The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: New California Laws

                Well, it’s January again, so it is time for us to take a look at some of the new California state laws that went into effect on January 1^st.  They are like an old spaghetti western.  Some are good.  Some are bad.  And some are downright ugly.  Like it or not, they are now the laws of the land. 

                Let’s begin with the new laws concerning children.  SB 929 requires children to be restrained in a vehicle booster seat until they are eight years old or 4’ 9” tall.  This is because vehicle shoulder harnesses are designed for taller people.  If used on children, the straps could damage children’s necks in accidents.  SB 514 prohibits the sale of medicine (usually cough medicines) containing dextromethorphan to children under ten years of age.  In one study, it was found to be no more effective for children than a placebo, yet could cause severe and dangerous reactions in children.  AB 25 requires schools to take specific steps to protect student athletes who sustain possible concussions.  SB 746 keeps anyone under 18 years of age from using a tanning bed.  All of these laws are designed to protect children, with the understanding that children are incapable of making decisions concerning their own health and well-being on their own.  Why then, one may ask, was AB 499 passed?  This law allows children twelve and older to procure their own medical care for the prevention of STDs (sexually transmitted diseases).  No parental notification or consent is required.  In fact, a physician cannot notify any adults that such treatment was sought.  Therefore, your 12-year-old daughter can go into any doctor’s office and request a vaccination against HPV, for example, in addition to seeking treatment for any SDT she may have contracted.  So, we have four new laws enacted based on the assumption that minors are incapable of making important medical decisions on their own, and one new law which completely disregards that assumption.

                Four new laws deal with people who are in this country illegally.  Yes, I know this is only a misdemeanor, but the impact of these new laws on safety and government finances is significant, and raise the issue of fairness as well.  AB 130 makes “undocumented” immigrants (read “illegal”) eligible for privately funded scholarships if they meet the criteria of a paying resident tuition.  State-funded scholarships will be available to them next year.  This is an addition to the Dream Act, passed in 2001, allowing illegal immigrants resident status, thus affording them the privilege of in-state tuition.  Legal residents of the 49 other states still have to pay out-of-state tuition and are not eligible for the scholarships now available to those in this country illegally.  AB 207 bars school districts from demanding proof that a student is a legal resident of this country.  A simple statement by the parent is now acceptable.  AB 844 allows illegal immigrant students who hold student government offices in state colleges to be paid for those duties on the same basis as legal residents.  Finally, AB 353 prohibits law enforcement officers at a sobriety checkpoint from impounding the vehicles of anyone driving without a valid driver’s license.  This affects people of any legal status, but was enacted due to the high incidence of vehicle impoundments of illegal immigrants who cannot legally possess a California driver’s license.  Therefore, people who are in our country illegally and have not proven they are knowledgeable of our traffic laws, nor have proven they are physically able to operate a motor vehicle, nor have proven they can safely operate a motor vehicle, and therefore, likely to not possess the insurance required of the rest of us, must be sent on their way, driving their vehicles on our streets, unless the officers have other reasons to detain them.

                Finally, AB 144 prohibits the carrying of any handgun, loaded or unloaded, in public.  Previously, a person could carry a sidearm in most unincorporated county areas in this state.  Now, none of us will be allowed to carry a sidearm openly.  We will have to seek a concealed weapons permit, and hide our handguns, so law enforcement officers will have to guess.  Oh, I didn’t mean “none of us.”  There are a few exceptions.  Off-duty law enforcement officers in a myriad of circumstances will be allowed to openly carry, of course.  And so will quite a few other people, including: 

                                “A person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining and furnishing information as   to the financial rating of persons.”

                                “An attorney…performing his or her duties…”

                                “A collection agency or an employee thereof…”

                                “A charitable philanthropic society…”

                                “Admitted insurers and agents and insurance brokers…”

                                “Any bank…”

                                “A person engaged solely in the business of securing information about persons or property from public records.”

                                “A licensed insurance adjuster…”

                                “Any secured creditor engaged in the repossession of …property…”

                This is an interesting list.  Notice the absence of “any citizen of the United States who has not been convicted of a felony and who would like to protect himself, his family and his property by exercising his 2^nd Amendment right to ‘keep and bear arms.’”  Somehow, that exception didn’t make it into the law.

                Here’s an interesting side note:  Every one of the laws listed above, and most of the others enacted but not mentioned here, were authored by Democrats.