Supreme Court Again Ducks Second Amendment by Refusing to Hear Gun Cases

When it comes to the Second Amendment, their hands are on the other side. Why? (Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States)

“The Supreme Court turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state’s ban on assault weapons, which were used in recent mass shootings in a south Texas church and at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas,” the Associated Press reported Monday. “The justices left in place a federal appeals court ruling that upheld the Maryland law that does not permit the sale of a range of semi-automatic weapons and large-capacity magazines.”

That was not the only case the court turned away.

“Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public,” SCOTUS Blog explained. “In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place.”

The denials came with no comments from the justices. One prominent oath-breaking gun-grabber in particular was happy to provide one which the media was happy to repeat.

“It ought to be a lesson to all states, and I would hope that they would look at the 4th Circuit’s decision and the tragic events around the country and come to the conclusion that this is a common-sense law,” Maryland’s Democrat Attorney General Brian Frosh crowed. And that decision in a nutshell?

“[W]e have not power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Bill Clinton nominee and 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Robert King wrote.

Weapons of war are precisely what “We the People” are entitled to have. That’s why the militia was deemed “necessary to the security of a free State” by the Founders. And King wouldn’t have needed to extend anything. U.S. v Miller, a case from 1939 already observed a weapon would have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia [or] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

As for the Florida case, falling back on the manner of bearing arms (openly vs. concealed) as an excuse to tolerate infringements flies in the face of both historical customs as well as the “shall not be infringed” proscription. That seems to be a pretty clear mandate to everyone except to those who would deny rights to their countrymen under color of authority.

The absence of further High Court action since 2010 and the lack of any explanation for declining to hear these cases mean we can only speculate on the reasons. Are judges who favor easing up on infringements waiting for a retirement or two from their ranks before they’ll deem it safe to move forward, or does this mean the majority owes its first and foremost loyalties to an establishment that thinks this business of an armed populace has gone far enough?

In either case, infringements with the force of law behind them are being allowed to continue now, and as Dr. King observed, a right delayed is a right denied.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

—–

David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”

The post Supreme Court Again Ducks Second Amendment by Refusing to Hear Gun Cases appeared first on Oath Keepers.

Bunkerville Protesters On Trial – for Protesting

by Shari Dovale  August 2, 2017

The retrial of four Bunkerville defendants is underway in Las Vegas, Nevada. The first trial ended in a mistrial when the jury could not reach a unanimous verdict.

It is known that the jury favored acquittal in the previous trial with 2 of the defendants receiving 10-2 votes in their favor.

Additionally, the jury forms showed marks indicating acquittal, which were later scratched out over confusion on legal points.

However, the government has learned a few lessons since then. They have attempted to change their narrative to reconcile with, what they hope will be, a more popular view of their prosecution.

During the first trial, the prosecutors, including AUSA Steven Myhre, and Judge Gloria Navarro, spent considerable time calling the large group of protesters “unindicted co-conspirators”. They stressed to potential witnesses that their testimony on behalf of the defendants could result in their own prosecution. This resulted in claims of witness intimidation and more.

Judge Navarro has also taken an unusual step in the second trial by allowing the jurors to ask questions of the witnesses. This was, apparently, in hopes of changing the course of their prosecution to conform with what they believe the jurors wanted to hear.

The jury questions have shown that the members have been paying attention and are not completely on board with the government’s narrative. This has prompted changes from the government to alter their strategy.

Through the beginning of the trial, they did not make too many changes from the strategy of the first trial. I heard “unindicted co-conspirator” a couple of times, including from Judge Navarro.

All of a sudden, the prosecution witnesses are using new, yet specific, buzzwords during their testimony You will now hear “Constitution” and “Second Amendment” used on the witness stand, though it has yet to be announced that the defense will be allowed to use these same terms.

The most prominent witness to attempt the change of narrative was Ranger Edwin Whitteaker and his repeated use of these buzzwords. It was still obvious, however, that he had never read the Constitution, nor does he understand it’s concepts as he referred to the 2^nd Amendment as the right to “Free Speech”.

Why are these points so important?

Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, “Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.”

Remember that the government is now calling the people in the wash “Protesters”. This gives them First Amendment protection. They have the right to assemble. They have the right to question their government.

They utilized their Second Amendment protections during this protest, as has been noted by the prosecution witnesses. Nevada is an “Open Carry” state.

