North Coast Online

Turnabout And Fair Play

The Instapundit reports on what I agree is an outrage.  Hey, if the cops can record me, I'd like the same privilege.

Gun-Shop Owners Don't Kill People Either

I'm no big fan of Dale Volcker, but I was happy to see his office respond to the nasty op-ed in yesterday's Buffalo News.

Freedom Of What's That You Say?

In, of all places, California, a court upholds a high school student's right to publish an article opposed to illegal immigration.  Sad that it merits notice, isn't it?

It Is What It Is

If the Democrats are suddenly silent on gun control issues, it may be due less to the NRA's supposed power than it is to the fact that many well-credentialed, liberal constitutional lawyers have sat down and actually read the Second Amendment.

Freedom Isn't License

I could support the artfully-named Free Flow Of Information Act (actually I'm thrilled its sponsors didn't dub it Judy's law). There is a good case to be made that reporters' sources, who may or may not, be exposing government wrong-doing be protected, but the press must be held responsible at some point if it makes the decision to reveal government secrets that end up adversely affecting the national security.

That's something that the federal government hasn't had the stomach to address for decades.  We mere mortals can, in some cases, be held liable for our irresponsible and damaging speech; the media's precious freedom of the press shouldn't be subject to a lesser interpretation.

Abridged, Not

A civil rights victory in Kansas.

The Philosopher Kings Have Spoken And Some Of Their Subjects Are Displeased

The Buffalo News editorial board worked itself up into a regular lather over the Supreme Court's decision on the partial-birth abortion law, and, in the process, completely mischaracterized the Court's role in our government.

If the United States really wishes to protect vulnerable new lives from some very rare acts of wanton destruction, there are reasonable ways to do that. Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court, and the abortion-limiting law that it upheld, are not among them.

Claiming to respect human life in all its forms, the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act and the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling upholding it in fact show a stunning disrespect for the lives of American women and their ability, acting under a doctor’s care, to decide for themselves which medical procedures are necessary and proper.

The basis for both, implicit in the statute and explicit in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, is that women are such dithery and tender flowers that it requires an act of Congress to stop them from taking an action that they may come to regret, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of their lives.

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's constitutional right to an abortion is not violated by this particular limitation on the medical procedure employed. The Court passed no judgement on the mental abilities of women and made no pronouncement on the morality of the procedure in question.  Limits on partial birth abortion, it decided, do not run afoul of the Constitution.

Many disagree.  If so, they should submit an amendment.  It's their right and perhaps their moral duty.  Whining about the supposed personal opinions of the court's members serves no particular purpose.

The Right Of The People To Wait Until The Police Show Up Shall Not Be Abridged

Rod Watson's argument against gun ownership is weaker than I'd have expected.

And there’s the rub. Sure, I could be trusted to walk around armed. And maybe you. But what about that guy down the block?

What about the guy who regularly risks his life and yours with a 3,000- pound weapon he drives right on your bumper before hopping lanes? Do you trust him with a gun?

Or what about the Little League parents who beat up coaches and team managers — and even opposing kids — when Junior doesn’t get enough playing time or gets tackled too roughly? Would you trust them with a gun?

“We can’t just have everyone running around armed to the teeth, ready to do whatever they think they need to do,” said Buffalo Police Commissioner H. McCarthy Gipson.

We'll leave the question of Mr. Watson's trustworthiness with a firearm for another post, but he is right that there are a lot of unstable and quick-to-anger people that we'd prefer not to own guns.   The problem is that those people probably already do and if not, they can come into Buffalo tonight and pick one up on any of dozens of street corners without so much as getting out of the car.

Rod Watson and those who think like him would prefer that we law-abiding, non-violent types agree to serve as some sort of moral example and give up our right to own guns.  But growing numbers of Americans are realizing what a foolish compact that would be and are demanding instead their moral right to defend themselves when someone threatens to harm or kill them.

Since I've lived on the West Side I've heard gunfire erupt from a car on the corner next to my house, I've had a 15 year old boy pull a handgun out of his pocket just to "impress" me and I've had to detour over one block coming home late one night when I saw some lunatic weaving down the middle of the street waving a pistol over his head.   And now Rod Watson [and the police commissioner evidently] would deny me the legal ability to have a gun because they're not sure if I can be trusted?

Please.   

Famous (And Tragic) Last Words

When it comes time to lay blame for the deaths of 30 people at Virginia Tech, I hope the Virginia state legislature is on the list of perps.

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday [Jan. 31, 2006] in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

I fully expect that by tomorrow morning we'll start hearing the appeals for more gun laws.  But how many times over can we make them illegal?  A few people would almost inevitably have been killed today; we can't eliminate guns any more than we can eliminate drugs.  But we shouldn't be left as sitting ducks for the mentally deranged either.  If one person in that classroom where so many died had been able to shoot back, the death toll might have been significantly lower. 

And how's this for a regrettable statement?

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

Somehow, tonight, I doubt it.

Hat tip to FreeRepublic.

[UPDATE:] The appeals have started.

Minds Can Be Changed

If Ilya Somin's analysis were true I might just turn into a supporter of the ERA -- or whatever they're calling it now.

"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

If enacted today, the ERA would have a number of effects that many political liberals will deplore, including abolishing affirmative action for women and cutting back on key aspects of Title IX. It might also have some results that they would approve of, such as potentially undercutting bans on same-sex marriage. To my mind, the effects that liberals dislike are more likely to arise - at least in the short term - than those they will applaud.

But that's probably only likely if we have a Supreme Court that has a conservative majority -- that is, one that considers itself bound by the letter of the law and not its, um, penumbras.