Power To The Municipals And County. A Petition

Firestone Discussion
22

That still doesn’t make sense. The cities are within the state therefore all state laws should apply to them. This whole “laws only apply in certain areas unless there is not enough units online” is going to make it very confusing to the people of Firestone. Allow me to make an example; lets say Redwood city made it legal to open carry even though the state has made it illegal. These two do conflict but lets put that aside a second. Now lets say a citizen is open carrying in Redwood since it is legal in this scenario (keep in mind folks out there it is illegal to open carry right now) Now there is no problem with this except, now at this point all of the municipal and county units just left the game. Does the citizen know this? Probably not. Now here comes along FSP into redwood since no county/city units are online. Now there is a citizen open carrying when according to this petition, state laws would apply at this point. So now it is suddenly illegal to open carry even though it was legal before when the city/county units were online.

My point is this would just cause unneeded confusion in the county and could also potentially make State Law enforcement useless when they are called into the city.

image

1 Like
23

To be honest Municipal should not regulate open carry or no open carry, that’s really a state issue.

1 Like
24

Yes, it might be confusing. However it is possible.

True, however the state legislatures CAN decide to not enforce illegal open cary laws inside the municipality regardless of if there are municipal units online, therefore this issue would not happen

For example: the law can specify that in a city that has legal open carry laws, the statewide law where illegal carry is illegal outside of city limits would not be enforced there, but in cities where open cary is ilegal, the statewide law enforcement WOULD enforce it there when municipals are not avaliable.

2 Likes
25

Theres already state laws that wouldn’t apply everywhere.

take loitering for example. Is it illegal to loiter inside every single area? No. Only in government buildings

It would be simmilar to that in road laws in the state level. Would the state level have road laws everywhere? No, only in places without a municipal

For example: a law can be made saying this “It will be illegal to speed in the highways, and anywhere outside of city limits. Shall there be no municipal units on in a city and county units are unavaliable, and speeding is illegal in that city’s jurisdiction, the state law of speeding shall apply in that city temporarily while municipal and county units are not enforcing their law for speeding”

2 Likes
26

Keep holding strong. I believe people are opposing it as they haven’t really thought through the idea and are getting caught up in the idea that State>Municipal, which is true, but state laws should only be laws that apply to the whole state. Whereas things like road laws, there are multiple roads in multiple places. Roads that are outside city limits should be State regulated, but roads that are in municipal jurisdiction should be regulated by that municipality.

Sure, murder, vehicle assault, what not should stay state law and will trump any other laws, however there’s things that municipalities can regulate that the state doesn’t need to worry about.
Again, like roads, problems seen only in one municipality, etc.

2 Likes
27

thank you for the support

2 Likes
28

I’d agree that having open carry regulated by county/city govs is pretty confusing and would inflict chaos. I would also agree that laws by the state certainly trump county laws.

However, the state could condense their legislation (road laws, etc.) that aren’t state universal and allow county/city govs to make legislation for their jurisdiction. Then, SCSO could enforce those road laws while FSP enforces their road laws. However, things like murder, vehicle assault, etc. ARE universal, so those could stay state laws and maybe the county/city could simply redefine it under their own legislation.

1 Like
29

Speeding laws are strictly based on what the devs do in terms of speed limit signs. That’s it.

Traffic offenses HAVE to be covered by the state because of the land without municipal or county jurisdiction

no point in making a layer cake that’s completely unnecessary

1 Like
30

Land without municipal jurisdiction is covered by state road laws, thats already taken care of… reread my thread

1 Like
31

Remember when fed said we’d have to make legislation around taxes? Department funding? That’s the whole idea. Let’s get the layer cake started because it’s going to be required with taxes in V3. That or we’ll all be scrambling to make stuff work once V3 comes around and we need legislation for municipalities.

2 Likes
32

V3 isn’t going to drop out of nowhere. We’re gonna have a beta and an alpha phase to understand how much the devs have actually done and what promises they actually upheld (hint: it’ll likely be low).

Well solve the issue when we get to it. There is 0 issue in how we run the state now. 9/10 of these issues are irrelevant and are terrible ideas.

However, a budget (without taxes) would be good and i’ll look into that as of now

2 Likes
33
  • Support
  • No Suppotrt

0 voters

To gather public data

1 Like
34

Not really how it works…
They have the authority to, as the state hasn’t declared they cannot. In my view at least.

I think individual commerce departments for municipalities and/or the county is a bad idea.

However, in my view, municipalities can and have regulated businesses and should be able to.

In regards to road regulations, I believe state laws could be modified to allow for municipals and the county to decide punishment in their jurisdiction, and have a default punishment if such regulations are not existed by the municipality/county in said jurisdiction.

Counties and Municipalities cannot force state departments to enforce their legislation. The county has made it a requirement that SCSO enforce municipal legislation, but that is uncommon to see actually happen. So, if we think about it, it could be false arrest at the moment if a state agency is to arrest someone for breaking a county ordinance. It would be nice to see this changed by the state to permit such agencies to enforce county legislature, however this could introduce many loopholes that I believe the state is too afraid of, as they are already scared to give up the most basic powers to inferior governments.

The strength of the bond between the state and the county/municipal governments seems to be at a very weak stage at the moment. The state is not willing to give the county, and consequently it’s municipals, a chance to succeed by allowing us to operate more independently from control of the state executive branch.