“Open carry” refers to the practice of carrying firearms in plain view in public spaces. Though most states continue to require a permit in order to carry a concealed weapon in public, most states now place few to no restrictions on open carry.

Therefore, the government’s big push to keep these right-wing dissidents in custody is all about a show of force to the general public that they cannot protest their government.

The Federal government has not placed the same restrictions on liberal groups, as is noted from the “Occupy Wall Street” and related protests. You will also note that the Ferguson riots were written off as the rights of free speech. However, the violence and destruction that were considered breaking the law were not prosecuted and the business owners were left to deal with these issues through their insurance companies.

The Bunkerville Standoff is noteworthy in that there was no violence on the part of the protesters. There were no shots fired though there were many firearms visible. There was no rioting, brawling or other altercation. The only “beef” you would see was Cliven Bundy’s cattle.

The government would have you believe, as per the testimony given in this trial, that the protesters came with violence in mind. The law enforcement officers were caught unawares and by surprised, therefore, they were in fear for their life. This is completely not true.

The officers knew that the protesters were coming. They had already begun negotiations to release the cattle. There were hundreds of law enforcement, from multiple agencies, on scene. They were not dressed in “riot gear” but in full battle gear and fully armed. There were snipers on the high mesa aiming their weapon at the men, women, and children in the wash and on the bridge.

Law enforcement showed aggression on April 12, 2014 in Bunkerville, Nevada. They sent a message to the world that right-wing, Constitution-citing, dissidents will not be tolerated.

Redoubt News

.

WATCH: Veteran Nearly Killed by Cops for Legal Open Carry Wins $175K, Gets Gun Back

Temple, TX – After more than four years, and $175,000, an Iraq War veteran finally has his firearms back following a confrontation with police that went viral in 2013.

Temple police seized a Black Jack Firearms AR-15 and a Kimber Ultra Carry Pro II .45 caliber handgun from Army First Sergeant C.J. Grisham, after they apprehended him on the side of the road, while he and his 15-year-old son were hiking for an Eagle Scout project in March 2013.

The entire incident was caught on film, and instantly went viral, causing outrage over the violation of Grisham’s civil rights. In the video, a compliant—but objecting—Grisham can be seen arguing the legality of the stop, the manhandling treatment he receives and his subsequent arrest.

Grisham knew his rights under Texas law, after having successfully completed concealed carry weapons training and securing his concealed handgun license. He also knew the stop was illegal.

Advertisment

Officer Steve Ermis was the first officer to make contact with Grisham and his son. Instead of inquiring as to whether Grisham had a CHL for the weapons he was carrying, Ermis approached Grisham, reached out and grabbed the AR-15, and as soon as Grisham’s hand came near it, Ermis pulled out his own gun and pointed it at Grisham.

Even though he was legally open-carrying his long gun, and legally concealed carrying his handgun, Grisham was manhandled by police, and when he questioned the officers’ legal reason for detaining and disarming him, he was arrested.

Ermis first charged Grisham with the misdemeanor of “resisting arrest,” but later changed the charge to interfering with the duties of a peace officer. Ermis then claimed that confronted Grisham for walking on the wrong side of the road.

READ MORE:  Officer Investigated After Video Shows Him Beating a 9-Month Pregnant Woman

Not only was Grisham charged with criminal activity, but he was forced to defend himself in court against the charges. Even though the first trial ended with a hung jury, he was eventually convicted in the second trial of “interfering with the duties of a law enforcement officer,” a misdemeanor, but it wasn’t without a hefty price.

Grisham’s court costs, legal fees, and miscellaneous costs were paid for by SelfDefenseFund.com and totaled $175,000. Larry Keilberg fund’s national director told the Temple Daily Telegram, Grisham’s case was the result of an, “out of control legal system starting with a bully cop, manipulation of the charges to fit the defense case, followed by a very biased judge, Neel Richardson.”

The video suggested otherwise. The officers on the scene told Grisham he was grossly displaying his firearm, and that people were in fear. Ironically, the only dangerous actions taking place with Grisham’s firearms happened when Ermis disarmed Grisham. The officer slung the rifle wildly, even pointing it in several directions without first clearing the rifle and ensuring it was unloaded.

Grisham questioned the Temple police officers knowledge of the law, and they proudly replied that they were “exempt from the law” and that the citizens “don’t care what the law is.”

