No More Place for Bigotry and Misogyny in GOP

No More Place for Bigotry and Misogyny in GOP

By

James Scott Trimm

Last night Democrat Doug Jones narrowly won the Alabama Senate seat vacated by Jeff Sessions.  This was a huge upset for a conservative state like Alabama, and it is a lesson to be learned for the GOP in scrutinizing our nominees.  Democrats succeeded in making Republican Roy Moore a national symbol of sexual harassment.  

Last night was not about the Republican Party platform, nor about social issues.  Last night’s election had become a referendum on sexual harassment and the way women are often treated in this country.  This has clearly become a hot issue in the world today.  Merriam-Webster just announced that “feminism” is its “word of the year” and there has come a day of reckoning for those in powerful positions who have been engaging in sexual harassment and bigotry towards women.

There is no place in the Republican Party for those look down upon women and minorities.  Right here in the Tarrant County GOP we have a serious problem with those who have for years been engaging in bigotry.  They have had a free ride for a long time, but the time for bigots in the GOP is coming to a close.  

I myself have been the target of religious and racial bigotry within our party.  In the November Boiling Point Tea Party online Newsletter, Tarrant County Precinct Chair Marie Howard included a bigoted onslaught attack on me, attacking my Jewish faith.  In the newsletter she inserted a picture of me wearing a tallit (Jewish prayer shawl) with the words “Kabbalist- Mystic- and Fake Rabbi” and reprinting an internet post attacking my religious beliefs as a “fringe” “cult” under the heading “Wandering Jew Post”.

Marie Howard (along with Jennifer Olson) is also a board member of Protective Parents of Texas, which, back in September, put out a post directing their readers to the infamously Anti-Semitic “Hidden Mysteries” website.

The Hidden Mysteries site is well known for its extreme Anti-Semitism.

For example one article on the site declares that “Winston Churchill had more of a hand in masterminding the Holocaust than Hitler.” And goes on to say:

This [Jewish Intelligence] network, the best kept secret of the twentieth century, virtually orchestrated World War II from start to finish. Not the least of the aims of this Jewish intelligence web was, ironically, the destruction of the European Jewish masses, thus insuring the success of the state of Israel and its role within the security system of the Middle East oil region.

(http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/history/hitlerchurchhill.html)

Another article on the Hidden Mysteries site calls the Jewish people "the eternal parasite" and declares that the Holocaust is the:

“…latest tool of the eternal parasite - people who hide behind their self-proclaimed, massively propagandized (sic) victimhood (sic), while practising (sic) their Holocaust terrorism, Holocaust blackmail and Holocaust extortion racket…".

(http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/history/whistleblowers.html)

While another article on the Hidden Mysteries site openly embraces the label of “Anti-Semitic” saying:

“...the "Anti-Semitic" label [is]... used as a claimed but unfair justification for keeping "truth" from the masses.”

(http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/coverups/ultimatelabel.html)

The Hidden Mysteries Site also recommends to its readers the infamous book “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”:

"...every student of the Jewish problem should have a copy of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

(http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/conspiracy/coverups/ultimatelabel.html)

The Hidden Mysteries Website recommends

Infamous Anti-Semitic Hoax Document

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Russian: Протоколы сионских мудрецов) or The Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion is a fabricated Anti-Semitic hoax document first published in Russia in 1903 and purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination.  Despite the fact that The Times of London exposed the Protocols as a fraudulent document in 1921, the Nazis used the document as propaganda, as do many Anti-Semitic groups today.

Details on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion hoax document can be found at Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion

 

More recently Marie Howard has made an offensive post related to her primary opponent for Precinct Chair, Phil Dorr.  Phil Dorr's date was African American, and Howard and Howard could not understand how an African American woman could be the date of a man who moved to Keller from a luxury apartment.  Howard's subtle bigoted message is obvious: How does a man like Phil Dorr manage to connect with an African American woman?    

 

Marie's bigotry fits right in with her friends, one of whom asks if it is "legal" for Dorr to be dating an African American woman!!

It is time for the GOP to stand up against those who treat others as if they are lesser beings simply because they are a woman or a minority. 

