The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our
virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact
online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Raven wrote on Oct 19, 2009 7:32 PM:
It also bans the direct sales of ammunition to Californians who purchase via mail order or over the Internet. Out-of-state ammunition dealers will have to ship to licensed dealers in the state who would then have to record the purchaser's identity and fingerprints. The new law not only makes it unlawful for a gun dealer to knowingly sell handgun ammunition to anyone prohibited from possessing a firearm, it also prohibits any person subject to a gang injunction from owning or possessing handgun ammunition.
The De Leon bill, the governor correctly concluded, appropriately balances public safety against the right to keep and bear arms. The type of record-keeping mandated in the new law is no more intrusive than similar laws governing pawnshops.
The bill reasonably regulates access to ammunition and improves public safety without placing undue burdens on law-abiding gun owners. It makes California safer.
From the sacbee today...
(wait for it...wait for it) "
kevin wrote on Oct 19, 2009 9:31 PM:
BTW, you don't have a Constitutional Right to use a pawnshop... "
Raven wrote on Oct 19, 2009 10:02 PM:
and the article says you have a right to use a pawnshop where? "
kevin wrote on Oct 20, 2009 4:56 AM:
Gun control is obviously a POLITICAL rant and should be in that section.
"...the new law is no more intrusive than similar laws governing pawnshops". Again, pawnshops have NO Constitutional protections, UNLIKE our Right to own firearms.
This is nothing more than a "back door" attempt by Liberals to implement gun control by limiting our ability to obtain ammo and it will be overturned either in the courts or by new legislation.
Sure glad the State has plenty of money to spend on fighting it in court... "
Raven wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:14 AM:
And why shouldn't gun dealers have to face the same restrictions that pawnshops have to when faced with similar circumstances?
Shouldn't be much of a court battle as the local ordinances have been fought and the challengers have lost. Again, this does nothing to infringe upon your right to own a firearms... "
funnyme wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:33 AM:
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2009/10/20/sports/doc4add4d8c6bf34038281997.txt "
Sickothis wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:48 AM:
PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Oct 20, 2009 9:26 PM:
Raven wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:04 PM:
"Fire out your thoughts here on your topic of the week that is not covered through a Register.com article or opinion item"... "
steph wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:40 PM:
Oh, and thumbprints for anyone who is trying to prove legal residency. Isn't it just like our government to claim they can't reliably track the identities of people in this country who claim to be here legally--oh, the bureaucrats just CA-AN'T tell who belongs here and who doesn't, who is legally employable and who isn't, who should be deported and who shouldn't, but they CAN track gun owners and users. "
steph wrote on Oct 20, 2009 10:41 PM:
freeport56 wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:05 AM:
Imagine using a photograph to identify a voter. if only we could do that! "
freeport56 wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:10 AM:
Except for the fact that it will not effect criminals...............such flawed thinking! "
Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:54 AM:
freeport56 wrote on Oct 21, 2009 10:39 AM:
Sounds reasonable. "
post-it wrote on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 PM:
sickothis wrote on Oct 21, 2009 4:12 PM:
Following the widely publicized case of a KBR employee in Iraq who was gang-raped by her coworkers, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would prevent federal contracts from going to companies like Halliburton/KBR that make employees waive the right to sue their employer if they are raped on the job.
"The old 'it's okay if you get raped' clause," The Daily Show's Jon Stewart commented sarcastically. "If ever there was a time for the unanimous passing of an amendment, the Franken Anti-Government Contractor Rape Liability bill would seem to be that."
And yet 30 Republican senators voted against the amendment. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), for example, argued, "The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That's just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate."
"No, that's exactly how you should handle matters in the United States Senate," Stewart responded. He mockingly paraphrased Sessions' position as, "It's not the government's business to decide who the government does business with."
"What exactly is your real objection?" Stewart asked.
http://rawstory.com/2009/10/gop-supports-rape-arbitration/ "
sickothis wrote on Oct 21, 2009 5:55 PM:
kevin wrote on Oct 21, 2009 7:44 PM:
freeport56 wrote on Oct 21, 2009 8:11 PM:
Liberal judges listening to groups like ACORN has used the ploy that it is unfair to the poor on the state court level.
Tell you what sickothis, show us a link that shows what the identification requirements are for each state. Then show me the link to the states that do not require identification be carried by it's citizens. When you can do that, I will stop talking about it.
California requires ID for everyone that lives here. As I have already stated a CDL or CA ID Card. Since all our LEGAL resident must posses this form of ID what is wrong with using it to identify a voter to prevent fraud?
Why the fear of reducing voter fraud? Why so unwilling to protect this privilege? "
Raven wrote on Oct 21, 2009 11:51 PM:
The Supreme Court on Monday (April 28, 2008) backed Indiana's law requiring voters to show photo identification, despite concerns thousands of elderly, poor and minority voters could be locked out of their right to cast ballots.
Indiana can require voter identification for next month's presidential primary, the Supreme Court ruled.
The 6-3 vote allows Indiana to require the identification when it holds its statewide primary next week. It also will give most state legislatures time to revise their voter laws for the November elections.
This was perhaps the biggest voter rights case taken up by the justices since the 2000 dispute over Florida's ballots, in which George W. Bush prevailed to gain the presidency.
At issue was whether state laws designed to stem voter fraud end up disenfranchising large numbers of Americans who might lack proper documents to prove their voting eligibility. The case raised important constitutional questions, but also involved race and partisan politics.
