Home » Blogs » Texas CHL Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle

Texas CHL Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle

Dan Zimmerman - comments No comments

There’s no way to know what exactly went down before this video starts (at least until the dashcam video is released), but at minimum, the Temple, Texas PD — including the responding sergeant on the scene — seem to be woefully misinformed about Texas and Constitutional law. And the sarge’s “we’re exempt from the law” comment is a classic of the genre. Charles Cooke at nationalreview.com talked to Army Master Sgt. C.J. Grisham, the gun owner in question, and got his side of the story. Though he was apparently not charged, Grisham’s lost his rifle, sidearm and his CHL, at least for now. Grisham told Cooke that this has “happened in the past with other soldiers” and he believes it’s “a workaround loophole for gun confiscation.” At first blush, it would appear that the taxpayers of Temple, Texas could have some large legal bills in their future.

0 thoughts on “Texas CHL Holder Arrested for “Rudely Diplaying” a Rifle”

  1. My, my isn’t this little band of “Happiness is a Warm Gun” fans just a bit defensive today… feeling like your abusive rhetoric just may have contributed to the carnage?

    Oh, and guess what the Senator that got that poison letter is in hot water with the Tea Party crowd for? You guessed it, he was one of the TP gang that had the temerity to vote against the gun legislation filibuster, hmmmm…

    Time to cook up another batch of anti Obama (isn’t he the 1st black president?) venom ‘patriots’.

    Reply
  2. I just hand my DL & CC license at the same time, I’m not required to in Wis. I have been treated with respect & an almost “your one of us attitude” Randy

    Reply
  3. As far as I can tell, the only statute related to the open carry of a long arm is the Disorderly Conduct statute, PC 42.01. All the other firearms carry statutes only relate to handguns. PC42.01 states: “(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly: …(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a public place in a manner calculated to alarm.” So, this is why he was only charged with interfering with an officer, which is covered in § 38.15.
    “INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person
    commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence
    interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
    (1) a peace officer while the peace officer is
    performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by
    law;”

    I think it’s going to be pretty hard for them to prove his actions constituted criminal negligence. Also, 38.15 (d) states: “(d) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that
    the interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference alleged
    consisted of speech only.”

    Reply
  4. I fully support our honest and hard working police officers out there who conduct themselves accordingly. I know your jobs involve long hours, little appreciation, and a shit ton of dirt bags.

    This is one instance, however, where the appropriate response is “F^CK THE PO-LEECE!”

    These mouth breathing excuses for cops look straight outta Porky’s.

    Reply
  5. It’s an awesom gun. I am the proud owner of number 3. Took a Sitka Black Tail on Kodiak with it this fall. Love it

    Reply
  6. Just rhetorically – Why should a law abiding citizen allow himself to be disarmed, deprived of his property, and taken into custody by a “law enforcement” officer who blatantly states “we’re exempt from the law”? Should we allow ourselves to be manhandled and degraded by some jerk in a really snappy uniform who is willing to state ON CAMERA that he is above the law. And I totally endorse the gentlemans comment that any officer that feels threatened merely to be in the presence of a lawfully armed citizen is a sorry excuse for a policeman. When I was a Game Warden nearly everyone I approached was armed. We normally worked in pairs, but I spent many a shift solo. Out in the middle of nowhere. Approaching people who were armed. All – Day – Long. And unless I had a strong and sufficient reason, I treated them with the courtesy and dignity due a citizen of our free country. My fellow officers would have laughed me out of the unit for a hysterical, over the top, pussified reaction such as is on display in the video. When did we cease to require common courtesy and common sense from our boys in blue? There are going to be some of the armed citizenry who might make a different computation from the above outcome. Incidents like the above will lead to an escalation in violent confrontations. If our official “law enforcement” representatives make it clear they are not going to enforce the law, why calmly comply?