 

 

 

 

Was Munford Gun Grabbing Justified by Federal Law?

Was Munford Gun Grabbing Justified by Federal Law?

By

James Scott Trimm

News on this story is breaking,  In recent blogs I have written about.Associate Judge James Munford's Gun Grabbing court order.  Munford is the Associate Judge of the 322^nd Family Court.  Each Family in Tarrant County has an elected District Court Judge, and an appointed Associate Judge.  This blogger has obtained a court order which Associate Judge Munford signed in 2009 “grabbing” Tarrant County gun owner and father Michael Keith Ives guns:

“…the Father is not to have in his possession or control a firearm and he is placed on notice that he is not to have in his possession any firearm until such time as the injunction is resolved.  The firearms may be delivered to a third party for storage such as the paternal grandparent.”

Ives only crime was being both a father, and a gun owner.  He was not accused of threatening anyone, or doing anything inappropriate with his guns, yet Gun Grabbing Munford was effectively stripping Ives of his second amendment rights!

As I had reported in the past, Munford's Gun Grabbing provision was later removed by 322nd District Court Judge Nancy Berger, but only after the NRA got involved and began backing Mr. Ives' in his fight to keep his guns.

After my initial blog, Judge Harris (233rd Family Court ) rushed to support his old college buddy saying:

A blogger has recently posted some disturbing misinformation about Judge Jim Munford and his alleged "gun grabbing" in the court orders he routinely issues. The truth is that all orders containing standard injunctive language "as to persons" prohibit and person subject to that order from the possession of a firearm or amunition.  Not the rule of the judge, the subject of the Federal law (see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)).  If Judge Munford's rulings are to be attacked in such a specious detail, the blogger should fairly characterize every judge and associate judge that issue injunctions as to persons as "gun grabbers."  More specifically, every single judge or associate judge sitting in family or probate courts in the State of Texas.

I don't like that level of Federal involvement in State issues.  I have known Judge Munford since our college days at UTA and I know him to be a strident supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  The blogger's characterization of Judge Munford as a "gun grabber" is made with either a sad ignorance of the law or a malicious misrepresentation of the truth.  Or as some call it "fake news."

 My blog in response to Harris can be seen by clicking here: Judge Harris Defends Munford Gun Grabbing.

 Judge Bennett (360th Family Court) also stepped up to support Munford's Gun Grabbing order.  She shared Harris' statement saying "I agree with Judge Harris."

And more support for Munford's Gun Grabbing came from Family Court Attorney Jeff Kaitcer, who is rumored to be Munford's preferred choice for Associate Judge of the 322nd should Munford win the election.  Kaitcer said:

 I think that the jamestrimm blog is nothing more than 'fake news' ... Judge Harris is exactly right. The blogger wants a Tarrant County District Judge to declare a Federal Statute unconstitutional. To do so would be the very definition of an “Activist Judge” and legislating from the Bench which I thought, as Republicans, we opposed.

My exchange with Kaitcer can be seen in my blog Gun Grabbing Rinos in Texas.

In supporting Munford’s Gun Grabbing Order these two judges and potential judge have erroneously claimed that Munford's order was required by a Federal Law (USC 18 922 G) and further erroneously claimed that Munford’s order was supported by U.S. v. Emerson in the 5^th Circuit Court.

In the wake of the controversy, Tarrant Families Matter engaged a Washington DC Law Firm of Federal Litigation Experts to weigh in with an authoritative analysis. 

BREAKING NEWS: This opinion speaks for itself

A Constitutional Lawyer's Perspective of the Munford Case From a Texan’s Eyes

• It is basic law that state judges have the authority, indeed the duty, to follow the constitution, even if that means ruling that federal statutes are unconstitutional. There are many examples of state courts doing this successfully or unsuccessfully. See, e.g., Glen Ridge I Condominiums, Ltd. v. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp., 734 S.W.2d 374 (Tex. App. 1986); Pierce Cty., Wash. v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129 (2003). Here, there are potential constitutional arguments that section 922(g)(8) is invalid under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but they are beside the point.

