« Eve Wilson Dies |
| OBAMA AIDE LINKS HILLARY DECISIONS WITH PAKISTAN TRAGEDY AND BHUTTO DEATH »
The Newspaper website has the scoop.
This time Dave Albo has introduced a bill that includes JAIL TIME for people unable to pay his abuser fees.
Albo has completely lost his mind.
December 27, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b13369e200e54fc8527e8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DAVE ALBO DOES IT AGAIN:
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
In Iran they jail the gays.
In Virginia they jail the drivers who go 10 miles over the speed limit on interstate.
I'm not sure we are winning here.
December 27, 2007 at 09:30 PM
Can he rationalize this as a backdoor way to arrest illegal immigrants who drive without licenses?
December 27, 2007 at 09:36 PM
I've seen a fair amount about this bill on other blogs. I know Donkey with a Trunk wrote about it before. It seems like an anti-illegal immigrant measure, not a jail abuser fee folks. It requires arrest and fingerprinting of people without a license. That would kick in automatic denial of bail provisions for illegals and force them to be held until trial and then turned over to ICE for deportation.
Rust has introduced a similar bill, HB 104, which would require arrest and fingerprinting, along with photographing and an even crazier provision, an automatic 30 day car impoundment.
December 27, 2007 at 09:50 PM
I think these guys have their metaphors mixed. Albo's bill applies only to people driving with no valid license (46.2-300). Driving on a suspended license (ie, for failure to pay the abuser fees) falls under a completely separate code section (46.2-301). In other words, it would not hit anyone for driving on a suspended.
I'm not sure we should arrest and fingerprint everyone who gets hit for a 46.2-300 violation, but it's a lot different than these yo-yos make it sound. It just goes to show you how much mischief you can cause when you understand about half of what you're talking about.
You might also want to take another look at Rust's bill. It is only for someone who commits a second offense of driving without a license. In other words, the only time they are impounding cars is when someone just doesn't get it and keeps on driving without a valid license. Probably a good idea to keep no-license knuckleheads off the streets for a month or so.
Not Jack Herrity |
December 27, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Allow me to correct my previous statement on Rust's bill now that I've read it more carefully - the 30-day impoundment clause is for driving on a suspended license and that language is already in Virginia law. He's not changing that part. All he is doing to the impoundment clause is extending it to driving without a license, just as it currently applies to driving on a suspended.
Not Jack Herrity |
December 27, 2007 at 10:29 PM
It seems that the Rust bill is for first timers. It amends 46.2-300 to add "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person charged with a violation of this section shall be placed under arrest and shall have his fingerprints and photograph taken."
In 46.2-301 it adds driving without a license in violation of 46.2-300 to the list of offenses that lead to impoundment. It would read:
"The motor vehicle being driven by any person [...] (iv) driving without a driver's license in violation of § 46.2-300 or a substantially similar ordinance or law in any other jurisdiction, shall be impounded or immobilized by the arresting law-enforcement officer at the time the person is arrested for driving after his driver's license, learner's permit or privilege to drive has been so revoked or suspended or for driving without a driver's license. The impoundment or immobilization shall be for a period of 30 days."
That seems clear. It adds first time driving without a license to the list of impoundable offenses. The other three reasons for impoundment, all of which are related to either DUI or driving on a suspended license for refusing a breath test.
December 27, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Seems like a pretty good idea to arrest someone who breaks (or continues to break) the law.
Even better if it is to help with the illegal immigration issue.
Why do some people insist that people who break the driving laws get a pass on any consequences?
If someone breaks the law and get fined and does not pay and loses their license and continues to drive over and over again with no fear of real consequences what incentive is there to abide by the law?
They are just getting "arrested" like any other lawbreaker. What other laws do you libs want to gut?
Please make a list of "laws that VA will not enforce" so that I can start ignoring them.
December 28, 2007 at 04:08 AM
The reason for arresting and fingerprinting these guys is simple, even though I might not agree with it completely (I think there are other ways to get to the same result). Most of these guys who don't have licenses simply make up a new name each time they get caught. Fingerprinting them has the support of local cops, who want to be able to keep track of how many times they've arrested the same guy for the same offense.
