Congress may actually pass an economic stimulus bill this week, which is good news for the short-term needs of the country. There is no question the economy is tottering, and could easily tip over from recession to depression, so a bill that focuses on saving jobs and creating jobs is desperately needed. The good news is that the bill will definitely help achieve some of those aims. The bad news is that it will lay a crushing debt burden on taxpayers for the future, which can only be addressed if government becomes far more efficient in the use of tax dollars than it has in the past. That could very well force, down the road, what many of us have wanted for years, a smaller, more efficient government. But somehow, that doesn't seem likely. Because Congress hasn't figured out that the model for government is, and should be, changing. And the best example is the stimulus package. Despite billions of dollars in cuts, it still contains way too much pork. And some of the cuts (to make way for that pork) seem to make no sense, such as dropping $40 billion to help keep schools from having to fire teachers. That's counter-productive. The bill is supposed to save or create jobs, not leave them threatened. Both sides of the aisle bear the blame. The Democratic leadership rolled over on way too many pet projects among its members, losing sight of the long-term goal of the bill. And Republicans kept insisting on sticking to the same failed policies of the past, and playing the same old games where personal and party political power carried more weight than the needs of the nation. One GOP leader actually admitted his goal for the bill, and the amendments he introduced, were designed to divide the Democrats and make them look bad. So much for caring about the people of this country. Both parties should be ashamed. It is time for Congress to look up from its myopic and petty party power games, and its proclivity for pork, and look at the desperate state of the nation, focusing solely on programs that stand a good chance of meeting the goal of keeping people working. Making things work should be a bipartisan issue. This bill should be about America, not the Republican or Democratic parties. -- Kelly Everitt

As a practical matter...

Posted Wednesday, February 5, 2014, at 8:20 AM

No matter how good it may sound to those who believe in an unfettered right to bear arms, a bill proposed in the legislature to allow guns on university campuses has some problems.

The bill would allow retired law enforcement officers and anyone with an Idaho enhanced concealed weapons permit to carry a firearm on campus.

The argument, of course, is the right of a person to defend themselves if confronted with an active shooter. There is a certain validity to that argument, even if the number of times a person successfully defends themselves with a firearm in this country is vanishingly small. It's not zero, but it is rare. Still, the potential exercise of such a right is clearly constitutional.

Our concern lies rather in what is more likely, and the problems this bill would pose to law enforcement.

If someone observes a person with a gun on campus, who is going to check that it's legal or not? How many false alarms would be triggered?

More importantly, ever since Columbine, law enforcement officers train to enter an area where an active shooter is believed to exist as quickly as they can organize a clearing operation, and to take down any shooter as quickly as they can be identified. That means, functionally, shoot the first person you see with a gun.

If people other than law enforcement and the shooter have guns, then suddenly law enforcement has to pause for a second, perhaps a vital second, to determine if the person they see with a gun is the active shooter they are seeking, or someone else who believes they are defending themselves -- the very civilians the officer is trying to protect.

It severely complicates law enforcement's capability to act quickly and decisively and creates a situation that would greatly increase a chance that a mistake could be made.

No matter how well intentioned this bill may be, the practical consequences would not be helpful to law enforcement. The legislature should consider that in its deliberations.

-- Kelly Everitt

Comments

View 2 comments

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

SO LET'S SEE THEY KILL THE WRONG PERSON BUT IT'S OK.......COME ON WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT.....I DONT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A PERSON'S "CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS" I do have a problem when we can use that as and alibi and kill the wrong person.The police seem to do a lot of that as it is.Do we now go for free reign at school also.The overwhelming majority of students have said they don't want weapons on campus and so has the faculty.WHO IS GOING TO TELL THE PARENTS.......WE WERE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND MADE A MISTAKE.........HELLO...!!!!!!!

.........MY OPINION ONLY........The constitution is not GOD,,,,,,,,,IT IS A DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY MEN FOR MEN THERFORE IT HAS FAULTS.......it was not meant to be followed blindly.

-- Posted by lamont on Wed, Feb 5, 2014, at 6:51 PM
The legislature in Idaho seems to be focused on the wrong issues. At Boise State for one, alcohol is also banned on campus but they aren't worrying about that.

They should stay out of the colleges and universities in Idaho in regards to the rules on campus.

-- Posted by Sam_1776 on Thu, Feb 6, 2014, at 7:55 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

If you already have an account, follow this link to login
Otherwise, follow this link to register