CNN
What would make CA doing so wrong is no one can get a govt issued ID for free, so requiring it become a form of a poll tax, which is illegal. Indiana in the case last year does offer free govt issued ID cards.
(and there is no requirement that you carry ID just that the courts have ruled you must identify yourself to police if asked....) "
kevin wrote on Oct 22, 2009 4:59 AM:
The ID would also be required TO REGISTER to vote, so it would have an impact on mail in and absentee voters... "
steph wrote on Oct 22, 2009 1:14 PM:
You should have to use a thumbprint (or equivalent if you have no thumbs) to vote. Then you only get to vote once. And only if you're registered. "
steph wrote on Oct 22, 2009 1:21 PM:
Your rape story is a likely underwritten by trial lawyers, who HATE arbitration agreements.
The victim in the case WAS allowed to sue, because the judges hearing her case brilliantly realized that her rape had NOTHING to do with her employment, and so the agreement that she signed to not sue, did not apply in the case.
In general, I see nothing wrong with arbitration agreements. This can reduce frivolous lawsuits.
Everyone agrees that rape charges are not frivolous, nor is consent to rape a condition of employment, as your story is desperately trying to imply. "
post-it wrote on Oct 22, 2009 1:38 PM:
post-it wrote on Oct 22, 2009 1:45 PM:
Simple, easy, technology already in place to implement. "
steph wrote on Oct 22, 2009 4:08 PM:
It's a first.
I...I agree with post-it!
*gasp!* "
pharper wrote on Oct 22, 2009 4:54 PM:
Also, on a lighter note: I saw a bumper sticker today that made me laugh: "The lottery: a tax on people who are bad at math." "
pharper wrote on Oct 22, 2009 4:56 PM:
17506 wrote on Oct 22, 2009 5:02 PM:
post-it Not every one has a car or DL so the DMV idea may not work and to verify ID for mail in, places that have this requirement, you put the last 4 #'s of DL or SS # so it can be verified, that is unless in the next election we send our ballots to ACORN to count!! "
post-it wrote on Oct 22, 2009 5:14 PM:
The point is right now it is "optional" to register to vote at the DMV. I say require to opt out, not opt in. It is pretty hard to function in society without a state ID of some sort. Sure, you might miss 10% of the population or so, but it would be far more than registered today. Bonus, No more complaints about ACORN registering mickey mouse. Heck I don't even care if an ID is needed to vote. I just think voting is an obligation and it should be easy to participate. Why should any citizen have to jump through an extra hoop to register to vote? Why should you be required to declare loyalty to a party to get a ballot?
No politician should be afraid of a larger voting pool. "
post-it wrote on Oct 22, 2009 5:38 PM:
adding and tying a number makes your ballot less "secret" once cast. If an ID requirement is made, it should be to get the ballot as would be the case when one showed ID in order to vote.
Jury duty lists in Napa county are made from DMV and Voter registration lists. If your name is not exactly the same on both lists you will be called more often. Merging this list would eliminate this problem. "
Raven wrote on Oct 22, 2009 11:03 PM:
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.” sept 16, 2009.
Does this really sound like it belongs in arbitration? Would you be ready to sign an arbitration agreement if you thought it prevented you from going to the justice system if you were assaulted at work? "
4gnapan wrote on Oct 23, 2009 12:54 AM:
Thankfully, the other 70 werent bought n paid for. "
a teacher wrote on Oct 23, 2009 7:16 AM:
post-it wrote on Oct 23, 2009 9:40 AM:
freeport56 wrote on Oct 23, 2009 3:26 PM:
No, we are not advocating a national ID card. My comments were focused on "reasonable restrictions". I was commenting on the news footage I saw regarding the elections in Afghanistan. The election officals were flipping through their voter rolls and each listing had a photograph.
My comment was that a reasonable restriction to voter fraud was to use a photo ID. California requires all of it's residents to have one be it a CDL or State ID. After reading the other posts, it strikes me as funny. California requires everyone who lives here to have an ID, period. I was questioned on how it would work with absentee ballots.....that is a good question.
I am sure given some time to really focus on the problem I could come up with a solution. Maybe the Registrar could photograph the voters and add the picture to the list for the polling place. Regardless, it is the simplest way to prevent the preverse use of voter fraud in elections.
Post-it- great points. First we have to make sure the people working at the DMV can be well supervised. "
steph wrote on Oct 23, 2009 4:49 PM:
NO senators voted against her right to sue her employer for what happened to her.
Re-read what I wrote. "
a teacher wrote on Oct 23, 2009 4:53 PM:
I mean talk about taking away liberty. "
steph wrote on Oct 23, 2009 5:10 PM:
kevin wrote on Oct 23, 2009 5:41 PM:
steph wrote on Oct 23, 2009 9:14 PM:
XMAN wrote on Oct 24, 2009 3:03 AM:
Antithetically, the State of California has thereafter drafted 368,432 enforceable statues of law. "
Raven wrote on Nov 1, 2009 10:26 PM:
....an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."
Not quite true kevin, the constitution in the 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th amendments all deal quite specifically with voting in a number of issues, including eliminating poll taxes and lowering the age for voting to 18...
and xman...it is the declaration of independence that says that.
teach, the states have the authority to set requirements for voters,...section 4......
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.... "