    Reply
    • I met three very cool LEO’s in Wyoming (two National Park Rangers and a Game Warden). Despite me being a guest from NJ, they didn’t bat an eye or make a single comment about the GP100 on my hip, openly carried while I was accompanying my brother on an elk hunt (archery season). In fact, they divulged some hunting tips, we all had nice conversations, and even shared a camp fire with the off-duty Game Warden. I deeply respect LEO’s who deeply respect everyone’s rights. Fatty’s like the above… not so much.

      Reply
    • “Why should a law abiding citizen allow himself to be disarmed, deprived of his property, and taken into custody by a “law enforcement” officer who blatantly states “we’re exempt from the law”?”

      Because any other direction will do no good and end bad. Letting them do unconstitutional shit won’t hurt you at the moment and will only bolster your case in court. Getting too uppity at the scene will never win that battle. The real battle is in court after the fact. The fuzz getting ruled against and having to fork over cash has a great chance of the rank and file being told to knock it off when it comes to effin’ with people over some bullcrap like “rudely displaying”.

      Reply
      • You missed the part about how “forking over cash” means YOU fork over the cash, plus the rest of the taxpayers. The asshole who violated your rights won’t pay a penny. The only reason this misbehavior on the part of cops continues is because there is a lack of personal consequences.

        If you approached a stranger on the street the way that cops approach people and interacted with them the same way, doing something illegal that represents aggression against their natural rights (Life, Liberty, Property), they’d have every right to defend themselves from your aggression and that includes using deadly force.

        If we want change, we have to inspire people not to encourage illegal acts of aggression or other misbehavior by submitting to it, then only pursuing remedies which only further penalize the innocent. That’s got to stop. Personal consequences will change the behavior.

        Reply
        • Seems to me there was a SCOTUS case in the early 20th where a man killed an officer for an illegal arrest. He was cleared of charges. I can’t recall the specifics, sorry.

          Reply
  7. I find it hard to believe you could get an explosion of that magnitude from gun powder in a pressure cooker thrown in a backpack. Ammonium Nitrate was probably the material used.

    Reply
      • Not anfo
        It’s an explosive useing household chems the ingredients and directions (including the pressure cooker) are in the first issue of Inspire Mag.
        The explosive was also mentioned in Farnham’s Freehold by R. Hienline, which, oddly enough has a plot where africans take over the planet and institute formalized cannabalism

        Reply
  8. Hi Robert,

    I’m flattered that you chose my photo to accompany your piece, but I’m afraid I can’t license the work for external use… it’s only available for use on my site. Could you please use a different photo?

    Sorry for the trouble,
    Brady

    Reply
  9. For me, however, this scene raises a very interesting question.
    Do you have to comply if you are being detained/arrested
    illegally? We are told that ignorance of the law is no excuse if
    we break it. So what’s the playbook if a LEO detains/arrests
    you out of ignorance? I’ve always regarded it as good practice
    to ask for a LEO from an another agency, refuse any commands
    and sit tight until they arrive. For instance if you have a
    problem with local PD call for a Sheriff’s Deputy or State
    Trooper. I’ve responded to several fires and accidents over the
    years where a local PD has tried to take over command of
    fire department operations (regardless of law and incident
    jurisdiction). Once after a car accident, I was threatened with
    arrest because I sent my ambulances with critically wounded
    victims to the hospital without waiting for an okay from a
    responding LEO. In many of these case I’ve had to have the
    LEO removed from the scene. At no time did I comply with
    their directives because they had no authority and (in my
    cases) could have ended with someone being injured or killed.
    Anyway, thoughts?

    Reply
    • If a citizen peon doesn’t know the law, they get to live in a cage. If a cop doesn’t know the law, well, nothing, absolutely nothing.

      Reply
    • You have a common law right to resist an unlawful arrest.

      That being said, you’d better be very careful about doing it. The scale of things that might be worth resisting arrest for are like if they are arresting you as a pretense of dragging you out to a field to execute you. Or if they are arresting a woman as a pretense of bringing her someplace to rape her.

      Sure you have a right to resist an unlawful arrest, but the better plan is to not risk getting your guts blown out by a shotgun blast by a cop who now feels like you are a threat to him because you just shoved him.

