It’s rather unusual for a politician to veto nanny state legislation, but Rick Perry has vetoed the texting while driving law passed by the legislature, considering it “a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults.”
One of the main reasons to be against this kind of legislation is that it does not work. It’s a feel good measure, and one that is only going to result in yet another crime that will help fill state coffers when ordinary people are fined. We already lose most of our rights when we get behind the wheel.
Run Rick Run!
It’s just another pretext for police to use. They can pull over whoever they want if they just make the claim that they “saw” a driver texting.
Even rarer is when a Nanny State Law gets repealed. I’d like to see seatbelt, helmet, and child car seat laws be repealed, for example–it’s not that these don’t save lives, so much as the State has no business regulating such behavior!
Rick Perry also just signed into law a bill to allow incandescent light bulbs made and sold in Texas to be free from EPA/Federal laws and regulations and re-introduced on the special session agenda the TSA anti-groping bill.
I think he’s most likely planning a Presidential run.
I wish I could say the same, Sandoval just signed NV’s “handsfree” law…
Apparently it’ll work if you make reckless driving illegaller…
Oh, NOW he kills nanny-state legislation. Over the past 75 years that he has been Gov. in TX, he has pushed HARD for almost every nanny-state bill that has been mentioned. Things like banning tanning beds, forcing the drug testing of kids in chess club and debate teams in high school, and forcing the inoculation of pre-teen girls against certain STDs.
And then there was the whole Trans-Texas Corridor that was a huge Eminent domain land grab of millions of acres of private land to let multinational corporations make NAFTA look like a kids game.
He may be pro gun, but so is Harry Reid. We don’t want either to be President
75 years is along time to be governer. Give the guy a chance;)
Srsly, though. That Guy is right. Don’t think for a minute that this guy is the Libertarian in Republican Clothes that he’s starting to get made out to be. He’s better than pro-gun (the dead coyote that attacked him and his dog can attest to his CHL credentials), and he does deserve a round of applause for the texting-while-driving thing, but he’s had since Dubya left TX for DC to trash a bunch of nanny state nonsense. At this point, he looks decent to me (‘specially compared to the rest of the GOP), but I’m thinking he’s gonna end up just another Close My Eyes And Pull The Lever candidate.
We’ll see.
tweaker
Rick Perry is no libertarian.
But no libertarian has a chance in hell of winning any political position of note.
I’d vote for him over any of the other Republicans, against BHO in a heart beat, and against most Libertarians for that matter.
I think it is the wrong law. If you cause an accident when you are driving distracted (texting, yacking on the phone, eating, or all of the above at once)… you should loose your license. If it can be undeniably proven (like from your cell records)
If you kill someone when doing it, you should get the same sentence as driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
^ that’s my side coming from someone who dodges bad drivers all the time, usually middle aged women trying to do what should have been done at the house, 30 min beforehand.
Driving in TX (particularly in cities) is one of the most terrifying expericences of my (daily) life!
Texting is the least of our worries…they require new drivers to go through driver’s ed up to some rediculous age, but it makes no difference!
The people here just can’t drive. They rubberneck (worse than any other place I’ve been). They’re allergic to turn-signals. They don’t know how to turn off their high-beams.
Texting is the least of our worries.
But no libertarian has a chance in hell of winning any political position of note.
Forgive the rhetoric, but if I had a dime for every time I heard that…
tweaker
While not a fan of helmet laws and seatbelt laws, you can’t really repeal them outright the way things work currently. The issue many have with the removal of those is that, if someone doesn’t use them, and survives despite that, either the insurance or the state ends up paying for their care.
Now if you were to repeal them, and at the same time include something that states that no state money will ever be used for your care if you don’t use those, and that insurance companies can include a requirement to have used those if you want them to pay up, you’d have a little better luck.
I’d love to have no helmet laws, but crashing without one is an automatic DNR (do not resuscitate) and an automatic acceptance of being an organ donor.