Justin, I'm no lawyer nor legislator but I'm pretty involved with this code process. I don't know the process in California but in Washington, and I believe anywhere, the State may eviscerate the model code any which way it likes prior to adoption, it is after all a commercially available model. After they're done (subtracting, adding, leaving alone) and passed it then becomes the language of the law for that state (RCW in Washington). In all cases I know of the lesser jurisdictions (cities and counties) must then adopt that code in a mini/maxi state, or adopt that code and add more stringent language in non mini/maxi states. If a legislature adopts a revised section of a model code due to public input (and remember the NAHB is a public special interest group and if there's no opposition...---) then I doubt that a lawsuit against the Legislature would have a chance. The law is a mystical land where logic takes a perpetual holiday and none sense rules.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Justin Reid <[email protected]> wrote: > I believe all of these local legislative acts will be mute the first > time a person dies in a single family dwelling that SHOULD have been > sprinklered based on the 2009 IRC. I will stongly feel the pain of the > family that this happens to and will hope that they explore all of the > legal avenues available to them at the time this happens (and it will > happen, it's a matter of statistics and time). > > It is my understanding that jurisdictions have the option of making > the code that they adopt more restictive but not less restrictive. If > they want to pass legislation like this then they will have to find > another code (other than the IRC) that suits them better. > > This argument argument should be passed on to all local district > attorneys who are in jurisdictions that these laws are being > proposed. Am I wrong? Please somebody tell me if I am off base on my > restrictions assumption. > > Justin D. Reid, P.E. > RLH Fire Protection > 16735 Saticoy St. #110 > Van Nuys, CA 91406 > 213-798-0251 > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Apr 1, 2009, at 10:02 PM, "Ryan J. Smith" > <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> I have not seen anyone mention this yet on the forum (if I missed it I >> apologize for the duplicate announcement). There is a proposed bill >> in >> Texas, HB1511, that would prohibit jurisdictions form enforcing any >> requirements for fire sprinklers in one and two family dwelling that >> are >> less than 7,500 sq.ft. This is the latest in a series of proposed >> bills >> across the country to prevent the adoption of the 2009 IRC that >> includes >> the residential fire sprinkler requirement. >> >> Details and the actual legislative alert from the Texas Fire Chiefs >> Association, Texas Fire Marshal's Association and others can be viewed >> at the following link: >> >> http://www.residentialfiresprinklers.com/blog/texas-proposed-bill-hb1511-will-limit-local-authority-to-adopt-codes/ >> >> Ryan J. Smith >> >> Residential Fire Sprinklers .com - Your Source for Home Fire >> Protection >> http://www.ResidentialFireSprinklers.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
