Banning Tattoos and Piercings, Arkansas Senate Passes State Ban on Forms of Body Jewelry

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Apr 22, 2002
79,041
27,617
898
Seattle
#1
Banning Tattoos and Piercings, Arkansas Senate Passes State Ban on Forms of Body Jewelry
By Admin on August 21, 2013




by Ezra Van Auken

For body piercing and tattoo shops that enjoy the state of Arkansas, your time there may be limited. Believe it or not, the state is looking to ban certain styles of both, and many are objecting to the measure already. Senator Missy Irvin introduced the bill, which hasn’t been given a title although the Senate has dubbed it SB 387. Aside from the fact Sen. Irvin wants to ban a style of tattoo and piercing, the legislation also expands regulation over the industries.

Specifically, Irvin’s 387 bill would slap a state ban on scarification tattoos as well as dermal implants. Scarification is the burning, etching or branding of an individual’s skin with whatever assortment of letters or patterns that comes along. On the other hand, dermal implanting is a type of body modification where an individual receives a piercing using a hook under the skin to then attach whatever jewelry resting on the outside of the skin. Artists have no reason to smile either, the bill passed the Senate 26-4.

In terms of putting more regulation over the piercing and tattoo market, Sen. Irvin’s bill states the artist must work “in a body art establishment licensed by the department for at five (5) years and been in compliance with department rules governing body artists;” in addition, the artist must be licensed by the Department of Health and registered by the State Board of Private Career Education. The industry is steps away from seeing Irvin’s legislation turn into law as the House adopts the measure under Deborah Ferguson.

Besides civil liberties advocates and the tattoo industry clearly opposing a law, which would cripple self-expression, market-anarchists believe state regulation is just as inexcusable, especially in this situation. As long as the relationship between tattoo and piercing services are voluntary to the consumer, free marketers see no problem with the transaction. And for little guy businesses, whether it’s young adults starting a shop, applying for licenses and spending money you don’t have is more than a hassle.

A question one may wonder is – why shouldn’t consumers be allowed the freedom to purchase what they like without the government’s continued interference? The role of the government was never to regulate the action’s of the people, whether they believe it is for their own good, or not. Free marketers espouse the value of self-regulation and self-ownership in order to allow freedom of choice to the consumer. If you want an unusual body piercing or tattoo and find somebody willing to do the procedure, then the government should stay out of the business arrangement.

Unfortunately, the invasive nature of Irvin’s legislature is the complete opposite and once again assumes authority over your health and safety. The State Weekly contacted both Irvin’s office and Ferguson’s office, but received no response.
http://thestateweekly.com/banning-t...-passes-state-ban-on-forms-of-body-jewelry-2/
 

Cunt Smasher

Caligula Jr.
Aug 26, 2005
13,463
4,059
628
#4
won't this eliminate about half of the population?
Your thinking of the bill requiring teeth.
I don't personally have an issue with requiring artists to be licensed, but I'm wondering what the problem is they're trying to fix.
 

Your_Moms_Box

Free Shit / Socialism 2016
Dec 20, 2004
5,755
468
628
Dover, Delaware
#7
Appeals court overturns the law on pretty much every amendment of the constitution.

It never goes any further. No need for it too, it is such a blatant violation of rights that there is no need for the supreme court to ever need to hear it.
 

Georgie

Registered User
Jul 10, 2013
401
225
83
#8
Appeals court overturns the law on pretty much every amendment of the constitution.

It never goes any further. No need for it too, it is such a blatant violation of rights that there is no need for the supreme court to ever need to hear it.
Yeah but the fact remains that these senators put god before the constitution yet again. Thats scary.
 

Don the Radio Guy

G-Bb-A-D
Donator
Mar 30, 2006
69,623
5,081
568
Wyoming
#11
Yeah but the fact remains that these senators put god before the constitution yet again. Thats scary.
And this is why I answered Tattered's question. Because of ignorant statements like this.

Once again. Christians aren't against tattoos.





This lady is just a bore that wants to make everyone else boring. Nothing more.

As an example? She gets a ZERO on "small government score". She might as well be a democrat.

http://votesmart.org/interest-group/2148/rating/6565?of=rating#.UhWZVpJ_2uk
 

HandPanzer

O Tempora O Mores!
May 30, 2013
46,608
42,237
293
#12
Since when are Christians against tattoos?
I will refer you to Leviticus 19:28 sir.

"You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD."

So I'd say they've been against them for a while.
 

VicVinegar

Registered User
Oct 5, 2012
1,578
636
163
#13
The words "Senator" and "Missy" should never be together.

So there is no real "cause" here that Missy is fighting for? Is there an anti piercing lobby lining her pockets? Just when you thought these nanny state conservatives had closed down thier list of immoral issues to fight, Arkansas manages to find another.
 

Mags

LDAR, bitch.
Donator
Oct 22, 2004
35,498
12,223
693
Ill Repute
#17
The white knighting is hilarious. As usual.
 

JonBenetRamsey

well shit the bed
Aug 30, 2005
17,432
8,790
693
woodland critter christmas park nj
#18

Hudson

Supreme Champion!!!!!
Donator
Jan 14, 2002
32,840
4,566
898
Land of misfit toys
#22
I will refer you to Leviticus 19:28 sir.

"You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD."
That's Jews. I know preachers that have tattoos.
Unless you are refering to Cookoo for CoCoa Puffs Christian:
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/schaefer/tattoo.html
1.The Mark of Blood. The tattooing procedure involves cutting the flesh with a sharp needle or instrument in order to carve out or make designs.The result is something called “blood-letting”.Blood-letting has both occultic and demonic origins as it is considered a power source that is supernaturally unleashed.Many pro-tattoo sources describe tattooing as having a magical, occultic connection with blood and blood-letting as being normal.Several pro-tattoo historians indicate the connection with scarification and blood-letting associated with religious practices.Another source indicates “the importance of licking the blood that was released during tattoo operations” (Steve Gilbert, “Tattoo History: A Source Book”, pg. 181). We read in 1Kings 18:25-28 the account of the prophets of Baal who met with Elijah to find out who was the true God.These were satanists who were attempting to unleash supernatural power by cutting themselves (vs. 28).In the New Testament, there was a man named Legion who was possessed by demons in Mark 5:1-9 who went about cutting himself with stones. (vs. 5)
 
Last edited:

whiskeyguy

PR representative for Drunk Whiskeyguy.
Donator
Jan 12, 2010
36,519
22,181
398
Northern California
#23
I will refer you to Leviticus 19:28 sir.

"You shall not make any cuts in your body for the dead nor make any tattoo marks on yourselves: I am the LORD."

So I'd say they've been against them for a while.
Many Christians don't follow the Old Testament literally, it is more used as a contextual teaching tool. The New Testament is what they follow, and certain passages in it negate others in the Old Testament. The teachings of the Old Testament were meant to lead people to Jesus, but once they find him, many of those OT laws are void.

Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.

Galatians 3:24–25
The context of the tattoo law was that back then, the practice of tattooing was used to worship other gods, which was the real reason to be against it.
 

MayrMeninoCrash

Liberal Psycopath
Dec 9, 2004
24,561
8,730
693
Loveland, CO
#25
Many Christians don't follow the Old Testament literally, it is more used as a contextual teaching tool. The New Testament is what they follow, and certain passages in it negate others in the Old Testament. The teachings of the Old Testament were meant to lead people to Jesus, but once they find him, many of those OT laws are void.
They follow it when it's convenient to validate their misguided beliefs. Never mind that Jesus said "Love thy neighbor", Leviticus talks about "man lying with man" so gheys r evul!