "LOOK I WAS AGAINST EBAY SCAMMING!!!!111"

    A+++++!!!! Would vote for again!!! Prompt porkbarrels, curteous pandering!!!!

  23. No licensed heroin sellers in the Netherlands by Simonetta · · Score: 4, Informative

    To my knowledge, it is extremely illegal to sell heroin in the Netherlands, where Amsterdam is the most important city. Perhaps you are confusing heroin with marijuana, which makes you an honorary Republican.

    It is possible to get a license to sell marijuana in Amsterdam. It's a long and painstaking process. Marijuana gets sold in small outlets called 'coffeeshops' (English word) and coffee gets sold in a 'koffiehuis' (Dutch word). Sex shops are sometimes openly advertised as 'Fuck Houses' (public display of vulgar words in foreign languages is frowned on, but not illegal).

    Some psycedelics like peyote and other sensitive drugs like organic Viagra (yohimbe) or intelligence-enhancers can be bought legally at 'Smart Shops'.

    Nowhere in the Netherlands can a person just walk off the street and buy highly addictive drugs like crack cocaine, crystal meth, or heroin. There MAY be government programs to provide heroin to addicts under controlled conditions and monitoring, but no one legally sells it in licensed shops.

    Thank you,