In Oregon law, harming someone with violence is already illegal

Even before it had a public hearing, state Sen. John Minnis' proposed SB 742 went from outrageous to downright silly. As a result, we have a cautionary tale of the folly involved with introducing legislation that is long on patriotic fervor but short on real-world feasibility.

The story begins with Minnis' original version of SB 742. It would have broadened the definition of "terrorist" to include anyone who disrupts government business, public gatherings or highway traffic.

The vague definition included most peaceful acts of civil disobedience and attached a steep price: Those convicted would face a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole, a fate generally reserved for the most heinous murderers.

Minnis amended his proposed legislation Friday to narrow the terrorist definition so it refers to anyone who "participates in or carries out any violent act that the person knows, or should reasonably know, could result in the death or serious physical injury of a person and is intended by a least one person to harm or destroy."

Of course, laws against such acts were long ago inscribed on stone tablets. In other words, we have laws against assault and homicide, as well as against racketeering and conspiracy. Just what is this bill meant to outlaw that is not against the law already?

Even amended, Minnis' proposal attacks traditional personal freedoms and broadens police authority to again allow on-going surveillance of anyone law enforcement considered suspicious, regardless of whether they had committed a crime.

Representatives from both the ACLU and local law enforcement groups have said that they will speak against the bill at its 8 a.m. hearing Monday, at the Capitol in Salem, before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

When two such historically disparate groups both oppose a bill, it hasn't a chance of passing. This one should die a quiet death in committee. (TN)