Valerie Weber’s Bills
Val Weber’s performance during the 2007 legislative session tends to show (a) that Val does not understand the restrictions of the Nevada Constitution on the Assembly, and (b) that Val believes that if someone is convicted of a crime, they should suffer for that conviction for the rest of their natural lives.
Val Weber sponsored the following bills (source Find Bills by Primary Sponsor):
| AB95 | Makes various changes concerning the confiscation of firearms during an emergency or a disaster. (BDR 36-294) |
|---|---|
| This bill passed unanimously by both the Assembly and the Senate. | |
| While this “feel good†act appears to protect the rights of the people from the confiscation of their arms by state officials during a state of emergency, because there is no authority to disarm the populace during an emergency, there is no authority or necessity for this legislation. This demonstrates Val’s lack of knowledge on the Nevada Constitution or of the premise of limited government. My premise is that if the state is not granted the authority to legislate on a subject by the Nevada Constitution, then no Act of the Assembly can confer this authority. The bill also provides that someone whose arms are seized “unlawfully†by any state agent can sue that agent in state court. I argue that because the state has no authority to seize my arms in the first place, any act by a state agent is clearly outside of his delegated authority, making him liable to me based upon those grounds. | |
| I would have voted against this bill because the Nevada Constitution does not confer to the Legislature any authority to legislate on this subject in the first place. | |
| AB96 | Makes various changes concerning criminal procedure. (BDR 14-994) |
| Thankfully, this bill died in committee. | |
| This “feel good†legislation provides that parole violations can be adjudicated in the county where they occur, and not force the state to take the violator back to the original county for the hearing. I agree with this provision because it saves money to make the determination where the parole violation allegedly takes place, rather than to transport the alleged violator to the original county.I disagree, however, with the second provision. The proposed amendment also doubles the maximum amount of time that a person can be on parole for a sexual offense from five to ten years. My beef with this provision is that we should not be paroling sex offenders at all. I would prefer that people convicted of “victimless†crimes be paroled. For example, there are “mandatory minimum†sentences for drug users. So, drug users have to sit in prison for their entire term, and sex offenders get to be released on parole. This makes no sense to me. Prisons should be for violent offenders, not non-violent ones. Keep the serious criminals in prison instead of letting them out on parole. | |
| I would have voted against this bill, because instead of releasing sex offenders on parole, we should be releasing those convicted of victimless crimes. | |
| AB99 | Makes various changes concerning genetic marker testing of certain persons. (BDR 14-288) |
| Thankfully, this bill died in committee. | |
| This bill demonstrates that Val is out of touch with basic provisions of the United States and Nevada Constitutions that protect us from unreasonable seizure and bills of attainder.This bill requires that anyone at all who is either convicted of or pleads guilty to any offense is assessed a $1 fee that indirectly funds the collection of genetic information from other persons convicted of other crimes. The assessed buck does not go directly into a fund to pay for this program, it is stuffed into a “Fund†that is invested and generates income and the income is used to fund the program. This is yet another CAFR scheme, where the state cries it needs more funding when the funds are kept off books and generate income that is not reflected in the general revenues. | |
| This law is essentially a Bill of Attainder that forfeits my right to my most personal identification information over to the state. My property should not be subject to forfeiture, the potential for abuse of this information is clear, and there are no adequate safeguards to ensure that this information is not misused. The genetic information collected is currently turned over to the FBI’s CODIS (COmbined DNA Index System) database. So, rather than maintain this information within the state, we all get subjected to the federal proctoscope. Also, there is no guarantee that this genetic material will not find its way into federal research into cloning or other research. The information, at the very least, should remain in state hands, if at all. | |
| This bill expands the number of offenses for which the genetic information is required to be collected from a limited number of grievous offenses to any felony offense. So, anyone convicted of a victimless crime (like drug use crimes) would have their genetic material seized and placed into a federal database.Currently if your genetic information is improperly collected, there is no way to get it back. | |
