There are all sorts of bizarre laws that are unique laws that are specific to one or a few states. Like in Massachusetts we have bizarre alcohol laws. Until recently if you wanted a drink on a Sunday you needed to go to a bar or a restaurant, or have some booze stashed at home. It was illegal to sell alcoholic beverages in stores on Sunday. That law was repealed, but still to buy alcohol in this state we need to go to a liquor store (A package store or a “Packie” in Mass-speak). Yep we can’t buy beer in the supermarket or in a convenience store. Trader Joe’s cannot sell Two-Buck Chuck here. The claim for such foolishness is drunkenness and drunk driving. Of course Massachusetts is KNOWN for drunkenness and drunk driving, and we also happen to have a statistically larger incidence of drunk driving than other states.
We also require by law that traffic around a construction site be directed by a uniformed police officer. We are the ONLY state that does this, but proponents of this law (mostly Police officers wanting to shake-down construction crews) claim that a construction worker can’t command the respect an officer does. Of course if you’ve ever traveled outside Massachusetts you know that’s hogwash…and if you’ve traveled inside Massachusetts you know that the cops are most often drinking coffee, texting or chatting on their cellphones, and if they direct you, it will most likely be into oncoming traffic. Still people will advocate this as if somehow it is even remotely believable.
Not all unique laws are bad. I’m a huge fan of gay marriage, and there are no ill consequences that others might imply. We’ve decriminalized marijuana, and the only ill effect I’ve seen is you see a LOT more people smoking pot in public. Given that you see people smoking tobacco in public the only difference is the smell. Also I will give a hat-tip to New Jersey for the Jughandle Turn, it really does keep traffic from being bogged down from people turning left in moderate traffic areas.
OK since its a gunblog I’m going to do a rebuttal to Joan Peterson’s recent post about foolish regional gun laws.
Her first link is an example of her lack of intelligence, as it dumps you into some homepage that has obviously changed since she last viewed it, forcing you to hunt for the link she talks about, or just give up. Well its about Minnesota’s Handgun and “Assault Weapon” permitting system that we talked about here. Essentially Ms. Peterson is railing about the horrors if somebody could just walk into a gun shop and show an ID, have a background check, pay the bill and walk out with a gun.
LIKE EVERYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA!
Joan, if this law is a good one, find me an example of it stopping crimes or problems that would otherwise happen. And even then show me how it actually make Minnesota safer.
There’s a reason why Joan moderates her comments, and doesn’t actually address the comments she lets through.
Next she talks about “Who is clamoring for a law that will allow people to shoot someone first and ask questions later under the pretext of being frightened or “feeling” threatened? The NRA, and it’s lackeys in the legislature of course.” First up because when encountering an immediate threat of life-and-limb the first thing I want to do is put on my reporter hat and whip out my stenographer’s pad and start asking me some questions. “My this is scary, by chance are you Sumdood or his cousin Mookie? Gosh is that a hi-point? I can’t tell from the muzzle-end is that a .40 or the 9mm?”
And of course I do love the “Duty to Retreat Laws”, if asthmatic, labrat, needs-to-lose-some-weight d00d in his 30s encounters a 20 year old pile of prison-hardened muscle. Yeah any attempt that I make to get away from somebody like that is going to fail. Add in if I’m carrying goods, or if I have a family member or a small child with me, attempting to retreat could get somebody kill. Massachusetts has a “Duty to Retreat Law” I’ll be open, I WILL not observe it because if I’m in IMMEDIATE threat of my life by definition I’m already past my chance to retreat or I’ve already retreated from “Hmm this doesn’t look good”. “Duty to Retreat” is a touchy-feely law written by people who find the idea of people being killed or raped less repugnant of dead street criminals. Joan of course brilliantly retorts:
No one in Minnesota has been prosecuted for justifiable homicide. This is simply a made up problem looking for a dangerous solution. It has resulted in people getting away with murder in other states where the Shoot First bills have been enacted. No arrest, no prosecution, no jury trial and no time served. That’s a pretty sweet deal for the shooter- not so much for the victim and his or her family.
Count the Fallacies. “No one has been prosecuted for justifiable homicide”….umm by definition if your homicide was found “Justifiable” you’re in the right. Also I’m sure there have been a few cases where corrupt prosecutors and/or judges have railroaded a person defending their life for murder. Which takes me to the “Getting Away with Murder” part. That happens everywhere, of course since Joan doesn’t give an example I have no idea what she’s talking about. It could be an unsavory person defending their life. Hey, they don’t have to be GOOD people to have rights. Case and Point, you CAN go to prison for beating and raping a hooker. It could be simply the courts not getting sufficient evidence, or a bad jury…see OJ. This isn’t relevant to the “Stand Your Ground” laws, as it does nothing to the murder statutes on the books. Sorry, another lie from an anti. I know, Shocking!
Next she links this flaming piece of smarm about Ohio lifting its prohibition on carrying in establishments that serve alcohol. Just for effect I’ll mention the Wife and I went out to eat both Sunday night and Monday night, both places had a bar. Both places I was both carrying a gun, and drinking water with my meal. I will also add that I have also been known to have a single beer with a meal and not only continue to carry, but also drive home when I’m done. This is all legal here. Its ILLEGAL to handle guns while drunk, and that’s a good law, and I believe its a universal law, but to not be drunk or impaired, what’s the issue? Also like every other law it doesn’t really do much to deter the criminal element. Watch the video and note that carrying bars in Ohio at the time of that video was illegal…its also illegal for those thugs to carry without permits…chances are its illegal for them to HANDLE guns as convicted felons, or as people who are drunk or on drugs….also go figure its illegal to shoot at people when not defending your life. That stuff on your hands, Joan? Yeah that’s blood!
Next up, guns on campus. Here’s an easy one: Look at this map, and show me the problem. (Also I’m pretty sure its perfectly legal to carry on campus in Maine, just not as a student) And of course there have been many times I’ve been walking AROUND college campuses like MIT and Harvard with a weapon and that’s 100% legal. I’ve shopped at the Harvard bookstore with a gun (which is technically off campus) I’ve eaten at various restaurants that cater to the college kids with a gun. Tell me how I become more dangerous if I decide to cut across the Harvard Mall, or step into the MIT Library…or take a night course?
Of course you can also look at restrictive gun laws. Massachusetts sucks. You need a permit to OWN a gun, there is no guarantee you’ll ever get a permit to carry, we have duty to retreat, we have “Safe Storage”, you can’t buy most handguns, you can’t buy “Assault Weapons” you can’t buy post-ban magazines, all guns are registered, and you can’t do a private sale. Is Massachusetts more safe or less safe than a free state? Yeah!
The key to discussing gun control laws is to NEVER look at the past, always pretend that the law is the first of its kind and with it comes the brave new utopia. Don’t look at the man behind the curtain!
Oh and for every one of these laws she claims the Police support them…do you think they’re being honest? Well Joan is quoting them….
Don’t put up with their crap, and don’t buy bunk goods from liars!
