the heels of one of the most infamousrnproducts of modern-day legislation: NewrnJersey’s law forbidding restaurants fromrnserving runny eggs. While public scornrncaused the Runny Eggs Law to be repealed,rnthere is no word yet on whetherrnNew Jersey intends to mandate chewingrnfood properly and eating all of one’srnpeas.rnBut don’t be surprised if New Jerseyrnpasses some such thing as The ProperrnRumination and Legume Act of 1993,rnas long as Governor Jim Florio is in thernState House—he’s a classic example of arnbig-government, tax-and-spend Democrat.rnAfter picking up the keys tornDrumthwackct, New Jersey’s palatialrngovernor’s mansion. King James thernProfligate immediately raised taxes tornunprecedented heights. While outragernwithin New Jersey was immediate andrnsevere, one of the big-city liberal newspapersrnfrom out of state that loves torncomment on events across the river—rnthe New York ‘limes—hailed the king asrna new breed of cutting-cdgc Democratrnand chastised New York Governor MariornGuomo for being too timid in his effortsrnto stuff state coffers. But like the historicalrnJacobites, the New York Timesrnunderestimated political opposition tornits darling sovereign: Florio faces a recentlyrnelected, veto-proof Republicanrnmajority in both houses and almost certainrndefeat in 1994. Given Florio’s contemptrnfor the masses, perhaps “Jacobins”rnmight be a more fitting term for his supportersrn—and what better name for anrnadministrative body charged with enforcingrnthe Kiddie Helmet Law than thern”Committee of Public Safety”?rnNot surprisingly, another big-city liberalrnnewspaper that loves to commentrnon events across the river—the PhiladelphiarnInquirer—waxed rhapsodic aboutrnthe Kiddie Helmet Law and the coercivernpower of Big Brother. “Can’t makernyour kids protect their little heads?” saidrnthe Inquirer, “Well, maybe the Staterncan.” The Inquirer shrugged off the costrnof a helmet to parents—from $20 torn$45, with some helmets costing overrn$100—and concluded its puff piece byrnquoting a Kiddie Helmet Law advocate,rnrevealing the mischievous and intrusivernmindset of those who are behind suchrnlaws: after the meddling gent finishesrntelling parents of kids who bike aboutrnthe horrors of riding without a helmet,rnhe “always tcll[s] parents of kids in highrnschool that it’s more important to getrnthe kids to wear condoms.” Today bicyclernhelmets, tomorrow condoms, allrnin the name of public safety.rnFrom the parents’ perspective, the lawrnis an excessive intrusion of their authorityrnto weigh and determine what activitiesrntheir children can engage in andrnwhat steps their children should take tornavoid injury. The Kiddie Helmet Lawrnusurps that role, and does so in a manifestlyrnsilly fashion: common experiencernwith kids and bikes clearly shows thatrnthe remote incidence of serious harm isrngreatly outweighed by the inconveniencernto thousands upon thousands ofrnchildren. Kids are on and off bikes tenrntimes a minute, and requiring them tornstrap on a helmet every time, underrnpenalty of losing the equivalent of, say, arnfairly generous First Communion gift,rnis coercive out of all proportion to thernrisk of harm. While there may be parentsrnwho want to make their kids wearrnhelmets out of an excess of caution,rnthat’s their business. But excessive cautionrnshould not be mandated by thernstate.rnMore important than the objectionsrnof parents is the effect on those to berngoverned by the law: New Jersey’s children.rnChildren have a very strong sensernof justice, and they do not yet understandrnthat it is their destiny, after yearsrnof incessant state and federal nagging,rnto become cowed into complying withrnthe most petty, intrusive, and ultimatelyrnnumbing laws—from strapping onrnseatbclts to eating overcooked eggs.rnWhile children do not always knowrnwhat is good for them, there is not a kidrnin New Jersey who doesn’t know thatrnthis law is dumb. If these kids sense thatrntheir parents also think the regulation isrninane, then they will not only lose respectrnfor the rule of law, but they willrnlose respect for their impotent parents,rnwho are charged with enforcing suchrnnonsense in their household. More likelyrnthan not, children will simply disobeyrnthe law, which will effectively makernthese impressionable young citizens outlaws.rnTo a child, a stupid law is no law atrnall. If a child is caught and punishedrnunder a law that even his parents believernis unjust, the undesirable civics lessonrnwill be even more pronounced.rnOf course, this act will have some valuernin teaching our children about therntrue nature of law in American society.rnSome lucky child may grow up to discoverrnthe astute legal philosophies of ourrnWestern culture—although the odds ofrna child learning this at public school.rnwhere education has been replaced withrnbuilding self-esteem and paying obeisancernto a Culture-of-the-Month, arernslim. As the child learns about law, hernmay recognize that the teachings ofrnAquinas and Augustine imply that thernill-advised Kiddie Helmet Law failed tornbind his conscience and was thus an unjustrnintrusion of his sovereign will; hernmay also see his violations of the law as arnpredictable consequence of human naturernwhen faced with an unjust set ofrncommands. He will then realize whatrnhe did not understand in his youth: thernlegislators in New Jersey who passed thernKiddie Helmet Law possessed as muchrnwisdom as a 10-year-old child. Welcomernto America, kid.rn—’ i . Padraig HigginsrnNEWCOMERS TO ARIZONA,rnamong whom I count myself, are sometimesrnstartled to discover just how liberalrnare the gun laws in one of the nation’srnmost conservative states. As longrnas it’s not concealed, carrying a gun isrnalmost as acceptable to Arizonans as arnsaguaro cactus—although businessesrnmay ask you to cheek your weapon atrnthe door. Not that that many peoplernactually do walk around carryingrnfirearms in holsters, but you get the picture:rnlittle stands in the way of lettingrngun owners enjoy their constitutionallyrnprotected right to bear arms. Exceptrnparental permission to carry a firearm.rnAnticipating a summer of drive-byrnshootings, not to mention the tragediesrnthat invariably occur when loadedrnweapons arc left around a house, the cityrnof Phoenix decided last May that it wasrntime—as government is wont to do—rnto do something. And this bit of governmentalrnmicromanagement, despiternthe hoots of gun enthusiasts, was catching.rnOnce phoenix passed its ordinancernrequiring teenagers to have written permissionrnfrom their parents to carry arnfirearm, a host of other cities in “thernValley,” meaning the Phoenix metropolitanrnarea, also jumped in. So did Tucson,rnwhich almost never would do somethingrnas distasteful as follow Phoenix’srnlead. Such a flurry of antigun activityrnsent Bob Corbin, formerly Arizona’s attorneyrngeneral and now president of thernNational Rifle Association, straight uprnthe wall and then into court, where hernrecently challenged the parental-permissionrnordinances as a violation of existingrnArizona gun laws.rn8/CHRONICLESrnrnrn