| This bill amends current law to provide that even if your genetic information is improperly collected, this fact does not preclude the state from using that information to convict you of future crimes. So, they admit that when they make a mistake, that you will pay for their mistake.This bill would also provided that the act of refusing to provide the genetic information is itself a Class C felony. So, if you try to challenge the law, you will be subject to another criminal charge. | |
| Finally, if your minor child is convicted of any felony, you, as the parent will be subject to paying a $150 fee, rather than having the proceeds of the Fund pay the fees associated with the gathering of the genetic information. | |
| I would have voted against this bill, because I believe that the collection of this information subjects me to an unreasonable seizure of my most personal identity, and places it in the hands of the feds, where it cannot be secured against misuse. | |
| AB130 | Establishes the Autism Scholarship Program. (BDR 34-284) |
| This bill died in committee | |
| The interesting feature of this bill was the effort to put private schools on the same playing field with public schools when funds for special education are being doled out. Kudos to Val for this effort. | |
| However, since these funds are tied to federal regulations, the private schools applying for these special education funds would be subject to the federal Department of Education. I personally believe that the feds should have no input at all in education. It is not a delegated power under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Instead, this should be a state issue and Nevadans need to figure out how this type of funding is distributed, not the feds. | |
| There are some features of this legislation that I would support, but because this bill would allow the feds to regulate private schools, I would oppose this bill in this form. | |
| AB164 | Makes various changes to certain provisions pertaining to persons who are released from incarceration. (BDR 43-285) |
| This bill died in committee. | |
| This bill creates a new document called an “Inmate Identification Card” that would be required to be issued to every person released from a state prison or from a county jail, if that person had been in the county jail for more than six months. This identification card could be used as a source of identification to get either a driver’s license or a state ID card. Also, this bill would waive the fees to get a driver’s license or state ID card for someone who has an inmate identification card and applies for a D/L or State ID within 60 days of release. | |
| I am unsure as to the reason this bill was introduced. You would have to ask Val why she sponsored it. It seems to me an unnecessary waste of funds to require the state prisons and county jails to issue new (potentially forgeable) documents that might be used to get a state issued D/L or ID card. Also, there are a significant number of illegal aliens being release from corrections, so this would be an avenue for illegal aliens to acquire state issued ID. Accordingly, I would oppose this legislation. | |
| AB309 | Makes an appropriation for the Women’s Research Institute of Nevada and the National Education for Women’s Leadership program at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (BDR S-684) |
| This bill died in committee | |
| This bill would have appropriated $400k from the general fund for the “Women’s Research Institute of Nevada” at UNLV, “which develops civic leaders among college women.” This bill appears to bypass the normal appropriations process for the state college and university budgets. It also appears to grant funds to a “group,” rather than for use by any of the students that might attend Nevada institutions of higher education. | |
| Groups do not have rights. Individuals have rights. Granting special rights to a person because of the “group” he/she is in constitutes discrimination against those who are not in the “group.” I would oppose this legislation on that basis. | |
| AB361 | Providing for the establishment of certain standards for state correctional institutions and facilities. (BDR 16-1014) |
| This bill died in committee. | |
| This bill creates a bureaucracy that reports to the Director of the Department of Corrections that would “establish certain minimum standards for state correctional institutions and facilities, including, without limitation, standards for: (1) health and sanitary conditions; (2) fire and life safety; (3) security of facilities and institutions; (4) rehabilitation programs for offenders; (5) recreation programs for offenders; (6) treatment programs for offenders; (7) personnel training; and (8) preparation of offenders for reentry into the community.” | |
| Because the Director is already responsible for these duties, I see no reason to to spend your money to create this new bureaucracy (and continue to fund it each biennium). Accordingly, I would oppose this legislation. | |
| AB407 | Requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the Nevada Accessible Housing Registry. (BDR 18-1275) |
| This bill died in committee. | |
| This bill requires the Department of Health and Human Services to establish the “Nevada Accessible Housing Registry” to assist persons in finding housing that is accessible to persons with disabilities. The Department will maintain this Registry on its Internet website and make the information contained in the Registry available on its statewide information and referral system. | |
