In Ohio they've passed a Shall Issue Concealed Carry Permit law. I'm no fan of CCW. It takes what should be an unfettered Right & reduces it to the legal status of privilege. For more on my problems with CCW laws, even Shall Issue, please look here, as well as here & here.

The full text (& I mean "full") of Ohio's CCW law may be found here.
Of particular instance is something stated at the end of the law on page 138 & 139:

"Section 6. In amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13,
2923.12, 2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.13, 2923.16, 2953.32, and
4749.10 of the Revised Code and in enacting sections 109.69,
109.731, 311.41, 311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised
Code in this act, the General Assembly hereby declares its intent
to recognize both of the following:
(A) The inalienable and fundamental right of an individual to
defend the individual's person and the members of the individual's
family;
(B) The fact that the right described in division (A) of this
section predates the adoption of the United States Constitution,
the adoption of the Ohio Constitution, and the enactment of all
statutory laws by the General Assembly and may not be infringed by
any enactment of the General Assembly."

It further states:

"Section 7. In enacting sections 109.69, 109.731, 311.41,
311.42, and 2923.124 to 2923.1213 of the Revised Code in this act
and in amending sections 1547.69, 2911.21, 2921.13, 2923.12,
2923.121, 2923.123, 2923.13, 2923.16, 2953.32, and 4749.10 of the
Revised Code in this act relative to licenses to carry a concealed
handgun, the General Assembly hereby declares that it is not its
intent to declare or otherwise give the impression that, prior to
the effective date of this act, an individual did not have an inalienable and fundamental right, or a right under the Ohio
Constitution or the United States Constitution, to carry a
concealed handgun or other firearm for the defense of the
individual's person or a member of the individual's family while
engaged in lawful activity. Further, the General Assembly declares
that it is not its intent to invalidate any prior convictions for
violating any section of the Revised Code or a municipal ordinance
prior to the effective date of this act or to prevent the
prosecution of any violation committed prior to the effective date
of this act."

So it states that defense of self & others is an inalienable, fundamental Right, & that while it is not claiming that the Right to carry a weapon concealed was not inalienable & inherent prior to this law, neither is it claiming that any convictions for carrying concealed were in violation of that Right!

In other words, Ohio has said that self defense & the defense of others is a Right that they cannot touch, & that carrying concealed is an extention of that Right, but they're not going to correct errors made in prosecuting someone for simply exercising a Right!

This is all beside the point that a law requiring a permit to exercise a Right is repugnant to the whole concept of natural inherent Rights, & if they can concede that self defense & carrying arms are in fact Rights which pre-date the respective applicable constitutions, they should also concede that no permit is, has been or should be required merely to exercise an existing fundamental Right.

Regardless of my problems with CCW laws, there is something else in Ohio's law that is particularly nasty: at the request of the governor & the Ohio police unions, the names & addresses of Ohio CCW permit holders will be made public on request to journalists (actually this is a compromise as initially the idea was to have the names & other info about CCW permit holders available to anyone). & we all know how fair & objectively the press have treated self defense issues, particularly those involving firearms in the past. & we'd expect more of the same in the future.
In any event the practical ramifications should not take a back seat to the principled one: a person should not have his name subject to public information searches merely because he/she wishes to defend his/herself.

Here is the relevant language from page 69 of the Ohio CCW law:

(2) Upon a written request made to a sheriff and signed by a
journalist on or after the effective date of this section, the
sheriff shall disclose to the journalist the name, county of
residence, and date of birth of each person to whom the sheriff
has issued a license or replacement license to carry a concealed
handgun, renewed a license to carry a concealed handgun, or issued
a temporary emergency license or replacement temporary emergency
license to carry a concealed handgun under section 2923.125 or
2923.1213 of the Revised Code. The request shall include the
journalist's name and title, shall include the name and address of
the journalist's employer, and shall state that disclosure of the
information sought would be in the public interest.
As used in division (B)(2) of this section, "journalist"
means a person engaged in, connected with, or employed by any news
medium, including a newspaper, magazine, press association, news
agency, or wire service, a radio or television station, or a
similar medium, for the purpose of gathering, processing,
transmitting, compiling, editing, or disseminating information for
the general public."

An Ohio newspaper, The Cleveland Plain Dealer, has threatened to publish the names of all who receive concealed carry permits.

