24?

No this isn’t about a truly awesome TV program on Monday nights. This is about something truly sick making its way through the Legislature. Listening to Hogue this morning, it seems Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-SF) doesn’t think much of the perversion known as kiddie-porn as long as it’s "personal use in one's own home." Unbelievable. Yet a new rock has been overturned in California. Using the search routine in IE on “100”, there’s only one paragraph of relevant text in AB 50 as currently amended. It is below and quite confusing:

311.11. (a) Every person who knowingly possesses or controls any matter, representation of information, data, or image, including, but not limited to, any film, filmstrip, photograph, negative, slide, photocopy, videotape, video laser disc, computer hardware, computer software, computer floppy disc, data storage media, CD-ROM, or computer-generated equipment or any other computer-generated image that contains or incorporates in any manner, any film or filmstrip, the production of which involves the use of a person under the age of 18 years, knowing that the matter depicts a person under the age of 18 years personally engaging in or simulating sexual conduct, as defined in subdivision (d) of Section 311.4, is guilty of a public offense and shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both the fine and imprisonment. If a person possesses more than 100 items that are prohibited by this section, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or in the state prison.

(b) If a person has been previously convicted of a violation of this section, or of a violation of subdivision (b) of Section 311.2, or subdivision (b) of Section 311.4, he or she is guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for two, four, or six
years.

(c) It is not necessary to prove that the matter is obscene inorder
to establish a violation of this section.


In paragraph (a), can somebody explain the difference to me between having possession on either side of 100 kiddie-porn items? Just what the hell does that last sentence even mean?!?!? Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I can see holes in that text you could drive just a few trucks through. This is a hard-hitting bill on this kind of perversion? Of course, Leno is gallantly entertaining motions to reduce the “100” to “25” in a proposed amendment. So if you only have 24 CDs with up to 9,000 images each – not such a big deal, I guess. Is he freaking kidding us??!?!?!? How about just “1” image?!?!? What’s your quid quo pro for entertaining more amendments Mark?!?!?! Personally, I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger if this sort of crime was punishable by death by firing squad. I’d really like to know what kind of perverted act might actually make Mark Leno feel nauseous if he has the stomach for this kind of evil.