He might be convicted in Nov.

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/10/22...risham-verdict/

nailed it ^^

I'll be real surprised if there isn't a bill introduced in the next legislative session to prohibit carrying long guns in public.

if there is, it will get shot down so fast your head will spin.

Are yall forgetting that this is Texas?

Any legislator that brings up an anti gun bill can pretty much kiss his arse good bye.

You just don't understand. Let me explain it to you the way it's been explained to me by some fellow forum members:

You're not quite experienced, intelligent, and/or simply good enough to have a valid argument.

You cannot just go out openly not breaking laws and expect police not to arrest you for pissing them off, even if you're not breaking laws. By openly not breaking laws, you are in effect going to make the government change the laws to be that the non-lawbreaking activity you chose to do become illegal. Then nobody can not break the law, because it will then be against the law to do the non-lawbreaking activity you may/may not have been arrested for prior to it becoming illegal.

Because even though you have the right to not break the law, you not breaking the law upsets uninformed emotionally driven citizens, including uninformed emotionally driven police. This draws attention to the fact that your non-lawbreaking activity is legal, and the uninformed, emotionally driven citizens will band together, organize, and force our legislators to change the laws.

How do we know this? Because the more intelligent, more experienced, better members of this forum told me so.

And I am unintelligent! And inexperienced. And not good. I am downright stupid, because I just don't understand their reasoning...

For example, 300-400 open carry advocates went to the Alamo recently to open carry long arms as a peaceful, expressive exercise of their rights. These people are representative of a percentage of our population.

There is also another part of our population that wants to ban such acts. They were also at the Alamo to openly express their stance. There were in upwards of a dozen of them.

My inferior intellect leads me to believe that the people who wish to keep their open carry rights either:
A) outnumber the people who wish to ban such acts
B) are more active, passionate, and willing to sacrifice more to keep their rights that the people who wish to take their rights

Either one leads me to believe that it is ridiculous to think that representatives of the people of our state would join on the side of uninformed, emotionally driven people who are in the minority according to what I see in front of my face.


Some people here think gun owners should stay "under the radar", i.e. hide and cower, so that those that don't understand and are irrationally afraid of guns won't know that people have them all the time everywhere. Because once they know, they're gonna come take our rights, just like they did in NY, CA, NJ, etc. And Colorado.

Again, I'm just a stupid simple fool, because my thought is those places were inherently liberal, filled with people who expect security to be provided for them, without even realizing that the only person guaranteed to fight and protect you and yours is YOU. Colorado is an interesting one. Liberals flooded it, and the gun owners did what some of y'all suggest: flew under the radar. Now they've had ridiculous laws passed. So they fought back and recalled 2 senators. Working on recalling more, as well as repealing these laws.

However, some people would rather not go down the same path, but instead start fighting NOW and getting gun owners to rally together to let the liberals moving in by the droves know THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE PLACE FOR YOU. We have guns, we carry guns, and they do nothing to hurt anyone at anytime, because they are inanimate objects, and if you are too effing stupid to understand that, then GO BACK to the crime ridden, murder filled, gun-free utopia that you created instead of trying to change our home to be like your old one. If this is done before they move enough in to outnumber those that want to have control over their own protection, then we won't have to worry about recalling elected officials or repealing new draconian laws.


I'm not saying I'm on one side or the other, I'm just saying one makes logical sense, the other seems like emotional hyperbole.

Oh, and to add another point...

Mr. Grisham was willing to put his personal freedom and finances on the line for this cause.

A whole bunch of strangers were willing to pay the private costs of this trial.

That police officer was willing to spend all of your public tax dollars to prove his power .

That prosecutor was willing to spend all of your public tax dollars to prove his power.

That judge was willing to spend all of your tax dollars to prove his power.




But you get upset at the private citizen? And you think he doesn't have public support?



Things that make you go HMMMMMMMMM...

This poor sap is going to end up broke when they get finished with him. I sure hope it was worth it.

His legal fees are paid for. What you meant to say is the government will be throwing away tons of public tax dollars for no reason, and tons of citizens will be voluntarily paying the private costs. One is a cost voluntarily paid for, one is a cost forced upon American citizens. But ok.

Nope, that's not what I meant to say at all.

I apologize.

So please explain which poor sap you're speaking of, as well as by which process he is going to go broke. Will he go broke by fellow citizens voluntarily paying his legal fees, or due to his portion of the public funds being spent on this trial? Please clarify.

I apologize.

So please explain which poor sap you're speaking of, as well as by which process he is going to go broke. Will he go broke by fellow citizens voluntarily paying his legal fees, or due to his portion of the public funds being spent on this trial? Please clarify. [/quote]

Let it go man. Everyone's got their own opinions. We'll have to agree to disagree.

Let what go? You very obviously arrogantly stated Mr. Grisham was going to "go broke", which is complete nonsense considering it is public fact that his private fees are being voluntarily paid for by fellow citizens. That is a completely erroneous statement. By let it to, do you mean allow you to post completely ignorant statement without pointing out the the truth? If that's the case, no. Your statement was completely incorrect. You can provide factual reasoning for your statement, admit it completely wrong, or ignore me and move on. I will not, however, state that this a difference in opinion, as it's not. It's an incorrect statement, or it's not.


Guess what:

You're incorrect and talking out your butt.