• The larger issue is that Judge Munford didn't just fail to fight for the Second Amendment; he and other judges like him are actively working to undermine it, and the basic principles of the Texas Republican Party. The fundamental truth is that even if 18 U.S.C. section 922(g)(8) is constitutional, Munford should not have included in his order an injunction specifically barring Mr. Ives from possessing a gun and judges should not routinely enter orders barring divorcing parties from threatening each other unless there is an actual need to do so.

o First, section 922(g)(8) simply did not apply at the time Munford entered his order in August 2009, because there was no injunction in place at that time meeting the requirement in section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii). It appears that such an order had previously applied, having been entered in June 2009, but that order appears to have expired by operation of law 14 days later. Meanwhile, a generic "injunction as to persons" order was in effect when Judge Munford entered his order in August 2009, but that "injunction as to persons" did not contain the explicit language required to trigger section 922(g)(8). Thus, section 922 was not even relevant at the time Judge Munford entered his order.

oSecond, and perhaps more importantly, even if a qualifying order under section 922(g)(8)(C)(ii) was in place at the time of Munford's order, there is absolutely nothing in section 922 that would require Judge Munford to go further and add an injunction barring Ives from possessing a gun. In fact, in the Emerson case, the Family judge had not included such an order. Judge Munford's order was purely voluntarily and seriously undermines principles we hold dear.

 Judge Munford effectively eliminated Ives' ability to even challenge that section 922(g)(8) is invalid under the Second Amendment. Even if Ives could successfully argue that the Second Amendment made section 922(g)(8) invalid, Ives still could not possess a gun because, in addition to the so-call injunction "as to persons" Judge Munford voluntarily added a separate injunction specifically barring Ives from possessing a gun.

 Judge Munford took the matter from being governed solely by section 922(g)(8) – a federal law that the State of Texas could have chosen not to enforce – into one of state law that Texas courts would be required to enforce. That is, Texas does not have to enforce alleged section 922(g)(8) violations. But it does have to enforce violations of injunctions entered by Texas judges.

o Third, no judge is under any obligation to enter automatically an injunction that would trigger the potential application of section 922(g)(8). Yet, some Family judges insist on mindlessly entering these orders as a matter of course. For example, at various times, there was an injunction barring Ives – and his wife – from all manner of things listed in Texas Family Code section 6.502(a). But just because a Family judge "may render" such order does not mean that he or she has to or should do so in every single divorce. In the Emerson case, the Fifth Circuit explained that Congress presumed in section 922(g)(8) that state court judges would not enter qualifying injunctions unless "evidence credited by the court reflected a real threat or danger of injury to the protected party by the party enjoined." 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir. 2001). No such finding was ever made against Ives and his wife in their case. Yet, broad injunctions barring all sorts of conduct – including threatening each other – were included. There was no basis for the Family judges to do that. That mistake is made even more egregious by the fact that these unfounded injunctions might have the impact of triggering section 922(g)(8) and thus unjustifiably taking away a person's guns merely because he or she is getting divorced. 

Any bloggers or gun groups believing in the 2nd Amendment, all political parties, scholarly legal journals, and any other interested parties may use this opinion because Tarrant Families Matter obtained it for the purpose of educating judges, politicians, and other legal scholars with regard to the pitfalls involved in issues concerning possession of guns by families. Sure, there is a political race developing in Tarrant County in which this issue and other legal issues will get much attention, but our purpose is to inform you. Please come back and check us out as we analyze other issues significant to families. 

© Copyrighted Tarrant Families Matter

 Judge Harris Responded by attacking the credibility of the analysis, simply because the expert analysis came from a Washington DC firm (is Harris implying that a DC firm is likely to be biased in favor of gun rights vs. a supposedly Republican Texas Judge?)

 Here Harris keeps right on citing USC 18 922 (g) and Emerson like a mindless parrot.  He keeps pushing the false narrative that Federal Law made Munford do it.  But the truth is that USC 18 922 (g) only applies when certain language appears "explicitly" in the injunction.  The Associate Judges Report referred to by Harris contained no such explicit language and consisted of nothing more than a box checked next to the words "Mutual Temporary Injunction as to Persons." which does not meet the criteria of the type of order described in USC 18 922 (g).

