What Plaxico Burress Can Teach Us About Government Ethics

There are a lot of stupid reasons for opposing ethics reform
initiatives, but an organization in Utah has <a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pull%20a%20Plaxico&quot; target="”_blank”">pulled a Plaxico Burress</a>
with the stupidest of all.<br>
<br>

The organization, Gun Owners of Utah, <a href="http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&p=77516&quot; target="”_blank”">opposes
Utah's ethics reform initiative</a> because "it contains a de-facto gun
registration clause."<br>
<br>
Members of the state legislature and their spouses would be required to
disclose property they have an interest in that is regulated by the
state. Technically, the organization is right. But the language (such
as "in which ... holds an interest" and "location, nature, and fair
market value of") makes it clear that it isn't about little things like
guns, but big things like companies and buildings. In addition, the
language already appears in state laws which have not required
disclosure of the location, nature, and fair market value of guns.<br>
<br>
Guns <i>can</i> create government ethics issues. In a nearby town in the wild
west of Connecticut, <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD61130F936A25753C1…; target="”_blank”">a mayor brought a gun to work</a> with him, and it
caused quite a stir. He defended his right to do so, but does the
second amendment, however you interpret it, really trump the feelings
of citizens and government employees? The mayor was not re-elected last month.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---</p>