The Gun Grabbing Mayor of Hurst, Texas

The Gun Grabbing Mayor of Hurst, Texas
By
James Scott Trimm

As I have said many times before in my blogs, the majority of voters in Hurst are conservatives.  Unfortunately, out of over 22,000 voters, only between 1,000 to 2,000 voters vote in our city elections.  The result has been that liberals are running our city.

One very good example of this is our Mayor Richard Ward.  The vast majority of Hurstonians strongly support gun rights in fact many are NRA members.  And most Hurstonians are shocked to learn that our Mayor uses his position as Mayor of our city to promote Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun agenda, and help lobby for anti-gun laws nationwide! 

Richard Ward is one of only seven Texas Mayors to sign onto Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a coalition of over 1,000 mayors that support gun control.  In an appearance on “Meet the Press,” Bloomberg announced that his intent is to counter the influence of the NRA.

When Richard Ward joined MAIG he signed the following statement of principle: "Keep lethal, military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines off our streets."

In 2009 MAIG successfully lobbied against the enactment of the "Thune Amendment," which would have allowed interstate concealed carry of firearms by individuals who hold valid concealed carry permits (either issued by their home state or another state) in much the same way that our drivers licenses are recognized by other states.  Our Mayor supported this action by MAIG saying:

"...I do not want one state to be able to force another by federal law to allow them to carry a concealed weapon into another state ..."

(Richard Ward, Oct, 10th 2009)

Mayor Patricia Shontz (R) of Madeira Beach, Florida wrote, “I am withdrawing [from MAIG] because I believe the MAIG is attempting to erode all gun ownership, not just illegal guns.  Additionally, I have learned that the MAIG may be working on issues which conflict with legal gun ownership.”  She went on to say, “It appears the MAIG has misrepresented itself to the Mayors of America and its citizens.  This is gun control, not crime prevention.”

In a 2009 statement Mayor Richard Ward expressed his own opposition to the NRA saying: "…the NRA has totally brainwashed its members." (Richard Ward; Oct. 12, 2009)

 Just a year and a half ago Mr. Ward bragged that while he had gotten over 100 letters from his constituents who are NRA members, urging him to leave MAIG, he had refused to do so, and continued to be reelected.  Ward bragged:

“The next election I got 90 percent of the vote,” he said, chuckling. “After that I got 86 percent — they’re gaining on me!”
(New York Times; Jan. 17 2013)

Mayor Ward is laughing at his constituents for failing to remove him from office.

Hurst residents should know that our Mayor uses the title of the office to which our citizens have elected him, to stand firmly against gun rights nationwide!  This is despite the fact that the majority citizens he has been elected to represent support gun rights very strongly.  This amounts to a betrayal of the very citizens Mr. Ward was elected to represent.

(All quotes from Mayor Ward taken from Joel Downs Correspondence with Mayor Richard Ward  https://www.facebook.com/notes/joel-d-downs/correspondence-with-hurst-mayor-richard-ward-about-guns/150812329778 )

Visit our new website:
http://www.hurstconservatives.com

If the Second Amendment were any Other “Right”….

If the Second Amendment were any Other “Right”….
By
James Scott Trimm

There has been a lot of discussion lately about the right to bear arms, so I thought it would be helpful to compare the way we treat the right to bear arms right, to the way other rights (or so-called “rights”) are treated.  When we do so, I think you will see that a certain hypocrisy becomes obvious.

Lets begin with an apocryphal pseudo-right, the right to an education.  (This is not a true “right” if one understands what a “right” actually is, but that is a whole different blog). 

If the right to bear arms was treated like the so-called right to an education, we would not only be allowed to own a fire arm, we would be required to own one, and if we could not afford a fire arm, one would be provided for us by the state.

What if the right to bear arms was treated like the pseudo-right to healthcare that liberals speak so often about?  Imagine not only being required to own a fire arm, but having to buy one that met certain government standards and being fined (or taxed) if you could not prove on your taxes that you owned one.

Now lets compare the right to bear arms to our first amendment rights.

What if our first amendment rights were treated the way our second amendment rights are as a matter of routine?

Imagine if you could only wear a “What Would Jesus Do?” T-shirt if you had a license, and then only if the t-shirt is concealed?  How would that go over?  We seem to accept this treatment of the right to bear arms, when we would never accept the same treatment of our first amendment rights.