      This man is lucky to be alive right now and he has transformed what might have been a clear violation of his rights into a very murky situation that will be very, very expensive for him no matter what happens.

      And don’t talk to the cops. What a fool.

      Reply
      • Yes. Just remember that while some LEOs will
        comply with the request others will become
        aggravated. However, if the LEO refuses to call
        and does not allow you to, it’s time to get
        worried. A lone LEO, might be just a jerk on a
        power trip, or they might not be an officer at all
        but a crook in disguise (literally not figuratively)

        Reply
  10. I have no sympathy for this assclown. He does not represent us. The officer was simply answering a complaint and wanted to talk to the man and all he wanted to do was to argue and make an incident out of it. If he simply answered the officers questions, he would have been out of there in like two minutes.

    I don’t care about his previous service, its his current conduct that I am concerned about.

    Reply
    • Your knees are also getting dirty Rydak. The cops should have told the complainer that the citizen was not breaking any laws.

      Reply
      • “The cops should have told the complainer that the citizen was not breaking any laws.”
        How would the officers come to that conclusion exactly ?

        Reply
        • Fairly easily,

          “is the individual engaged in any nefarious activities besides walking with his son and carrying a ‘deathStick’? No…well you are aware Sir or Ma’am that it is perfectly legal in the great state of Texas to openly carry a weapon without fear of reprisal from fellow citizens or law enforcement?”

          Does that sound ok to you, or is it normal for officers to harass law abiding citizens for engaging in their Constitutionally protected Rights?

          Reply
    • We don’t know what happened before the video was started, had the police officer did in fact attempted to take the mans rifle without explanation I would be pissed off as well. But you are right, we should just submit to anything the police tell us to do. Even if it is illegal and unjustified. we should Just submit and don’t make any waves.

      That sarcastic spouting out of the way I agree he could of handled himself better but I 100% understand why he was pissed and showed it.

      Reply
      • I don’t think anyone said we should just do whatever the police tell us, but walking with an AR15 , in front of your chest, not over the back, in broad daylight…..you have to know the police *May* be stopping you for a few questions, and when they do, they are gonna want to check to see that your not prohibited from possessing a firearm….which is what these officers said over and over.

        Reply
        • Again we don’t know what happened before the video but if the man is telling the truth then the cops are in the wrong. If the cops are doing something illegal then why should he have to just go along with it.

          “they are gonna want to check to see that your not prohibited from possessing a firearm” Again the man said they did not follow standard procedure. The officer tried to take the rifle without asking for it, he tried to use force. If the officer did in fact ask politely and follow standard procedure then they were in the right, but again we don’t know.

          Reply
  11. I’m sure other police officers will be appalled by their brother in blue and stop at nothing to prosecute him. Just like Holder will seriously vow to arrest any who violate the registry-keeping of the M-T act.

    Fear of traitors in political office taking away our rights, fear of “peace officers” regularly acting as jackbooted thugs with no repercussion. Is this really America?

    Reply
  12. God bless Todd Vandermyde. He is tireless (seemingly, he would probably admit to being tired) in his defense of the 2nd amendment in Springfield. Gun owners in Illinois owe a lot to guys like Todd and John Boch. I hope to someday shake their hands and buy them the adult beverage of their choice.

    Reply
  13. The ISRA is a fantastic organization to have in Illinois. Keep up the good work.

    If Illinois does go “May issue” we need to modify our tactic come election time. We can point out how they jumped at the chance to create a bill that nobody wants.

    What’s total BS is that they just refuse to try it. Why they can’t just grab a state with a good CCW model and adapt the verbage for our own?
    With the court ruling, they had an opportunity to make it happen without pissing off their fan base. They could argue they had no choice.

    Now they risk being proven wrong if a good CCW bill goes through. I wonder how that will play out.

    Reply
  14. FYI for Farago, since he’s moving to Austin, Temple is a speed trap if you’re going to be driving up to DFW. Most places between SA and DFW on I-35 you can just go with the flow, but do NOT speed through Belton and Temple.

