Arbitrary Denial of Citizens' Rights = "Good Job"
...according to the Boston Herald editorial staff.
Sure, if your definition of "it" includes the phrase "powerful, ideologically-blinded majority trampling on the individual rights of an already-oppressed minority population", one of State Senator Jarrett Barrios' little pet platitudes.
But, there are no double-standards in play here.
Nope. None at all.
AAAGHHH!!! EQUALITY!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
"Working well"?
A system that allows a police chief to illegally bypass, at will, the state's safety training and criminal background check requirements for license to carry applicats, as long as the beneficiary of said illegal activity is the child of a hall of fame ballplayer?
A system that allows a police chief to deny someone permission to own a gun, because they once lost a video they rented from Blockbuster? Or because they hadn't sent in a change of address form for their car registration? Because, I know I'm sleeping more soundly at night knowing these dangerous thugs have been disarmed.
A system that allows a police chief to deny firearms licenses to members in good standing of the United States Armed Forces, for such "common-sense" reasons as having loud neighbors, or having a friend who got busted for carrying a BB gun when he was 14?
A system that says it's OK for a police chief to revoke an individual's license to carry a firearm and confiscate thousands of dollars worth of lawfully-owned firearms, on account of a gust of wind?
A system that allows a police chief to deny the right to self-defense to not only the general public, but also to retired law enforcement officers living in their town, for no reason other than "I feel like it"?
A system that allows a police chief to put up so many bureacratic and financial hurdles on the path to lawful gun ownership that only the rich and/or politically-connected among us can enjoy their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights, while the lower-income working people in the crime-ridden inner cities are left to fend for themsleves with no effective means to do so?
Yes, this system's working just smashingly well, I'd say.
If you're a devout Stalinist.
Of course, the cheerleaders over at the Deval Patrick Fanclub have no qualms, whatsoever, over the arbirary denial of citizen's rights by power-hungry agents of the government...just so long as it's not their rights being trampled upon.
I suppose if some town clerks started arbitrarily denying marriage licenses to gay couples, on ideological grounds, or because they don't like the way the applicants are dressed, then that woud be just ducky by them.
I'm thinking not.
Or, maybe if local authorities started barring young women from gettng abortions, claiming to what's best for those women and their unborn babies, on account of their intimate knowledge of their community and their all-knowing, personal familiarity with every single resident therein.
Surely, the local police chiefs would be the ones most eminently qualified to make these kinds of decisions, right?
Oh, here's another one.
Let's give the mayor and the police the power to deny certain groups permission to assemble peaceably and protest the actions and policies of the government, on the grounds that the group petitioning for such holds political views that run contrary to the folks in City Hall holding the reins of power.
That one's quite popular in Venezuala, I hear.
Increased freedom and individual liberties can only be realized with a commensurate transfer of power from the Government back to the People. And, with freedom and individual liberty comes the need to exercise a little something called personal responsibility.
Hence, the left's unyielding position on such matters.
Local police chiefs currently have the power to issue gun licenses, including licenses to carry, to residents of their communities. By and large they have done a good job of it.
Sure, if your definition of "it" includes the phrase "powerful, ideologically-blinded majority trampling on the individual rights of an already-oppressed minority population", one of State Senator Jarrett Barrios' little pet platitudes.
But, there are no double-standards in play here.
Nope. None at all.
Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, who has made much of her expertise in crime-fighting, is proposing to shift that authority to a statewide panel "so that citizens ... across the state could have the same standards applied to their applications to carry or possess a gun."
AAAGHHH!!! EQUALITY!!! RUN FOR THE HILLS!!!
Healey might have made a more useful contribution to the debate by proposing a statewide board to hear appeals from those denied permits at the local level. But to create a new bureaucracy to replace a system that is working well because it might appeal to the Gun Owners Action League is political pandering at its worst.
"Working well"?
A system that allows a police chief to illegally bypass, at will, the state's safety training and criminal background check requirements for license to carry applicats, as long as the beneficiary of said illegal activity is the child of a hall of fame ballplayer?
A system that allows a police chief to deny someone permission to own a gun, because they once lost a video they rented from Blockbuster? Or because they hadn't sent in a change of address form for their car registration? Because, I know I'm sleeping more soundly at night knowing these dangerous thugs have been disarmed.
A system that allows a police chief to deny firearms licenses to members in good standing of the United States Armed Forces, for such "common-sense" reasons as having loud neighbors, or having a friend who got busted for carrying a BB gun when he was 14?
A system that says it's OK for a police chief to revoke an individual's license to carry a firearm and confiscate thousands of dollars worth of lawfully-owned firearms, on account of a gust of wind?
A system that allows a police chief to deny the right to self-defense to not only the general public, but also to retired law enforcement officers living in their town, for no reason other than "I feel like it"?
A system that allows a police chief to put up so many bureacratic and financial hurdles on the path to lawful gun ownership that only the rich and/or politically-connected among us can enjoy their God-given, constitutionally-protected rights, while the lower-income working people in the crime-ridden inner cities are left to fend for themsleves with no effective means to do so?
Yes, this system's working just smashingly well, I'd say.
If you're a devout Stalinist.
Of course, the cheerleaders over at the Deval Patrick Fanclub have no qualms, whatsoever, over the arbirary denial of citizen's rights by power-hungry agents of the government...just so long as it's not their rights being trampled upon.
I suppose if some town clerks started arbitrarily denying marriage licenses to gay couples, on ideological grounds, or because they don't like the way the applicants are dressed, then that woud be just ducky by them.
I'm thinking not.
Or, maybe if local authorities started barring young women from gettng abortions, claiming to what's best for those women and their unborn babies, on account of their intimate knowledge of their community and their all-knowing, personal familiarity with every single resident therein.
Surely, the local police chiefs would be the ones most eminently qualified to make these kinds of decisions, right?
Oh, here's another one.
Let's give the mayor and the police the power to deny certain groups permission to assemble peaceably and protest the actions and policies of the government, on the grounds that the group petitioning for such holds political views that run contrary to the folks in City Hall holding the reins of power.
That one's quite popular in Venezuala, I hear.
Increased freedom and individual liberties can only be realized with a commensurate transfer of power from the Government back to the People. And, with freedom and individual liberty comes the need to exercise a little something called personal responsibility.
Hence, the left's unyielding position on such matters.
