Since there’s already three-day waiting periods for buying handguns, there should also be waiting periods for something else as dangerous: legislation.

After all, acts of government can be more dangerous than firearms, since they’re sometimes aimless and often cause collateral damage. The reckless brandishing of a gun, or bill, may also cause outcomes difficult, if not impossible, to undo.

The idea of 72-hour period for legislation to be read emerged during debate on health care reform, as a suggestion from Republican Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky. Well, maybe “suggestion” is the wrong word; this was, more accurately, a tactic to stall the bill.

This doesn’t quash the idea’s merit, though. But if Bunning, or anyone else, wants this notion to gain traction, it must be demanded early in the process, not during the waning days of discussion when it clearly becomes valuable as stalling strategy rather than endorsement of transparency.

As a principle, putting 72 hours between submission of legislation and its vote is sound and practical, given available technology. There’s every reason the public should inspect a bill before its consideration. Now, it’s simple to make it so the public could. 

A simple Web site loaded with documentation would suffice — a pure repository for primary sources of government. Allow members of the public access to these materials and let them sort through it, if they wish. Sure, it’s difficult stuff. Making legislation simpler to read would be great, but as there are lawyers, we hold little hope for government to suddenly promote the literary value of their work.

Instead, we urge the clearest transparency. At the least, having access to these resources could help nonpartisan sources cut through the partisan clouds that obscure the true meanings — or veiled agendas — present within lawmaking. There’s no harm in making public business more public.

On the state and local level, this idea is even more enticing, because there are no bedrock standards by which governments must provide primary information to the people. There is an obligation under sunshine laws, but methods vary. 

The state maintains a strong Web presence, for example, to monitor the Legislature. Yet it could be improved; the online availability of legislative testimony, for example, would be a valuable asset for knowing who is influencing policy in Augusta and what they’re saying.

In towns, cities and counties, since the governing panels meet more infrequently, there are fewer excuses for making legislation, council actions, etc. available prior to meetings. Some do this well; others fail to even maintain Web sites. Transparency should beg some minimum standards.

Putting 72 hours between posting bills for consumption and a vote is a good example of one.

[email protected]