"It is this newspaper's intention to obtain this information and publish it. Our readers deserve to know the identities of those who obtain permits to carry their guns in public. We hope other news organizations will do the same in their communities." - From The Cleveland Plain Dealer.

To counter this KeepAndBearArms.com has decided to publish the names, addresses & home phone numbers of every person working at said newspaper when they start publishing the names of CCW permit holders. What makes things even more interesting is that Ravenwood as well as The Smallest Minority have decided a preemptive strike is called for.

On the links to their respective blogs you'll find the following:

I say, why wait. Lets start at the top. The Editor of the Cleveland Plain Dealer is Douglas Clifton. Here is his address and telephone number:
Douglas Clifton
19 Shoreby Dr
Cleveland, OH 44108-1161
Tel.: (216) 761-6577

Here is his bio. For a map to his home, click here.

& since the Cleveland Plain Dealer has urged all other Ohio newspapers to publish information about people who wish only to protect themselves, I would urge all bloggers & any others with a web site to publish the names & information of all on the Cleveland Plain Dealer's staff as well as any other newspaper which follows the Cleveland Plain Dealer's advice. Needless to say if you're in Ohio I'd also suggest dropping nay subscriptions to such "newspapers" after explaining why.

But thanks to KeepAndBearArms.com, Ravenwood & The Smallest Minority for being on top of this. & thanks to Clayton Cramer for having a link to the text of the Ohio CCW law.

A Vermont town wants to secede. Secession is not a new concept in the world, nor was it confined to the Southern States in America in the mid-19th century. In fact there are several secessionist movements in the U.S. today. What is notable is that since the War of North'en Aggression the "question" of secession was presumed to have been settled by the force of the federal government. Of course I find this erroneous just as most people would find that because someone is stornger than another that person is not in fact stealing when he takes the weaker person's possessions by force. Here's an earlier post I did on secession & some reasons why it's still a legitimate idea.

Getting back to this particular case, we find that the source of the discontent with Killington is that Vermont seems to be taxing the town as if it were just another revenue source, thus causing their desire to secede & ally themselves with New Hampshire which lacks the taxation they find so burdensome.

Of course the town is drawing parallels to the various taxing measures brought about in the colonies by Great Britain in the mid-18th century.

"It kind of reminds us of Colonial days,' Town Manager David Lewis said Thursday. 'The Colonies were being faced with the Stamp Act, the Tea Act, the Sugar Act. England wasn't giving them any rights. They were treating the Colonies as just a revenue source."

So perhaps it's understandable why they wish to leave Vermont. They plan to put the issue of secession before the townspeople in the March elections.

But in steps Vermont:

"Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz said Killington has little chance of secession 'absent an armed insurrection type of thing. ... A town is a construction of the state and exists at the pleasure of the Legislature."

A town exists at the pleasure of the state? If Killington's desire to leave Vermont garnered little sympathy before I'd assume that statements such as that would cause a change of heart. A town is an organization of communities that have bonded together for their common interests, usually bigger than a village but smaller than a city.

From Merriam Webster we find a unique definition as pertaining to New England:

"6 : a New England territorial and political unit usually containing under a single town government both rural areas and urban areas not having their own charter of incorporation; also : a New England community governed by a town meeting"

I have seen nothing that would define a town as a place, unit or organization that is constructed by & for the state. To suggest that is very insulting to the town in question, & should be taken as offensive by all towns within that state.

So if Killington wishes to leave Vermont, I see no reason why it should not. & if Vermont's Secretary of State has an attitude typical of Vermont's governing body, then I can hardly blame them, nor could I fault Killington if an armed insurrection were the course they had to pursue to achieve it. I would even go so far as to offer any assitance possible to Killington, not so much because I agree with the specific issues they have, but because if a community wishes to shatter the political bonds that they feel are no longer beneficial, then that is their Right.

Odds are though that the Secretary of State's insults will be overlooked by most people & Vermont will strong arm any thoughts of secession out of the townsfolk of Killington. Hopefully I'll be mistaken, but chances of Killington actually seceding are slim, despite the townsfolk's wishes.

End The War On Freedom reports of a man who seems to have received less than a fair trial in a tax evasion case. What's worse is that after the miscarraige of justice that the judge attempted to pass off as a trial, the man was convicted of 29 counts.

USDC Judge John McBryde & Assistant US Attorney Jarvis are the ones who should have been on trial. Fortunately an appeal is planned & barring any prejudice on the courts part should be succesful.

Here's an account of the trial so y'all can decide for yourself.