But it’s what happened to Grisham’s guns after his arrest that is making news today. His Black Jack Firearms AR-15 and Kimber Ultra Carry Pro II .45 caliber handgun were not promptly returned to him, even after the trial ended.

It took over four years for Temple police to return his weapons, even after he demanded them back in December 2013. At first, the police department claimed they didn’t have them. Then they said a court reporter had possession of them in a secured room, but still didn’t return them to him.

READ MORE:  Facebook Goes Off-Grid: Announces that their Texas Data Center Will Run on 100% Wind Energy

Following the ordeal, Grisham became the face of Open Carry Texas in 2014. The gun rights organization push for the ability to open carry handguns in Texas, which became legal in January 2016.

On June 30, Temple police finally released Grisham’s weapons to him. The Temple Daily Telegram reported that Grisham’s first actions were to clean and test-fire both weapons to make sure that they still worked.

“I’m relieved that after 1,567 days, I finally have the guns back that were stolen from me by Temple Police Department on a back country road where I was minding my own business,” Grisham said.

Once again, local police have proven they apparently have more power than the U.S. Constitution. They can not only detain, and disarm someone, but they can make up charges, force a man and his family to go through lengthy and stressful court proceedings, and prevent him from protecting his family with legally obtained and possessed weapons. Oh yeah…and now he also has a criminal record.

Grisham sued in court but the case was dismissed. He could still appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, but he has not stated whether or not he will.

5 Reasons I Choose Concealed Carry Over Open Carry

Image source: Wikipedia

Make no mistake, I believe in the right of self-protection and the right to carry a firearm. While there are occasions when I carry openly — mostly in more remote locations and on the firing range — I much prefer to carry concealed.

While there are some advantages to open carry, I believe as a general rule you are much better served carrying your handgun concealed. Let’s take a look at five good reasons to keep your pistol concealed.

1. Be the quiet professional.

I much prefer to NOT let everyone around me know that I am packing heat. Yes, it’s a constitutional right. But why insist on advertising one’s armed status to the world? As discussed in the following outlined points, consider keeping the tactical advantage by not letting those around you see your firearm. Some people will immediately believe you’re a demented person whose intent is evil. Your carry demeanor is best served by blending in, being quiet about it and having some consideration for those who just don’t get it!

2. Keep the tactical advantage.

Understand that not all criminals burst through the door and begin shooting. Some are very calculating and cunning, and take time to surveil their surroundings. That could play out two ways for you. If you’re carrying concealed, your ability is well-hidden.

The Self-Defense Weapon That Doesn’t Require A Firearms License!

If you are carrying open, you may unfortunately be the criminals’ or terrorists’ first target. On the flip side, your open carry sidearm may dissuade the attack to begin with. Personally, I would rather maintain the element of surprise for myself and not be the focus of the bad guys’ ill-intent.

3. Don’t waste law enforcement’s time.

There are plenty of videos online showing confrontations between open carriers and law enforcement. And I get it: Many officers don’t understand the legalities of carrying open where it’s legal. But understand that law enforcement must respond when that call comes in of a “man with a gun.” Many times, officers don’t have a clue as to the circumstances, and therefore need to be cautious on their approach. Why waste the officer’s time in the first place when you can be discreet and avoid any contact with law enforcement? They have better things to do than have a discussion face to face with someone carrying open. It puts both parties in potential danger.

A self-examination of motives for open carry, and drawing the attention of police, can be a valuable exercise. If the aim is to educate, non-confrontational approaches are more likely to result in their willingness to listen with an open mind. If the reason is related to ego and drawing negative attention, that will likely be the outcome. Unfortunately, the resulting negative assumptions are often generalized to all gun owners.

4. Consider the view of the general public.

More and more of the general public today get downright upset when they see a gun carried openly. Being frightened or offended are common responses. Should you care? I believe so. Unless you live in a community where open carry is readily accepted and practiced, you’re asking for trouble. Gun owners all know that gun rights are generally under attack (now by individual states more than the federal government). Perhaps we all should choose our battles carefully. I would rather retain my ability to carry concealed than possibly lose it all.

5. Don’t encourage more restrictions.

The end result is the fight in state and local legislatures, not to mention at the federal level depending on who is sitting in the Oval Office. The unfortunate fact is that where you are sitting geographically in the country is what influences how big an issue you have ahead of you with concerning concealed carry — much less open carry. In recent months, we also have seen private business post signs against open carry or guns because of controversies surrounding the issue. Proceed with caution.

