Mr. Schulman, you're not getting it

Update Aug. 2: Unfortunately, the Repository reversed itself in an editorial July 29, in which it attacked the "outsiders" and backed Council President Alan Schulman. In this outsider's opinion, this second editorial did Canton more harm than good (and this only a week before the weekend Canton supposedly welcomes the world for the Hall of Fame Festival!). It also inadvertently explains why attempts to use reason in Canton city politics can be such a maddening experience.



I am not a great enthusiast for concealed carry, or gun rights of any kind. Speaking strictly for myself, I think my life with a gun would be far more dangerous than my life without one. But I do understand why the Second Amendment was written the way it was, and I do agree with the right of individuals to own weapons. In the right hands (and part of the reason for concealed-carry laws is to ensure that the guns are in the right hands), they provide an extra layer of protection for honest citizens who have to travel in dangerous places.

So I just want to cover my face and shake my head when I read articles like this from the Buckeye Firearms Association:

Perhaps now we know why police officer Daniel Harless thought it was acceptable behavior to unleash his violent, profanity-laced tirade on a concealed handgun license-holder in Canton, Ohio, saying "People like you don't deserve to @#$%#$ move throughout public. Period!" before threatening to murder the CHL-holder.


Canton City Council President Allen Schulman has unleashed his own version of that same tirade against law-abiding concealed handgun license-holders. After explaining that he would not be making any comments about the deplorable behavior of Harless, which were exposed on the dash cam video that has been seen across the country, Schulman said this:

"I did want to make a comment, uh, reflecting the out of town emails that we have all received from people who do not live in this community, do not know out police, do not know the firefighters, do not know our public servants, our employees, know nothing about the City of Canton. But because a video went viral on the Internet they're excu - excoriating the City of Canton out of this particular incident. And they're excoriating our police force, its conduct, and our city. I take very strong exception to what I've read, uh, what I've heard, from out-of-towners, uh, making comments abour our city.

"This is, in my judgement, a symptom of this arming, literally the arming of our population, with handguns, and the flooding of handguns into our communities."

Got that? Alan Schulman believes the violence and profanity-laced tirade from one of his city's police officers, who told a CHL-holder he "shoulda taken two steps back, pulled my Glock 40, and just put ten bullets in your ass and let you drop" is the fault of the Second Amendment, and not the angry cop.

I am embarrassed for another reason. I spent much of my adult life as a resident of Canton. In fact, in 1983, I ran for the office Mr. Schulman currently holds. (I lost heavily, but I was then a Republican running in a heavily Democratic city against the legendary Ray Denczak.  Mr. Denczak was Council President for around thirty years, until he died in office a few years ago.)

Rather than to defend the outburst of Officer Harless in the heat of passion, Mr. Schulman should have been quietly urging the Canton Police to deal with the officer's anger issues. This is not professional conduct by a police officer, and the Canton Police deserve better than to have this incident represented as such.* Just as importantly, the citizens of Canton deserve better from their Council President.

Of course, Mr. Schulman and the Canton Police have the perfect right to ignore the out-of-town e-mails and this post, for that matter; but they also need to think about just what kind of a city they want to live in, and whether their behavior in this incident is consistent with the vision they want to follow.

* In fairness to the Canton Police, The (Canton) Repository reported on Tuesday that "Police Chief Dean McKimm has described Harless’ behavior as 'wholly unacceptable' and in violation of many department rules." Officer Harless has been on paid administrative leave since June 20. The Repository issued an editorial July 23 in support of the police internal investigation and showing concern for the damage the video has done to the city's reputation.

We need to set priorities!

Glenn Beck likes to compare President Obama to a magician by saying that we always have to watch what his other hand is doing. The powers that be have thrown so much at the liberty movement in the last year, that it is hard to know where to direct our efforts. This could be intentional. If we split ourselves into many different directions, none of us will be effective. 

One of my most persistent critics likens me to a "gerbil in a wheel, spitting out worthless posts about secession-is-just-around-the-corner almost daily," a comparison I find laughable, but one which could become apt if we fail to focus on priorities. 

