Friday, September 18, 2015

Someone has a highly refined sense of personal justice. Either that or the chief did to himself for sympathy.

'Open carry' retaliation? Bald Knob Police Chief's truck vandalized


Anonymous said...

I wouldn't put it past the "victim" in this case to have done this himself.

Sedition said...

Hopefully, the treasonous pig will be IN the truck the next time someone decides to remind him of the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous said...

exactly my thoughts too..who has the time to write out the word "Amendment" ..twice no less
while the owner was close by ? I think this is an insurance job cloaked in a gun rights piggy blanket

really wish some home in the neighborhood would come up with video of the owner lighting up and vandalizing his own POS truck

Anonymous said...

I agree with the first comment here (love that 5:56 timing by the way). Dude prolly did this to his own truck for attention - he's getting hammered by folks locally. People have had it with government agents being control freaks - and guns is now actually included in that ire.

I found it INTERESTING that he made a comment about "higher court deciding". This attitude tells everyone his position is "screw the constitution, screw plainly written enumerated rights.... I am going to side with ignoring it all and violating them all until and unless a court tells I can't". His default position is not erring on the side of liberty for the individual - it is power and control on the side of government over everything a judge will allow.

Got tyranny?

What he doesn't understand is that CURRENT president from his precious judges is that open carry is the right protected. Selective incorporation case law structure can withstand permits for concealed carry without affecting other rights but that only remains IF open carry is a permitless exercise of enumerated right. There is no way government can BAN open carry and then permit concealed carry. That amounts to a total destruction of a right. Now, courts might get away with permitting concealed but no permits for open and it might even pass muster to permit open carry if they leave concealed carry as a right requiring no permit BUT there isn't a structure where government can ban one and force permits on the other too.

This is the test that needs to be answered. Title 42 section 1983 defense against a CRIMINAL charge forcing the decision to be government to admit it cannot criminalize simple open carry.

Wisconsin had a carry ban. When folks realized CONCEALED carry was banned legislatively but open carry was not, it was those daring to open carry despite asshole cops claims that forces the democrats in Madison to relent their gun control. What came about is concealed carry permits while open carry is no permit and no testing. Wisconsin looked at Scotus precedents and drafted their law accordingly. That was done BECAUSE they got it through their heads that gun control was losing elections for relenting as they did, no permit open carry, they stopped most political gun issues.

If the SCOTUS tries to set as rage for gubmint banning one while permission slipping the other, it will be an open admission that there is no such thing as a right - that we ONLY have allowed permissions. When it came time to answer Heller, they didn't have the guts to admit we have only permission. And they won't try to claim it now. Judges at the top understand that the whole house of cards falls apart if people give up on their "authority". Claiming we have only permissions WILL BE the undoing and they know it.

This fool is gonna get his ass handed to him. Open exercise of rights can't be criminalized. Period.

Anonymous said...

I found the comments to be somewhat instructive.

A lot of those people just don't want to understand that if this country continues down the road it's on, they will long for the days where it was only arson and vandalism.


Josh said...

I'm 50/50 on stupidities such as this being an idiot thinking he's doing America good or a false flag. But ask yourself who benefits? Figure a chief would have surveillance or at least a dog or two who would have noticed someone spray painting the truck right in the driveway and then setting it on fire.

Anonymous said...

Poor Baby.....


Just the opening salvo, or rather, warning shot.

The victim didn't do this but I'll bet one of his unknown buddies did, and God bless him or her for it. It's about time.

Anonymous said...

Didn't the police prevent this from even occurring ? LOL.

Sucks to be him ! he should have dialed 911..that should make him feel better.

Maybe he did it himself. Who knows, no one has been caught.

oughtsix said...

No more trucks, but house next time!

udaman said...

I am not a betting man, but I would put money on the sheriff doing it. Typical Alinsky tactic of the left.