Law School Conservative

Oklahoma's major newspaper, The Oklahoman, calls a bill that would extend Right to Carry (for some) onto college campuses a knee jerk reaction to mass killings like those at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University.  But like most media outlets, it's The Oklahoman that's offering a knee-jerk reaction: one that simply says, "Guns are bad."

Following The Oklahoman's logic that "in the case of a shooting, law enforcement would have a tough time figuring out the bad guys from the good guys," the paper should oppose ALL forms of Right to Carry.  That means the paper should be opposed to the more than 60,000 Oklahoma residents who are RTC holders.  And it means they think the Oklahomans who defended themselves and others should have been required to leave their guns at home. 

The argument The Oklahoman makes against extending Right to Carry is the same argument gun control advocates make against Right to Carry laws in general.  But we know, from ten years of experience in Oklahoma (and longer in other states), that Right to Carry holders and law enforcement are not at odds with one another.  They support each other. 

The bill in Oklahoma wouldn't change the requirements on who can get a Right to Carry license.  In fact, the bill doesn't even go as far as legislation introduced in other states.  In the Oklahoma bill, only those with 72 hours of law enforcement training or active duty and honorably discharged military veterans would be allowed to carry on campus.  Yet even this modest step forward is too much for the editorial board of the paper. 

You can't help but wonder why the paper has more faith that a madman won't target an Oklahoma campus than faith that a trained gun owner might be able to make a difference. 

The District of Columbia is embarking on one of the most ill-conceived "public safety" plans I've ever heard of.  They're asking residents to voluntarily open their homes up to searches for illegally possessed firearms, and as you can imagine, the plan is drawing a lot of heat. 

But it's not just gun owners complaining this time.  The ACLU is complaining, and the executive director of the National Black Police Association says he won't let officers in to search his home.

Besides the Big Brother mentality behind this initiative, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chief Cathy Lanier should think about the danger this could pose to officers.  And frankly, given their hope that the parents of young gang members will call D.C. police and ask that officers search their homes for guns, they should think about the message they send when they announce that anybody found with an illegally possessed gun won't be prosecuted. 

It's another example of politicians targeting the gun instead of the violent criminal.  It's not going to reduce violent crime.  It's only going to tell criminals they can get away with violating the law, while putting officers at increased risk and encouraging an atmosphere of government intervention at all times, in all places. 

This plan should be scrapped before it can cause any damage.  And the politicians and politically appointed police chief should get back to doing what works:  locking up violent criminals and taking them off of the streets.

In the coming weeks, the U.S. Department of the Interior will announce proposed changes to the rules that bar the carrying and transporting of firearms in national parks. This comes after nearly five years of efforts by NRA-ILA and others to get rid of the rules that prevent law-abiding Right-to-Carry holders and gun owners from having to disarm and store their firearms in an inaccessible part of their vehicle.

Some opponents of the change say that you don't need access to a firearm in a national park. But these people ignore the fact that park rangers are wearing protective vests and carry semi-automatic rifles for self-defense from predators of the two- and four-legged variety. Heck, back in 2003 the media quoted David Barma, the chief spokesman for the National Park System, as saying, "The most [visitors] used to worry about is running into a grizzly bear. Now there is the specter of violence by a masked alien toting an AK-47." 

But now the media ignores the recent up-tick in violent crime in our national parks. And they ignore the fact that many parts of the national park system are, by their very nature, remote and rugged wilderness areas, where help isn't just a phone call away. 

I'm glad that Congress isn't ignoring these facts, and I'm very pleased the Department of the Interior is now keeping these facts in mind as they revise and update the rules for our national park system.

Now, I think that saying “antidote” instead of “anecdote” is misspeaking. The Clintons, however, continue their trend of re-defining the English language by saying “we ran from the plane with our heads down to avoid sniper fire” when they mean “we walked calmly to the photo op on the tarmac and remained there for 8 minutes.”

Must have been that other sniper who fired at you the other time you landed in Bosnia, right Hillary?…oh, wait.

"A New Jersey school's decision to allow Christian students to enjoy the same free speech rights as other students could be the beginning of a nationwide trend to protect students' rights. Northern Highlands Regional High School had blocked a Christian club from participating in the Day of Truth, a day for Christian students to express their views on homosexuality, but backed down after being contacted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF)..."

"A war of the amici is under way as the California Supreme Court readies itself for what could become one of its most controversial cases in years... The case involves two San Diego-area doctors who, based on their Christian beliefs, refused to provide artificial insemination to a lesbian in their care. They claimed they weren't averse to treating gays, but rather had religious objections toward helping impregnate an unmarried woman..."

"In the wake of President Bush's veto of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), Congress is preparing for another showdown with the White House. But this time the dispute won't be over health care spending for children, instead the dispute has consequences for all Americans because it is over which branch of government is best suited to know which ground rules are needed for fighting the war on terror. The specific conflict is over proposed amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) but the broader issue is the distinct differences between the Congress and the President when it comes to national security. Undoubtedly Article I of the Constitution provides a robust role for Congress in these matters: Congress has the authority "to declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water." Furthermore Congress is given explicit power to fund and organize the military, legislate international rules of commerce and punish piracy. But crucially, its authority is dispersed among the two chambers and its powers are best read as setting policy on broad terms."

"Yes, President Bush, please do veto the massive expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) that the Democrats are rolling through Congress, as you pledged to do in Thursday's press conference..."