It is my opinion that he will eventually run out of legal funds. I believe he's collected roughly 50K so far. How much is all of this going to cost him? And let me apologize, I didn't realize you could see into the future. Again, I hope his stupid stunt was worth it.

Let's make this clear. I read this:
"Prosecutors may choose to refile the charge, and if they do, said Larry Keilberg of NationalSelfDefense.com, “We will pay all legal expenses for another trial.”"

http://watchdogwire.com/texas/2013/10/18...n-grisham-case/

You take the FACT that his legal fees are already voluntarily paid for by fellow citizens to mean he will go broke paying for legal fees that are ALrEADY VOLUNTaRILY paid for by fellow citizens, I take the FACT that his legal fees are already paid for by fellow citizens to mean his legal expenses are already paid for voluntarily by fellow citizens. Sweet. You call it a difference of opinion, I call it you talking out of your butt. Doesn't matter what we call it, it is what it is.

Ok, you're right. I'm sure this will cost him absolutely nothing in the long run. It's probably all fun and games for him. Hiring lawyers, taking off work, sitting in court, etc. He'll probably come out smelling like roses. I call your opinion close minded, and not seeing the big picture. At this point, arguing about this is about as dumb as skateboarding down a steep hill.

I wonder what his Commanding Officer thinks about this???

I'm sure they love it. They probably fully support his actions, and all the attention it's garnering for the US military.

Sir, please take the time to read my posts, as well as yours, then we can have a discussion.

I have absolutely not endorsed CJ Grisham's actions as a path I would personally choose.

I have absolutely not argued that his choices and actions have affected his trajectory in life, or whether the effect is positive or negative in regards to CJ Grisham personally.

You clearly stated Mr. Grisham was going to "end up broke when they are done with him." I took "they", to mean the prosecutors/officers/judge spending a monumental amount of public tax funds on a misdemeanor trial as a matter of personal principle, and "end up broke" to mean the monumental (to a normal citizens, but still only a fraction of the public costs) legal fees to be incurred by Mr. Grisham would "break" him financially. To this I pointed out his legal fees are paid for. If you mean he will be "broken" financially due to his future loss of income due to nonpromotion/discharge from his military position, then I would argue that such an action by the military would create a more profitable position in the private sector, be it in civilian tactical training, media, or any number of positions available in the "private" sector. (No matter what anyone tells me, one can always make more money in the private sector, as the private sector provides an environment that actually produces something, which is the only way to produce a profit... But I digress)

Or perhaps you mean that he will be "broken" in spirit? To which I would argue that the more you take from a man, the harder they can fight back.

As for asking if his "stunt" is "worth it"... Whatever the consequences, he acted 100% within the laws and his God given (not government granted) rights as far as I am concerned, and those were his choices to make, not mine, and not yours. It doesn't matter whether I agree with what he did, I support his rights to do whatever his right is to do. He did not harm, nor threaten to harm, any fellow citizen at any time. (Unless you count hurting the officer's feelings. Which don't count with me as far as rights and laws are concerned.) Whatever personal consequences Mr. Grisham's actions cost him are from his decisions.

Any consequences from government action threatened upon American citizens due to one man's actions are an infringement of rights of all American citizens. The blame cannot logically be placed upon a single citizen exercising his God given right to protect himself in whatever fashion he feels appropriate, provided it doesn't harm any fellow citizens.

Or maybe I'm just some jacknut with no common sense, and no understanding of the personal responsibility of freedom. I can tell you one thing:
Any time an officer asks me to identify myself, I comply deliberately, at an appropriate speed, with a GIANT smile on my face, even if I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong. Because it's what I choose to do. And screw anyone that tells me I need to handle it differently. It's none of your business to tell me how to handle myself.

Any time an officer asks you to do anything, you can do whatever the eff you feel like doing. If it's within your God given rights, I support your right to do so. If it's within your local LEGAL right to do so on top of that? Definitely. Even if you're an a-hole. Your call.

Rant over? Sorry, I had a few beers tonight. I don't drink very often!

I wonder if he puts the opinion of his commanding officer above his personal convictions? (I think we all have a good idea of the answer to both of our questions)

Well since it is a personal matter the CO doesn't really have anything to do with it until the trial is done. Commander is probably supportive of the Soldier since the commander also volunteered to defend the Constitution. The man's security clearance, career and reputation as a Soldier is on the line. When was the last time any of the naysayers did anything to support others rights? Agree with his actions or not he has sacrificed a lot for this country.

It is all Bush's Fault.

Cdoan, this incident was an easy one to resolve but turned confrontational almost immediately......The officer should have been able to check out Mr. Grisham and then say "Thank you sir, have a nice day." Why the confrontational behavior toward police? This is the same behavior I have witnessed from on each of the videos I have watched with the Open Carry folks, hence my belief that they are doing it for a reaction from police and most likely the public and it will result not in more gun rights, but less.

Yep. I have had many positive meetings with folks who are armed. I have also had a few negative meetings. The positive meetings ended with a handshake and a mutual desire for our 2nd Amendment rights. The negative ended with a lesson in codified law and a real bad year financially for the untrained anarchists who think the internet is a source of information that will save them due to their paranoid behavior.

^^^^^Reality!

Sarcasm?

according to the times (2009) they dont think much of him at all

http://www.armytimes.com/article/2009120...ilitary-blogger