Final Thoughts

Some will interpret my position as anti-open carry. Nothing could be further from the truth. My only goal is to give you food for thought, having had a long career dealing with such issues. Bottom line: quiet and professional is a winning strategy.

Perhaps James Monroe said it best: “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred.” I couldn’t agree more.

Do you agree or disagree? Share your thoughts in the section below:

WATCH: Cop Stops Men for Open Carrying and Then Upholds His Oath to the Constitution

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution allows for all citizens to protect themselves and their loved ones by granting gun ownership rights to all Americans. But over the years, those rights have been impeded by what seems to be a laundry list of requirements gun owners must meet in order to be able to actually carry their firearm on their person. In fact, if someone doesn’t have a squeaky clean record, they’re more than likely not going to be able to carry a firearm in many U.S. states. Fortunately, law abiding citizens are undeterred in their efforts to exercise their rights to carry a weapon for self-defense. But to describe the inequities that still exist, we bring to you two videos of encounters with police by Michigan residents who choose to exercise their rights to open and concealed carry.

The first involves what is reported to have taken place in Flat Rock, Michigan. Two men, one named “Doc” and another unidentified man, were carrying AR-15s, slung around their shoulders and walking down the roadside in broad daylight.

Of course, almost immediately, neighbors called police who quickly responded and approached the two men. After a brief explanation as to why the two men were walking down the road, armed with so-called assault rifles, the men were allowed to go on their way, as they were committing no crimes by openly carrying their firearms.

The difference between openly carrying and brandishing a weapon is when someone is brandishing their weapon, they’re not only showing they have a weapon but are presenting it as if they’re ready to open fire on someone or something. The differences, unfortunately, are left to the interpretation of the responding officers, who could determine if your weapon is in your hand then you’re brandishing it. So care must be taken if anyone attempts to repeat what the two men were doing.

READ MORE:  Is Hell Freezing Over? Narcotics Cop is Fighting to End the Drug War - And He"s Getting an Award For It

Both men thanked Officer Mitchell for speaking with them and attempting to understand their motives for exercising their rights to carry their firearms openly.

In the video below, Officer Mitchel provides an excellent example of how and why police officers should uphold the rights of citizens. Bravo, officer Mitchell.

To contrast officer Mitchell’s response, consider the following incident. The next video describes what happened to one an who possessed a CPL (Concealed Pistol License) and was picking up food he’d ordered at a fast food restaurant. This man happens to be black.

It was probably a wise idea for Elijah Woody to broadcast live to Facebook his encounter with police that day. Woody said he parked beside the patrolman’s police cruiser so he knew they were inside the establishment. He looked on the door for a sticker saying firearms were not allowed inside the establishment and proceeded inside.

It was at that time the two officers who were seated, noticed the Black man and what appeared to be a bulge coming from his waistband. They approached Woody and asked to see his CPL. It’s at that moment he chose to begin recording. We’re glad he did.

We can clearly see the two officers standing patiently for Woody to produce his CPL, which he did. By the way, it is arguably more difficult to acquire a CPL than it is to strap on an AR-15 and walk down the street with it over one’s shoulder.

So, when he produced his license, the pair of officers should have smiled and said, “have a nice day,” and let him go on his way to enjoy his meal. But the officers chose to write down all of his identifying information to give to the “gun board,” something Woody challenged their knowledge of.

READ MORE:  Hundreds of Police Depts Requesting Armored Vehicles to Wage War on a Plant

Woody replied the gun board had been disbanded and there was no longer any such entity. He perceived the officers’ words to be threatening in nature and then fired back that they were racially profiling him, something Woody called, “Eating while Black.” The officers continued the perceived harassment by telling Woody he had an attitude, was using profanity, and was, therefore, acting in a disorderly manner.

It’s easy to conclude that the officers may have been trying to provoke Woody into reacting and thereby committing some crime. We see it all the time at TFTP. Officers will continue to apply verbal and physical pressure until a subject reacts, giving officers cause to use force, sometimes deadly force.