And what does “infringed” mean?  A fringe is the border of something.  To infringe on something is to intrude even on the furthest border of something,  This word implies that the founders intended this right to be given the broadest possible application, and they certainly never intended this right to mean that we must conceal our firearms.

Part of the value of bearing arms is the principle of peace through strength.  Reagan won the cold war by applying this principle.  But would Reagan have accomplished anything if we had tried to conceal the fact that we had arms from the Soviet Union? Of course not!

Folks, it is high time that we started demanding that our second amendment rights be treated the same way that our first amendment rights are treated!

RINOS PUSHING AMNESTY

RINOS PUSHING AMNESTY
By
James Scott Trimm

Well once again the RINOs are intent on committing party suicide, and its time for an intervention…. again. 

I want to make it clear that there is not an anti-Hispanic bone in my body.  My wife’s maiden name is “Valencia,” she is half-Hispanic and we have been married for well over twenty years, so I have no animosity whatsoever toward Hispanics.  The issue I want to address is not about race, but about legal immigration vs. illegal immigration.

The RINOS are intent on some form of amnesty for illegal aliens.  This would instantly create millions of new Democrat/Liberal voters and very likely transform Texas from a solid red state into a blue state.

Liberals are drawling at the possibility that they might actually get RINOS to hand them the state of Texas on a silver platter.  Texas is a solidly red state.  No Democrat has won a statewide election in Texas since 1994.  For over twenty years our real election has been the Republican nominations and the general election has been a mere formality.  All of that would almost certainly change overnight if illegal aliens were given amnesty. 

You may notice that I have used the term “illegal aliens” and not the politically correct “new speak” term “undocumented immigrants”.  Folks, if illegal aliens are “undocumented immigrants” then drug dealers ore nothing more than “unlicensed pharmacists”!  

And rest assured, any form of amnesty or legal status, even if it is not called “citizenship” will surely lead to giving these persons the right to vote, even if a “deal” is crafted that specifically says that they will have no such right.  That is because the liberal federal courts, stacked with Obama appointees, will certainly rule that such a deal would be essentially creating two classes of citizens and thus unconstitutional.  The courts would then almost certainly give these persons the right to vote.  Democrats know this, it has long been their strategy to use the executive and judicial branches to cram their agenda down our throat, regardless of what the people vote for, regardless of the laws passed by the legislative branch, and in complete disregard for the balance of powers.

The fact is that sneaking into our country should not make you an American, any more than breaking into my house makes you a member of my family.

Dad, There’s Big Government in Our Back Yard!

Dad, There’s Big Government in Our Back Yard!
By
James Scott Trimm

Today I want to blog about my own personal experience with big government in the City of Hurst and its flagrant disregard for my personal freedom and my constitutional rights.

Sometime around 2006 I started having “problems” with a certain code enforcement officer.  Among other things, we received a citation for having “rotting fruit” in our front yard.  (The rotting fruit was the natural fruit which dropped from a pear tree in our front yard, the tree had been there since before I was a small child in the 60’s and in all of those years we had never been cited for this occurrence of nature.)

Then in May of 2011 this same code enforcement officer put a sign in our front yard stating that our grass was to tall and iv violation of city code… although the grass of the house next door was the same height, and the grass across the street was noticeably higher.  I made a video at the time, demonstrating this: 

Find more videos like this on Nazarene Space

At this same time I was issued a citation for “trash and rubbish” in my yard.  I was anxious to get to my court date to find out what this “trash and rubbish” actually was, but before we could get to court, yet another citation was issued for “trash and rubbish” in our yard. 

A few days before our preliminary hearing, my children came to my bedroom to inform me that there was a team of men doing yard work in our back yard.  I ran outside and asked what was going on, and they told me that the city had sent them.  (It seems the city was going to send me a bill for this). 

At this point things had gone to far, so I called my attorney, Larry Meadows, and he told me to ask them if they had a court order, and that of they did not, to tell them to leave my property, and tell them they had no right to go into my back yard without a court order and/or a warrant. 

Sure enough, they had no court order, and they left.  I spoke with the code enforcement officer who had sent them and she informed me that she would be back with a court order.  She did ask the judge for a court order a few days later and he did not grant her request. 

