I hate to say it, but that's really bad. What's to stop them from applying that to other laws? First example that comes to my mind is weed. Some states it's legal, some states it's not. If you live in a state where weed is not legal, but travel to another state where it is legal, with the intent to smoke weed in a state where it's legal, and you do, you shouldn't get in trouble when you go home. And if somebody wants to leave the state with their own kid, providing it's not a kidnapping situation, it's not anybody's business why.
It's like they're trying to trick us with something we agree with. It's "transitioning" now, it could be handling a firearm or something else later.
Edit: I think the law is fine, except the part about what you might intend to do outside their jurisdiction.
Evading a jurisdiction with intent to do bodily harm to a child is never going to be misconstrued with evading a jurisdiction to smoke weed. If it was then dry counties would arrest people for driving to the county line to buy a six pack.
I understand that it's not even close to the same. I picked weed laws for an example because everybody knows that they differ from state to state, and a lot of people leave their own state to visit another specifically to smoke weed legally. I'm all for making sex changes for children illegal in EVERY state. My point is that a state shouldn't be able to enforce their laws outside of their borders, whether I agree with the law or not. That's why I said it's like they're tricking us, on the surface it's something I agree with, but what's the next law they add this stipulation to going to be? Weed? Owning and operating a casino? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet?
You're point is well taken. It is something we have to look at. As a social worker, I've watched parental rights disintegrate over 40 years to where we are now with parents being forced to get their kids jabbed or allowing them to do it without permission. It IS a slippery slope. I'm not saying at all that it's right for a parent to to go to another state to do it, but now you've got one state trying to tell another state what to do. It has great potential for ending up in a mess. Everyone should be able to at least understand the potential issues here, and I'm glad you brought it up and stuck with it to defend your stance. It's what I love about this board ... being able to disagree with others respectfully and trying to see the other viewpoint.
If they were going to apply it to other laws literally no one would ever fly to Vegas. Gambling (prostitution) is illegal almost everywhere (some states are legalizing gambling) but the point stands.
They don't care what adults do. They care when you hurt a child. At least any normal person does.
If they try and amend that law and make it so you cannot break laws of the home state in another state then America ceases to work. It cannot and will not happen. Remember this, states are nations and the federal system is there to negotiate international deals and whatnot. Are they going to arrest you for going to Germany and hitting the red light district? I think not.
OK. You might have a point in California, Oregon, Washington, or maybe DC, but DC isn't a state it is a separate country.
I guess maybe in an extremely F'd up world they might try, but you have other things to worry about. I would worry about food security and actual physical security before I worried about this. Watch what they do and bring attention if they start to go that way but before that happens, America is already done. No way will they get away with that when things are still semi-normal.
I kinda hope I'm misunderstanding. I totally agree that smoking weed and disfiguring a kid are completely different. I just wouldn't put it past them to apply a rule like this to something else. That's the part that worries me. The laws are what the people in charge say they are today, and this gives them permission to charge you for breaking one of their laws even if you're outside of their boundries.
I'd be ok with every state passing a law, or even a federal law prohibiting mutilating kids.
I'm in no way advocating for sex changes for kids.
"XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason
My understanding is that self mutilation and suicide are against the law because of the Christian principles that our nation is built upon. While we are entitled to the free exercise of religion, "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other.".
I hate to say it, but that's really bad. What's to stop them from applying that to other laws? First example that comes to my mind is weed. Some states it's legal, some states it's not. If you live in a state where weed is not legal, but travel to another state where it is legal, with the intent to smoke weed in a state where it's legal, and you do, you shouldn't get in trouble when you go home. And if somebody wants to leave the state with their own kid, providing it's not a kidnapping situation, it's not anybody's business why.
It's like they're trying to trick us with something we agree with. It's "transitioning" now, it could be handling a firearm or something else later.
Edit: I think the law is fine, except the part about what you might intend to do outside their jurisdiction.
Evading a jurisdiction with intent to do bodily harm to a child is never going to be misconstrued with evading a jurisdiction to smoke weed. If it was then dry counties would arrest people for driving to the county line to buy a six pack.
