Open Carry Rulings – St. John v. Alamogordo

I am sick and tired of seeing cops unlawfully commit un-Constitutional stops of individuals carrying a firearm in the

OC Stops are ILLEGAL
It is ILLEGAL for U.S. cops to stop citizens who open carry.

“open carry” manner.

On September 8, 2009, U.S. District Judge Bruce D. Black — a federal judge — held that the mere act of carrying a firearm in a lawful manner constitutes neither RAS (reasonable articulable suspicion) nor PC (probably cause), and that stops based solely on lawful carry are un-Constitutional.

In St. John v. Alamogordo, Judge Black’s 2009 ruling was at the U.S. District Court (New Mexico) level, which is a federal court.

U.S. Federal Court System
U.S. Federal Court System

He’s a federal judge, which means he was appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate pursuant to the Appointments Clause in Article II of the United States Constitution.

His research was very thorough and properly annotated throughout his ruling.  His logic was sound, if not impeccable.  As Bill of Rightsa result, several similar federal court rulings have followed suit.

For the complete text of the case, follow the link below.  It’s such an incredibly well-researched case that if you are ever stopped for no other reason than the fact you’re openly carrying a firearm (See Note 1), just hand it to your attorney and file suit against the offending law-enforcement officers.

Un-Constitutional is un-Constitutional, regardless of your town, city, county, state, or federal district.

St.John v Alamogordo Police Order – Judge Black

Note 1:  This doesn’t apply to the blithering idiots to wander around trolling for responses by cops so they can post them on YouTube.

U.S. Supreme Court FAILURE: Graham v. Connor (1989)

Sunny Hostin of CNN recently attempted to explain “When Cops Can Use Deadly Force.”  She failed.  Miserably.

Her explanation falls afoul of the Constitution, in part because the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. Connor violated the Constitution.  She could not have picked a WORSE case to use in support of “acceptable” police brutality.

In her video, here, she correctly stated that in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

When it comes to Graham v. Connor (1989), however, she erred, failing to state the case as the Supreme Court stated the case.  In fact, any cop listening to Hostin might think, “Ok!  I can slam someone’s head on the hood of my car if I even think they’ve committed a crime.”  WRONG.

Specifically, Hostin stated: “The officer’s actions were justified.”  By “actions,” she was referring to an officer stopping a diabetic who entered a convenience store for orange juice then quickly left after he encountered a long line.  The officer stopped him, and called for backup.  The arriving officers slammed his head onto the hood of a police car and caused serious injury.  Naturally, he sued.  Sunny also stated, “The officers reasonably believed the force they used was necessary to prevent or detect a crime in progress.”

Sorry, but I’m going to have to raise the flag, here:  BULLSHIT!

Here’s the ACTUAL Supreme Court finding: “An objective reasonableness standard should apply to a free citizen’s claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of his person.” The Court also outlined a list of factors for balancing an individual’s rights vs. an officer’s: 1) “the severity of the crime at issue”; 2) “whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others”; and 3) “whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”

In the case of Graham v. Connor, the suspect’s “criminally suspect” actions were that he entered a store and very soon after, he left the store. People do that all the time, and for a variety of reasons, like they forgot their wallet in the car or left it unlocked, or they changed their mind and decided to go to a different store. No “reasonable” person would EVER find that suspicious, and by wrongly claiming the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court FAILED it’s Constitutional duty to uphold our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

More specifically, the Graham Court cautioned that “The “reasonableness” of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”

Sorry, Supreme Court, but THAT’S BULLSHIT. Those who enforce the law are called to a higher standard than that. SCOTUS, you’re also forgetting that In criminal law, Blackstone’s formulation (also known as Blackstone’s ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Benjamin Franklin stated it as, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer”. This was also held in English common law, that “All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer” (Commentaries on the Laws of England).

John Adams also expanded upon the rationale behind Blackstone’s Formulation when he stated: “It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished…. when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, ‘it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.’ And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever.”

Yet that’s PRECISELY what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Graham v. Connor:

  • They FAILED the Blackstone test.
  • They FAILED Adams’ exposition.
  • They FAILED Benjamin Franklin’s version.
  • They FAILED our Founding Fathers (both Adams and Franklin were Founding Fathers).
  • They FAILED We the People.