    Reply
  15. A few points of clarification if anyone can provide them. Frist, what is AG-UUW? I figure UUW is unlawful use of a weapon, but AG in myspeak is Attorney General. Second, since we haven’t had a report in a long time, what is it that Rahm wants that he thinks he can ram down the Legislatures throat? And why would it cost the state a billion per annum?

    Reply
  16. Nobody seems to have mentioned this, but the cop flagged the sh*t out of the guy with his pistol as he handed it to the other cop.

    Reply
  17. Guys, here is the way this problem will be solved, and the ONLY way it will be solved: if cops try to do illegal things, people must take the same action against them as they would against any other person. That means, using the same theory that cops adopt, that their life is more important than anyone else’s life, that if someone points a gun at you, you have the right to shoot them to terminate the threat to your life.

    What are we all taught in basic gun safety instruction? Don’t point your weapon at anything you don’t intend to destroy! Therefore, if someone is pointing a weapon at me, I am going to assume they have had basic gun safety instruction, and that therefore they intend to destroy me. Hence, its now a shootout. First one on target wins.

    If enough cops get killed because they are doing stupid crap like abusing their authority and acting outside the law, then it will get around, and that behavior will stop. But it won’t stop until then. Why? Because there needs to be a consequence that serves as a deterrent to make a behavior stop. If there is no consequence , or the consequence is only positive, and never negative, then it will simply continue unabated. It is not too much to expect and demand that cops behave legally. The government and cops expect that of the citizenry, so that expectation is a reasonable one that can and *should* be universally applied to everyone.

    I argue that it is a matter of simple logic, that if they cannot understand what those boundaries are, then they are definitely too dumb to be public servants, and likely are simply not equipped to even to survive in this world of ours, even without the inherent hazards of working in a law enforcement capacity.

    Here’s a little primer on “How to stay alive as a cop”:
    Check your ego at the door. Treat people with respect, and the way that you would expect others to treat you. Do not under any circumstances, take any action which you are not authorized to, and surely do not do something that would be a crime were it committed by any “regular person”. And for pete’s sake, don’t ever have the audacity to think, let alone *say*, that the law does not apply to you. That’s the kind of thing that will get you killed. And , you’ll probably deserve it.

    Rant off….shields up…I don’t give a crap what anyone says. This is the reality, and if you can’t handle it, well, you’re probably an ego-maniac cop.

    Reply
  18. Why is it the majority of gun owners, at least in here, can have a sane, rational and coherent conversation but the anti- gunners get caught spewing emotion based lies, they almost always resort to hysterical name calling?

    Reply
  19. I live in irving (right next to Dallas) and ive never had an issue with the local PD.
    Not to say there arent a few bad apples….

    Reply
  20. The theory of engagement we should all be operating on exclusively in our interactions with law enforcement is “citizen safety”. That’s right. My life is more important than some cop’s. My job as a citizen, as a person, is to come home alive every day to MY family. That’s my only concern. If anyone gets in the way of that objective, then screw em. Its me or them, and I don’t need any rules or guidebooks to clarify that any further. Anything is on the table to ensure “citizen safety”. If I have to empty a magazine into someone, then so be it. Just another day of making the world safer for ME, and ensuring MY safety.

    Reply
  21. This is a perfect smokescreen for politicians to sneak something past us while our attention is diverted. It is sad that we have to be on our guard over our rights at a time like this, versus mourning.. But, we must, because they won’t let a crisis goto waste 🙁

    Reply
  22. I want to say something original and witty, but this incident just depresses me. If the arrest was not legal – and I am not terribly familiar with Texas law – then the man definitely should seek compensation.

    Reply
  23. I have nothing to add on the gun issue, but I do on the quote above, “A weapon’s proximity to narcotics may be sufficient to provide the nexus necessary to enhance a defendant’s sentence.” The government decided over the last 99 years that it can do just about anything it wants to. Legal “possession” of a drug have never in my lifetime meant what “position” means commonly. If you happen to be standing in a room where there are drugs, you are in “possession” of those drugs if a cop says so. Similarly, if a cop wants to arrest you for drug trafficking for passing a joint to a friend, he can. That’s what I don’t understand about gun rights people: the government has been on tilt for so long in so much more invasive ways, I don’t know what you’re complaining about. Increased background checks? Really?! You think if the government didn’t want to take away all guns, they wouldn’t do it, and do it as effectively as they lock up more people than any country in the history of the world? If you do, you’re living in a dream.