To his credit, Woody kept asking the officers if he was free to leave and enjoy his food. Once away from the officers, Woody began to express the frustration he felt in being what he called “harassed by cops” who knew the law but chose to infringe on his rights to engage in liberty. Officer Barnes refused to give his full name, and the other officer refused to do the same. They both appeared to know they would later be held accountable. We’re happy to oblige.

The two encounters serve many purposes. First, it’s fairly dangerous to do what the first two men did. It seems there are way too many trigger happy cops who’d like to get a commendation for killing two armed men brandishing their weapons on Michigan’s roadways.

Second, when dealing with police officers who are asking for your concealed carry license, it may be best to attempt to keep one’s voice at a minimum. Even though Woody was in the right, the longer the encounter continued the higher the volume his voice became. By his voice raising with each passing minute, it seems the tension in the room also increased. By all means, exercise your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If those rights include carrying a gun to protect yourself, by all means, do so responsibly.

READ MORE:  Video of Suspect Going for Cop"s Gun Shows How Hard it Actually is to Take a Cop"s Gun

Birmingham Group’s Demand for Gun ‘Laws’ Shows They Really Have No Clue – About Anything

So why do these “common sense gun safety law” advocates have an unholstered handgun at a public demonstration?

“Birmingham organization proposes changes to gun laws, named for Gate City shooting victim,” AL.com reports. “Frank Matthews, President of the Outcast Voters League, spoke about the proposed Sheri Williams Mandatory Gun Changes Act, named for a woman who was killed in Gate City by a stray bullet in 2013. Williams was holding her 10-day-old baby as she was shot.”

That’s SOP for these types. Pick a high-visibility incident that pulls at the heartstrings. The object is to get people feeling, not thinking. And naturally, none of the gun laws being proposed would have made a bit of difference in this case.

Just as naturally, the obligatory opportunistic oath-breaking politician made sure to get his mug in front of the press conference cameras. State Rep. John Rogers used the coverage to make noises about “fashion[ing] a bill that’s passable.” Considering what they want, that’s not likely (at least until the vote in Alabama becomes overwhelmingly Democrat, something the “immigration” and “amnesty” crowd is working on).

Outcast leader Matthews could not resist showing off his big “but.”

“We’re not against gun rights… [but] demand accountability and responsibility of gun owners,” Matthews said. Here’s what he means by that:

• Mandatory gun registration- owner has registration card that lists all weapons


• No transfers unless done through a registration office


• New purchases must be picked up at registration office


• Mandatory gun safes; only registered owner will have combination


• Mandatory gun safety classes


• Open carry and concealed carry policies abolished


• Waiting period for gun purchase extended to three months to allow all paperwork to pass


• People under 21 prohibited from owning guns


• Extensive mental evaluation


• Mandatory liability insurance for firearms


• Required reporting of stolen firearms within four hours of discovery


• Ammo purchases made only for the caliber gun specified on registration

There’s no real response to such Intolerable Acts beyond “No. Your move.”

Obviously these people have even less of a clue about what a “right” is and what “shall not be infringed” means than they do about finding meaningful solutions to problems created by the sick symbiosis between their community and collectivist government. And while it would be tempting to start going through some of the self-perpetuating destructive choices that keep the cycle going, it’s the token concealed carry permitee and gunquisling who unintentionally illustrates the absurdity of it all.

“Robert Walker, president of a local neighborhood association … had his gun with him at the press conference today to discuss how gun owners should support stricter gun laws and harsher penalties for those who carry guns illegally,” the story noted. Outcast President Matthews then held that gun, admonishing gun owners to be “responsible.”

Look at the article photo. What’s the gun doing out of its holster? How is handling it and passing it around either “responsible” or safe? Remember, these people are advocating ending all carry. So why do it? For publicity über alles…?

True, open carry is “legal” in Alabama, even without a permit, but there’s an important qualifier:

Section 13A-11-7 Disorderly conduct. (c) It shall be a rebuttable presumption that the mere carrying of a visible pistol, holstered or secured, in a public place, in and of itself, is not a violation of this section.

Is it “holstered or secured”?

And there’s another problem:

13A-11-59. Possession of firearms by persons participating in, attending, etc., demonstrations at public places. (a) For the purposes of this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this subsection, except in those instances where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) DEMONSTRATION. Demonstrating, picketing, speechmaking or marching, holding of vigils and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers. Such term shall not include casual use of property by visitors or tourists which does not have an intent or propensity to attract a crowd or onlookers.

Oops.

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.