The Supreme Court even FAILED the Bible on which they swore their oath of office, as the Blackstone tests originates from Genesis 18:23-32, where Abraham drew near to God, and said, “Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? … What if ten are found there?” He [The Lord] said, “I will not destroy it for the ten’s sake.”

In Graham v. Connor, the United States Supreme Court FAILED the people of our great nation. In so doing, they opened the door to one police brutality atrocity after another, the likes of which will probably never end until the Supreme Court REVERSES its decision in Graham v. Connor.

UN: Control Ebola or Face an “Unprecedented Situation”

As reported by Fox News on October 15, 2014, the United Nations has issued an ultimatum to the United States of America: Control Ebola or face an unprecedented situation.

What the UN means by “unprecedented situation” can be found on the UN website (,ebola in their response plan for the Avian Flu, under Objective 6: Continuity Under Pandemic Conditions: “Ensuring the continuity of essential social, economic and governance services, and effective implementation of humanitarian relief, under pandemic conditions.”

UN World Control

Reading between the lines, as well as observing their response throughout other nations, this includes the mandatory implementation of the UN’s other agendas, most notably confiscating all firearms for the “safety of all response workers.”

Similar indications can also be found on the World Health Organization’s website, in their Global Alert and Response (GAR) whopage ( “Coordinate and support Member States for pandemic and seasonal influenza preparedness and response.”

Again, reading between the lines, the WHO brings the doctors, while it’s parent organization, the UN, brings the muscle.

This is further echoed in their August 28, 2014 Ebola Response Roadmap (

This document clearly states it’s purpose on page 5: “To assist governments and partners in the revision and resourcing of country-specific operational plans for Ebola response, and the coordination of international support for their full implementation.”

While they tie their “country-specific operational plans” to the “Ebola response,” the fact remains that an OPLAN is an OPLAN. It’s an Operational Plan. That’s military lingo for how an organization intendeds to accomplish its mission, and their specific intent for the United States of America comes through rather glaringly in Objective 2 on the same page:

2. To ensure emergency and immediate application of comprehensive Ebola response intervention in countries with an initial case(s) or with localized transmission.

The key activity of Objective 2: “Coordinate operations and information across all partners, and the information, security, finance and other relevant sectors.

The most alarming aspect of this document, however, involves their definition of “security:”

Security: where necessary, and particularly in areas of intense transmission and short term extraordinary containment measures, national/local authorities must plan for and deploy the security services necessary to ensure the physical security of Ebola facilities. National/local authorities must give particular attention to ensuring the security of the staff working in Ebola treatment centres, Ebola referral/isolation centres, laboratories and, if required, for teams working at the community level to conduct surveillance, contact tracing and safe burials.”

I have no problem with ensuring the security of Ebola treatment facilities. The question is, under Obama’s management, will it ever stop there? What legislation is in place to prevent overbearing law enforcement from pulling the same crap as the New Orleans Police Department pulled on American citizens immediately following Hurricane Katrina?

Since Day 1 at their training academies, American law enforcement officers have been taught to “control, control, control.” When you put them into a widespread situation, many of them are overwhelmed. They fall back on their training without any regard for the Constitutional implications that what they’re doing is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG. It might be suitable for a localized riot. It is NOT suitable for widespread chaos. This was most dramatically exhibited when SWAT teams busted down door after door after door in Boston immediately after the marathon bombing.

Did they respect our Constitutional rights? No. THEY BLEW RIGHT PAST THEM.

Again: What U.S. Federal Legislation is in place to ensure that NEVER happens again? What penalties are in place for local, county, state, and federal law enforcement officers, as well as augmenting forces like the National Guard, to prevent them from crossing the line?

Comments within the document such as “repurpose existing programmes [sic] to support control efforts” with respect to “security” indicate they have ZERO intention of respecting our Constitution.

un gun controlWhat’s next?  The widespread confiscation of firearms “for your safety?”

Here’s a thought: Instead of assuming Americans are idiots, let’s try another route: Education. Let Americans do what we do best: Control ourselves.

