Tennessee moves to allow guns in public buildings

In what appears to be a response to the disaster in Virginia; some interesting news from our next door neighbors to the west:

NASHVILLE — In a surprise move, a House panel voted today to repeal a state law that forbids the carrying of handguns on property and buildings owned by state, county and city governments — including parks and playgrounds.

"I think the recent Virginia disaster — or catastrophe or nightmare or whatever you want to call it — has woken up a lot of people to the need for having guns available to law-abiding citizens," said Rep. Frank Niceley, R-Strawberry Plains. "I hope that is what this vote reflects."

I'm certainly surprised by this move, but pretty happy about it. It's a strong step towards eliminating defenseless victim zones and giving would-be killers another reason to reconsider their plans. After all, a shooting spree can't seem as appealing for those guys when the victims can shoot back.

The next question is, what is North Carolina going to do about this? I'm not - as of this writing - completely clear on what NC state laws says about guns on public property. If NC doesn't currently allow lawful firearms owners to carry on public
property, then one would certainly hope our leadership shows the same wisdom as Tennessee's and makes equivalent changes to NC law.

Duke charges dropped, but has Justice been served?

As you probably know by now, NC Attorney General Roy Cooper has dropped the remaining charges against the three Duke Lacrosse players who were falsely accused of raping a woman at an off-campus party approximately a year ago.

Now it would be easy to sit back and say "Ok, the system worked. The boys were innocent, the charges were dropped, it's over." But to take that position would be to avoid the larger issues raised by this case; issues that have haunted humanity as long as we've had governments and will continue to haunt us.

Was Justice truly served here? Ask yourself this: How much money did those kids and their families spend on attorney's fees in the past year? How long will the stain of these accusations hover over these young men, and how will it affect their careers and lives? How much emotional stress and turmoil did they - and their families - experience over the past year having their names constantly in the media limelight? How does it feel to have your good name smeared internationally by prominent media figures?

The simple truth is, these young men have paid an incredible price for the act of throwing a party and hiring a couple of strippers; neither of which is necessarily a "bad thing." And they will likely never be sufficiently compensated for what they have paid, despite the charges being dropped. Perhaps it's not even possible to properly recompense somebody who's been through this kind of turmoil.

So if Justice has not been served, what good can come from this case? Well for starters, we can allow it to remind us of simple truths: That in the United States we are supposed to follow a concept known as "presumed innocence." ( You may know this as the old saw "innocent until proven guilty"). And that - while we may need the State (or something like it) to prosecute wrongdoers - we MUST have "checks and balances" to ensure that what authority we may entrust the State with, is not abused.
And that the rights of the ACCUSED are just as important as the rights of the alleged victims in these cases.

In short, we need to keep the questions "how much power and authority is it proper to invest in the State?" and "how do we make sure the State doesn't misuse that authority?" at the forefront. It is crucial that a free people never make the mistake of assuming that total trust in a political body - which government assuredly is - is justified.

Remember, ""... my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

South Carolina ahead of North Carolina on Real ID

The rivalry between North and South Carolina runs deep on many levels, but today we see one area in which SC has clearly exceeded The Old North State: The SC state Senate has passed an act rejecting the federal Real ID Act of 2005. I believe this still needs to pass in their House to become law, but it already sends a strong message. South Carolinians have said, in no uncertain terms, that they don't appreciate the federal government meddling in their affairs.

In making this statement, South Carolina have joined New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho and Arkansas in standing up for the Constitution and the idea of States Rights. Supposedly a few other states are also considering similar acts. So my question is: Where is North Carolina on this issue? More to the point, why wasn't North Carolina - a state with an unofficial state motto of "First in Freedom" - the first state to reject this blatant power-grab by the Feds?

Our neighbors to the South have done something we should have done months - if not years - ago. It's time for North Carolina to take a stand and tell the federal government to bugger off and mind it's own business.

Tax Choice Idea and Ron Paul on FM Talk 101.1

Early this morning, on the Alan Colmes show aired locally by FM Talk 101.1, a caller brought up the idea of taxpayers being allowed to select their choice of government programs for which to direct their tax money. This particular caller* wanted to direct his money to the war in Iraq instead of having it go to welfare and other social programs.

Like a typical liberal, Alan didn't get past the fact that the caller didn't want to pay to help out poor folks. I don't know if he realized that if people were allowed to choose where their taxes go, he'd be able to direct his money away from the war and towards welfare or whatever program he prefers.

As long as we're required to pay income taxes, whether we want to or not, why shouldn't Americans be allowed to at least have some say in where their money will go?

Tuesday night's show was a pretty good one for Alan, with both Charlie Daniels and recently announced presidential candidate Ron Paul taking part in the first hour. As the Libertarian Party presidential candidate in 1988, Dr. Paul is not your typical Republican. He believes in a Constitutional foreign policy and wants to bring the troops home from Iraq - now.

* Alan didn’t allow the caller a chance to explain his idea, but I think he was talking about a choice-based taxation scheme like the one briefly explained in this post or more completely in the article: On The Road to Voluntary Government Financing.