First time I noticed this.
II are dumb regs that involve actions on government owned property.
a removes criminal penalties for improper dishwashing by campers. In the age of criminal reform, I cant fathom why we'd want to maintain criminal penalties for improper noncommercial dishwashing by private persons.
b NASA can still say no ... why we consider it criminal corruption to simply ask astronauts to take souvenirs up into space for them is ridiculous.
c another vague crime ... what is an "unusual" noise ... especially in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in
Reed v Town of Gilbert, that's content discrimination and there is no way it passes strict scrutiny.
d if its prudent or efficient for someone to take a hot air balloon to work, who am I to disagree, let alone criminalize it.
e follows up on our hopeful move towards backing the federal government out of gambling regulations. If you want to bet on which monkey in the cage throws poop first, I dont think you should have to go to jail for that.
f dress code police bother me ... especially when this clearly demonstrates there is no strict need to exclude nudity in the national forest.
g walks back the vague, frequently challenged water nexus rules that tend to plague farmers until a better definition can be set.
III deals with regulations on horse penises. Yes you read that correctly.
a repeals a regulation requiring 5 consecutive days of washing a horses erect penis while an inspector watches prior to importation. Here is a link to a fun chart that shows the procedure (100% work safe!)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D57HR0eXoAEYS_7.jpgb repeals a regulation that prohibits people from examining the genitals of a foreign show horse. I dont want to know who does this or why they want to, but criminal charges seem wrong here too.
c limits what show horses can do in their free time while in Atlasia. Again, I dont see why I should police horsey bedrooms. Once again, the bs justification is the moving target of "unfair trade practices" but if two parties enter in a stud agreement for their horses thats good enough for me. These stupid, overprotective laws are unnatural and stupid towards the animal splooge market. These are similar to a dumb reg we repealed last year that iirc made it a crime to sell pig semen if it was collected by someone who pet a dog within the past hour.
IV deals with crimes specific to federal employees.
a actually imposes a criminal penalties on judges of the Duck Stamp contest (art contest to decide the design for federal hunting stamps) if they reach a conclusion within 2 hours. That includes the odd scenario where maybe there are only a couple of entrants. Things can policy without criminal sanctions.
b actually makes it a crime for someone that works for the Bureau of Reclamation to be late for work. Im not saying you shouldnt be free from being fired for no-showing your job, but CRIMINAL penalties? And its not like Reclamation employees are exclusively safety technicians ... this literally applies to people whose job is to market and execute sales contracts for irrigation water.
v formally repeals the law that the Supreme Court struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird. This is another example of a dead letter law, where the Court prohibits enforcement but the law is never repealed. I hate this, and think Congress should be a lot more responsive to the court and actually keep their law code up to date and free from clutter. Additionally, this case was decided on the very tenuous grounds of substantive due process, which means its possible for the Court to overturn the Griswold decision. Rather than give them a chance, by repealing the law now we never have to worry about a future executive using this existing law to try and block the dissemination of information about birth control or overturn Griswold. We've previously repealed dead letter laws like this such as the flag burning ban, the ban on wearing military uniforms for a defamatory purpose, the Raisin Reserve, etc.
vi not quite everything can be neatly shoehorned into a category
a another one of these dumb regs where there really is no way to accurately proof or disprove so its basically just there to chill potential speech. Does the 30% reduction account for normal wear or sports wear or genetics? If you dont like the deodorant buy a different brand ... dont limit free speech.
b If you own a raptor and you want to let it fly into your building, why should I care?
c Cost saving measure that grants more flexibility to federal departments in sourcing materials
