Well now this is interesting.
==================
Wyoming, a deeply pro-gun state, has taken the lead in the case, spurred by Gov. Mead, who called the New Jersey law a threat to citizens’ freedom everywhere.
“This decision out of New Jersey impacts the right to keep and bear arms outside the home,” Mead said. “So I felt it was necessary to have the [state] attorney general support a petition to the Supreme Court to hear this case.”
Some in New Jersey are pushing back on the intervention from outsiders. A Feb. 18 editorial published by the website NJ.com called on them to “butt out.”
==================
“Butt out.” The Southern states said very much the same thing back in the middle 1800s, claiming the right to enslave other people and the right to be “free” from outside meddling in that endeavor. There is of course no such right, as there is no “right” to violate any right. That simple and obvious concept is what brought us Incorporation Doctrine.
I don’t like that term “deeply pro-gun”. It’s not quite as bad as “severely conservative” but it is barking up the same tree. How about simply “pro-human rights” as in, “Wyoming, a more pro-human rights state”…? Better yet, “less intrusive upon human rights” or “a less coercive state” would provide a more realistic perspective. That is if we care about perspective with regard to basic principles.
As a resident of the state of NJ I welcome all of the help we can get!
Exactly. When someone’s rights are being violated through corruption in high places and there is little or no peacable recourse available to them, their hope and dream is that those who love liberty will never be persuaded to “butt out”.
“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty in no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” — Barry Goldwater
Some of the people in “deeply socialist New Jersey” – some might even say “communist New Jersey” – can’t have it both ways. Either they welcome the every ones input (the so-called socialist/communist way) or … they become fascist, the ol’ ‘my way or the highway (or death camp)’ mentality
I would say, something of the sort of, “the deeply free state of Wyoming….”
~ the ever curmudgeonly JavaMan
socialist, communist, and fascist are merely three different words describing the same thing.
If we had only just “butt out” in WWII and let Germany finish the Holocaust and their need for more “living space” in the USSR it would all have worked out lovely, right?
Same goes for the Civil War, supporting Israel, and a bunch of other places where we helped defend against naked aggression or dictators hell bent on massacres.
Arguably, many of our interventions were costly and some ill-advised or just wrong, but in general our love of liberty and decency and the rule of law was the motivator.
Sorry, but when one state forgets that to be in the Union they have to abide by the Constitution, it may fall on the other states to remind them.
“Most New Jerseyans don’t want to have to worry that the guy they’re fighting with over a parking spot might be packing heat. That’s why you need to show justifiable need to carry a handgun here.”
Let’s ignore the non-sequitur there, and focus on the other issue: Why do New Jerseyites feel that it’s necessary and proper to fight over parking spaces?
Because there are more cars than parking spaces?
Well, obviously, they need to register cars like…
Never mind.
Maybe they need to register parking spaces?
They need to make car ownership more onerous. Cure traffic ills, too, without having to pass more highway bonds.
What law abiding New Jerseyite needs a big V-8 car that can carry 6 adults at 80 miles an hour all day? 8 hours would take them close to the Mississippi River, or almost all the way to Florida, so why don’t they fly or take the train?
In many urban areas, they do. That’s what reserved parking does – associates a particular parking space with a particular person, place, or business, for their sole use (including letting customers and friends use it or renting it out.)
So, anytime there are two cars and one parking space, it’s legitimate to fight over it? To the point of invoking lethal force if available? *
What a sad, violent, strange, place you live in inside your head. . .
Me, I just look for another parking space, no matter how far I have to go or how long it takes. . . or I give up on the trip if I decide it isn’t worth the walk. Even when living and working in crowded areas, even when commuting to DC at sites where there were only parking spaces for approximately half the staff, I managed to find parking without feeling the need to open someone’s head with a tire iron. Even at the height of DC’s homicide wave. (And when living and working outside DC, I had a carry permit at my disposal.)
* (Note, if you have a car, you already have a lethal weapon. Even if you get out of the car, you should have a tire iron at your disposal. So banning guns doesn’t change the ready availability of lethal force to a hothead – it just makes the non-hothead victim far more likely to be maimed or killed.)
You aren’t being very creative. I’ve seen a few people park their car in the street in traffic lanes. (There’s nothing like parking your car in the turning lane and letting the police tow it away.) Ditto with parking in red zones or across driveways.
No, it isn;t a lack of creativity. It is a because I am a civilized human being who understands traffic laws, and chooses not to:
A. Impede traffic.
B. Enrage my fellow citizens who have done nothing wrong.
C. Be the very proximate cause of accidents that result in property damage and possible injuries or deaths.
D. Pay the city hundreds of dollars to get my car back.
E. Pay traffic fines.
F. Pay higher insurance rates (yup, doing that counts as a “moving violation” in many states).
G. Lose my driver’s license.
Now, I HAVE seen people do that sort of thing, or stop in a travel lane of a 45mph major road in an urban area to chat with their pedestrian buddy. And when I look and see bumper stickers that indicate ANY political affiliation at all, they are invariably Democrats or other leftiists.
