> Seriously, it would make a lot of sense for this bill (AB 309) requiring
> headgear to be joined at the hip with the other one (AB 1540) providing
> liability protection "when a horse acts like a horse."
Seriously, joining these at the hip would make absolutely no sense
whatsoever as they are of two completely different philosophies. The
first (AB309) requiring headgear is about government paternalism and the
second (AB 1540) providing liability protection "when a horse acts liek a
horse" is about individual rider responsibility for accepting inherent
So one is an incredibly good law and one is an incredibly bad law (which
is which depends on your personal philosophies). To link them together is
ensure that nobody is happy no matter which way the vote goes.
Orange County, Calif.