    Reply
  24. All I can say is, the time for talk is over. As a retired Combat Vet, I am ready to stand and fight for the 2nd Amendement if you all are.

    Reply
  25. Trust me people, this is a False-Flag. Prepare and beware.

    And to those pissin and moanin on here about not being sensitive to the 3 dead people, tell that to the husbands of the dead women and children Obama just bombed with drones. Believe me, as I have seen the carnage first-hand—the US has yet to suffer as much as they have.

    Reply
  26. I am not a big fan of these “open carry” guys walking around town with Ar-15s. Its asking for trouble. Nonetheless, it is legal (for now), so this type of unwarranted police detention is no different than the “driving while black” stop. These cops need to be fired for thinking the law does not apply to them. Also, I did not see anything that justifies a “disorderly conduct” charge. Telling a cop that he is violating the law is not DC; it is free speech.

    Reply
  27. “One child is holding something that can be used in America to protect them. Guess which one.”

    There; fixed that for you.

    Reply
  28. From my experience in the military I would not be surprised if the LEO’s targeted him for being from the base. It happens more often than most realize.

    While we do not know what happened before the camera was on, the way he was acting did not do him any favors.

    I do not know what the local policy is on confiscated weapons but for all we know he saw something he liked and decided to make sure it was confiscated.

    Reply
  29. The cop was wrong but unfortunately if sued, the taxpayers will pay the bill. The cop will continue to be employed and collect a pension. You see, ignorance of the law only works one way.

    Remember that many states are bound by collateral estoppel. Many states including but not limited to, Rhode Island, Ohio, Wisconsin, and many others have made the argument that it is legal to walk around with a rifle or shotgun in public and that is how people can bear arms. Generally legal under state law in EVERY state except for Hawaii. These arguments have always been made to support the notion that handgun carry can be restricted or prohibited.

    I believe at one time when pistol carry was illegal, the state Attorney General made this argument in state Supreme Court and WON… therefore, collateral estoppel would apply.

    For all those talking about Disorderly Conduct… let me translate… it means “contempt of cop”.

    Reply
    • “it is legal to walk around with a rifle or shotgun in public and that is how people can bear arms. Generally legal under state law in EVERY state except for Hawaii.”

      And California. No walking around in public with long guns – even unloaded – in incorporated cities. AB 1527, Sept 2012.

      Reply
  30. I forgot to add, Governor Perry might want to stop touting that Texas is some 2nd Amendment Haven. Arizona, Kansas, Indiana, and New Hampshire are much friendlier to the 2nd Amendment and they seem to have a smaller ratio of abusive jack booted cops.

    Reply
  31. I know this isn’t high on the list of things to debate here, but can anyone tell me why the hell the author of the article used the word “genre” as he did? What category of composition does said comment come from? Music? Literature? Art? And, within those categories what genre? Indie pop music? Neoclassical art? Such confusion. /light hearted scarcasm
    Seriously, it ticks me off when people stick random “it” buzzwords in places they don’t belong. A stupid comment is not a “genre” nor is the man who made it, his set of beliefs, behaviors, habits, or affiliations.

    Reply
  32. I have lived in Temple, TX for a few years. While I believe that this guy probably made the situation worse with his reaction, it does seem to me that this officer was completely out of line. I agree with the above, I would like to see the dashcam video. From what I can tell, whatever he was doing, the guy wasn’t breaking the law. I’m surprised and ashamed to see our local officers act this way, and that sergeant’s “exempt from the law” comment makes me physically ill.

    Unfortunately, there is an enormous bias against our servicemen in this area. Police are far more aggressive toward active duty members, assuming them all to be either PTSD basket cases or violent criminals. These men and women sacrifice so much for us, yet we treat them like garbage in their own front yards.

