Previous Post
Next Post


Linda Greenhouse (above) is a  former New York Times Supreme Court Reporter and Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at Yale Law School. Ms. Greenhouse published an article on abortion in the Times over the Thanksgiving holiday titled “Chasing Abortion Across State Lines.”

Ms. Greenhouse wrote her literary conniption fit in response to a 60 Minutes interview in which President-Elect Trump suggested that if Roe v. Wade were overturned by a future Court, the issue “would go back to the states.” If such an imaginary future came to pass, women might have to travel to other states to get around regulations, red tape, and outright bans on the procedure.

Ms. Greenhouse describes such a system as “half slave and half free. . . . The last time the United States split into two countries, it didn’t work out at all well.” I hope Ms. Greenhouse will forgive the dry, bitter laugh that eminated from my throat when I read that line. The feeling she expresses is one that anyone who carries a firearm for personal self-defense has felt every time they’ve crossed a state line.

Let’s say I drive to Virginia. Do I have to leave my gun in the car if I go into a restaurant that serves alcohol? What if 49.9 percent of the restaurant’s revenues come from alcohol sales? Does that change anything?

Next, I visit South Carolina. Is my Utah carry license valid there? What if I’m not a resident of Utah? Is it still valid?

Wait — okay, I’m driving through New York City now, on my way to Connecticut. I have an air rifle in the trunk of my car, unloaded, in a locked case separate from the ammunition. I won’t get arrested for that, right?

Do you honestly know the answers to those questions? I don’t. I have an idea, but I wouldn’t bet my freedom on it without doing some research, especially if it involves traversing the Big Apple with anything resmebling a firearm in my possession.  And we haven’t yet spoken about the quiet misery experienced by our fellow citizens in places like Hawaii, California, New Jersey, or Maryland, who want to choose the sorts of tools they carry for their own personal security in case they unintentionally end up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Note that none of the questions above have anything to do with real firearm safety, like how one ought to store a firearm while it’s not in use, where one should point the gun when it’s being unloaded, or the circumstances in which it’s appropriate to clear leather. No, the things listed above are legal barriers passed to make politicians feel good about themselves, to give lobbyists ways to show their paymasters that they’re providing value.

It’s indeed telling Ms. Greenhouse finds the very conditions that law-abiding gun owners face every day intolerable when the subject is abortion, which isn’t an enumerated civil right. She finds these abortion regulations worthy of Lincolnesque rhetoric on a nation divided. Might we hope that she might deign to offer some succor to fellow Americans who face her nightmare scenario already?

Don’t bother firing up your favorite search engine. I’ve already been there. See Ms. Greenhouse’s column, Guns and Thunder on the Supreme Court’s Right from December 2015 in the New York Times.

Heller was the 2008 decision that for the first time interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual’s right to “keep and bear arms,” specifically to keep a handgun at home….

No federal appeals court has interpreted the Heller decision as providing constitutional protection for the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons.

And for good reason: in invalidating the District of Columbia’s categorical ban on handguns…, the Supreme Court didn’t suggest that bans on other weapons with much different qualities and uses would have to fall as well. To the contrary, Justice Scalia ended the Heller opinion by acknowledging the specific problems posed by handguns. “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” he wrote, “and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.”

(As an aside, the conciliatory tone of this statement is so unlike Justice Scalia that I suspect it was added at the insistence and probably also from the pen of a member of his majority, most likely Chief Justice Roberts.) Justice Scalia (or whoever) continued: “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”

Some animals are more equal than others in Ms. Greenhouse’s political taxonomy. “A house divided,” indeed.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Easy compromise, every gun law they make will equally affect abortion, and vice versa. If abortions are subsidized so are my gun purchases /sarc. Background checks for guns? BCGs for abortions, waiting periods, can’t get one across state lines, etc. Then we can all have peace.

    (This is sarcasm btw)

    • To understand Ms. Greenhouse’s mind set, you need only consider two things mentioned in the article – New York Times and Yale Law School – both of which exist to promote the liberal theology.

