Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Quote Of The Day

The Washington Post doesn't think much of HR 822 - National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - if their editorial yesterday is any indication. As Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell notes, fundamental constitutional rights are not a buffet where you can pick and choose.

Oft times, ridicule rather than anger is the best way to deal with our opponents and Sebastian does an admirable job with this paraphrase of part of the Post editorial.
Many states already have agreements to recognize newspaper licenses from other jurisdictions. Virginia, for example, honors licenses from 27 other states that have similarly robust standards; Maryland, which strictly regulates what newspapers may be sold, and the District, which essentially prohibits it, do not recognize out-of-state licenses. These are legitimate choices that would be overridden by a federal legislature that too easily bends to the will of the news lobby. Nevada, a strong press-rights state, rescinded its agreement with Utah because Utah does not require training in acceptable viewpoints. Why should Congress to overrule that judgment?


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Great way to keep things in perspective.

    I, for one, have reservations about our Federal Government being allowed to oversee this kind of effort. As we have seen time and time again, once those in Washington are in charge of something, you never know what will happen. And assuming those in office will work in our best interests is something you cannot do.

    Stephen Wenger, in his on-line blog, puts it this way:
    'The problem with HR 822 is that it could eventually lead to NYC or California standards being imposed nationwide by giving the feds a precedent to become involved in carry outside the home. I agree that the current bill does not create a federal licensing system but I fear that subsequent amendments to any statute it creates could more easily create federal standards for issuance, including California-style certification of need, medical and psychological testing and law-enforcement-style shooting “qualification.” One list member adds that such standards could conceivably even limit calibers – as is done in parts of Europe and Latin America – and set holster requirements. In my assessment, this bill is a potential Trojan horse.'

    Let's put some thought into whether this bill actually works... after all, our Second Amendment rights should allow each of us to own and carry without ANY governmental oversight. Perhaps that is the direction we need to focus on instead of ceeding authority where there should be none.