    Reply
    • It’s happened to us, family heirloom, original german luger was on the item lists of things recovered but when we picked up the property, the luger was not there, asked, bothered, called, letters no one knew anything and was eventually told to F-OFF. – Was a robbery and they were caught in the truck running, all item were supposedly still in the truck, it was documented as being recovered but between the the police and the pick up, it disappeared.

      Reply
  33. I actually sent an email to TTAG about this two weeks ago. I have known CJ for some time and know his reputation in the IC, he is a good dude. He is not the first soldier to have this happen to. I had a good friend from SF who was being prosecuted for a gun violation that was bogus in Colorado, the damn guy was trying to save a mother and child from three criminals who were trying to break into the house. It never ends.

    Reply
  34. “Democrats believe Republicans will have a hard time explaining why they voted against legislation that secures more money for school safety and closes the so-called gun show loophole.”

    This is where the “stupid party” becomes a real liability. The Dems have figured out the public still doesn’t want gun bans or confiscation, and the above will be the spin for the 2014 campaign. The GOP better be ready to buy a lot of ads quoting Schumer, Feinstein et al saying they really want to ban guns, or the school safety/”gun show loophole” line of BS will work and we might have bigger, badder, Bloomberg-ier gun control in 2015.

    Reply
  35. One thing that is not mentioned is how organized and focused gun-rights voters can be.
    We don’t fall for political tricks as gun-control advocates do. We are better informed, more vigilant, and we vote accordingly.

    Reply
  36. Great interview! We need to really work on showing that gun ownership spans every demographic, and this is a really great example of that.

    Reply
  37. One more gun owner that sees the light. Also another example that the Democrat / Republican labels simply do not fit. If we must resort to labels, then the only close to accurate would be pro and anti gun.

    Most also agree with the “hate” remarks and her assessment of Obama and politicians in general.

    Now, I wonder how many “fair minded” followers of TTAG are going to take the low road and make disparaging remarks about her life choices?

    Reply
  38. Doesn’t seem that non-traditional to me. She is a veteran and like many people who served in the militray still likes to have a gun around. I know lots of women who served in the military who have guns. What makes her atypical is that she is a female Vietnam era veteran who was not in the medical field.

    Reply
  39. The only judgement I would question is her voting for Obama the second time. Otherwise, I’ve got no beef with her other choices. Especially the .45 over the .380.

    Reply
  40. Just a suggestion, I think “non-stereotypical gun owner” would be a better tittle than “non-traditional”.

    Good article non-the-less. I would say that if she didn’t realize BO was anti-gun owner before either election she just wasn’t paying attention.

    Reply
  41. Ayotte was the last possible R they could shave swayed for Manchin-Toomey and that was even with all the Democrats voting yes which won’t be the case with Prior and Landreau since they would get destroyed in their elections next year.

    Very surprised Kay Hagan of NC came out in support for all this garbage, guess she doesn’t want to be a Senator anymore.

    Reply
  42. The Do-All Double Blast spinner is a piece of garbage. I’ve shot it with .223 and 5.56, and if you hit the “circles” of the spinner, it works quite nicely… anywhere else and you’ve destroyed it. Hit a leg? It’s gone. Hit the support beam? It’s gone. Even if you hit between the circles, where the steel has been twisted, you will drill a hole straight through. Drilling holes in wood is a great idea to support it, because late summer, it becomes impossible to get it into the ground. I brought it to the range once and it was useless when I left. Maybe sticking to pistol rounds will save its life, but the box does say up to .30-06. I have some of the spinning prairie dogs coming and I look forward to using them after reading this review.

    Reply
  43. I am watching it now. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

    Call YOUR SENATORS NOW! It’s not too late. I was able to get through easily and the phone lines should be so BUSY THAT THEY ARE SHUT DOWN. The media can lie easily about where the real votes are on this thing. So, don’t rest on what they say. Call and email your senators now!!

    Reply
  44. Even in California we have enough of a castle law to shoot an intruder. We’re not required to interview him for his intentions. Naked man. I could tell the DA I saw his gun and fired. I doubt the DA, even in Alameda county, would file charges.

