st.
Incidentally, I notice that FoxNews.com's Wednesday Guest Blogger feature is trolling for Guest Bloggers:
Editor's Note: Wednesdays is Guest Blogger Day at Fox Web Logs, whereby Foxnews.com expands upon its effort to provide a forum for the aspiring pundits of cyberspace. If you keep a great log, send us an email with the URL and some samples of your best work. (Only submissions with "Guest Blog" in the subject line will be considered.)
Cool. Give 'em a shot. I'll have to do some good work first, though. That is, of course, work.
I still haven't heard back from GoStats. This is an Internet World, dammit. Where's my instant gratification?
It's probably my fault, I guess I'll try again. Hmm. Perhaps I should have read the fine print more carefully. There's more information required to sign up than is indicated by the asterisk-marked 'required' fields. Hopefully it will take this time, before I get cold feet.
Thursday, March 21, 2002- - -
"Sane Gun Bill in Sight"
An interesting editorial in today's Denver Post heralds the possibility that a modified 'shall issue' concealed weapons licensing law will pass in this session at the Colorado legislature.
Don't get me wrong. In matters of public policy I'm pretty much an incrementalist. I think we make more progress when we take small steps than when we demand great leaps. To many, passing a 'shall issue' CCW is a small step in the right direction. However, I disagree with the whole concept of licensing constitutional rights. When it’s licensed by the state it’s not an unalienable right, it’s a privilege granted by the state. That is no small step. That's hanging ten off the edge of the abyss.
Today's DP editorial illustrates some of the problems with licensing rights:
Senate President Stan Matsunaka, D-Loveland, and House Speaker Doug Dean now seem close to a compromise that makes sense to us: Law enforcement will be able to deny permits if there's documentable proof of instability under a so-called "naked man" provision. That would apply to people who have done weird things but avoided being charged with crimes.
Dean says he'll support that provision if there's a way to appeal denials.
Who defines 'weird?' Is blogging weird? What if you just look weird? What if the denial appeal process doesn't make it into the law? The People's Republic of Colorado is flirting with the concept of denying someone their constitutional rights although they've been charged with no crime, much less convicted. And potentially denying them the right of appeal. That is a frightening power to hand to a bunch of bureaucrats.
Some might argue, as does the DP, that the proposed CCW legislation is an improvement on the current situation. They may be right:
We have long supported a uniform concealed-carry law because some sheriffs pass permits out like candy, while in other jurisdictions like Denver, no ordinary citizen - even one in grave peril - can get one.
Some folks feel that licensing one's rights from the State is preferable to having no rights at all. This is understandable. But where does this lead?
I hesitate to blog on this for reasons that will become clear, but he who hesitates is a weenie. Via the InstaPundit, Andrea Harris hammers Harry Butt Weasel Browne for his recent WorldNetDaily article: This just in: Bin Laden wins Afghan war.
My problem with Butt Weasel Browne has been that he's discovered he can make a good living being a perpetual political candidate. Raise money. Pocket money. No problem. It's bad enough that some of that money must be spent to raise more. It would be a horrible waste to spend more than a token amount actually running a legitimate campaign. He's going to lose anyway, right?
Of course, when the Butt Weasel does make an appearance it's calculated to create the maximum controversy, as his WorldNetDaily article surely has. I suppose that's the 'no such thing as bad publicity' concept in action. And free publicity is the best kind. In writing this, I'm aware that I'm doing my little bit to keep the Weasel in business. But good god folks, can anybody take him seriously