 Judge Patricia Baca Bennett of the 360th Family Court has dug in her heels in support of Munford's gun grabbing order.  She has attacked the material written by the DC law firm as unreliable simply because they are "Yankees" (in this case Yankees that care more about gun rights than these Texas judges do).

In 2001, the United States Appeals Court for the 5th Circuit upheld a case out of the Lubbock Division in the Northern District of Texas.  This was was the United States vs. Emerson.  http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1332436.html

In this case, a Family Court issued what appeared to be an innocuous temporary injunction.  This injunction is common in Family Courts throughout Texas and is specifically authorized to be issued by the Texas Family Code without the necessity of bond.   The man in this case purchased a pistol and was arrested by the FBI and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).  He was convicted and sentenced to prison. 

In order to avoid this happening to a litigant in his court, Judge James Munford placed a warning on his fill in the blank Associate Judge's report that if the parties check a box for temporary injunctions as to persons, then those subject to those injunctions can not possess firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

Like Judge Harris, Judge Bennett keeps repeating USC 18 922 (g) and Emerson like a parrot.  Yet USC 18 922 does not even apply to the Munford order.  For an injunction to invoke USC 18 922 (g) it must be an injunction that "explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."  a box checked next to the words "Mutual Temporary Injunction as to Persons" does not come near meeting that standard which must be met "explicitly" in the injunction.

Moreover there is nothing in USC 18 922 (g) that requires a judge to write a gun grabbing provision into an order (especially an order to which USC 18 922 (g) did not apply anyway).   

Furthermore Emerson does not apply to the Munford order for several reasons, not the least of which is that Emerson is a ruling about the constitutionality of a certain application of USC 18 922 (g) and USC 18 922 (g) is not even invoked by the Munford order.

Moreover Munford's Gun Grabbing order was not a "warning" it was a court order.  not only was USC 18 922 (g) not invoked by any injunction in effect at the time Munford wrote the order (or even by the order itself) but Munford's order (unlike USC 18 922 (g) would have had other negative consequences.  To begin with State authorities are not required to enforce Federal laws (Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842), Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992),). , but are required to enforce State Court orders.  Secondly  USC 18 922 (g) would have only applied to fireams which had become subjects of interstate commerce.  However Munford's order, unlike USC 18 922 (g) applied even to firearms manufactured and sold within Texas, and its enforcement was obligatory to Texas authorities.    So while USC 18 922 (g) did not at all apply, Munford's order was more far reaching in its scope and effect than USC 18 922 (g) would have been had it even applied in this case.

Judge Bennet erroneously stated:

 Judge James Munford placed a warning on his fill in the blank Associate Judge's report that if the parties check a box for temporary injunctions as to persons, then those subject to those injunctions can not possess firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).

This is a falsehood.  There is no such warning on the Associate Judges Report.  I have posted a facsimile of the two page "fill in the blank Associate Judges Report" (which is dated July 9th, 2009) below to prove that this is an utter falsehood:

In fact the "Gun Grabbing" provision was not a warning, but an actual provision on Page 5 of the orders issued and signed by Munford more than a Month later on August 14th 2009:

Judge Bennett said:

In this case, a Family Court issued what appeared to be an innocuous temporary injunction.  This injunction is common in Family Courts throughout Texas and is specifically authorized to be issued by the Texas Family Code without the necessity of bond.   The man in this case purchased a pistol and was arrested by the FBI and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).  He was convicted and sentenced to prison.  

Ive's case was very different from the Emerson case.  To begin with in Emerson the explicit language needed to invoke USC 18 922 (g) was present, whereas in Ive's it was not.  Moreover, in  Emerson the court determined that Emerson’s due process rights were not violated because in  USC 18 922 G (8)(C)(ii) Congress “proceeded on the assumption that the laws of the several states were such that court orders, issued after notices of hearing, should not embrace the prohibitions of paragraph (C)(ii) unless such either were not contested or evidence credited by the court reflected a real threat or danger of injury to the protected party by the party enjoined.” And that “it is clear to us that the Texas law meets these general minimal standards.”  By contrast in Ives, no such evidence was credited by the court, meaning that under the Emerson opinion, Munford’s Gun Grabbing provision violated not only Texas law, but Ive’s Second Amendment and Due Process rights as well.  Munfords order was not only a violation of Texas law, but unconstitutional as well.