    • Sarcasm aside, it’s a valid argument I’ve used against pro-abortion/anti-gun liberals. Bring up a state with a draconian “may issue” system for it’s pistol permits, such as New York. Now transfer the procedure to abortion. What if women were forced to get a permit to have an abortion? Ok, now to get that permit, the woman has to fill out an application, pay fees, be fingerprinted, list character references, and state a specific reason why she thinks she should be able to have an abortion. Simply stating “because it’s my body and my right!” is not good enough. After all of this, the woman will need to undergo a background check, and if she passes, the decision as whether or not she will get an abortion permit will be decided arbitrarily by a judge. This judge will have radically different permit issue standards depending on what county the woman lives in.
      The liberal will counter with “but that’s a woman’s body, a gun is used to kill people”. Not so fast, granola head. Firearms have many uses, including self defense, recreation, hunting, etc. However 10’s of millions of Americans view abortion as being nothing but straight up murder.
      Do this, and one of two things will happen. The person either begrudgingly acknowledges the logic, even if they aren’t persuaded, or they become furious and start yelling.

      • One more aspect of the permitting process: the permit may be approved, disapproved or kept in limbo after the need has passed.

      • “Not so fast, granola head. Firearms have many uses, including self defense, recreation, hunting, etc. However 10’s of millions of Americans view abortion as being nothing but straight up murder.”
        Firearms have many uses: Firearms have many totally legit uses. I don’t own any of mine to murder people, for example. But they do potentially pose a danger to society at large which is the logical argument for having some screening process. The same does not apply to abortions.
        However, 10’s of millions of Americans…: I personally don’t care. That’s certainly not a point in a logical argument. What expertise do those 10’s of millions of American’s have that should allow that viewpoint to be codified into law? Is it medical or scientific? Nope! The idea that life or person-hood begins at conception is based on religious ideas which have no place in our legal code. I won’t pretend to know where that cutoff actually is, but it definitely provides a time frame for abortions that could not in any scientifically meaningful way be classified as murder.

        • I’m not saying I’m one of those people, but for the sake of making a point in an argument with an anti-gunner, it works. We can wax philosophical about the place of religion in the rule of law and at what point life begins, but that’s a debate for a different forum and is apart from my motivation for using this paradigm with an anti.

        • The idea that life begins at conception is a scientific fact. Human sperm + human egg = new and unique HUMAN, LIVING, DNA.

          I F*ng LOVE science!

      • And I am sure they would be ok with having somebody from the state go and talk to your neighbors as some counties in Ca. do. I am told it is mostly to make sure you actually live where you say you do and possibly to ask how they feel about you and the fact you are applying for a carry permit is not supposed to be brought up but that isn’t always the case. What about letters from friends stating they are ok with you getting an abortion oops I meant permit and a sit down interview how would that go over?

        • Until recently that was the norm here on Long Island to just get a “Sporting Permit”, concealed carry is out of the question.
          The local police would interview your neighbors and you needed four character references.
          I don’t think they interview neighbors anymore (not sure) but you still need character references.

    • There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that states people have a right to an abortion. Yet, laws have been passed to force people who find the practice morally and ethically repugnant – even on religious grounds- to fund abortion procedures others elect. YET… the right to bear arms IS a protected right. Therefore, laws should be passed compelling ammunition be paid for anyone who chooses to participate in their 2nd Amendment rights. Yes, that’s right, a national tax – one that everyone, including idiot liberals have to pay their fair share of- with the proceeds paying for your’s and my right to ammo.

  2. Pretty sure it has been many many decades since that old bat was faced with the opportunity of murdering a child.

    • It’s not about her babies. It’s about killing more Negros. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Planned Parenthood was founded on the goal of reducing the number of Negros and poor ignorant people in society.

      • Sanger’s on record promoting sterilization for undesirables but did she lump blacks as a race into that category?

        • Not according to Politifact or other left leaning research organizations. However, from Politifact:

          “Those who point a finger at Sanger as a racist often cite a particular statement in claiming she harbored ill will toward black people. In a Dec. 10, 1939, letter, she wrote that “We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs.”
          Sounds like at worst she had a hidden agenda and at best she saw the logic that anyone could draw that conclusion. Why politifact claims it is such a stretch to draw that conclusion is a good question when Sanger herself foresaw the inevitability. I judge Planned Parenthood based on actions rather than claims.
          25% of one race of people eliminated is enough to convince me that it was an included goal.

  3. “to give lobbyists ways to show their paymasters that they’re providing value.”…And draining the peoples coin.

    Traversing the country multiple times a year, this is my greatest fear. Last trip I was carrying and pulled over in TX for blowing a very dirty, non reflective, elevated stop sign at 1 in the morning. Thought it was another drug interdiction and when asked for my license, I informed them I was carrying. Despite some driver seat gymnastics (right hand on the wheel, left reach around back to the right rear pocket), the next twenty minutes was the most professional interaction between two LEO’s I’ve been involved in. One commented never seeing a CCW from CA, both thank me of informing them and relayed if I ever tired of CA there was “plenty of room in TX for me and my family. Was issue a no fine warning.

