Tuesday, June 4, 2013

New Jersey Sen. Lautenberg Dies

 
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., in August 2012. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

Yahoo News


Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., died overnight of complications from viral pneumonia, his office said Monday.

At 89, Lautenberg was the oldest senator—and the last World War II veteran serving in that legislative body. He enlisted at 18 and served in the Army Signal Corps in Europe during the war.
Lautenberg served on the Senate committees on Appropriations; Commerce Science and Transportation; and Environment and Public Works. He had struggled with health problems earlier this year and already had announced that he would not run for re-election in 2014.

Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, has the power to appoint someone to fill the vacancy, according to The Bergen Record, which was first to report the news. Christie is expected to schedule a special election to find a permanent successor—a decision that is sure to impact what was already considered a heated race to replace the late senator.

Lautenberg's career accomplishments included writing the law that banned smoking on airplanes, and he later helped craft legislation to ban smoking in all federal buildings. He also played a central role in raising the national drinking age to 21. He also wrote the law that prevents domestic abusers from owning firearms. 

That last one is part of the reason pro-gun folks hated him so.  Gun-rights fanatics are like that.  Anything that even mentions restricting gun ownership, however sensible, is cause for their ire.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

12 comments:

  1. Hi Mike,

    I'm not going to say anything ill of the man today. He was a veteran of WWII and I salute him for his service. He is at rest and with his maker.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All those other things are why generally liberty-minded people didn't like him. His career accomplishments involved the word "banned" quite a bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, smoking should be allowed on planes. Is that your bright idea?

      Delete
    2. And domestic abusers should be allowed to own guns?

      Delete
    3. And the drinking age, speed limits… keep going, Mike.

      Lautenberg’s DV bill is a bad bill. It imposed bans retroactively, and disarms the victims of domestic violence if they still live with their abuser. I’m sure you’d like to see all misdemeanors be disqualifiers, while I think felonies is a good place to draw the line. The felons will still be disarmed. If you don’t think that’s enough people maybe you should concentrate on the plea bargaining process. Misdemeanors are supposed to be a lesser punishment for a lesser crime.

      Smoking is a little tougher. I think people should be able to smoke all they want, but I shouldn’t have to breathe it. If an airline wanted to offer a specific smoking flight, why would I care? I just won’t fly on it. Or if they wanted to offer a sealed section of the fuselage for smokers, why would I care (so long as it works)? The market makes a lot of these decisions that government doesn’t need to. Hotels and rental cars adopted smoking polices because customers demanded it.

      Delete
    4. As Greg says, there were plenty of other gun control measures he supported to make us dislike him beyond just the one you and the article mention.

      As for that one, I don't think anyone wants wife beaters armed, but the problem I see with the law, as it stands, is that it is incredibly easy for someone to lie about an ex and get an order of protection, rendering them unable to own firearms. I've known men and women who had exes do this simply because the ex knew it would cause them trouble, cost money to overturn, require them to get rid of their guns (something they just wanted for spite), and there was little chance of the plan backfiring and getting them in trouble for lying to get the order.

      Yes, these aren't a majority of cases, but it is a flaw in the law, as it stands, that it allows such abuses to happen. Even if it weren't for the gun issue, this is a system in need of some reform.

      Delete
    5. My position is that beating a domestic partner should be a felony, rather than a misdemeanor. What people say about each other in a divorce case shouldn't have anything to do with either party's rights.

      Delete
    6. "Beating" is a severe word. There should also be misdemeanor charges available for lighter levels of DV. It may sound like I am going easy on abusers, but allow me to play Devil's advocate. DV is naturally complicated. It does not have the traditional roles of "assailant" and "victim" that street crimes have. Presumably love factors in. That's why that first phone call for help is often so difficult to make. I want that call to be as easy as possible, and if we put major repercussions on it, the abused will be more hesitant to make that call. If a felony charge is the norm, the abused is essentially making the commitment to end the relationship right then and there, because that is a life altering charge complete with prison time. Don't get me wrong, the relationship needs to end, but sometimes it is a process getting there.

      Delete
    7. Let me advocate right back at ya. Maybe the reason many abused women wait is because they're not sure the complaint will be taken seriously enough. If they could be assured that even the mildest forms of DV will be swiftly and severely dealt with, maybe more would make that first call.

      Either way, domestic abusers should not have guns.

      Delete
    8. TS, I'd suggest that we need to offer more help to domestic partners who are trying to escape a bad relationship, but I've known people who were abused. Until they make the choice to leave, there's not much that can be done from outside.

      Once the person being abused makes that decision, the law should offer enough punishment to the abuser--upon conviction after due process, of course--to keep said thug locked up for a long stretch. I don't mean here that one person slapped another during a heated argument. That would rightly be a misdemeanor. I'm talking about the kind of serious violence that happens in many cases of domestic abuse.

      Delete
  3. He was involved in a lot more gun control than just that, as well as trying recently to go for restrictions on gun powder. And praising a Federally-imposed national drinking age is hardly something that will gain the love of those of us who support liberty.

    All in all, I'll believe he's dead when I see a photograph of his headless body with a stake through its heart. But the Devil comes in many guises and must be fought by every generation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now even the gun laws in Hell are going to get worse.

    ReplyDelete