As a business analyst, I have to recognize that there are three constraints to every project: time, cost, and people. You cannot cut all three at the same time. If you want something done faster, you need more people, more money, or both. If you cut costs or people, you will probably need more time. 

Applying this to Ohio's liberty movement, we need to ask – among the many urgent needs we have to regain our freedom, which should we tackle first?

I observe that we can express most of our requirements as pairs -- actions needed in Congress that can be complemented or replaced by state actions. I list these pairs below. Note that I am ignoring the state budget and SB 5 because both are certain to pass in some form, most likely in a way that will work in the direction of smaller government.

My question to my readers is, which of the following should we be pursuing first, second, and third? Please comment; even if it is nothing more than "1.x, 2.y, 3.z."

	Actions by Congress	Actions by the State of Ohio
a	Refuse appropriations for the Libyan war.	Governor Kasich to refuse deployment of Ohio National Guard to Libya.
b	Repeal national health care, or "Obamacare."	Nullify mandatory health care in Ohio (legislation).
c	Abolish the Federal Reserve Bank.	Authorize state and local tax payments in gold or silver: "Honest Money."
d	Balance the budget.	Intercept federal taxes (through the Ohio Department of Taxation) pending a state board or legislative ruling on the constitutionality of federal expenses.
e	Repeal the USA PATRIOT Act.	Nullify the use of body scanners and aggressive patdowns in Ohio airports.
f	Modify or repeal federal gun control laws.	Nullify gun control for weapons both made and sold in Ohio (intrastate commerce). (Note: link is to bill in previous General Assembly)
g	Repeal federal drug laws, particularly those related to marijuana.	Nullify federal prohibitions on the use of marijuana as a prescription drug.
h	Repeal federal food laws that affect intrastate commerce in farm produce.	Nullify federal regulation of farm produce both grown and sold in Ohio (Manna Storehouse – but note that Manna Storehouse was an abuse of state power).

On revolution

The Ohio Republic has repeatedly written on the possibility of revolution. I have thought for some time that a revolution is in the air in this country; even though I think Glenn Beck’s assertion that it has already begun is premature. However, given the rate at which the degradation of our liberties is taking place, as evidenced by the TSA scanners, the Food Safety Act, and (possibly) the proposed rules on “Net neutrality,” I can see the revolution beginning in 2011, instead of 2012 as I had originally thought.

Every revolution is unique, and each affects its society in a unique way. Each is the explosion that follows when pressure builds up beyond the ability of a society’s institutions to contain it. Since the pressure builds up gradually, it is impossible to predict when the explosion will take place – but those who are watching can see the pressure building, and know that one is imminent.

How a revolution ends depends on whether the instigators prevail, as they did in Russia in 1917; and how prepared they are to govern, as the French were not in 1792. It also depends on how the people react to the revolution. Do we surrender to what appears to be an unstoppable force, or do we try to stop the revolution, as the French did in 1968? History shows that revolutions hardly ever end in exactly the way the instigators expect. Hegel’s dialectic is true, albeit not in the way Karl Marx anticipated: the thesis (revolution) is always met by an antithesis (reaction), resulting in a synthesis (society following the revolution). If revolutions do not always end as expected, its ideas (or its scars) will nevertheless continue to influence the society.

Glenn Beck is correct on this point: revolutions begin by creating chaos. No one (including Mr. Beck, if he is honest with himself) can know right now whether his particular recipe is accurate. His theory is that the revolution will involve a bottom-up approach (by union thugs and “progressive” activists on the street), coupled with a top-down one (by officials in the Obama Administration and rich and influential people like George Soros). There certainly is evidence that the radical left will try to pin the chaos on tea party activists and “right-wing extremists.”

We may not be able to avert a revolution, but we can prevent the left from imposing its dictatorship of the proletariat on our country. The left has an Achilles heel: its intellectual arrogance. Every statement they publish, every plan they make, reeks of contempt for the intelligence of the American people and their willingness to act. They think that we will fall for every trap they lay, that we will immerse ourselves in football and Desperate Housewives on the tube until it is too late. They think that those of us who do resist, will do so violently. After all, what other reason can there be for asserting our right to bear arms? The rest of us, they think, will engage in a feckless quest to use our corrupted institutions to reverse decades of policies that they have developed in preparation for this day. The key to stopping the left, then, is to act in ways they do not anticipate.

