Liberals Breaking The Good Faith Covenant . . Again!
I’m often asked the question: "John, for all your mention of liberty, I look around and I don’t see any threats to our liberty; what are you talking about?"
When I speak of threats to our liberties, I’m speaking of intrusions, interferences and impositions in a movement which will eventually take away all liberties. The path to that end is a sort of ostensibly desirable but most adversely tightening of restrictions so incrementally that you probably wouldn’t notice them.
That's the idea: seemingly desirable, but most adverse. Less objection > more silence > less self-governance.
The problem is that one sees only a snapshot of time and relates the action to the present circumstances. As such, it doesn’t register as a threat on your radar.
Take a look at our timeline of History and you see a different perspective.
Key to recognizing a threat to liberty is sizing up the alleged justification for any given intrusion, interference or imposition; is it legitimate or bogus? Most of the time it is bogus, and not what we wanted. The situation deteriorates, and the next solution is even less of what we wanted, you get it.
One of my favorite examples is the Zero-tolerance policies. Though they sound rational at first, they are nothing more than guiding you into a corral they wanted you to go into. Silence.
In a way, you demanded it and got it. Seeing only a snapshot of time made it possible. Without objection – and that means without a prompting reason to object in the minds of some – the intrusion stays and becomes part of the norm. The next generation of persons to view it see it as normal, so another small change seems reasonable as they, too, view only a snapshot of current affairs. And so it goes.
Zero-tolerance policies seem reasonable and justified at first, and some wish to give it time to work, but the more it settles in, the more it becomes a fixture. This tactic is necessary for the success of imposing policies; seeing the entire timeline would mean reasonable objection and possible defeat of the imposing policy, so the genesis of it all is played down.
As I’ve mentioned, I have my own theory on what makes officials morbidly want to control things.
Zero-tolerance was developed long before it was proposed. Most official solutions are.
In a nutshell, campus violence was allowed to fester for decades, from the forties to the present. Parents protested.
Then anti-bullying policies were developed, but swept up the innocent victim child with the bully, which charge of "fighting" was added to the child’s record without regard for who started it. It became a part of the child’s scholastic record, criminal record and DMV record. [See my February 4th, 2004 LONG BEACH PRESS TELEGRAM commentary.]
Again, parents protested. The do-something, do-anything officials brought in their own version of silencing opposing views.
Zero-tolerance is introduced, seemingly to satisfy the parents. But it’s more of a control tactic as it seems to give parents what they sought, but actually freezes them out of the dialogue by final pronouncement (zero-tolerance and no wiggle room) the refusal to investigate who started what, and, unprotested, becomes a fixture. The result is that an opposing view (yours) is silenced.
A generation of parents is the length of time your kids are in school and in contact with that administration, usually only a few years. Over time, parents are moved along a line of less and less say-so, more and more punishment for protesting and less and less justice. You wouldn’t notice it if you saw only a snapshot of it all, and three years of administration contact – one parental generation – is only a snapshot in time. Zero-tolerance means no parental dialogue and no appeal. You’re silenced.
Here’s a current example you can follow from the beginning.
Last year in Toledo, Ohio, Bruce Beatty got a ticket for wearing his weapon in the park. He was on a picnic with others who were carrying, but since he was the one who announced his picnic as an event, he got the ticket.
The funny part is that Ohio is a right-to-carry state, which means they can carry guns. It’s the law. Why are local officials against the law so? Why make it illegal to carry in the park? The state constitution and its right-to-carry laws have settled the idea that Beatty and others may carry in the park unfettered.
What’s the hubbub, Bub?
Who cares why? Beatty is protected by the law, and Toledo may not write local laws (a restriction in conflict with the Ohio Constitution) which says where he can’t go, and then list more and more places he can’t go. Like other bans, it reaches only the law abiding and will never reach the criminal.
So what’s Toledo’s objective?
Here’s an update from the principals involved:
Beatty had another pre-trial on July 22nd in Toledo Municipal Court. This hearing was for submitting final briefs and motions. After calling counsel to the bench for discussion, Judge Gene Zmuda asked where General Counsel for the city of Toledo, Mr. Madigan, was. The attending subordinate counsel stated the Mr. Madigan was "indisposed". His Honor asked the nature of being "indisposed", and was told that Mr. Madigan was on vacation. To this, Judge Zmuda stated: "Do you mean to tell the court that, with full knowledge of the time and date of this hearing, Mr. Madigan took a vacation?"
When attending counsel answered "Yes, Your Honor", the judge responded by stating that, for the record, Mr. Madigan was to be informed that his presence in all future proceedings in this matter was mandatory, until this case is closed.
