CPSIA: “Blowback” on Capitol Hill

Neil Munro covers it at National Journal (PDF, courtesy AmendTheCPSIA), and mentions toward the end a certain blog that “has rallied opponents of the law”. A few highlights: walkingstick2

  • “‘Like every member of Congress, I’ve heard from people in my district … [who say] they will literally be put out of business because of something that China did,’ said Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., chairman of the House Small Business Committee’s Investigations and Oversight Panel. ‘We cast the net wider than we should have.'”
  • Later, however: “Altmire’s position reflects tensions in the Democratic caucus.” You bet it does: “Most Democratic legislators, staff aides, and allied advocates have resisted calls for a change in the law”, and one, regrettably anonymous, claims that opponents “are deliberately misreading the law to make it unworkable” so as to get it reopened. Among “allied advocates”, there’s Elizabeth Hitchcock, the public health advocate for the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, who is quite dismissive of the cries of small makers going under: “Complaints about job losses in the small-business sector are usually a mask for the interests of large firms, Hitchcock said.” More on the PIRG groups here, here, here, here, here, and here (& more in comments and from Deputy Headmistress).
  • “Lobbyists on both sides of the issue” say the CPSIA outcry could affect the fate of an upcoming Waxman-backed bill called the Kid-Safe Chemicals Act, “which would apply the environmentalists’ ‘precautionary principle’ by requiring extensive safety testing of chemicals found in plastics, food, textiles, and manufactured goods before they could be sold.”

“Inmate sues to get vintage truck owned by couple he killed”

Florida death row inmate William Deparvine has a bona fide law degree, which has helped him keep going in his extensive litigation against the survivors of Richard and Karla Van Dusen. Deparvine was found guilty at trial of killing the Van Dusens for their vintage Chevy pickup, which he claims to have bought. [St. Petersburg Times via Obscure Store, whose headline is quoted above]

It’ll never get off the ground

Paul Breed, Unreasonable Rocket:

A long time ago a normal mortal could buy rocket grade peroxide. Then someone crashed their rocket pack and sued the peroxide supplier. They won and the supplier lost more on that suit than they had ever made on the small rocket grade peroxide sales. So they did the smart thing and stopped selling rocket grade peroxide to anyone that did not have a government contract.

Result: he decides to try making his own. (That sounds like a step forward for safety, doesn’t it?) What happened next, as well as commenter reactions, at the link.

Boston Chinese restaurant blaze: “Firefighters’ families settle for $2.2m”

Boston Globe: “The families of two Boston firefighters killed in a West Roxbury restaurant fire and a third firefighter injured in the blaze will split $2.2 million to settle lawsuits they brought against the restaurant, its landlord, and a grease-cleaning company, according to a source involved in the agreement.” As we’ve mentioned in the past, the “firefighters’ rule”, a “doctrine that historically has barred lawsuits by public safety officers against those whose negligence has allegedly led to emergencies […] has decayed considerably in recent years in some jurisdictions, and suits by firefighters, police, paramedics and other rescuers have multiplied.” Also of note: “when they died, [one of the two firefighters] had traces of cocaine in his blood, and [the other’s] blood alcohol level was .27, three times the legal limit to drive in Massachusetts, according to two government officials who described the results to the Globe”. The firefighters’ union has thus far successfully blocked efforts to subject its members to drug and alcohol testing.

Fractious in Framingham

A long-running controversy pits some elected officials and townspeople of Framingham, Mass., west of Boston, against a social service agency that has proposed the town as a site for halfway houses and other residential facilities for recovering addicts, the homeless and others. Two years ago things turned particularly unpleasant:

…[South Middlesex Opportunity Council] filed suit in federal court this week demanding damages not just from town officials, but from citizens who have dared criticize the agency and challenge its plans.

SMOC’s 99-page complaint [which alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act, federal Rehabilitation Act, Americans With Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act — ed.] piles up charges against selectmen and planning board members not just in their official capacity, but as individuals. It targets town employees, both named and unnamed. It calls for damages against four Framingham Town Meeting members and two citizens for comments made on a private Web site and e-mails distributed on a privately-operated mailing list.

The ACLU of Massachusetts expressed unease at the naming of private citizens as defendants over their advocacy efforts. While the lawsuit has been narrowed somewhat in the two years since then, it continues to engender much acrimony as it drags on:

Aggravating the ill will is a recent revelation that a man charged with shooting a local police officer had lived in a home run by the agency, the South Middlesex Opportunity Council, or SMOC.