    In the Northeast, most likely would have confiscated my pistol, fined me 3K and maybe impounded my truck. When you cross state lines you have to know and I carry an updated CCW map and make sure all vehicle documents and insurance are up to date.

  4. Ya, kill a baby with a handgun bad, kill a baby with a pair of scissors, $750 cash and carry and a “thank you for exercising your Constitutional right” while you allow us to dabble in our favorite pastime of infanticide and we get to keep, and sell, your kids “parts” for medicine, makeup, food, “black”-“religion” activities, etc.

    Give the monsters no quarter.

    • The monster is the Federal Government giving PP 500 million dollars to abort babies, then get a kickback to democrats from PP for the privilege of murdering them.

      Keeps the poor population down and a cost effective way to limit payout of welfare checks.

      Meanwhile Democrats AND Republicans back-fill the murdered with illegal and church sponsored legal immigration. Money made by all….on the unborn.

      • Don’t forget the $$$ PP gets for selling the “parts”, and the Tobacco Settlement funds (ya know, the ones that the DOJ beat out of RJ Reynolds because their product “kills” people, and the settlement’s distribution was the only thing allowing Bill Clinton to ‘float’ the decent GHW Bush economy for his 8 year term).

  5. Just another proof, that guns ain’t the only problem with the POS evil (D).


    FU UN

  6. “No federal appeals court has interpreted the Heller decision as providing constitutional protection for the ownership of military-style semiautomatic weapons.”

    Does it need to be stated, yet again, that these rifles are involved only in a few hundred deaths every year, which amounts to about half of murders committed without the use of any weapons at all? Apparently it does.

  7. The Truth About Abortion? Meh. Just one more thing the Constitution gives no power to the Feds over. Next.

  8. “I have an air rifle in the trunk of my car, unloaded, in a locked case separate from the ammunition. I won’t get arrested for that, right?”

    In terms of legislation priority, we really need to address this first. Remove all ambiguity on interstate transport of lawfully owned firearms.

    Repeal and replace the ‘Firearms Owners’ Protection Act’, this time with teeth to protect your right to transport firearms.

    Hopefully, John can add that to his list for the Trump administration.

  9. Actually it’s even worse for gun owners in this case, because you can’t transport an abortion across state lines, it’s just a procedure that takes place in some location. People might need to go to a different location to get an abortion, but once it’s done, it’s done. Guns aren’t a procedure, they’re an object, and gun laws are complicated enough that you’ve got to really study up if you’re going to cross a state line, or even study up to make sure you’re complying within your state of residence. Abortion laws are comparatively simple and simple to get around.

    • Exactly. Gun owners have to continually be on guard for changes in state law or — in those states without preemption — changes in municipal ordinances. Guess wrong once? Straight to jail.

  10. Poor ugly old baby. The cult of genocide and eugenics isn’t going away. Interesting comparison to gun rights. EZ peazey carrying concealed and open a mile from me Indiana. Not so EZ here in Illinois…

    • Yeah, and I’ll be in Chicago for a few days in a couple of weeks so I can’t pack. Plus I’ll be in a ‘hood that, while not in the top 10 of bad stuff (according to still makes the map as a location of note. I’ll feel pretty naked while I’m there.

      At least I don’t think I’ll have to use public transportation this trip.

  11. Reading Greenhouse’s screed and seeing her picture, I am more and more inclined to view abortion as a necessary, desirable and underutilized tool of social hygiene.

    • I liked the part where she started making stuff up about how the late Justice Scalia could not possibly have written something because she found it conciliatory. Her law classes must be an absolute delight to behold.

  12. There is only o e was that lady has or ever would need an abortion: hard liquor. A lot of hard liquor. Like at least half a dozen strong Caribou Lou’s.

  13. What’s interesting is the place gun owners share with pro choicers.

    Both don’t want the Govt telling them what to do.

    Both have press expressing alarm about their decisions.

    Can we have it both ways? Gov says women can’t have abortions & all guns are confiscated. Gov says you can’t have abortions then says you must have three kids, no kids, boys only. Slippery slope if you give Gov a say. I don’t want some fearful uninformed person passing laws that restrict my gun ownership. They shouldn’t be able to!

