CDR: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...

[Tim May]

At 10:08 PM -0800 11/5/00, Ray Dillinger wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Nov 2000, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
>
>>      Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
>>pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
>>statute?  Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per
>>square foot.
>
>
>An interesting exercise is to ask where the government (ANY branch of
>government) gets the authority to require me to put smoke detectors
>in my home.  If my house burns down, that's my tough toenails, right?

In California, smoke detectors for homes are required AS PART OF A 
SALE, but not before or after. That is, there is no requirement 
placed on an ordinary homeowner.

As usual, rules for landlords are much different. Enforcement being 
through the usual method of renters suing for large sums because the 
landlord let the $7.99 smoke detector run low on battery power.

On the point of a law requiring guns, I just can't think of anything 
the law requires me to have in my house. As it should be.

--Tim May
-- 
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.