Good! Now let's actually do it.
It is a bit over the top to ask a single citizen to "pay" as they would
be paying the rest of their life. It would be a fiscal life sentence.Rather than the tough talk we need a solution. It might be a steep fine for
firing weapons or fireworks during burn season. Pay for this enforcement
by cutting back on drug enforcement, especially the marijuana task forces doing
nothing at all in the "war on drugs."Enforce laws that we care
about, and that actually help people.
If you cause people to lose their homes and all their possessions, pets,
livestock and the habitat around them because you are too careless and selfish
to be smart about fire, then why should you not lose everything that's
important to you? Maybe people who do these stupid things should spend some time
in prison for felonious idiocy.What is it about target shooting or any of
the other things that can cause devastating fires that makes it important enough
to put everything at risk? And not just your own self and your own stuff, but
other people, the firefighters, the guys and gals flying the copters and planes.
Sure, target shooting is fun, but really?For right now, people should just
stay out of these super dry areas. Find something else to do or somewhere else
to go.Everybody knows now how dry it is. Go to the movies, read a book,
get a wading pool for your kids, go to a waterpark, think of something fun to do
that doesn't involve going up in the hills for a while. You could even pray
It's time (past time, actually) to be fanatical about fire prevention, and
if the threat of financial ruin as a result of having to pay for fire damage
caused by reckless behavior leads folks to think twice about said reckless
behavior, then I'm all for it.
Governor Herbert's cautious approach to gun control when it comes to
gun-related fires is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to
addressing the issue of fundamental Constitutional Rights. The same approach
has been used in First Amendment cases in which efforts to avoid infringing such
rights must be made first before considering further drastic action.
Nevertheless, the Second Amendment isn't absolute and if the government can
make a compelling or preponderant case to justify restricting gun use in the
public interest, such course of action is likely to be permissible under the
Constitution. Yet it is premature to consider gun restrictions until other
legal means are attempted, unless there is an urgent and compelling public
emergency that is directly and indisputable attributable to gun use.
Tabuno is pretty much on target there.The trouble with laws to
legislate common sense is that they always fail. Stupid people will always do
stupid stuff. Even an after the fact fine, or even a bill for $$$$$ for the
consequences of their carelessness do nothing to prevent their acts.A better approach is more education to get through to people that in
extraordinary weather conditions some activities enjoyed in normal times must be
postponed. Example- "You don't lay outside to get a sun
tan when it is raining. Well, when it is hot, extremely dry and very windy you
don't go out and do anything that may create a spark."Also,
state and local governments need to look at establishing more places for
informal shooting activities that are kept clear of flammable materials so
people will be less tempted to just look for the first bit of desert with a hill
and no one around. Again, education will help funnel shooting activities into
safer areas. However, these need to be numerous and widespread, even if rather
primitive. Not multi-million dollar money pits run by DWR that are too
inconvenient for most people to use.
The idea that target shooting is in any significant way related to 2nd Amendment
rights is just silly. Yes, we all have a right to keep and bear arms - and when
necessary, that has been interpreted to include their use in self-defense.
Target shooting is useful if you think you might ever need to use a firearm in
self-defense, but you don't need the ability to target shoot anytime and
anywhere in order to be sufficiently prepared. If there is anything
that might give the founding fathers a reason to reconsider whether it is wise
to allow self-governance, it would be the realization that perhaps we
aren't even smart enough to not set ourselves on fire.
These wildfires wouldn't be nearly as dangerous or worrysome if we'd
stop building in remote areas just because we can.