    Ermey, on the other hand, may have me doing renditions of “This is my rifle, this is my gun…”

    Reply
  45. Menendez just said that not banning “assault weapons” is asking for more “gun violence”.

    These fools are reading from the same book.

    Reply
  46. Is there anything special about the loading port on that shotgun or can I use this technique just as well with a stock Remington 870?

    Reply
  47. It seems to me that the big winner in all this “I was for it before I was against it” stuff is the NRA.

    The NRA never back M-T in the first place, so it has no apologies to make. Well played, Wayne.

    Reply
  48. A kitchen is a dangerous place – lots of knives & other sharp objects, not uncommonly kept on countertops within easy reach. Anyone: 1. in their birthday suit, 2. coming into my kitchen, 3. uninvited, 4. at an hour when I’m asleep – will meet the same fate as this guy.

    The bright side is that perhaps now there will be one less homeless person.

    Reply
  49. Requiring a license to carry is in itself unconstitutional, so the outrage over this is a secondary grievance at best. Where’s the outrage for needing a carry license in the first place?

    Reply
  50. Well said Jim. Those people are heroes. We are all saddened by the loss of life and the injuries, both mental and physical. I keep my firearms to protect me and my family. I don’t want to have to hurt anyone. I would prefer peace. I don’t want to have to worry about my family every time they are not around. At the same time, of there is a threat to my family
    you bet I will defend them. With my own life if it comes to that.

    Reply
  51. House in place? Cue the little people! Ding dong the witch is dead, which old witch, the wicked witch! (forgive me, I grew up in Salem Village Mass.).

    Reply
  52. Wow, I never thought m-t stood even a microscopic chance of being defeated. We can’t celebrate. Ever. They’ve been at this for over a century, whittling away at our rights. We musn’t compromise, every compromise brings them one step closer to victory in the next fight. We have to stay awake, and go on the offensive.

    Reply
  53. Judge Eddie Eagle however you want – who else has spent the time and the dime to do anything better? Our young’uns can do nothing but benefit from the basic tenets taught by Eddie Eagle.

    Reply
  54. He did not get arrested for “rudely displaying” a rifle. He got arrested for “resisting arrest”. The guy is an idiot. Screaming “shut up!” at the cops. Owning and carrying a gun requires responsibility and brains. This guy has neither. I have nothing against him carrying the AR around. But common sense tells you it’s going to be an issue and cause problems. So unless you’re looking for problems, leave it at home. I own 4 AR’s and if I saw this guy walking down the street, I would think “I wonder what that’s about??”. Not everyone walking around with an AR is a bad guy. But not all of them are good either. You just never know these days. Unless looking for trouble, leave the AR at home.

    Reply
  55. As a CHL holder he should have been trained to know cops can take your weapon while the complaint or situation at hand, whatever it may be, is being investigated. The guy was right that he had done nothing wrong and if so his guns would have, by law, been returned to him. Maybe on the spot. Instead the guy became agitated and despite the CHL training he had, or should have had, he decided to become a roadside lawyer with a cop…NEVER A GOOD IDEA regardless of the situation! He became so agitated that the cops probably decided that returning the gun to someone in his state was a bad idea. If he sues it will go nowhere. His own video will lose the case for him..assuming a judge even lets it go to trial.

    Reply
  56. This guy is a loud mouth asshole. Too bad an Iraqi bad guy did not grape this piece of shit so we did not have to deal with him.

    Reply
    • Yes, He’s a loud mouthed POS. HE got what he deserved when he went looking for trouble. He wanted the confrontation he got.

      But your: “Too bad an Iraqi bad guy did not grape this piece of shit so we did not have to deal with him.” shows you to be no better. And in fact, probably worse.
      Jus’ sayin’

      Reply
  57. The last time I was called in for jury selection, during the voir dire, I played my get off the jury free card by asking the prosecutor to explain jury nullification. He replied in so many words that he was not allowed to discuss that in court.

    Reply

Leave a Comment