In the following months we dealt with the “trash and rubbish” citations.  At first we were told that our property was the most complained about property on the Mayor’s complaint line, but when we asked in discovery for all records of these complaints, the city turned out not to have any record of any complaints.  At one point the code enforcement officer showed the judge a photo which she claimed that she took of our back yard from the street using a telephoto lens, despite the fact that she had never gotten the required court order for optically aided surveillance. 

Finally we received in discovery photographs of the “trash and rubbish” which turned out to be nothing more than overturned lawn furniture, an overturned lawn fertilizer and a lawn mower, scattered in my back yard.

The problem is that the code enforcement officer had gone wandering around in my back yard taking pictures, with no warrant, in complete violation of my fourth amendment rights.

Our Texas courts have consistently maintained that a Texan’s right to privacy extends in a suburban setting to the backyard of his or her home, even where there is no fence and where there is not a “no trespassing” sign.  In 2004, the Waco Court of Appeals concluded the defendant's unfenced backyard was curtilage of his mobile home. Pool v. State, 157 S.W.3d 36, 41–42 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.).  That court said:

[W]e are loathe to hold... that residents failing to erect a complete enclosure around their backyard no longer enjoy Fourth Amendment protection in their backyard. This type of bright line rule would restrict Fourth Amendment protections to only those capable of affording such enclosures, while those incapable lose privacy interests in their backyards.

And in a 2010 case, the Fourth District, San Antonio Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant had a constitutionally protected right to privacy in his backyard even where there was no fence and there was not a "no trespassing" sign posted anywhere on the property.  Cooksey vs. Texas, 04-10-00424-CR. 

When it came time to set my case for a jury trial, the municipal judge at first assigned me a court date which fell on Rosh HaShanna.  I checked my calendar and politely responded that I could not be in court that day, because it was Rosh HaShanna.  He asked what that was, and I politely responded that it is a Jewish holiday.  The judge then asked his court clerk in a sarcastic manner, if the Tarrant County courts were open on that day.  The court clerk responded “yes” and the judge then informed me that his court would be open as well, and that I was to be in court on that day.  I then responded with shock and bewilderment “Really?  You wont respect a Jewish holiday?  The Tarrant County courts are closed on Christian holidays, why should I be treated differently.”  At this point the judge begrudgingly rescheduled my court date.  I had wondered why my attorney, who shared my religious beliefs and was standing next to me, had not complained.  He later told me that he was planning a formal motion and an then appeal, because Texas has a statute that specifically required the judge to rule in favor of a sincere request to reschedule a court date due to a religious holiday.

So the day came for our jury trial, my attorney had a “Motion to Suppress” in his briefcase, ready to file, when the city suddenly wanted to “make a deal.”

Let me add here that up to this point the city attorney had refused to negotiate period (and we had tried for months to dialog with them).  But when we showed up for our jury trial, suddenly they wanted to make a deal.  And the deal they offered was to good for me to pass up.  They agreed to drop one of the citations completely and agreed to wave any fine on the other if I would agree to 20 hours of community service.  Since my attorney was a personal friend working pro bono, I did not feel I could ask him to work free through a jury trial, when I could make the whole matter “go away” with 20 hours of charity work.  However my attorney did clarify with the city attorney, that code enforcement should not be going in my back yard without a warrant in the future.

This whole matter was symptomatic of the big government problem we have in Hurst Texas.  Limited government does not go wandering in your back yard looking for code violations.  Limited government does not seek to regulate the natural occurrence of fruit falling from a tree.  Limited government respects your personal freedom and most especially your constitutional rights of privacy and freedom of religion.

You can listen to myself and my attorney Larry Meadows discuss this case at length in this 2011 podcast of "Restoring Our Nation":

By the way, if you ever need a lawyer, I can definitely recommend my friend, Texas attorney Larry Meadows at http://www.meadowsllp.com who represented me in the above case.

