Charles Hill has the goods on an appalling story from New Jersey. One of that state's appeals courts has decided to revoke a cruise ship captain's concealed carry permit, even though that had been previously issued on the grounds that the ship might be a target of terrorism.

Reason?

Other targets of terrorism might obtain permits!

Ruled the court:

If such were the test, then conceivably every airline flight attendant, every bus driver, every truck driver transporting hazardous materials, every person employed by or with access to potable water reservoirs or fuel storage facilities, would be legally entitled to carry concealed firearms.

Better thousands die than a single man be armed!

Charles speculates that the court's "reasoning" might be grounded in the fear that "Trenton can't figure out how to extort the requisite amount of graft for something so simple as a concealed-carry permit." That may be. What I want to know is why this story wasn't in the Inquirer. From now on I'll have to read Oklahoma blogs to get my Jersey news.

Not that I could blame anyone for not wanting to write about hideous legal developments in New Jersey. This is the same state which recently proposed a horrendous piece of unconstitutional legislation actually authorizing asset forfeiture of the homes and businesses of citizens who might want to possess firearms to defend them:

This bill would authorized the forfeiture of any motor vehicle, building or premise in which a firearm was unlawfully possessed. Under current law, forfeiture actions are limited to contraband and property used to further unlawful activity or illegal acts. Under this bill, the motor vehicle, building or premise could be seized if an unlawfully possessed firearm was found within it, even if the firearm was not possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or premise.

The bill (A-3998) is moving right along. Yes, in New Jersey they're getting tough about keeping citizens unsafe.