Judge Bennett seems to believe that "an innocuous temporary injunction" can invoke USC 18 922 (
yet the DC legal analyst was quite correct in saying:

no judge is under any obligation to enter automatically an injunction that would trigger the potential application of section 922(g)(8). Yet, some Family judges insist on mindlessly entering these orders as a matter of course. For example, at various times, there was an injunction barring Ives – and his wife – from all manner of things listed in Texas Family Code section 6.502(a). But just because a Family judge "may render" such order does not mean that he or she has to or should do so in every single divorce. In the Emerson case, the Fifth Circuit explained that Congress presumed in section 922(g)(8) that state court judges would not enter qualifying injunctions unless "evidence credited by the court reflected a real threat or danger of injury to the protected party by the party enjoined." 270 F.3d 203, 262 (5th Cir. 2001). No such finding was ever made against Ives and his wife in their case. Yet, broad injunctions barring all sorts of conduct – including threatening each other – were included. There was no basis for the Family judges to do that. That mistake is made even more egregious by the fact that these unfounded injunctions might have the impact of triggering section 922(g)(8) and thus unjustifiably taking away a person's guns merely because he or she is getting divorced.


Judge Bennett Continues:

This is now being called a "gun grab" by a blogger and a Facebook page.  The Facebook page has reached deep into the swamp to hire Yankee Washington D.C. attorneys to determine if our Tarrant County conservative, Republican, Family Law Judges are correct in their legal assessment.  This particular Constitutional Conservative doesn't really care what the Yankee lawyers have to say on this matter.

Bennett has fallen into the logic error of Argumentum ad Hominem, attacking a proposition, not based on facts or logic, but by an attack on the reputation of the one making the proposition.  Apparently Judge Bennett thinks that she must be right, because the counter argument is offered by "Yankee lawyers".  It is ironic that these "Yankee lawyers" care more about protecting Second Amendment rights than these Texas judges!

A bit further Judge Bennett says "Today that blogger, who has previously called Judge Munford a "RINO," has endorsed Jennifer Wiggins Moore for the 322nd."  

I have?  I think I would have remembered endorsing Jennifer Moore on December 7th, or any other day.(I did make a statement encourage people to join me in supporting Moore back in mid November) 

Judge Bennett then says: "The blogger also indicated that Jennifer Wiggins Moore has represented the interest of the NRA."

This is another falsehood.  I have never made any claim that Moore "represented the interest of the NRA."  I said only that "...the attorney who represented Mr, Ives, and who worked with the NRA to protect Mr. Ives from Munford's Gun Grabbing provision, was none other than Jennifer Wiggins Moore!" (you can see that whole blog here: Jennifer Moore and NRA Stopped Munford Gun Grab

Just about the only thing Judge Bennett has gotten right was her opening sentence, "There is a great deal of misinformation on the internet."  Unfortunately it is coming from her!

 In the end Judge Munford issued an order which would have deprived a man who had not been accused of any wrong doing, of his right to bear arms.  Sadly several Family Court judges and a potential future Family Court Judge are scrambling to rationalize this gun grabbing order. It is ironic that the Yankee Washington DC federal litigation lawyers are more protective of gun rights than these Gun Grabbing Texas judges!

Jennifer Moore and NRA Stopped Munford Gun Grab

Jennifer Moore and NRA Stopped Munford Gun Grab 

By

James Scott Trimm

News on this story is breaking fast as more facts are coming to light.  In recent blogs I have written about Associate Judge James Munford's Gun Grabbing court order.  Munford is the Associate Judge of the 322^nd Family Court.  Each Family in Tarrant County has an elected District Court Judge, and an appointed Associate Judge.  This blogger has obtained a court order which Associate Judge Munford signed in 2009 “grabbing” Tarrant County gun owner and father Michael Keith Ives guns:

“…the Father is not to have in his possession or control a firearm and he is placed on notice that he is not to have in his possession any firearm until such time as the injunction is resolved.  The firearms may be delivered to a third party for storage such as the paternal grandparent.”