It is of my belief, that if we are to help the county and it’s municipals, it is best to allow county departments to operate more independently from the state executive branch. And even if I do not like DPS, SCSO and SCFD should still remain regulated by DPS, and will by law.

Giving county departments independence from state executive orders and such would allow the county to have a better purpose and prevent the possibility of the governor dismissing elected county officials, the sheriff, ect.

If we are to see anything improve in our current state of distress between our glorious state and our county and municipal governments, we need to entrust the county with powers such as those I have aforementioned.

If you cannot trust us enough to do such a simple act as prevent the governor from firing county officials and employees, then why do we have county departments and a county government? What, are we gonna rename SCSO and SCFD to Firestone State Sheriff’s Office and Firestone State Fire Department?

The county does not wish for complete independence from the state, we do not wish to operate independently entirely. We merely wish our executive branch to operate separately from yours in most regards.

In regards to gun regulation by the county and its municipals.
I believe that would be a great area we can be flexible on. In Arborfield for example, I would love to see open carry legal.

In regards to municipal law enforcement.
I doubt municipal law enforcement would even work that well… we will see with PDP how that goes.

In regards to county courts.
I would love to see those come back… but I would want to see the amendment I have mentioned before pass first.

In regards to budget.
I agree, budget should be decided by taxes… But if that is to happen, taxes should also decide equipment and such. Therefore, it would be up to the county legislature to decide how the budget is exactly dedicated. Opting for more members and less equipment, or less members with more equipment.

In regards to it all.
State, trust us a bit, and maybe we can actually be friends. At the moment, it seems that we just yell and argue and threaten each other. I do not like this. I want this to change, we need change. Thus, please let us do more.

Thank you.
Best regards,
Your Daddy County Soviet Premier Executive
Patchy319

2 Likes
35

@Sharm500 I would advise you to take out the open carry and commerce part of it. That’s a bit too far and is overstepping state boundaries. I know this is just a petition, but congress will look at all parts of it and consider it. Take out those parts and just include the road laws and taxes and I will continue supporting.

1 Like
36

Congress doesn’t have to include the commerce, and the open carry part into their consideration if they don’t want it, and i can’t edit anyways

1 Like
37

If Congress even thinks about reviewing this, the Department of Commerce will fight until we are abolished to get all these ideas striked. The County Government right now doesn’t even do anything, and now you guys think you are competent enough to make your own department?
I’m not tryna shoot you guys down for trying to get more duties, infact, I agree that the County Government needs some more things to do, but they don’t even do it. Want to make your own Commerce branch? Sweet, all you guys can do is just make laws REGARDING businesses, doesn’t mean the Department of Commerce has to follow it, such as;
‘Cars cannot park in front of business doors’
Thats fair, it shouldn’t be;
‘THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE IS ABSOLETE TO US BECAUSE WE’RE THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT AND APPARENTLY THAT MEANS WE DONT FOLLOW STATE LAW!’
Now, I dont study government at all, but I’m pretty sure thats now how it works.
If a city wants a new department, they can make one, after I’m pretty sure going through the County Executive/Commissioner and Governor of their state.

Sharm, again and again you seem to just spew random comments and random suggestions, when you yourself are unaware of what your talking about. You are basically trying to abolish a department for what reason? What reason do you have to abolish the Department of Commerce? Is it because we’re inactive? If you can just give is alot of businesses to review, and things to do, then yeah, we wont be inactive, but right now we only have, what, maybe 3-5 licensed businesses?

Zero support, wouldn’t even cross my mind to approve anything said in this petition.

Signed,
Deputy Secretary of Commerce
Dadd_yFrancis

1 Like
38

Read again. state Commerce wouldn’t be abolished. It would be responsible to maintain and regulate municipal commerces. Obviously you didn’t read the thread well enough to understand the plans for commerce.

1 Like
39

Also the reason why the county government “doesn’t even do anything” is because they fail to have power due to state hoarding all the power, and this thread addresses it by giving the county government more power.

1 Like
40

Ehhh that kinda depends. Municipals and County cannot regulate state departments, which is why the state cannot enforce our laws legally.
However, laws put in place by counties and municipals are higher than any regulations you put in place as the department of commerce as they are laws.

But, if you are saying that a municipal/county cannot regulate the department of commerce, you are correct.
However, they are permitted to regulate businesses, just like you or the state legislature.

If they make a law, you have to follow it, as no one is above the law. Except if the law is clearly conflicting, ect. They cannot regulate your department, but they can regulate businesses.

He is wanting commerce branches for each municipal, I dont believe he wants that for the county, but regardless, I do not support such ideas. But rather, I believe it could work for cities to regulate businesses with their legislature and such.

County/municipals cannot declare property or land, so thus, the department of commerce is very useful in that regard. It would be nice to see the county be able to have such additional authority. However, I do not believe that is necessary at the moment. But rather, we really need that amendment passed.

1 Like
41

Like Rudy said, city and county govs: if you want to regulate businesses in your cities, just write some city laws/ordinances. Hell, I wouldn’t even mind working with you guys on ensuring our businesses follow them (within your cities of course). But you sure as hell don’t need 3 separate city commerces. You already see what we do, how do you expect to split this between the current 3 city govs?

No support

Signed,
KensterVids
Commerce Chairman of the Board

1 Like