In 2012, immediately following the Mountain Shadows flare-up of the Waldo Canyon fire, I and all other residents of my apartment complex were denied access to our domiciles for five full days, despite the fact that residents in homes on either side of us were allowed to return after just TWO days. We were told it was for our “safety,” despite the fact we were no less safe than those homeowners.


Again, Congressman Lamborn: What legislation, specifically, do you have in place to ensure these rampant denials of our Constitutional rights NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN?

With few exceptions, We the People are perfectly capable of controlling ourselves. We’re well aware of the risks to both ourselves and others, regardless of what Obama is saying to the contrary.

All we need are clear and unambiguous guidelines. We don’t Obama lying to us in pathetic and misinformative attempts to calm our nerves. Older generations grew up during the Cold War. Younger generations watch The Walking Dead every week. Let’s get real!

As a retired USAF Officer, I remain well-trained in CBRNE operations. Most of my neighbors do not have my training, but given the fact this is a military town, there are a LOT of us scattered throughout the community who do.

Even those who are untrained, however, know the risks. If they’re told to limit travel for food and work, use hand sanitizer or wear and discard gloves, keep their shoes in the garage, and wipe down all doorknobs and other touched surfaces with a soap/water/bleach solution, I’m pretty darn sure they can handle that!

I can’t help but wonder if this is the beginning of the end of the United States of America.

By refusing to close our borders and by bringing in infected individuals, Obama is INVITING a UN takeover of our country. He’s long been looking for a way to either ditch or circumvent our Constitution, and I believe he may very well have found it.

UNLESS, of course, laws exist which clearly limit the scope of his many executive orders, most of which were drafted during his first term, yet clearly targeted to give him absolute dictatorial authority over our nation in times of crises — whether those crises were unavoidable, or, as many of us believe, manufactured by Obama himself.

On October 15, Dr. Ben Carson said, “We’ve known for a long time that [Ebola] has this kind of potential. That’s the reason that several weeks ago I said it was a real mistake to bring infected people in to this country in any way.”

Indeed it was. Yet Obama continues to allow it.

My question to you, Sir, is WHY?


DUI Checkpoints and Safety Stops DO Violate Your Constitutional Rights

Do these checkpoints and stops violate your Constitutional rights?  Some say yes, some say no, and legislators, governors, judges, and lawyers abound on both sides of the argument.

I have mixed opinions on this, but technically, these “safety stops” do violate the Fourth Amendment’s right against unreasonable DUI Checkpointsearch and seizure, as the blanket warrants under which these operate fail this clause of the 4th: “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Strike 1. There’s no probable cause. Driving, even at night, does not constitute probable cause.  Abnormally erratic driving constitutes probable cause.  Driving in and of itself does not.

Strike 2. There’s no “Oath or affirmation” attesting to probable cause.  The oath or affirmation can’t be blanket.  It must be tied to a specific event, such as, “I hereby swear or affirm I observed the driver wandering back and forth across multiple lanes of traffic.” Bill of Rights That’s not what’s happening at these checkpoints.  They are indeed looking for evidence, but there’s the rub – that’s precisely why the 4th Amendment was created, to prevent such encroachments in the first place, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

Strike 3. There’s no specific description of the place, persons, or things to be seized. SCOTUS upheld specificity requirements in earlier decisions, and have NOT overturned themselves on this count in all subsequent 4th Amendment decisions.

Whether or not driving is a privilege or a right has no bearing on this case.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re in your home, your vehicle, or walking down the sidewalk, as the 4th Amendment says you’re to be secure in your persons.

In summary, these DUI checkpoints and “safety stops” fail all three of the 4th Amendment requirements.  Furthermore, as all Amendments become a part of the Constitution itself when they’re passed, these stops violate the Constitution.  Thus, they violate your Constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure, period.

All the other “privilege” and “safety stop” crap is just that: CRAP.  It’s been tossed out there for decades to get around the simple fact these police state thugs are VIOLATING “the supreme Law of the Land.” – U.S. Constitution, Article VI.

All levels of U.S. Law Enforcement need to STOP violating “the supreme Law of the Land.”  They need to STOP violating our rights.

We the People need to START doing MORE, not less, to reign in the Constitutionally unlawful police state.