Ives only crime was being both a father, and a gun owner.  He was not accused of threatening anyone, or doing anything inappropriate with his guns, yet Gun Grabbing Munford was effectively stripping Ives of his second amendment rights!

As I had reported in the past, Munford's Gun Grabbing provision was later removed by 322nd District Court Judge Nancy Berger, but only after the NRA got involved and began backing Mr. Ives' in his fight to keep his guns.

It can now be revealed that the attorney who represented Mr, Ives, and who worked with the NRA to protect Mr. Ives from Munford's Gun Grabbing provision, was none other than Jennifer Wiggins Moore! 

Second Amendment champion Jennifer Moore is now running against James Munford to replace retiring Nancy Berger as District Court Judge of the 322nd Family Court!

This judicial race has turned into the proven Second Amendment champion vs. the Gun Grabbing Judge of Tarrant County.  Moore stopped Munford's effort to Grab Mr. Ive's guns once, can she now stop the Gun Grabbing judge from becoming Judge of the very Court where she stopped his Gun Grabbing provision?

 This is turning into a very interesting race indeed, especially for those interested in protecting the Gun Rights of Texans!

More as this story develops!

Gun Grabbing Rinos in Texas

Gun Grabbing Rinos in Texas

By

James Scott Trimm

Tarrant Families Matter PAC took some heat a few weeks ago when it ran an ad referring to Munford as a RINO.  However the evidence is beginning to pile up. 

In a recent blog I wrote about Judge Harris’s statement in support of Munford’s Gun Grabbing <read it here>.

Now Munford supporter and Family Law attorney Jeff Kaitcer has joined Judge Harris in supporting Munford’s Gun Grabbing court orders and attacking my blog as “fake news” saying:

“The blogger wants a Tarrant County District Judge to declare a Federal Statute unconstitutional. To do so would be the very definition of an “Activist Judge” and legislating from the Bench which I thought, as Republicans, we opposed.”

I pointed out to Kaither that Article VI of the US Constitution says:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

I also pointed out that the phrase "Judges in every State" indicates State Judges, and that Munford took an oath to uphold the Constitution as the highest law of the Land.

Kaitcer replied:

You cite Article 6 which states that the “Constitution and the Laws of the United States.....shall be the supreme Law of the Land....” and yet you blithely declare that Judge Harris and the other Judges should just deem it unconstitutional. Judicial Activism indeed......

However Kaitcer has truncated the important qualifier “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”  Unconstitutional laws are not “made in pursuance” of the Constitution, so the Supremacy Clause does not apply to them.  Judges “in every state” are required by their oath to uphold the US Constitution above unconstitutional laws. 

This is not “judicial activism” at all.  In fact our Texas Republican Party platform specifically addresses how Texas State officials should treat unconstitutional Federal Laws:

 … federally mandated legislation, which infringes upon the 10th Amendment rights of Texas, should be ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified. Regulation of Commerce in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution has exceeded the original intent. All attempts by the federal judiciary to rule in areas not expressly enumerated by the Untied States Constitution should be likewise nullified. Any federal enforcement activities that do occur in Texas should be conducted under the authority of the county sheriff.

(Republican Party Platform for Texas 2016)

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

(US Constitution; Amendment 10)

The Second Amendment says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And the Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;…

So any federal law which violates the Second and Fifth Amendments (as the Federal law in question does – click here to read) also violates the Tenth Amendment because the Federal government has no delegated authority to create such a law.

Therefore our Texas Republican Party position is that such laws should be “ignored, opposed, refused, and nullified” by Texas officials (such as judges). 

Moreover our party platform specifically states regarding firearms:

All federal acts, laws, executive orders, and court orders which restrict or infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms shall be invalid in Texas, not be recognized by Texas, shall be specifically rejected by Texas, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect in Texas. Firearms and ammunition manufactured and sold in the state of Texas are not covered under the Commerce Clause (Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution) and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

(Republican Party Platform for Texas 2016)

These platform items spring directly from the core principles of the Texas Republican Party, as the Preamble to the 2016 Texas Republican Platform says, “If we fail to maintain our sovereignty, we risk losing the freedom to live these ideals.”  “These ideals” being the principles and planks laid out in the platform.

