guns err dogs in bars
The sponsor of a proposal to allow dogs at restaurants’ outdoor dining areas has delayed a vote on his bill.
The measure, HB1603, sponsored by Rep. Harry Brooks, a Knoxville Republican, would allow cities with populations of at least 100,000 to allow the practice.
So, those of us in small towns will be discriminated against?
April 1st, 2009 at 10:48 am
Actually, it is a a concept that should be fought against. If this type of logic prevails, then a lawyer would use the reverse to justify a gun ban within their city. Consider this possible argument:
— “This city of size 100,000+ is too dense of a populous to allow hanguns / rifles. Making laws based upon the density of the city is common. Take for example the law that allows pets in eating areas with cities larger than 100,000 residents. If the size of the city can be used to determine the laws for something a ‘minor’ as pets, then surely we should consider the sized of the city when deciding gun laws.”
Discrimination like this should be fought tooth and nail. ’cause you know some slime lawyer will use it against us.
April 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
What a strange idea, that the population of the locale should affect one’s standing before the law!
Alternately, this could be just an example of the stupidity of writing a badly framed law: The actual reason for the limit to large population centers may be that there is no enforcement mechanism in smaller towns, and the small town representatives said, “Leave us out of that boondoggle, or we’ll have to pay for it in our hometowns.”