Once again Ned Barnett wrote an editorial for the News & Observer demonstrating he truly doesn’t get it. The editorial entitled Code orange for moms vs. guns appeared in today’s issue of the N&O and once again showcased Ned hasn’t really put any thought into some of what he types.

First let’s just pick apart crappy spelling. I am guilty, but I’m just some dude putting thoughts down in a blog. Ned is the EDITOR for a newspaper! He wrote “Micheal Bloomberg” in his fourth paragraph. It is M I C H A E L for Pete’s sake. While I don’t care at all for Bloomberg, I do care enough and take the time to spell his name correctly. I didn’t fact check everything Ned put into his editorial, but if he cannot spell names correctly it is almost a sure bet his facts are questionable as well.

Ned flub
Now let’s take a look at what I really take an exception with. Ned contends a pistol purchase permit is superior to a NICS check at a FFL. He is sadly mistaken. The PPP is good for 5 years and relies upon the Sheriff to determine purchase eligibility. Where it fails is the day someone walks away with the permit they could potentially commit a crime and still have a permit in their possession which would allow them to purchase from a dealer. The FFL would believe them to be legal and proceed with the purchase when in fact they should not be able to purchase a firearm at all. Ned contends briefly the PPP under the current law covers purchases from private individuals, but in reality the only people using a PPP or CHP for private handgun purchases is law-abiding citizens. Long guns do not require any permit and transactions happen on a daily basis, so why should a pistol be any different? If the law requires the purchaser and seller be from the same state, then law-abiding citizens will check identification to be sure they meet the letter of the law and criminals will do business as usual. Whether the PPP stays or goes it will not affect criminal behavior and that is what Ned fails to recognize.

Apparently, according to Ned, on Tuesday “approximately three dozen women” showed up at the legislature to oppose H562. If I count everyone in attendance I get 38 including the kids in the strollers. However our boy Ned said women so counting again my total is 26. Whether twenty-six or thirty-eight people, they do not speak for me, nor for the state as a whole. The bottom line is what Ned writes has to be questioned when he plays fast and loose with the facts. I just wish he would take a few minutes and try to understand before he writes an editorial and while he’s at it try to be a little more precise, he is getting paid as an Editor after all!