Though he upheld most of New York state's onerous new gun-control law, U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny in Buffalo has given gun owners a small victory. Restricting to seven the number of bullets that may be loaded into a magazine (except at gun ranges) is “arbitrary” and a violation of the Second Amendment. The judge said such a restriction favors criminals. Small wonders never cease. ... The New York Times says the eyes of liberal America are on new New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio in hopes that his wild-eyed “populist” policy prescriptions will serve as a model elsewhere. As if anyone should aspire to emulate the Big Apple's coming implosion. ... The same Commonwealth Financing Authority responsible for awarding that $40 million in walking around money in the new Pennsylvania transportation budget likes to tout its transparency. But as the Trib's Brad Bumsted and Melissa Daniels point out, the website of its mothership, the Department of Community and Economic Development, has no links to the authority's agendas, minutes or project votes. That's not very transparent. ... Writing in the American Thinker, Heartland Institute scholar Norman Rogers reminds that the claim that solar power is on the brink of being competitive is “a fantasy.” The industry, he notes, would collapse without government subsidies. Other than that, solar power is just peachy-keen.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.