However, to act in ways they do not anticipate, we need to develop some new ways of thinking. Once the revolution begins, the United States of America-as-we-know-it will cease to exist. Not may, will. All of us who treasure our history and our institutions will experience the stages of grief: denial, anger, loss and, acceptance.

In the war of ideas, the Eastern Establishment must be countered by a libertarian intelligentsia; which, fortunately we do have. We have the Mises and Cato Institutes, Walter Williams, and Chuck Baldwin. In Ohio, we have the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. Ohio has another asset, not evident in very many other states: a cohesive liberty movement. That movement made a mistake in this election by trusting too much in the Republican Party; but it will soon realize that it was a mistake. In our state history, we have protected civil liberties much more effectively than most other states. The reason for this has been the fidelity of our courts to the Bill of Rights in our 159-year-old Ohio Constitution. Obviously, we’re not perfect (as Manna Storehouse and the Constitution Day kerfuffle in Andover attest), but we can be proud of our overall record.

With one exception, we have everything we need to protect our freedom. We have the brains, the movement, and the laws behind us. What we need, and this does not come naturally to Ohioans, is the willingness to use them in creative ways.

In revolutionary times, we must think of ourselves as Ohioans first and Americans second. While the nation remains in some semblance of domestic peace, we must continue to use our existing institutions to resist tyranny; for example, by using our new Republican General Assembly and Governor to nullify unconstitutional federal laws in Ohio. We must uphold the rule of law as long as we can.

But when that peace ends, the rule of law at the federal level will go with it. In preparation for that day, we have three very high priorities: we need to strengthen our organized state militia to augment the National Guard to protect us from externally-generated violence; we need to establish a mechanism for using silver in everyday transactions (honest money); and we need for all of us to start thinking, buying, and as practicable, manufacturing locally. And we need to start on all three priorities now. As I wrote earlier, we cannot predict the day the revolution will begin, but we can sense that it will begin very soon. It could be today – it could be a year from now; but we need to prepare now.

In so doing, we will do one of two things, both protecting our liberties. If the rest of the United States proves to be of the same mind as we are, we will all defeat the “progressives” and save the union. Otherwise, we will be prepared to declare and sustain our independence.

A challenge to Gov. Strickland and Mr. Kasich

Support this. This is part of the platform of Republican gubernatorial primary candidate Ray McBerry, called "Georgia First." Mr. McBerry is promising, if elected to aggressively nullify unconstitutional federal statutes.

He also advocates abolition of all income and property taxes, right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, a clampdown on illegal immigration, rein in governmental intrusions on privacy and liberty, restrict eminent domain, ensure secure elections through auditable paper trails, and support for the idea of citizen initiatives.

Conservative Times reports that he is winning straw polls among Georgia Republicans.

Dissident Republicans? Libertarians? Constitutionalists? Here's your opportunity!

Virtual buckeye to Rebellion.

On the lighter side...

Things have been getting awfully heavy around here, lately. Fortunately, my friend Bea Ready at the Ohio Freedom Alliance has provided an antidote I thought was hilarious. I hope you think so, too.



On the sign: "My Next Door Neighbor wants to BAN all GUNS! Their house is NOT ARMED! Out of RESPECT for their opinions, I promise NOT to use MY GUNS to PROTECT THEM."

Gun rights activists back nullification measures

While I support the Second Amendment, I am not particularly enthusiastic about gun rights,which is why that issue is rarely reported here. However, it is appropriate to recognize that those who are enthusiastic about gun rights are also strongly in favor of State sovereignty resolutions and measures like Montana's to nullify Federal gun statutes as they apply to intrastate commerce. Here is an interesting (and for mainstream media, fairly objective) report from CBS News on that trend.

State Sovereignty Resolution Update - 4/17

Montana Governor Brad Schweitzer signed HB246 Apr. 15, making Montana the second State to enact a sovereignty resolution. The act also authorizes Montana to nullify certain Federal gun legislation within the State's borders.

