Richard Feldman, M.D., --not the ex-NRA lobbyist but one of the local panic-pulp's gun-banners -- has done Seen The Light on another issue, smoking; he tells us he was all fixed to write a piece on how it was okey-dokey to discriminate against smokers in hiring and firing, what with them not bein' a protected class an' all and the business being able to do as they choose. (And indeed, courts have generally so held when such practices were challenged).
...Ah, but then the doc had a second thought (and one that, I am sure, had nothing at all with any possible desire to make sure people and companies are regimented and controlled coming and going); he figured that while there might not be a right to smoke in "public, enclosed places, because it detrimentally affects the health of others" (Um, doc, that does not equal "at work," nor is it the reason your employer can bar smoking on his property), it's okay-fine to smoke at home, since that doesn't affect unwilling others. Why, if employers could fire you for smoking at home (under some circumstances, they kind of can), "it dangerously broadens [employer's] sphere of control; individuals lose the right to lead their lives the way they choose. ... Riding motorcycles, social drinking or engaging in dangerous sports are...examples."
Hey, pretty much right at last! (Even though he then goes on to present a muddle of rules, regulations and proposed lawmaking to enable this "freedom") --But gee, if that's so, what about the Constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms? Can't I go to the range, can't I keep my firearms at home as a "lifestyle choice," even though Dr. Feldman thinks it is dangerous?
W9BSP: A HAM'S HAM, A TEACHER'S TEACHER
3 weeks ago