Wow! Does anyone have a clue how many shootings happen over parking spaces? For the heck of it, I googled it:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/12/09/miami-barber-shot-killed-over-parking-spot/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-2-shot-at-fla-walmart-over-parking-space/
http://tbo.com/news/breaking-news/police-shots-fired-at-home-depot-in-tampa-20131106/ (both have CCWs in this story)
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2014/01/man-shot-in-leg-tuesday-night-after-argument-over-parking-space-in-lake-highlands.html/
http://www.wdrb.com/story/22896345/woman-shot-over-parking-space-now-making-plea-to-stop-the-violence
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2013/09/parking_space_dispute_leads_to.html
http://www.masslive.com/news/boston/index.ssf/2013/12/southie_nail_gun.html (nail gun into tires, but still….)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/04/philadelphia-man-killed-by-security-guard-during-shootout-over-parking-space/
http://walmartshootings.blogspot.com/2013/12/colorado-man-threatens-to-shoot-woman.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/police-investigating-shooting-cobb-townhome-comple/nZyF3/
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2014/02/parking_spot_shooting.html
And there are a whole lot more. One could actually have a website just about parking spaces and shootings.
How many of those shootings resulted in criminal charges being filed against one of the parties, did THAT party have a CCW, and did the criminal charges result in a conviction?
I ask, because, statistically, POLICE OFFICERS are more likely to become criminals than CCW holders. Including felonies.
If CCW is so dangerous because of the huge numbers of unlawful shootings the lawfully armed citizens initiate that we need to peemptively deny law abiding citizens the right to carry a gun, then, BY DEFINITION, we need to disarm all police officers and prohibit them from carrying ANY weapons while on duty.
Math is hard.
Also, how frequent are these events? I mean, when I am in a major urban area or a shopping mall, I end up competing for a parking space at least once most of the time, yet I’ve NEVER witnessed or been a part of any fights (gun- knife- tire iron- fist- or otherwise) over a parking space. I have seen some epic shouting matches. . . but no violence.
Remember, stories only get significant news attention for three reasons:
1. They are fairly uncommon. (School shootings, hijackings, etc.)
2. The particular incident involves a LOT of people (major employer in area goes bankrupt and lays off everyone, war breaks out involving nations Americans actually care about, etc.).
3. They push a political or social agenda favored by the editorial staff. (I’ll let you fill in your own examples. . . )
In a nation of over 300 million people, and more cars than we have people licensed to drive them, a certain amount of aberrant behavior will be found.
However, just as the number of people committing murders for religious ceremonies is so low as to not justify banning religion, they are so low as to be statistically insiginifcant, so are gunfights over parking spaces.
Obviously we need more information to do anything statistically with this. Also, I only looked up “shooting” “parking space.” I’m sure “brandish” “parking space” will pull up another bunch of results but I’m not sure brandishing will make the papers most of the time.
Someone needs to do a study of this.
The plural of “acedote” is not “data”.
Given the RIDICULOUSLY low percentage of CCW holders who have had their permits revoked for criminal behavior (generally speaking, criminal behavior NOT INVOLVING A GUN — or even violence), I suspect you’ll find that the problem (if any) lies elsewhere.
It’s amazing how many cases initially reported in the press as “random” shootings or “innocent victims” turn out to be criminals shooting other known criminals. (Of course, when said criminals know each other. . . as is common amongst gang bangers and drug dealers, it gets reported as “getting shot by someone they know”.)
You also didn’t respond to the point that, since POLICE OFFICERS are more likely to commit felonies than CCW holders, if lawful CCW is a problem AT ALL, why do we allow armed police officers?
If police officers are not a threat that must be disarmed, than people awfully carrying guns CANNOT be. By definition.
Again, math is hard.
How can you call Wyoming “pro-human rights” when they are against marriage equality? http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-usa-gaymarriage-wyoming-idUSBREA2507Q20140306
Wyoming is “pro-gun” or “pro-gun rights.” The author got it right.
Guns, being inanimate objects, have no rights.
Self-defense and the ownership of private property, however, are both basic human rights.
Same sex marriage is only _arguably_ (I would strongly argue in favor, myself, so long as the government is determining who gets to be married) a “human right”.
The right to self defense, and the right to the tools for effective self defense, are civil rights that predate the Constitution, are not established by the Constitution, and are not dependant on the Constitution, and are therefor basic human rights.
Ubu52, go tell king bloomberg to butt out of other states then if you want to be consistent…
Not like you were anyways