State Sovereignty Resoluton Update - 4/7

Idaho enacted its HJM004 today with a voice vote in the State Senate, becoming the second State (after South Dakota) to do so in the current session.

Montana's Senate has approved HB 246, which unlike most State sovereignty resolutions, is a bill to forbid the Feds from enforcing firearms statutes with respect to certain weapons. The vote, taken Mar. 27, was 29-21. The bill is expected to be signed by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The gun site M4Carbine Forums has some additional information. When Gov. Schweitzer signs the bill, I shall mark it as enacted.

In a related development, ZDNet Health Care reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has held (Wyeth v. Levine) that Federal law cannot pre-empt suits against drug manufacturers for negligence in their warning labels. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion that states the 10th Amendment position quite clearly:

"[Judge Thomas writes:] 'I have become increasingly skeptical of this Court’s purposes and objectives” pre-emption jurisprudence. Under this approach, the Court routinely invalidates state laws based on perceived conflicts with broad federal policy objectives, legislative history, or generalized notions of congressional purposes that are not embodied within the text of federal law. Because implied pre-emption doctrines that wander far from the statutory text are inconsistent with the Constitution, I concur only in the judgment.

"'Only when acting under power granted by the Constitution can even the Congress pre-empt state law,' he wrote, citing the 10th Amendment. He also quoted the Federalist Papers to the effect that federal powers are 'few and defined,' those remaining with the states 'numerous and indefinite.'"

State Sovereignty Update - 2/27

A commenter to MRStep points to a resolution (HR61) introduced yesterday in the Virginia House of Delegates by Christopher K. Peace (R), which is shorter and milder than Oklahoma's.

The Tenth Amendment Center reports that the South Carolina House passed its State Sovereignty resolution yesterday, which contains the same secession trigger as New Hampshire’s. The measure now faces a vote in the State Senate.

The same source has also reported that a second resolution (HCR 172) has been introduced in the Kentucky House of Representatives by Rep. David Floyd (R). It is mostly similar to HCR 168 introduced by Rep. Stacy on Feb. 25, but adds an interesting line about Federal mandates violating the Bill of Rights in the Kentucky Constitution.

I have learned from the Mental Militia Forums (link from a link…) that the Montana resolution, which provides for the nullification of Federal gun statutes, passed its House Feb. 11 by a 60-40 vote.

MRStep has learned that the Utah Legislature adopted a sovereignty resolution similar to Oklahoma’s in 1995.

Montana House approves sovereignty bill

Montana's News Station (actually a chain of CBS television stations in that State) reports that the Montana House of Representatives has voted in favor of their sovereignty resolution in a second reading. Strictly speaking, Montana's HB 246 is a bill to nullify Federal firearms statutes within the State of Montana, something that to my knowledge has not been attempted since before the War between the States. The bill still faces a third reading in the House and votes in the State Senate.

Virtual buckeye to an anonymous commenter.
The above post reflects corrections made 2/18/2009.

Montana threatens secession

Reason magazine reports that Montana wants to ensure that the Second Amendment is an individual, not a collective, right.

"In a joint resolution, the Montana politicians argue that when Washington approved the state constitution, including a clause granting 'any person' the right to bear arms, upon the Treasure State’s entry into the Union in 1889, the federal government recognized that clause as consistent with the Second Amendment."

Montana argues that if the Supreme Court decides in D.C. vs. Heller that the right is a collective one, it would breach the Constitutional compact made with Montana on its admission.

“A collective rights holding in Heller would not only open the Pandora’s box of unilaterally morphing contracts, it would also poise Montana to claim appropriate and historically entrenched remedies for contract violation.”

That remedy for a Constitution is known as secession.

Secession, while not explicitly authorized by the Constituion was recognized as a legal right by the Federal Government early in the Lincoln Presidency. This explains why Jefferson Davis was not tried for treason, and why the Congress during Reconstruction after the Civil War repeatedly changed its policy on readmission of the seceded States.

The idea is getting less loony all the time. Thanks to Rebellion for bringing this to my attention.

Additional information on Montana (June 16).