I love it when Liberals stomp their feet, hold their breath, and general act like two-year-olds. Very entertaining. So when I was reading my morning ePaper this AM, you’ll understand why I was chortling over this missive from the Indianapolis Star, by crack reporter Matthew Tully, as he sulks in print over Indy’s new gun law. It is to laugh. To wit:
Tully has his Progressive knickers in a knot over the “Preemption of Local Firearms Regulation Act,” a law that will bring some order and sanity to the hodge-podge, patchwork quilt of local regulations. Now I suspect that if the law coming out of the State Assembly in Indiana went the other direction, in other words, providing more restrictions on guns, rather than the way the new law relaxed restrictions, Tully would be singing it’s praises from Elkhart to Evansville. But since it is a direct affront to his gun-grabbing sensibilities, he takes umbrage with it’s very existence.
As a gun owner, I really don’t want local laws that set up a “gotcha” situation when I’m going to conceal carry. Think of it like this: I leave my home in one city and drive across town. Along the way, I drive through a couple of suburbs, each with their own city council and their own local laws. Do I really want to risk running afoul of one of those city’s laws, should I have a fender-bender or a little car trouble along the way? Of course not. But if local laws are allowed to supersede State or Federal law, that’s exactly what could and would happen. Far better to have some consistency, at least within a state’s borders.
But Tully sees things differently. And his arguments are simultaneously petulant and amusing. Here’s a sample:
This new law has been eerily and accurately titled: “Preemption of local firearm regulation.” This unnecessary law, pushed by Republicans but endorsed by many Democrats, tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. It also tells the state’s urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don’t live in those cities.
Allow me to paraphrase: This new law has been accurately titled: “Preemption of local firearm regulation,” (which I find scary). This law (which, because I’m anti-gun I find completely unnecessary), pushed by Republicans (Troglodytes) but endorsed by many Democrats (Traitors!), tells cities and towns across the state that the General Assembly and the National Rifle Association know what is best for them. (Oooh, I’m so mad, I could just stamp my feet!) It also tells the state’s urban centers that they must adhere to the wishes of lawmakers who in most cases don’t live in those cities. (The nerve of those brutes, telling us how to live our lives…why a lot of them don’t even live near me! That’s completely unfair – unless it’s a law covering a Liberal cause, in which case it’s okay.)
So his big argument is “local control?” Where was he when local councils wanted to control virtually anything else – taxes, unions, et cetera? His petulant rant continues:
The state legislature, a k a Big Daddy, runs the show in Indiana, regardless of whether it’s Portage or Princeton or Posey County.
Well excuuuuuuuuse me, but isn’t that their State Constitutionally-mandated job? Then we are treated to a quote by fellow-traveller Matt Greller, executive director of a lobbyist group representing (some) cities and towns.
It’s really just another example of the legislature acting as a mega city council. Listen, if someone is really intent on doing something bad, an ordinance probably isn’t going to stop them. But we have always appreciated the deterrent effect.
Oooh. Listen to that – if someone is really intent on doing something bad, an ordinance probably isn’t going to stop them. First honest thing he’s said. But then he shows his hand: But we have always appreciated the deterrent effect. Um. deterrent effect? Oh, wait, he means “deterrent” in the sense that it made it a lot more difficult for law-abiding citizens to carry guns, especially as they could literally cross a street and go from “law-abiding” to “pre-felon.” Yeah. THAT deterrent.
Tully whines that the legislature is not keeping their eye on the ball for such issues as the economy and education. I could argue that, without protecting the 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, none of those other things amount to a hill of beans, but instead, I’d rather focus on his argument that the legislature doesn’t have time to deal with gun issues. I’m thinking if these guys don’t have time to do their job (which should include a little multi-tasking, ya know?), then it’s time to get some new guys in office that can. Oh. Wait. These ARE the new guys, and they ARE doing a bang-up job, working on fixes to their economy, education, immigration, and such. Just not in the way Tully wants.
He then pouts and says that it’s too bad the Republicans and Gov. Mitch Daniels couldn’t have “called a truce” on social issues. Um…let’s see now, the voters across the state threw out the old guys, and put in a bunch of new, conservative people in office. And Tully wants them to ignore their mandate to make changes, all so that they won’t ruffle the feathers of the minority of people who lost control of the government in the last election cycle. How much do you want to bet that, if the shoe was on the other foot, Tully would be screaming that the Legislature and Governor weren’t moving fast enough?
Here’s the kicker: In November of last year, Tully was the victim of an attempted mugging on election night. Now you’d think even a Liberal might want to do a wee bit o’ agonizin’ reappraisals when he’s thrust into a life-or-death situation. You know, like “hey this Liberal philosophy is all well and good, but if someone’s gonna try and mug me, maybe I’d better make an exception and carry some kind of weapon.” Nope. Not our boy Tully. He’s dyed-in-the-wool Progressive, through and through.
Tully ends with a semi-refreshing, begrudging dose of reality, then follows it up with one last swing for the bleachers on the petulance scale:
In the end, I don’t worry too much about this law, which affects licensed gun owners. As gun advocates rightly argue, most gun crimes in Indianapolis are committed by people who illegally possess them. Still, guns don’t belong everywhere, and the legislature doesn’t need to meddle in everything.
But legislators do, and along the way they create awful laws like this one.
Thankfully, the majority of Indiana voters don’t agree with Mr. Tully. If you’d like to contact Tully, he thoughtfully provided his email and phone in the article. You can reach him at 317.444.6033, or via email at firstname.lastname@example.org. You know, if you’d like to share your ideas on his article, the same way he shared his.