Moreover the 3rd and 4th Party Principles laid out in the Platform state that “these ideals” include:

3. Preserving American and Texas sovereignty and freedom.

4. Limiting government power to those items enumerated in the United States and Texas Constitutions.

So if you think that Munford should uphold an unconstitutional Federal Law as his excuse for issuing Gun Grabbing court orders, depriving people whose only crime is being a parent, of their second amendment rights, you are in the wrong party!

However this comes as no surprise, since Munford has been endorsed by Protective Parents of Texas, a group which has begun a campaign to federalize Texas Family Law, in direct conflict with our core party principles and platform.

It seems Tarrant Families Matter PAC hit the nail right on the head when it placed the label of RINO on Munford.   

  

Munford is a Gun Grabbing Rino and his supporters are now justifying his Gun Grabbing ways with arguments that violate the core principles of the Texas Republican Party Platform.

Harris is claiming that these orders are coming out routinely from many Texas judges.  If that is the case then lets clean house, starting with Munford.  If you are a Republican Texas judge who supports Munford’s Gun Grabbing orders, please let the voters know who you are! 

For those that want to dismiss my blog as “fake news” I have an outstanding challenge for you to show that anything stated in my blog about Munford’s Gun Grabbing is factually incorrect.

In closing I need to point out that Kaitcer missed or ignored my main point while responding incorrectly to my secondary point.  My primary point was that there is nothing about the Federal law Harris cited that compelled Munford to add this Gun Grabbing provision to his order. This is evidenced by the fact that He was effectively reversed when Berger took it out (though only after the NRA got involved). Munford should have simply issued an order without that provision, and if someone wanted to try to apply the Federal law to his order later, that would be an issue of challenging the Federal law, not challenging his order. But that is not what happened. Munford was not satisfied by the Federal law alone, so he also added gun grabbing language to his order in addition to the Federal law, which the law did not compel him to add. Both the Federal law and Munfords order separately violate the Second amendment rights of parents.

Harris's argument is that the Federal law made Munford do it. My response is two fold: 1. The Federal law did not require him to do it and 2. The Federal law is unconstitutional anyway, and Munford's obligation is to uphold the Constitution as the highest law of the land.

Munford is a Gun Grabbing RINO who rejects core principles of our Texas Republican Party Platform! 

The entire exchange with Kaitcer is below:

Judge Harris Defends Munford Gun Grabbing

Judge Harris Defends Munford Gun Grabbing

By

James Scott Trimm

In a recent blog I revealed that Associate Judge Munford signed in 2009 “grabbing” Tarrant County gun owner and father Michael Keith Ives guns.  If you have not read James Munford: The Gun Grabbing Judge read it by clicking <here>.

It appears that the Munford Camp is now in serious damage control.  Munford’s old college buddy Judge Harris has made the very unusual step of injecting himself into this controversy.

Harris has rushed to support his old friend saying:

A blogger has recently posted some disturbing misinformation about Judge Jim Munford and his alleged "gun grabbing" in the court orders he routinely issues. The truth is that all orders containing standard injunctive language "as to persons" prohibit and person subject to that order from the possession of a firearm or amunition.  Not the rule of the judge, the subject of the Federal law (see 18 U.S.C. 922(g)).  If Judge Munford's rulings are to be attacked in such a specious detail, the blogger should fairly characterize every judge and associate judge that issue injunctions as to persons as "gun grabbers."  More specifically, every single judge or associate judge sitting in family or probate courts in the State of Texas.

I don't like that level of Federal involvement in State issues.  I have known Judge Munford since our college days at UTA and I know him to be a strident supporter of the 2nd Amendment.  The blogger's characterization of Judge Munford as a "gun grabber" is made with either a sad ignorance of the law or a malicious misrepresentation of the truth.  Or as some call it "fake news."

