Rival boycott groups in court
On today's episode of As the Boycott Turns Juleana Frierson quips, "They're crazy and -- they're acting more like a gang." The judge agreed and issued restraining orders against Boycott B members: Nate Livingston, Steve McDaniels, William Kirkland, Kabaka Oba, Monica Williams, Shannan Clark and Amanda Mayes. Which by all known accounts, makes up nearly 75% of their membership. The straw that broke the camel's back was Frierson's contention:

She accused them of surrounding her car at a boycott event sponsored by her group last Saturday and then rocking the car, pounding its windows, hood and trunk and cursing at and harassing her.

Will the Boycott B group dissolve? Will the Boycott A group cower in fear of the militant tactics of the Boycott B group? Will Nate and Juleana settle their differences by taking a private moonlight cruise on the Ohio? Will Kabaka find the “White Man” pulling all the strings that “made” his son break the law? Will Amanda Mayes bash the Jews again? Will Damon Lynch III actually move to the neighborhood he seeks to champion, or at least live in the City of Cincinnati? To find out, turn in to our next episode of As the Boycott Turns.

Jury clears bar 'hero'
This excerpt from the article sounds like something:

"The grand jury reflects the community," said Hamilton County Prosecutor Mike Allen. "The only thing that I can surmise is that the grand jury felt the elements of the offense were not there."

What does it sound like??? Grand Jury Nullification, or one could speculate it sounds like Prosecutorial manipulation. Was Mike Allen pressured by the gun lobby or the concealed and carry lobby (basically the same group) to help get the grand jury to look the other way on charges of possessing a gun in a bar?

If all it takes for a person to get off is “community” opinion to be in their corner, then I think there have been quite a few people demonized by the Prosecutor’s office that should not have been. Hustler was one, Mapplethorpe was another. Oh, wait, could this “community” Mike Allen speaks of not be the community at large, but instead is the “community” of Republican donors and activists? Hmmm, do you think that is possible.? Phil Burress, say it “ain’t” so.

UPDATE: Additional Press reports -- Enquirer, WCPO, WKRC, WLWT, Plain Dealer, and the Dayton Daily News.

Voinovich feeling heat for tax vote
More criticism on Voinovich, who by all accounts deserves some. George was more concerned about a fictional number, the 350 billion. In typical political fashion George PR campaign as a GOP maverick was a scam. He found a way to appear to appease both sides, while pulling the wool over the voter's eyes. Same bat time, same bat channel.

Equirer: Forum Race relations
Yet another dialogue calling for more dialogue. Let us talk about the need for people to talk to one another. Why don’t we ever discuss the need for breathing?

The need for people to feel they are doing something is only outpaced by the need for people to think they should be doing something.

A FEW unkind words from The New Republic Online: etc. on Senator George Voinovich. He held to his 350 billion number, but caved on the dividend tax semi-repeal.

Just as a reminder to all concerned, I will not be getting any kind of tax cut under any of the plans put forth by the House or Senate or the President. That is Zero, nada, none, a doughnut, el blanko, nil, nothing, zilch, zip, not an iota of a tax cut.

No indictment for man who shot accused bank robber
Grand Jury Nullification at its worst. The man is clearly guilty of having a gun in a bar, no question about it. I wonder how forceful the Prosecutor pushed this case. I would guess not very hard. I am not shocked he was not charged with murder, but shocked he got off completely. I am surprised it went to the grand jury this fast. I wonder if any witnesses beyond police were even called. On the surface this looks like a white man getting a pass for being white. That is not what happened, but I can understand it if someone were to think it true.

Ethan Hahn has thought on this result as well, and shares my overall thoughts on this outcome, but disagrees with at least part of my post from yesterday on the concealed and carry law.

Vigilante man: Hero or felon?
Reluctantly speaking he is a felon. His ends were just, but his means sucked. For many in the conservative camp, that sits just fine with them. To those of us who believe in the rule of law, it does not. This raises the issue I have been talking about for a while in regards to the Conceal and Carry Law many gun nuts have been pushing here in Ohio. Why do they wish to take away the rights of private property owners? Why do many think people should be able to carry a gun anywhere they wish, without consideration of the owner of the property on which they wish to carry the gun? If I own a store, I do not want your gun in my store, regardless of my stance on the Conceal and Carry Law. As the storeowner I have liability to consider. If I allow you to carry your gun on my property, knowingly, I am potentially liable if you use your gun or if it accidentally goes off. Do I have to protect myself by putting up metal detectors at the doors?

The answer many gun nuts will give is "you don't have to worry about a trained law abiding person carrying a gun." My answer is: I sure as hell do have to worry about you. Why kind of idiot thinks that any smart business owner would trust anyone at face valuel? Why would I want any kind of lethal weapon in a shop carried by a person who could at any second shoot me in my store? If you "need" your gun everywhere you go, then I do not want you in my store. If you are in fear of being killed, then keep it out of my store.

How can any libertarian say that I, as a storeowner, must be required to let a person carrying a gun into my store, especially without my knowledge? Why are the gun nuts that feel the need to pack heat not addressing this issue? Is this addressed in the law? I read this section (pdf) from a copy of the gun law passed by the Ohio House and I am not completely sure how it affects the issue I am referring to:

Sec. 2911.21.
(A) No person, without privilege to do so,shall do any of the following:

1. (1) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another;


2. (2) Knowingly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, the use of which is lawfully restricted to certain persons, purposes, modes, or hours, when the offender knows he the offender is in violation of any such restriction or is reckless in that regard;


3. (3) Recklessly enter or remain on the land or premises of another, as to which notice against unauthorized access or presence is given by actual communication to the offender, or in a manner prescribed by law, or by posting in a manner reasonably
   calculated to come to the attention of potential intruders, or by
   fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to restrict access;


4. (4) Being on the land or premises of another, negligently fail or refuse to leave upon being notified by signage posted in a conspicuous place or otherwise being notified to do so by the owner or occupant, or the agent or servant of either.

(B) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the land or premises involved was owned, controlled, or in custody of a public agency.

(C) It is no defense to a charge under this section that the offender was authorized to enter or remain on the land or premises involved, when such authorization was secured by deception.

(D) Whoever violates this section is guilty of criminal trespass, a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.

(E) As used in this section, "land or premises" includes any land, building, structure, or place belonging to, controlled by,
or in custody of another, and any separate enclosure or room, or
portion thereof.

If this means that I, as a store owner, must tell you the gun carrier that you can’t carry a gun, then the burden is tougher on the property owner. That is clearly harmful and risky to the owner. Why should the owner have the responsibility to prevent you from carrying on a gun on their property when it is concealed and costly to take steps to prevent it?

The only even remotely rational reasons to carry a gun are of these two possibilities. (1) You have a direct threat on your life or of your immediate family while they are with you, or (2) your employment is deemed as “risky” like the pizza delivery person often used as an example. The carrier of the gun would be limited to time while working. These methods cover where real risk might occur. Others wanting to carry guns, in my opinion, suffer from an over abundance of fear, many of the lack of control of their own safety. If you fear other people so much to want to carry a gun, without any credible threat or risk, then I think you are more likely to use the gun in haste like our Citizen on Patrol mentioned in the editorial.