Subscribe to Concerned Citizens of Hurst for occasional email updates

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

My 2014 Runoff Endorsements

My 2014 Runoff Endorsements

By

James Scott Trimm

As you all know I have been blogging in favor of the values of limited government, personal freedom and individual determination.  In keeping with these principles I am endorsing the following list candidates in the upcoming runoff election (May 27):

Lt. Governor: Dan Patrick
Attorney General: Ken Paxton
Agriculture Commissioner: Sid Miller
Railroad Commissioner: Wayne Christian
State Board of Education District 11: Eric Mahroum
State Senator District 10: Konni Burton
County Criminal Court #2: Atticus Gill
County Criminal Court #3: Alexander Kim
Justice of the Precinct 3: Lenny Lopez

I do want to say that in some races we have some good candidates running, and in at least one of these races it was a tough call, so do not take these endorsements to mean that all of their opponents are big government liberals. But I do believe that each of these candidates are, in my opinion, the best choices.


Early voting: May 19-23

Election Day: May 27


If you live in Hurst, I encourage you to subscribe below to receive occasional email updates from Concerned Citizens of Hurst:

Subscribe to Concerned Citizens of Hurst

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Crony Capitalism and Abuse of Power in Hurst

Crony Capitalism and Abuse of Power in Hurst

By

James Scott Trimm

I am writing today about something that actually occurred many years ago in Hurst.  Why am I writing about it now?  For several reasons:

1. This event first made me personally examine that our City Council was not following the conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom and individual determination which were held by the conservative majority of our citizens. 

2.  Many of those that where on the council then, are still on the council now. 

3.  The big government that prevails in our council with its lack of respect for personal freedom and self-determination (and therefore property rights) has not changed.

4.  The negative economic impact of this event on south east Hurst is still being felt today.

Back in the late 1990’s our city council was responsible for one of the most egregious abuses of the eminent domain power in the history of the United States. 

The power of eminent domain is a power that government has, that allows it to force the sale of private property.  The intent of this power was to provide for situations where the overriding interests of the community require such a sale.  For example, if a new school or fire house is needed in a community, and the property can not be reasonably obtained by any other means.  This power was used to make the railroad and interstate highway system possible. 

This power was never intended to be used (or should I say, abused) the way the City of Hurst abused it.  The City of Hurst forced over a hundred home owners to sell their property,  (whether they wanted to or not), not for a new school or fire house, but to expand a mall and build an adjacent shopping center!

That’s right, they sold out the very voters who put them in office as they plunged neck deep into crony capitalism. 

Let me make it clear that there was no overriding need in the community for added retail space, to the contrary, there was vacant retail space at shopping strips just across the street from this proposed development.

This villainous abuse of the power of eminent domain was so egregious that it led to a new state law in 2005 limiting the use of this power in the future,   If they did today, what they did then, it would violate the law, but at the time, it was simply an abuse of power.

It was this abuse of government power that first got my own attention as to the level to which our city government had become totally out of tune with the conservative values of the majority of our citizens.

This was not limited government, it was not personal freedom and self determination, it was instead the most vile disregard for property rights and the worst kind of crony capitalism.

Not only did our city government sell its own citizens down the river, it also chose the winners and losers, engaging in crony capitalism that has had a positive effect on south west Hurst at the expense of south east Hurst.

The conversion of a large residential area into a large shopping strip full of new stores created an economic vacuum that sucked the economic vitality right out of shopping strips and businesses further east down Pipeline Road, creating a “low rent” district in south east Hurst. 

Yes the loss of economic vitality in south east Hurst today is due in part to the crony capitalism through which our city council sold its own residents down the river.  That’s right, I said it!

You may recall that I said that many of those that were on the council then are still on the council now.  One of these is Henry Wilson, who was quoted at the time as saying:  "We're doing something neat for all of the citizens of Hurst." (Dallas Morning News; April 13, 1997)

Of course not everyone was a loser.  I myself was a winner.  I live in south west Hurst, and this event drew economic vitality to my neck of the woods… interestingly a number of our city council (then and now, some which have been on the council since that time) live in south west Hurst, but I do not believe any lived in south east Hurst (I am open to correction on that point, if any lived in south east Hurst.). 

Now the council talks about restoring the economic vitality of south east Hurst, when they were in fact the ones that have destroyed it in the first place. 

Conservatives in Hurst are finally waking up and change is coming!