Attending counsel then requested a continuance, stating that the city was not prepared to go forward, as they had not finished their briefs and motions. The judge responded that defense counsel and his client (Beatty) have been prepared to go to trial since the issuance of the citation, and, since there had been ample time for the city to prepare, the city has until Friday, July 29, 2005, to submit motions and briefs. MOTION DENIED.
Counsel for the city then motioned for a continuance of the trial date, using the same reasons. MOTION DENIED.
First, the City uses the system to harass Beatty, then when they get their chance to make the case in open court, within that same system, they hide.
What would happen if Beatty did not stand his ground? How would this affect the rest of us inside and outside Ohio? Would this have otherwise become a tiny, but serial adverse movement against the People whose state Constitution makes this kind of social engineering illegal?
The Toledo case doesn’t mean Toledo knows nothing about the law – it means more that Toledo seems to know nothing about the good faith covenant in its oath to defend the Constitution and in the good faith serving the constituents.
It means those officials arrive in office on Day One not only with a conflict of values with constituents, but also with a conflict of objectives.
The same in Columbus, where the NRA was told to "Get out and stay out!" by their city council, even though they lost $15 Million (or maybe more) when the NRA pulled out its 2007 convention plans from Columbus. (Columbus had instituted an assault weapons ban.) My belief is that Columbus didn’t want to ban weapons, but to prevent the people and the NRA from meeting in large numbers, about 60,000 attendees; the NRA might have a persuasive message of interest to Ohioans. My opinion is that, even at the expense of kissing off millions in revenues, the City Council wanted to silence an opposing view.
I'm sure the NRA knew it was a squeeze play; in assessing the futility of it all - for now - they elected to do the proper thing, which was to walk. Cool, appropriate, and shrewd. Columbus got the wrong kind of publicity again.
When I speak of threats to our liberties, I’m speaking of intrusions, interferences and impositions in a movement which will eventually take away all liberties. The path to that end is a sort of ostensibly desirable but most adversely tightening of restrictions so incrementally that you probably wouldn’t notice them.
That's the idea: seemingly desirable, but most adverse. Less objection > more silence > less self-governance.
The problem is that one sees only a snapshot of time and relates the action to the present circumstances. As such, it doesn’t register as a threat on your radar.
Take a look at our timeline of History and you see a different perspective.
Key to recognizing a threat to liberty is sizing up the alleged justification for any given intrusion, interference or imposition; is it legitimate or bogus? Most of the time it is bogus, and not what we wanted. The situation deteriorates, and the next solution is even less of what we wanted, you get it.
One of my favorite examples is the Zero-tolerance policies. Though they sound rational at first, they are nothing more than guiding you into a corral they wanted you to go into. Silence.
In a way, you demanded it and got it. Seeing only a snapshot of time made it possible. Without objection – and that means without a prompting reason to object in the minds of some – the intrusion stays and becomes part of the norm. The next generation of persons to view it see it as normal, so another small change seems reasonable as they, too, view only a snapshot of current affairs. And so it goes.
Zero-tolerance policies seem reasonable and justified at first, and some wish to give it time to work, but the more it settles in, the more it becomes a fixture. This tactic is necessary for the success of imposing policies; seeing the entire timeline would mean reasonable objection and possible defeat of the imposing policy, so the genesis of it all is played down.
As I’ve mentioned, I have my own theory on what makes officials morbidly want to control things.
Zero-tolerance was developed long before it was proposed. Most official solutions are.
In a nutshell, campus violence was allowed to fester for decades, from the forties to the present. Parents protested.
Then anti-bullying policies were developed, but swept up the innocent victim child with the bully, which charge of "fighting" was added to the child’s record without regard for who started it. It became a part of the child’s scholastic record, criminal record and DMV record. [See my February 4th, 2004 LONG BEACH PRESS TELEGRAM commentary.]
Again, parents protested. The do-something, do-anything officials brought in their own version of silencing opposing views.
Zero-tolerance is introduced, seemingly to satisfy the parents. But it’s more of a control tactic as it seems to give parents what they sought, but actually freezes them out of the dialogue by final pronouncement (zero-tolerance and no wiggle room) the refusal to investigate who started what, and, unprotested, becomes a fixture. The result is that an opposing view (yours) is silenced.
A generation of parents is the length of time your kids are in school and in contact with that administration, usually only a few years. Over time, parents are moved along a line of less and less say-so, more and more punishment for protesting and less and less justice. You wouldn’t notice it if you saw only a snapshot of it all, and three years of administration contact – one parental generation – is only a snapshot in time. Zero-tolerance means no parental dialogue and no appeal. You’re silenced.
Here’s a current example you can follow from the beginning.
