Maybe so - but this bill isn't getting a hearing in committee, it isn't getting debate, it's going nowhere. The total cost to the lege from introducing this bill is minimal. The only place its being debated afaik is here in this and a couple other knife forums.

Besides, one man's frivolity is a serious issue for someone else, and should be placed in context. There were probably bills introduced for years to ban smoking in public before anyone took them seriously. Or bills to address the effects of global warming - frivolous or serious stuff? If you deem it frivolous today, would you accept the bill in 25 years when the mean temperature is .4 degrees higher and Arizona is complaining of too much heat and too little water? Standard of frivolous, who decides?

It seems to me that part of effective governance is hearing from the public on all issues that concern them - the duty of a representative is to winnow the wheat from the chaff, and let the small stuff fall away. I've seen alot of bills introduced in all seriousness that could and should be deemed frivolous and capricious - downright against the constitution, I say. They all start as bills, no harm in that. Its when folks feel that they can't submit legislation because they can't beat someone's metric of frivolity that we should begin to worry.

Hey, let's talk about something else, a real survivor, like Sam the Koala...