Judge’s Courtroom Rant against Guns Warrants Filing Citizen Complaints
By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “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.
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 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News .
Source: http://www.ammoland.com/2016/09/judges-courtroom-rant-guns-warrants-filing-citizen-complaints/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).
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.”