Make no mistake about it. You might not care that about unlicensed drivers, but wait until one of them plows into the side of your car and ends up having no insurance (which you generally cannot get without a valid license). Then you'll care and wonder why no one took a harder line against them.
Not Jack Herrity |
December 28, 2007 at 07:03 AM
Anon 4:08 a.m. writes:
"Please make a list of "laws that VA will not enforce" so that I can start ignoring them."
Start with sodomy.
December 28, 2007 at 08:37 AM
NJH- Is that for not having a license on record or not having a license on your person when pulled over?
Note to self: never let dems4dems near my sister...
December 28, 2007 at 08:52 AM
Right on, Dave, keep fighting the good fight.
December 28, 2007 at 08:54 AM
are you suggesting they get rid of all the sodomy laws?
you seem to have a pretty good grasp on this issue, however I have a feeling trying to convince some of these people will be a bit like teaching a pig to sing.
All they really want is to find a reason to speak negative about a republican, especially if it is Albo.
Truth and logic means little to many in this crowd since you are top of the argument I expect they will begin changing the subject and calling you names real soon.
December 28, 2007 at 10:09 AM
NJH, the article explains why this applies to abuser fee victims: "A 2004 state appeals court case, Shreve v. Virginia, concluded that a suspended license was not "valid" for the purpose of imposing punishment."
A quick google conjures up the case, which has a legal U.S. citizen with a suspended license convicted under 46.2-300 -- meaning Albo's expansion of 46.2-300 would apply to anyone with a suspended license.
December 28, 2007 at 11:21 AM
Posted by: | December 28, 2007 at 10:09 AM
True and True - We really do not have to try very hard - Albo does alot of the ground work for us.
December 28, 2007 at 02:56 PM
"Allow me to correct my previous statement on Rust's bill now that I've read it more carefully " NJH
Welcome to the yo-yo club -- how about you try reading first, then commenting.
December 28, 2007 at 04:05 PM
Do you hold all legislators to the same standard as you hold Albo? It seems there are a lot of lawyers serving in Richmond as representatives and you only have one person singled out for your delusional rants.
I believe your cause would be more pure if you were more consistent in your criticism.
Or do you just have some “fatal attraction” mental condition regarding Albo? I would suggest you talk to a good doctor about it and take your medication as directed, before we read about you boiling his pets or something.
December 28, 2007 at 05:07 PM
Ben, you should really learn to educate yourself about issues before you come near a keyboard.
This post shows to be a complete fool.
December 28, 2007 at 06:19 PM
add your brother, kids and family pet to that list.
December 28, 2007 at 08:37 PM
Ben isn't a fool as I Publius suggests. I wrote about the Rust and Albo bills on my blog on December 19th. You can find my post at http://changeservant.blogspot.com/2007/12/authors-of-abusive-driving-fees-are-at.html.
As introduced, the Rust/Albo bills would both apply to drivers who lose their licenses for nonpayment of fines/fees, to teens on learner's permits who drive without an adult, and to a grandmother who forgets to renew her license and who is, therefore, driving without a "valid" license.
In each case, the Rust version would also mean that the car the person was driving would be impounded for 30 days.
Albo says that the language of the bill goes farther than he intended so I assume that amendments will be in order. But, as I note in an update to my blog post, the amendment he suggested to me that he would offer will, at a minimum, not eliminate the problem of mandatory arrest/vehicle impoundment for teens caught driving without adults on learners' permits and for drivers who move to VA and don't get a VA driver's license within the 60 day grace period.
Claire Gastanaga |
January 05, 2008 at 09:58 PM
May 08, 2009 at 02:08 PM
Only if you already hold a provisional DL issued on or after January 1
May 20, 2009 at 01:40 PM
Provisional Driving Restrictions for the first twelve months
May 25, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Of course owning a collector? s car is not always fun and games. Most of the kit car insurance policies stipulate that your collector? s car can only be driven 2500 miles in a year. This is where the kit car insurance differs from the general automobile insurance companies. Some of these general insurance companies will extend the mileage to 5000 miles a year depending on your needs. If you have a car show that is 2500 miles for a return trip that would mean you would have no mileage left for the rest of the year. ...
May 29, 2009 at 05:10 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address