The Delaware GOP: because there's nothing we wouldn't criminalize

Rep. Steve Smyk (R-Police State), along with several co-sponsors including (unhappily but not surprisingly) my own Rep. Joe Miro, wants to make it illegal to have a secret compartment in your car.

So, if you have such a compartment in your car that you use to hide extra cash, or documents that need to be secured, or whatever the hell you want, just the existence of that compartment will be enough to allow Delaware law enforcement to charge you with a crime even if they find nothing illegal being transported in it.

In exactly what world does this piece of legislation represent the interests of anybody except frustrated State Troopers?

Comments

Anonymous said…

meagigen How about if you didn't know you had a secret compartment? How much trouble am I in then? :)

I've been driving my car for 2+ years now, and I am still finding out "stuff" it has that I didn't care about or didn't use or know it was there. Seriously, all it takes is one of my kids visiting from college or whatever to point out..."hey mom, why don't you use.....or I am putting this in the xxxxxx of the back seat....." Heck, I just get in the car and drive--now I could possibly face being at risk for what? Being naive, law-abiding, harboring secret compartments? Isn't that what the dogs are for? Holy Smokes, at least look at my oil change sticker, and arrest me for being overdue on that!

January 14, 2014 at 2:02 PM

Mike W. said…

Not only what the above commenter noted, but also how does this work for people who own cars that came from the factory with "hidden compartments?"

IIRC Several models of popular trucks have compartments built into the running boards and other areas that would be illegal under such a law.

January 17, 2014 at 3:00 PM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

Search This Blog