Subscribe to Concerned Citizens of Hurst

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

A Wake Up Call for Hurst Conservatives

A Wake Up Call for Hurst Conservatives

By

James Scott Trimm

Well Joel Downs lost the City Council election yesterday by only fifty-four votes!  The election is over, but “it” is not over.  I am confident Joel Downs will run again, and with what we have learned this time around, I think he will easily win next time.

More importantly the Joel Downs campaign has changed the face of Hurst politics.  His campaign has planted the seeds for a conservative coalition in our city which will only grow from here.

There are over 22,000 registered voters in Hurst.  State elections (including Presidential elections) have shown that since the Reagan Revolution, Hurst has remained somewhere between 55 and 60 percent conservative.  However only 1,000 to 2,000 people vote in our city elections (only 1,241 voted in this last election).  The result has been that Hurst has been run for years by tax, borrow and spend, Nanny State, gun grabbing liberals.  This is now about to change.  The conservative majority of Hurst are waking up. 

Joel Downs may have lost the election by a mere 54 votes, but he has succeeded in sounding a wake up call that will change Hurst for years to come!

Conservatives in Hurst are not going anywhere.  We are already working on plans to help us to be more organized and more networked from this point forward, so that we will be showing up in city elections in even greater numbers.  

Thanks Joel Downs for waking us up!

Subscribe to Concerned Citizens of Hurst

* indicates required

Email Address *

First Name

Last Name

Must Read Letter from Jonathan Stickland

All conservative Hurst residents (the majority) should read this letter from Jonathan Stickland:

The Big Government Nanny State in Hurst

The Big Government Nanny State in Hurst

By

James Scott Trimm

In a recent letter to the editor in the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Robert Mills endorsed incumbent Anna Holzer for Hurst City Council saying “When my wife and I got married, we wanted a home in a safe community with a city council that looked after all of its residents.”  It appears that Robert Mills was looking for a “nanny state”, a government that “looks after” its citizens. 

Ms. Holzer does not repudiate this endorsement of herself in connection with the Nanny State, but instead proudly posts it on her campaign Facebook page, with Ms. Holzer herself and two of her supporters “liking” the letter.

Yesterday, while walking door to door campaigning for Anna’s opponent Joel Downs I came to the door of one of our other city council members.  This man greeted me at the door and immediately told me that he was on the city council, that he was voting for Ann Holzer and that Joel Downs would be bad for Hurst.  I had lots of houses to visit, most of which were giving me a very positive response, so I was about to move on, when he says “And I can tell you why if you want….”  

I have always said that one’s beliefs must be big enough to include all of the facts, open enough to be tested, and flexible enough to change, so I decided to hear him out.

He was quick to identify himself as a conservative, but then began to defend Anna Holzer and the council’s borrowing.  He said that the “Tea Party has its place” but that city elections are “non partisan.” 

I responded by saying that conservative values of limited government, personal freedom and individual determination, are just as applicable on the municipal level as on any other, and he could not deny the point.

He then tried to argue that Ms. Holzer is not really a big government liberal, but a “blue dog Democrat.”  Of course the fact that Ms. Holzer donates to liberal causes such as Wendy Davis, makes it clear that she is a liberal.  But if there is any question about Ms. Holzer as a big government liberal, the fact that Ms. Holzer displays Robert Mill’s letter with pride, makes it clear that she is a big government nanny state liberal.

He tried to sell me on he idea that the money has been well spent, saying that it had been spent to create many "conveniences" (his word) for Hurstonians.  This is where we come to the Nanny State.  Here we are presented with a big government that "looks after" its citizens providing for their conveniences.  This is directly counter to the limited government principle of conservatism.

Finally this council member argued that as a Hurst citizen, I should not be worried about the Hurst debt because most of it will not be paid by Hurst residents, but with sales tax from non-Hurst residents shopping in Hurst.

I responded that regardless of the sources of tax money, we should be good stewards with all tax funds, and that the principles of limited government stand, regardless of the source of the taxes. 

In the end he told me that he respected my opinion, and that should Mr. Downs be elected, he will accept that this is the will of the voters and work with Mr. Downs on the council.

Folks, the weed of tax, borrow and spend big government state-ism has taken root in the City of Hurst.  It is even being defended by self-described conservatives on the City Council.  If Hurst is to grow, we must weed out the garden.

Early voting starts today, and I hope you will join me in voting for Joel Downs, and sending a message to our City Council.