That's exactly my issue with it. What's next?
That can happen either with or without this law.your arguments are nonexistent
Sexually mutilating a child is not the same as smoking fucking weed. That's a false equivalency you're trying to use there.
I understand that it's not even close to the same. I picked weed laws for an example because everybody knows that they differ from state to state, and a lot of people leave their own state to visit another specifically to smoke weed legally. I'm all for making sex changes for children illegal in EVERY state. My point is that a state shouldn't be able to enforce their laws outside of their borders, whether I agree with the law or not. That's why I said it's like they're tricking us, on the surface it's something I agree with, but what's the next law they add this stipulation to going to be? Weed? Owning and operating a casino? Riding a motorcycle without a helmet?
You're point is well taken. It is something we have to look at. As a social worker, I've watched parental rights disintegrate over 40 years to where we are now with parents being forced to get their kids jabbed or allowing them to do it without permission. It IS a slippery slope. I'm not saying at all that it's right for a parent to to go to another state to do it, but now you've got one state trying to tell another state what to do. It has great potential for ending up in a mess. Everyone should be able to at least understand the potential issues here, and I'm glad you brought it up and stuck with it to defend your stance. It's what I love about this board ... being able to disagree with others respectfully and trying to see the other viewpoint.
Thank you
No that isn't going to happen because everything you bring up is done by consenting adults. Weed, gambling, helmets, all of it.
Except the one thing, taking a 'MINOR' across state lines to do harm. Sorry that law is sound and I support it.
"Except the one thing, taking a 'MINOR' across state lines to do harm. Sorry that law is sound and I support it."
I completely agree with this, but it should be a federal law not a state law.
Sure, but state laws do and should carry more weight than federal laws.
I understand what you are saying though.
Do you think they wouldn't apply that to other laws? I think they would, and if it's ok for them to do it with one law, they will do it with another.
If they were going to apply it to other laws literally no one would ever fly to Vegas. Gambling (prostitution) is illegal almost everywhere (some states are legalizing gambling) but the point stands.
They don't care what adults do. They care when you hurt a child. At least any normal person does.
If they try and amend that law and make it so you cannot break laws of the home state in another state then America ceases to work. It cannot and will not happen. Remember this, states are nations and the federal system is there to negotiate international deals and whatnot. Are they going to arrest you for going to Germany and hitting the red light district? I think not.
I think they would try to pull some shit like that and that is what concerns me about it. We're not talking about normal people.
OK. You might have a point in California, Oregon, Washington, or maybe DC, but DC isn't a state it is a separate country.
I guess maybe in an extremely F'd up world they might try, but you have other things to worry about. I would worry about food security and actual physical security before I worried about this. Watch what they do and bring attention if they start to go that way but before that happens, America is already done. No way will they get away with that when things are still semi-normal.
Not enforceable under the US Constitution. So no worries there. Unless no one cares to actually enforce the US Constitution.
By the way - You Are Here (No one cares to actually enforce the US Constitution)
Your logic is flawed.
I kinda hope I'm misunderstanding. I totally agree that smoking weed and disfiguring a kid are completely different. I just wouldn't put it past them to apply a rule like this to something else. That's the part that worries me. The laws are what the people in charge say they are today, and this gives them permission to charge you for breaking one of their laws even if you're outside of their boundries. I'd be ok with every state passing a law, or even a federal law prohibiting mutilating kids.
I'm in no way advocating for sex changes for kids.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/virginia.asp
Virginia Declaration of Rights - 1776
"XV That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
Adopted unanimously June 12, 1776 Virginia Convention of Delegates drafted by Mr. George Mason
My understanding is that self mutilation and suicide are against the law because of the Christian principles that our nation is built upon. While we are entitled to the free exercise of religion, "it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love and charity towards each other.".
Aye. Fellow cannabis user. Spot on.
Now make a law against routine infant circumcision.
Satanists? Yes. Consuming blood cuts one out from being a servant of anything else.
Thirteen you say? Always showing their numbers.