Last year in Toledo, Ohio, Bruce Beatty got a ticket for wearing his weapon in the park. He was on a picnic with others who were carrying, but since he was the one who announced his picnic as an event, he got the ticket.
The funny part is that Ohio is a right-to-carry state, which means they can carry guns. It’s the law. Why are local officials against the law so? Why make it illegal to carry in the park? The state constitution and its right-to-carry laws have settled the idea that Beatty and others may carry in the park unfettered.
What’s the hubbub, Bub?
Who cares why? Beatty is protected by the law, and Toledo may not write local laws (a restriction in conflict with the Ohio Constitution) which says where he can’t go, and then list more and more places he can’t go. Like other bans, it reaches only the law abiding and will never reach the criminal.
So what’s Toledo’s objective?
Here’s an update from the principals involved:
Beatty had another pre-trial on July 22nd in Toledo Municipal Court. This hearing was for submitting final briefs and motions. After calling counsel to the bench for discussion, Judge Gene Zmuda asked where General Counsel for the city of Toledo, Mr. Madigan, was. The attending subordinate counsel stated the Mr. Madigan was "indisposed". His Honor asked the nature of being "indisposed", and was told that Mr. Madigan was on vacation. To this, Judge Zmuda stated: "Do you mean to tell the court that, with full knowledge of the time and date of this hearing, Mr. Madigan took a vacation?"
When attending counsel answered "Yes, Your Honor", the judge responded by stating that, for the record, Mr. Madigan was to be informed that his presence in all future proceedings in this matter was mandatory, until this case is closed.
Attending counsel then requested a continuance, stating that the city was not prepared to go forward, as they had not finished their briefs and motions. The judge responded that defense counsel and his client (Beatty) have been prepared to go to trial since the issuance of the citation, and, since there had been ample time for the city to prepare, the city has until Friday, July 29, 2005, to submit motions and briefs. MOTION DENIED.
Counsel for the city then motioned for a continuance of the trial date, using the same reasons. MOTION DENIED.
First, the City uses the system to harass Beatty, then when they get their chance to make the case in open court, within that same system, they hide.
What would happen if Beatty did not stand his ground? How would this affect the rest of us inside and outside Ohio? Would this have otherwise become a tiny, but serial adverse movement against the People whose state Constitution makes this kind of social engineering illegal?
The Toledo case doesn’t mean Toledo knows nothing about the law – it means more that Toledo seems to know nothing about the good faith covenant in its oath to defend the Constitution and in the good faith serving the constituents.
It means those officials arrive in office on Day One not only with a conflict of values with constituents, but also with a conflict of objectives.
The same in Columbus, where the NRA was told to "Get out and stay out!" by their city council, even though they lost $15 Million (or maybe more) when the NRA pulled out its 2007 convention plans from Columbus. (Columbus had instituted an assault weapons ban.) My belief is that Columbus didn’t want to ban weapons, but to prevent the people and the NRA from meeting in large numbers, about 60,000 attendees; the NRA might have a persuasive message of interest to Ohioans. My opinion is that, even at the expense of kissing off millions in revenues, the City Council wanted to silence an opposing view.
I'm sure the NRA knew it was a squeeze play; in assessing the futility of it all - for now - they elected to do the proper thing, which was to walk. Cool, appropriate, and shrewd. Columbus got the wrong kind of publicity again.
For breaking the good faith covenant. Again.
Unless you know where to look you might not see attempts to restrict our liberties.
Unless you know where to look, you don’t see the millions of instances annually where individual citizens stop a crime in progress with the use of a gun. Interfering with that – further and further tying the hands of the law-abiding to defend themselves – is an intrusion, an interference and an imposition. Toledo and Columbus are contemporary examples of just that.
It happens to you and your child in school.
It happens in your neighborhood workplace..
. . and it happens in the park.
Whether Toledo will further tie the hands of the individual against the Constitution of the state of Ohio will be publicly observed.
Trial is set for the 5th of August at 1:30 p.m., a point the judge made abundantly clear to the City Attorney.
______________________________________
John Longenecker is author of The Battle We Fight - Battling Potomac Fever To Recapture Our Homes And Communities - available at all online booksellers. His website is www.NationwideConcealedCarry.com
THIS MONTH'S TALKRADIO BOOKINGS . . .
August 3rd, 2005
KGDP/660 AM - Jim Zimmer
California Central Coast - 4 p.m. PST
August 5th, 2005, 6.am. PST
Mark Shannon, The Morning Show
WKY. SuperTalk 930
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
August 18th, 2005 at 2 p.m. PST
Drive Time with Roy Brassfield
WKCT NEWSTALK/93, Bowling Green, Kentucky
<< Home