| While a laudable goal, this allocation of $100k to NVDHHS to create this registry is further evidence of “groupthink” that pervades state government officials. Groups do not have rights, individuals have rights. Even so, this project could be accomplished by establishing the Registry and then requiring landlords who want to use the Registry to pay a user fee for this “advertising” privilege. This way, landlords who have gone to the expense of upgrading their properties to make them “accessible” will pay the state to help find people who need that accessibility, and people who need the accessibility (and those who don’t) will not pay for this new system. | |
| I would oppose this legislation in this form and challenge Val to find ways to pay for services such as this without using your money. | |
| AB408 | Establishes Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. (BDR 18-1012) |
| This bill died in committee. | |
| This bill establishes the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the Office of the Governor and requires the Governor to appoint a Director of the Office. Section 12 of this bill creates the Regional Advisory Board of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives to advise the Governor on matters affecting faith-based and community nonprofit organizations. This bill provides that the Director shall: (1) advise the Governor, the Legislature and the Regional Advisory Board of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives on matters relating to faith-based and community nonprofit organizations and social service programs in this State; (2) encourage faith-based and community nonprofit organizations to seek funding from federal, state and local governments; (3) identify, recommend and carry out policies related to assisting faith-based and community nonprofit organizations in the expansion of social service programs; (4) act as a liaison between faith-based and community nonprofit organizations and departments, commissions, boards and other agencies of the federal, state and local governments; (5) develop and coordinate efforts to attract faith-based and community nonprofit organizations to this State; and (6) establish and maintain a clearinghouse of information regarding faith-based and community nonprofit organizations and social service programs in this State. | |
| How could I be opposed to this? Easy. First, it establishes a new bureaucracy of state officials to feed at the trough of public money. We need less government, not more. Second, it asks people who would otherwise be seeking donations from private sources to seek these funds from the public trough, increasing the demand for social welfare funding. This self-perpetuating new bureaucracy would eventually wean people from seeking charitable funding to seeking public funding. | |
| The Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, has created the civil religion of National Socialism in derogation to the faiths of most Christians. People of faith are being asked to hold out their hand to receive from mammon when instead they should depend upon Divine Providence and each other. | |
| Over 50% of what people earn is being taken from then through taxation. It is small wonder that folks cannot afford to be charitable, and become dependent upon the federal and state programs for their very sustenance. If we were to eliminate taxes and the social welfare programs that sustain them, then people could afford to be more charitable and would support good works as they see fit. Please don’t tell me that people will not give to others and that do-gooders (in the form of the tax collector) are necessary to “extract” this charity at gunpoint. | |
| “When good works cease to be voluntary and become compulsory, charity becomes confiscation and freedom becomes servitude.” -T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, op-ed in the New York Times (April 29, 1997). | |
| I oppose this and any other legislation that would take from you and give to others. If you want to give to others, then you should not be required by some law to do so. | |
| AB421 | Establishes the crime of participating in an organized retail theft ring. (BDR 15-1292) |
| This bill was passed, signed by the Governor, and is now law. | |
| The premise of this bill is to create a “new” crime of participating in an “organized retail theft ring.” It adds a more severe penalty (2 to 15 years) than commission of a simple theft of the same magnitude (1 to 10 years). | |
| First, theft is already a crime. Second, this “organized retail theft ring” could be prosecuted under current law as “conspiracy.” So, there is no need for a new law. | |
| However, my beef with this law is that it does not describe the conduct being regulated sufficiently to give notice of what is unlawful such that it can be enforced. How do we distinguish whether someone has “participated” in the “organized retail theft ring?” If I call you on the phone and ask you where to get some item that I will use with others to steal from someone else, is your conduct sufficient for you to be prosecuted under this statute? I think not, but this law is so vague that such an act could be prosecuted as a violation of this statute. | |
| “There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.” – Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged” | |
| I would have opposed this legislation. |
