By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Feb. 1, 2014, 9:00 p.m.
Stanford University law professor John J. Donohue claims the Second Amendment, which prohibits Congress from infringing the right to keep and bear arms, actually permits strong gun control. He says that's because, in part, the Framers could not envision modern firepower. Neither could the Framers have envisioned high-speed printing presses or electronic communications. Does this mean, dear professor, that modern press and speech capabilities don't enjoy First Amendment protections? ... Meet Chloe Stirling, 11, of Troy, Ill. A day after her local newspaper did a feature story on her burgeoning cupcake business, operated out of her parents' kitchen, the Madison County Health Department shut her down. It wanted the child's family to either build a bakery or a kitchen separate from her parents'. “Public health” was cited by the government. Not only was Chloe trying to raise money to buy a car when she turns 16, she's well known for baking cupcakes to raise money for a schoolmate with cancer and for a cancer fundraiser. The government is an ass. ... The same thing happened three years ago to Mark Stambler of Los Angeles. Health officials shut him down (but not up) for selling homemade baked bread. But he became an activist and lobbied for passage of a “cottage food” law. Since going into effect a year ago, Forbes.com reports, California's cottage food industry has exploded, creating more than a thousand new local businesses. Government getting out of the way — and getting its head out of its you-know-what — never looked so good.
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.
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- The Adegbile nomination: Rejecting race-baiting
- The Thursday wrap
- Common Core: Garbage in, garbage out
- Big Labor’s losses
- A regional police force: An idea worth exploring
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The IRS scandal: Compelling Lerner