Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By AmmoLand (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Judge’s Courtroom Rant against Guns Warrants Filing Citizen Complaints

Friday, September 30, 2016 13:57
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

By David Codrea

Judge Walker put his disagreement with the U.S. and Oregon Constitutions on display along with his disqualifying biases. [Photo: Screenshot, The Oregonian, Facebook post.]

USA – -( “If I could I would take all the guns in America, put them on big barges and go dump them in the ocean,” Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Kenneth Walker proclaimed while addressing a cowardly killer who scoffed at gun laws and evidently assassinated the wrong target. “Nobody would have a gun. Not police, not security, not anybody. We should eliminate all of them.” [See video here.]

Sure seems like a good reason to disarm all of us who didn’t do anything bad, no? Although how the robed incompetent expects police to catch and bring such murderers into his courtroom remained unstated.

And so much for the false narrative from the left that “no one wants to take your guns.” Of course they do. That “common sense gun safety” line is just for the rubes.

Walker went on to wish for Australian-style citizen disarmament, called guns a “scourge,” and claimed there is “no defense to guns … just absolutely no reason to have them.”

He did acknowledge with regret that “it is a right of people in this country to own and possess them, and I will not say anything to affect that right.”

He kind of already did. Perhaps he felt compelled to add that because he has not yet ordered court security to disarm. Or perhaps there’s a more self-serving reason he remembered to mention it.

Judge Walker’s outburst make it fair to question how serious he can be about keeping faith with his oath of office, which is required in accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and § 1.212 of Oregon Revised Statutes. His oath applies to both the Second Amendment as well as to Article I. Sec. 27 of the Oregon Bill of Rights, which states:

The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

Perhaps Walker feels his last-minute addendum gives him cover.

The thing is, he’s also made it fair to question how someone on trial for a gun-related offense can reasonably expect fair treatment in his courtroom. That’s also a requirement from the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct, which compels, among other non-negotiable mandates, compliance with Rule 3.3, “Impartiality and Fairness,” and Rule 3.10, “Disqualification”:

A judge shall uphold and apply the law and perform all duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, fairly, impartially, and without bias or prejudice…

A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice…

A judge shall not take any action or make any comment that a reasonable person would expect to impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any Oregon court…

A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality…

It would appear that only an unreasonable person would not question Judge Walker’s impartiality when it comes to guns.

So what can be done? In a just world, he’d be impeached. There certainly are grounds for it. Here’s how to get that process started.

If I were an Oregon gun owner, I’d be inclined to fill out a complaint form and send it to the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. They’d be required to advance it through their system, it would be something to rally other gun owners around, and it would demonstrate to the public that there’s no place for bias on the bench — regardless of the issue. It would also let the judgment-impaired judge know that — contrary to the intemperate arrogance that makes him think a courtroom is a forum for his un-American bias — he’s just a lousy employee, not a ruler.

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

This post Judge’s Courtroom Rant against Guns Warrants Filing Citizen Complaints appeared first on Shooting Sports News .

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S.
    1, 78 S. Ct. 1401 (1958)

    Note: Any judge who does not comply
    with his oath to the Constitution of the

    United States wars against that
    Constitution and engages in acts in violation

    of the supreme law of the land. The
    judge (is engaged in acts of treason.)

    The U.S. Supreme Court has stated
    that (no state legislator or executive ) or

    (judicial officer) can war against
    the Constitution without violating his undertaking

    to support it.

    Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137,
    180 (1803)

    “… the particular phraseology of the constitution of the
    United States confirms

    and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all
    written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is
    void, and that courts,as well as other departments, are bound by that
    instrument.” “In declaring what shall be the supreme
    law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not
    the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall
    be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank”. “All
    law (rules and practices) which are repugnant to the Constitution are
    VOID”. Since the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states “NO
    State (Jurisdiction) shall make or enforce any law which shall
    abridge the rights, privileges, or immunities of citizens of the
    United States nor deprive any citizens of life, liberty, or property,
    without due process of law, … or equal protection under the law”,
    this renders judicial immunity unconstitutional.

    Davis v. Wechsler , 263 US 22, 24.
    “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can
    be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.”

    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be
    converted into a crime.”

    Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of
    this exercise of constitutional rights.”

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.