I have a challenge for Judge Harris, since he has seemed to have taken off his robe and entered the blogging world:  You say that my blog contained “misinformation,” you called it “malicious” and you called it “fake news.”  Please tell me exactly what statement in my blog was factually inaccurate?  Exactly what about is was “malicious”? 

I have a long record of standing up for gun rights.  In fact, as a member of the Tarrant County Republican Party Executive Committee, I introduced a resolution calling for Constitutional Carry.  I have blogged in support of gun rights for years.  I even went down to Austin and walked the halls of the Capital visiting State Representatives on behalf of State Representative Stickland, asking for them to support Constitutional Carry!  There is nothing malicious about my long standing support for gun rights in this blog and in the halls of the Texas House. 

In his statement Harris has revealed to us that this was not an isolated incident, but that his old college buddy issued gun grabbing orders “routinely.” 

Here is the relevant portion of the unconstitutional Federal Law cited by Harris as an excuse for Munford’s Gun Grabbing ways.  It unconstitutionally prohibits possession of a firearm to a person:

(8) who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(C)

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or

(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; …

This Federal Law is flatly unconstitutional.  The word “or” at the end of  8,C,i  means that the provision in 8,C,ii does not require a “finding that such person represents a credible threat” and thus this unconstitutional law violates both the second amendment as well as the due process clause of the fourth amendment.  This law unconstitutionally allows a judge to grab guns without due process of Law. 

That said, there is nothing about this law that required Munford to add his “gun grabbing” provision into his order.  This blogger obtained a court order which Associate Judge Munford signed in 2009 “grabbing” Tarrant County gun owner and father Michael Keith Ives guns:

“…the Father is not to have in his possession or control a firearm and he is placed on notice that he is not to have in his possession any firearm until such time as the injunction is resolved.  The firearms may be delivered to a third party for storage such as the paternal grandparent.”

Ives’ only crime was being both a father, and a gun owner.  He was not accused of threatening anyone, or doing anything inappropriate with his guns, yet Gun Grabbing Munford was effectively stripping Ives of his second amendment rights!

There is nothing about the Federal Law cited by Judge Harris (quoted above) that required Munford, or any other judge, to insert this kind of gun grabbing provision into a court order. 

This is made obvious by the fact that Munford was later effectively reversed by District Court Judge Berger who removed the provision from the order (and then only after the NRA began backing Ives).  If Federal law required Munford’s gun grabbing provision to be in the order, then how on earth did Berger magically take it out? 

The fact is that the Federal law cited by Harris does not require Judges to insert gun grabbing language into their orders at all!  In fact a judge encountering an unconstitutional law should follow their oath by refusing to enforce that law, and finding it unconstitutional.  The last thing a judge should do is instead incorporate it into their court orders!  By doing so Munford added his own unconstitutional order on top of an unconstitutional Federal law.

Harris claims he does not like “that level of Federal involvement in State issues” yet he cites this clearly unconstitutional Federal Law as if it trumps the Second Amendment and due process clause of the Fourth Amendment!  No Federal Law trumps the Second Amendment. 

This Federal Law needs to stand alone and be found unconstitutional.  It does not need to be supported by being used as an excuse for Munford to insert his own unconstitutional gun grabbing provisions into his orders.

The fact that Harris has stuck his neck out with this baseless argument to support his old college buddy’s “routine” Gun Grabbing ways is a huge sign that the Munford camp is in serious trouble.  Munford cannot deny Munford’s Gun Grabbing ways, and is now digging their heels in, in a desperate attempt to rationalize them. 

It is no surprise that the Munford Camp is appealing to an unconstititutional  Federal Law to justify his Gun Grabbing orders.  Munford was endorsed early on by Protective Parents of Texas, a group which has begin a campaign to Federalize Texas Family Law!

Just say no to Federalization of Texas Family Law!

Just say no to James Munford, the Gun Grabbing Judge of Tarrant County!

Related:

James Munford: The Gun Grabbing Judge

PPT Pals Circle Wagons for Munford


TFM to Fight Federalization of Texas Family Law


Munford: Liberal Rulings on Child Discipline—Anti-Spanking Judge