Category Archives: rights

Maryland’s Anti-Gun Law

Posted on by
Reply

…is back before the 4th Circuit, this time for an en banc hearing, after an earlier 3-judge panel had vacated the prior trial court’s ruling upholding the law.  At issue is Maryland’s

Firearm Safety Act of 2013 banned possession of firearms designated as “assault weapons,” a broad category that includes dozens of types of high-capacity weapons, including the popular AR-15 rifle.  Maryland also banned sales and purchases of ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds among other provisions.

The Maryland Attorney General, Douglas Gansler (D), is arguing

…AK-47s, the state argues, are “suited, for military-style assaults,” not sport shooting or self-defense….

This is an utterly disingenuous argument that only the Left and its anti-gun nuts could make.  The government has no legitimate interest in the purpose for which an American citizen might choose to keep and bear Arms, only that that right shall not be infringed.

Full stop.

Free Assembly

Posted on by
Reply

Beginning with the freshman class that enters in fall 2017, Harvard University students will no longer be allowed to hold leadership positions in campus groups while also maintaining membership in the exclusive, single-gender final clubs that dominate the school’s social scene.

And

The policy barring students from holding leadership positions in official groups while being members of what the school calls “unrecognized, single-gender social organizations,” also extends to the younger fraternities and sororities.  Students will also not receive the dean’s endorsements for elite scholarships and fellowships if they’re found to be members of the groups.

Whatever happened to freedom of association?  It’s true enough that Harvard is a private institution, but as the Supreme Court has held about private enterprises on a number of occasions vis-à-vis other venues, it has enough of a public institution characteristic—accepting a broad reach of students, just as any other private business, a store for instance, accepts a broad reach of customers—that it needs to act like one here.

It’s also true enough that the 1st Amendment’s right of the people peaceably to assemble only enjoins the Federal government.  However, the principle is no less valid in its applicability to a university.

Sovereign Choices

Posted on by
Reply

Holger Schmieding, London’s Berenberg Bank Chief Economist, is dismayed that the UK might quit the EU.  The subtitle of his op-ed piece in the WSJ fully sums up his concern:

Rules from Brussels can border on the absurd, but what hurts the UK most are the policies its own politicians enact.

It also demonstrates how badly he misses the point of the movement to leave the EU.  It’s certainly true that Parliament is fully capable of enacting, and it often does enact, utterly foolish policies.  But at least they’d be sovereignly done, and not forced on them by a remote, extra-national quasi-government.

Market Choice?

Posted on by
Reply

Can’t have that.

The Obama administration is locked and loaded for a fresh push on gun control initiatives—reportedly moving to advocate for so-called “smart gun” technology….

Smart gun technology research may well be a good idea, and having smart guns—weapons that can be fired only by their legitimate owners—certainly seems like a good idea.

Even Government involvement in funding basic research—the secrets of the universe kind of thing—or doing its own basic research might be a good idea.

However, Government involvement in engineering research, which smart gun tech development surely is, and Government involvement in determining, or even merely jawboning, what products it wants in a free market most assuredly are not legitimate.

These are matters for private citizens, private enterprise, and the market place to determine.

Full stop.

Pseudo-Science and Democrat Suppression of Dissent

Posted on by
Reply

Attorneys General from California, Connecticut, District Of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, Washington State, and the US Virgin Islands are banding together to push their witch hunt against science that refutes their lucrative climatista industry.  Now they’re planning on criminal and civil charges against companies that impudently disagree with the Party Line, cynically likening their case to the

Justice Department’s landmark case against “Big Tobacco[.]”

The truth of their cynicism, though, is exposed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey:

Fossil fuel companies that deceived investors and consumers about the dangers of climate change should be held accountable.  That’s why we have joined in investigating ExxonMobil[.]

Healey’s own words demonstrate that these Democrats already have determined the outcome; they’re just after carefully selected data to support her claim.  This isn’t an investigation; it’s a dishonest witch hunt, designed to protect Democrat votes and crony pseudo-science funding streams.

Full stop.