In her recent HuffPo post, she goes after a new Indiana law requiring book sellers to register if they are selling adult related material. Most of it is her standard incoherent rambling and nonsense:
HB 1042, which was signed, two weeks ago, by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, does not go into effect until July, and groups like the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression are organizing to compel the governor to veto it.
How can it be vetoed after he already signed it? If I'm ignorant on that subject, please educate me.
In one point she flat out lies:
Under this law, a bookseller must not only pay a usurious $250 registration fee, but also provide a detailed description of the work which may include not only novels, but school texts dealing with health, and sexuality issues.
Yet the law states:
b) The term does not include: (1) birth control or contraceptive devices; or
(2) services, programs, products, or materials provided by a:
(A) communications service provider (as defined in IC 8-1-32.6-3);
(B) physician; or
(C) public or nonpublic school.
However, in this rant, she has to take another swipe at firearm ownership:
While the Supreme Court gets to ponder whether or not to allow the D.C. handgun ban to stand, think about this: you're not legally required to register your rifle, shotgun, or handgun in the state of Indiana, but if you own a bookstore in that state, you're now required to register books that contain "sexually explicit materials," according to a new law...
..it is yet another symptom of just how demented it is to mandate registering books, and not firearms.
Obviously in all her research, she forgets that FFL dealers are required to keep exacting records of their inventory and sales while purchasers are required to undergo background checks. But one shouldn't let the facts get in the way at a good PSH.
I actually agree w/ her that the law is a first step in a slippery-slope. Now she knows how we feel. At least she shows that our statements on what would an anti writer do if the 1A was held up the same "reasonable restrictions" as what they want for the 2A have been shown to be accurate.