Snowflakes in Hell

It always astonishes me what lengths the nanny state politicians will go to in order to control your life.   Bruce links to this article n the Boston Globe which has me quite literally speechless.

People of Massachusetts: You started a war over less than this.  What happened?

Some good commentary on the Iraq threads, but I think I’ll stick to gun blogging. Sadly, there’s not much going on the gun topic right now, as things seem to be very quiet. Almost… too… quiet.

MADD is pushing for DUI reform in the Keystone State.  MADD long ago went off the rails, and are now the new preachers against demon rum.  I don’t have a lot of specifics on what they are looking to change specifically, but if MADD is involved, we need to keep an eye on things.

Glenn is recommending The Transparent Society.   I’ve read it, and would highly recommend it.  It definitely makes you think about the consequences of living in world pervaded by information systems, tiny cameras, and global computer networks.  Brin’s essential argument is that we’re better off living in this society where surveillance and information technology are in the hands of everybody, rather than the privileged few, even if it means having to give up some degree of privacy.

Apparently now the conspiracy has expanded to encompass Purdue University.

David Codrea asks whether we’re seeing a newly minted prohibited person.

Hospital? So he’s been involuntarily committed for having his picture taken holding a shotgun because the paranoid campus officials and authorities go bonkers even thinking of such things due to recent “threats”–none of which Meepegama apparently had anything to do with? And they think he’s nuts?

Unfortunately we don’t have details about whether this was a lawful commitment order, or SUNY merely told him to seek counseling if he wanted to stay in school. If it’s the latter, he would not be a prohibited person according to ATF regulations:

Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

He would fall under the “observation” exception in the regulation, and wouldn’t be prohibited, and that’s assuming that he was ordered in for observation by someone with lawful authority under New York’s mental health laws. I’m not familiar with New York Law on the matter, but I suspect that a university official has no lawful authority in this regard.

UPDATE: I just realized this was originally posted in May.   Bloglines republished it, so I thought it was new.