Covered at Reason 24/7: Despite Focus on Gun Restrictions, More States Move To Loosen Laws

Almost all of the media attention is on
states like New York, Connecticut, Colorado and Maryland that have
moved to restrict self-defense rights by making it harder to
legally own and use firearms. But some scribblers at the West
Coast's dear old newspaper of (scratchy) sort-of record peeked up
over their cubicle walls and noticed something unexpected: Even
more states are moving to protect the right to bear arms,
and even to loosen restrictions on guns. Howdatappen? As
reporters Mark Z. Barabak and Melanie Mason put it, "[t]he result
is a significant disparity between states — some side by side — as
President Obama pushes for new federal gun controls." Not just a
significant disparity, you should note, but a growing divergence in
the legal treatment of self-defense rights at the state level.

From the
Los Angeles Times:

The first state to act after December's Sandy Hook shooting was
New York, where Republicans control the Senate and Democrats the
Assembly. Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, worked with lawmakers of
both parties to pass a sweeping bill that beefed up the state's ban
on assault-style weapons and required universal background
checks.

Other states have moved in the opposite direction, loosening
restrictions on gun ownership and increasing the number of places
where firearms are permitted. Many have Republican governors, a
Republican-run statehouse or both.

In Michigan and Ohio, lawmakers have made it easier to obtain a
gun. Arkansas, Maine and Mississippi have passed laws to protect
the privacy of gun owners. Wyoming enacted legislation allowing
judges to carry weapons in the courtroom, and South Dakota passed a
law authorizing school employees to carry guns on the job.

More than a dozen other states are considering legislation that
would enhance gun rights, including Texas, North Carolina, Missouri
and Georgia.

As you might guess, not all state-level control freaks are happy
that their counterparts elsewhere are moving law in a
less-authoritarian direction. But, you know, tough shit.

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's
readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at
24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Read More

Certificate-of-Need Laws Prevent Access to Lifesaving Medical Technology

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in
the United States. In large part, that’s because less than half of
the population that should be getting screened isn’t getting
screened.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Medical science has found a way
to use CT scanners to do screenings non-invasively, negating the
need to insert a colonoscope into the rectum and large intestine.
But for regulatory hurdles, people could just go to a clinic, pay
for a quick photo & analysis session and be on their way.

However, as of 2010, 13 states require medical institutions to
get permission, in the form of a “certificate of need,” before
purchasing new CT scanners. Other states require doctors to obtain
a certificate of need before offering new medical procedures like
virtual colonoscopies, which are still relatively cutting edge.

From Darpana Sheth of the Institute for Justice, writing in the

Daily Caller:

In a lengthy and expensive process, verging on full-blown
litigation, medical providers must demonstrate a “need” for the
proposed services. Worse, existing healthcare facilities are
invited to oppose and defeat a would-be competitor’s application.
This process results in a de-facto “certificate of monopoly” for
favored established businesses.

Consider entrepreneur and physician Dr. Mark Baumel. He wanted
to open several “one-stop shops” for colon health in Virginia that
would provide virtual colonoscopies along with same-day polyp
removal, just as he does at his flagship facility in Delaware.
Unlike Delaware, Virginia prohibits purchasing a CT scanner without
first obtaining a certificate of need. And yet, Virginia’s
Department of Health has denied Dr. Baumel a certificate of
need.

None of Dr. Baumel's potential competitors even offer the
service that he wants to provide. But they could. And
state health planners apparently think protecting existing
businesses from even the possibility of competition is more
important than patient access to potentially lifesaving
screenings.

Baumel is suing Virginia, with the help of the Institute for
Justice. See more Reason coverage of certificate-of-need
laws here
and
here.

Disclosure: I am a former employee of the Institute for
Justice.

Read More

Gay Marriage Debate To Continue After Supreme Court Rulings

NEW YORK -- However the Supreme Court rules after its landmark hearings on same-sex marriage, the issue seems certain to divide Americans and states for many years to come.

In oral arguments Tuesday and Wednesday on two cases involving gay couples' rights, the justices left open multiple options for rulings that are expected in June. But they signaled there was no prospect of imposing a 50-state solution at this stage. With nine states now allowing same-sex marriages and other states banning them via statutes or constitutional amendments, that means a longer spell with a patchwork marriage-rights map – and no early end to bruising state-by-state battles in the courts, in the legislatures and at the ballot box.

Read More...
More on Gay Marriage

Read More

Obama’s Gay Marriage Position Falls Flat at Supreme Court

Although the U.S. Supreme Court appeared extremely divided this
morning over the legality of California’s ban on gay marriage, the
justices did exhibit widespread agreement on one point: None of
them seemed to find the Obama administration’s position on Prop. 8
to be very convincing.

In the brief submitted earlier this month, the Obama
administration called for the nullification of the gay marriage
bans now in place in California and the seven other states that
forbid gay marriage while allowing civil unions. According to the
government, this differential treatment is an unconstitutional
deprivation of equal protection. In other words, it’s
unconstitutional for a state to recognize civil unions while not
recognizing same-sex marriage. The federal government took no
position on those states that offer neither civil unions nor gay
marriage.

Unfortunately for the president, that argument appeared to find
little traction during this morning’s oral arguments, as evinced by
these comments made by the justices in response to the Obama
administration’s position:

Justice Ginsburg: “So a State that has made considerable
progress has to go all the way, but at least the Government's
position is, if it has...done absolutely nothing at all, then...it
can do -- do as it will.”

Justice Breyer: “A State that does nothing hurts them much more,
and yet your brief seems to say it's more likely to be justified
under the Constitution. I'd like to know with some specificity how
that could be.”

Justice Sotomayor: “General [Verrilli], there is an irony in
that, which is the States that do more have less rights.”

Chief Justice Roberts: “You saying it's got to happen right now
in California, but you don't even have a position about whether
it's required in the rest of the country.”

Read more about this morning's Prop. 8 arguments
here. Read Reason's coverage of Prop. 8 here.

Read More