There are frivolous lawsuits. Then, there are frivolous bills.
A Maine lawmaker recently proposed a bill that would require dogs to be harnessed or tethered in moving vehicles.
In other words: No more dogs joyously hanging out the window, jowls and ears flapping in the breeze. No more small pooches perched on drivers’ laps like mini co-pilots.
If comments on local news stories about the idea are any guide, this proposal did not go over particularly well.
“My dog’s going to be so pissed when he finds out,” Andrew Hesselbart wrote on the Facebook page of the Portland Press Herald. “Stop trying to control everyone,” wrote Jeremy Collison. “Opioids destroying lives across the state and these people are wasting time on legislation like this?” Robert Alan Parry asked.
On Wednesday, one day after the newspaper’s story on the bill ran, state Rep. Jim Handy (D) withdrew the bill he had sponsored, which was soberly titled “An Act Concerning the Transporting of Dogs in Passenger Vehicles.” In a statement, Handy said the constituent who had suggested it had changed his mind.
Handy, for his part, seemed pretty lukewarm on the idea from the start. He told the New England Cable Network that he wanted pets to “have the freedom to stick their head out of the window,” and that his own dog “loves the fresh air coming into his face.”
“As a dog owner myself, I had reservations about whether that’s a good idea from the beginning, but it’s my job as a legislator to hear and represent the concerns of my constituents,” Handy said in his statement on withdrawing the bill.
So, any crackpot with a hair brained idea can have their local representative waste time drafting a bill and introducing it for consideration? Frivolous lawsuits were not just frowned upon for the time they wasted but now subject to fines if I'm not mistaken. Hint, hint lawmakers everywhere.
You can lead a horse to water. But you can't make him get down on one knee and do an Al Jolson impression!