    As a Christian I know I don’t go to hell because someone else sins. Perhaps we can keep our religion in our hearts and our own behavior. I don’t want any religion to take over the Gov and pass laws that are their own beliefs. Leave Gov to roads etc.

  14. Deeply dumb editorials like the one and the earlier one Guns and Thunder on the Supreme Court’s Right from Ms. Greenhouse clearly show that Ms. Greenhouse needs re-education. So we, as helpful and polite people of the gun, need to send her our educational comments, ideas and opinions directly to her. It’s the liberal, Yale law “exchange of ideas” paradigm thing to do.
    So send your “exchange of ideas” directly to Ms Greenhouse at
    [email protected]

    Senior Gun Owner 1950

  15. No you can’t walk into a bar with your conceal carry in VA. But you can walk into a restaurant that serves alcohol, unless it’s posted no firearms allowed.

    in order to serve any alcohol, you must have a full service restaurant with a menu that includes entree’s. And in order to serve distilled spirits, there is a food to alcohol ratio requirement — 45% of the restaurants gross receipts must be from food and non-alcoholic beverages.

    Technically they are considered restaurants vice bars under VA Code. Things you learn when your friend owns a ba , restaurant.

    Over 400 years of history, only a week or so of progress.

    • Just to clarify, the reason you can’t walk into a bar with a gun in Virginia is there aren’t any bars. But you can drink in a restaurant if you’re carrying openly. In fact, as as I know, it has never been illegal to do so here. It’s just illegal to be armed and intoxicated in public.

  16. Our federalist system is messy; but that was understood from the outset. Some things would be uniform among the several States; others would be quite different. Which was which has taken more than 2 centuries to work-out and the job is not done yet. Let’s not suppose that it’s going to be simple.

    Roe V Wade reduces to: pregnant woman has a right to privacy; unborn human does not have a right to life that trumps his mother’s right. As a nation, we have not yet formed a consensus as to whether we are satisfied with that conclusion or wish to revert to a States’ Rights view. Until we reach that consensus we can’t hope to resolve the federalism issue. It could go in any of three directions: no abortion nationally; State law prevails; abortion is legal nationally.

    Roe V Wade found a Right among the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution. Right-to-Lifers object to “penumbras and emanations”. I, however, believe that this is a legitimate argument. The People held a consensus that Rights were “innumerable”; that is, they were NOT “enumerated” by the Constitution. This is indisputable. So, if there are Rights not enumerated then what better place to find them other than among the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution?

    That said, the dangerous aspect of the penumbras and emanations doctrine is that the courts will undertake this search only when they conclude that they will find an un-enumerated Right that they want to find. If they do NOT want to find such a right then they will not take the case; or, if taking the case, they will demure from finding it. Such is the case with guns and the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.

    In each of these 3 cases (abortion, gun rights, search and seizure) the solution is inevitably POLITICAL. We will protect those Rights that we undertake to DEFEND. Our parents and grandparents neglected to defend gun rights; and we lost most of them in the coastal States during the first 3/4 of the 20th century. We’ve recovered some; but the fight has just begun.

  17. Reminds me of this quote from Obama that I just read. Hey RF, this should be a “quote of the day”:

    “It is untenable over the long term for the Justice Department or the DEA to be enforcing a patchwork of laws, where something that’s legal in one state could get you a 20-year prison sentence in another,” Obama told The Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner.”

    Obama was talking about marijuana in particular, but if you just substitute a word here and there he’s got the sentiment exactly right.

  18. Liberals don’t know how to put a shoe on the other foot. The only thing that matters to them is what matters to them. Hypocrisy is not for them as they believe themselves above it. They are just a giant parody of themselves.

  19. Interesting points of comparison. But. There. Is. No. Moral. Equivalence. Whatsoever.

    I purchased my handgun to protect my loved ones and myself, as an act of responsibility in a world with deadly people.

    To have an abortion is to choose the killing of an unborn innocent human being. It is an act of deliberate and deadly irresponsibility for the consequences of one’s own actions.

  20. If your average liberal squints at the Constitution/BoR long enough, the words “abortion” and “gay marriage” materialize, while the word “arms” disappears…

  21. “half slave and half free. . . . The last time the United States split into two countries, it didn’t work out at all well.”

    Yes because pre-1865 a slave was allowed to travel to a free state under their own volition and have themselves emancipated. Worst analogy yet to come from a leftist.

Comments are closed.