I’ve Been a Baaaad Blogger.

Sorry about that. I’ve been busier than the proverbial cat covering…, um, one-legged man in an…, er, one-armed paper-hanger. I managed to have a bout of porphyria over the weekend. (My episodes are comparatively mild – compared, that is, to what they could be. They’re no damned fun, I’ll tell you that.) I spent a lot of last week getting ready for the meet-n-shoot (that just doesn’t sound right…) then didn’t get to really attend it.

And yes, y’all, I am that asocial normally. As I noted in comments, I’m a much more outgoing person in print.

But I haven’t been posting much. My apologies. Anyway, I’m working on not one, but two new essays. One is in response to Sarah’s question from March. (No, I’m not avoiding it. Just haven’t gotten around to it.) The other, which I’ll finish first – because in part it’s a lead-in to the second piece (I hope) – will be one more component of “The ‘Rights’ Discussion” series. Hopefully (but doubtfully) it will provide closure on that particular topic.

I’d also like to note that Publicola has fired another shot across the bow concerning the philosophical differences between the Absolutists and the Incrementalists. I’m not sure if I’m going to comment on that again or not.

OK, I will, very briefly. Publicola wrote:

While it may seem so, in reality the Shall Issue permit laws are simply reinforcing the legislature’s belief that they have the authority to regulate, condone or prohibit what is a Right. It’s just that in the case of Shall Issue they’re condoning the carrying of arms, albeit conditionally, so those who don’t look deeper than the surface see this as a good thing.

But once a legislature establishes that they may permit something it is fallacy to believe they cannot prohibit something. The same states that permit you to carry with the right piece of paper can turn around at any time & prohibit carrying arms permission slip or no.

Where my “greedy” solution is preferable is that once a Right is established & recognized by law it’s much harder to do away with it at a legislature’s whim.

Where “shall issue” didn’t (or did) previously exist, the legislature already had the power to regulate, condone, or prohibit what is a Right. The Supreme Court said so in U.S. v. Cruikshank in 1875, and again in Presser v. Illinois in 1886. No Court since has overturned that power.

I’ve said it before: The Courts Will Not Save Us. (Hint: See left sidebar.)

Anyway, I will again be posting excruciatingly long, verbose, intricately linked pieces. Just not right at the moment.

And hopefully, I’ll get some short posts in every now and then, too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *