Posted on Mar 29, 2018
I have conflicting feelings over this. I know that open carry is a thing in Texas, but who crossed the line, if anyone?
131K
2.92K
1.1K
477
477
0
CJ Grisham, President of Open Carry Texas, Army veteran and recent candidate for State Representative in District 55, along with a couple of other people was arrested yesterday in Olmos Park, TX (Bexar County). He was tazed and subsequently injured in that arrest with a head injury and was hospitalized. I was told that the head injury was a large gash on the back of the head. He also suffered numerous scrapes on his wrists and arms.
Grisham and crew were legally opening carrying pistols and long guns in response to an event last week when an Olmos Park police officer drew guns on and detained someone with a protest sign solely for the reason of open carrying a pistol (which turned out to be a training fake).
Grisham had a phone conversation with the Olmos Park Police Chief, Rene Valenciano about their policies, etc. in which the chief seemed entirely unconcerned with his officers illegally detaining people for a perfectly legal activity. (The conversation will be linked in the comments below).
Grisham and crew went to Olmos Park yesterday and were legally and peacefully open carrying and got arrested for it. There is a video of the arrest. There was no articulated probable cause for the arrest. The police showed up, including Chief Valenciano and ordered Grisham and his crew to the ground. Grisham at least refused. It was Valenciano that personally tazed and arrested Grisham.
Between the phone call and video from the site, it's very clear this was an illegal arrest by an oath breaking police officer and they will be held accountable.
Grisham and crew were legally opening carrying pistols and long guns in response to an event last week when an Olmos Park police officer drew guns on and detained someone with a protest sign solely for the reason of open carrying a pistol (which turned out to be a training fake).
Grisham had a phone conversation with the Olmos Park Police Chief, Rene Valenciano about their policies, etc. in which the chief seemed entirely unconcerned with his officers illegally detaining people for a perfectly legal activity. (The conversation will be linked in the comments below).
Grisham and crew went to Olmos Park yesterday and were legally and peacefully open carrying and got arrested for it. There is a video of the arrest. There was no articulated probable cause for the arrest. The police showed up, including Chief Valenciano and ordered Grisham and his crew to the ground. Grisham at least refused. It was Valenciano that personally tazed and arrested Grisham.
Between the phone call and video from the site, it's very clear this was an illegal arrest by an oath breaking police officer and they will be held accountable.
Posted in these groups: 
Open Carry
Bexar County
Open Carry Bexar County
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 432
0
0
0
What site is the video located on? From what I am reading this department from the Chief down is a train wreck. But would need to see exactly what happened to verify.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jeffrey Leake
Olmos Park Police Chief Phone Call (Tyrant Alert)
This is a recording of my phone call with the Olmos Park POlice Chief. I wanted to find out what their procedure was dealing with open carriers after several...
(1)
(0)
SSG Jeffrey Leake
Olmos Park Police Chief UNLAWFUL arrest CJ Grisham
This is the UNEDITED Facebook Live (with comments) of the Olmos Park Police Chief commiting a FELONY by slamming CJ Grisham to the ground and tasing him when...
(0)
(0)
2LT Corey Watson
SSG Leake thank you for both videos. As a military officer and current police captain both of these videos are disturbing to me. Very disturbing I don’t even know where to begin. But I will say that the mentality of any department starts at the top.This Chief needs to go down hard as well as ANY supervisor that was on the scene prior to the Chiefs arrival. Hopefully justice will prevail in this case.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
the officers were enforcing the local ordinance (that has been repealed) at the time. they probably could and should have found a better way to de-escalate or choose not to enforce that one ordinance but...
Not sure if it can be an illegal arrest since they were enforcing something that was on the books but broke state law.
Not sure if it can be an illegal arrest since they were enforcing something that was on the books but broke state law.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Lawsuit against the city and police for violating their oaths, and violating US and Texas Constitutional rights, and criminal charges against the officers using excessive force while violating the law.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
If Grisham was obeying the laws under open carry then:the Chief was in the wrong and trying to make an example out of Grisham. He(the Police chief) needs to lose his job. I was done in a similar fashion. The officer lost his job.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
An overzealous LEO who obviously has an agenda! I too hope he looses his job, a scofflaw LEO is not a public servant!
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
SSG Jeffrey Leake
I actually haven't heard or seen anything. 1SG Cj Grisham is here on RP and might be better to ask.
(1)
(0)
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
Hmm here is a very interesting line:
The police showed up, including Chief Valenciano and ordered Grisham and his crew to the ground. Grisham at least refused. It was Valenciano that personally tazed and arrested Grisham.
So, what we have here is simple: FAILURE TO COMPLY.
Isn't the big argument for "blue lives matter" simple: "Just do what you are told?"
This is why open carry is stupid. Not only can the police not tell whoa bad guy is with a gun, i an open carry sate, neither can the civilians. If i was a guy who wanted to rob and kill people with a gun, i would definitely move to an open carry state, that way i could just walk around with my gun, and no one could stop, as there is no PROBABLY CAUSE.
Here is my issue with gun owners:
Most of them do not understand the constitution, or the purpose of the second amendment.
Most of them have that gun because of fear.
Most of them are not qualified to use a firearm in a combat situation.
You do not know if a person who has bought a firearm legally, is still in the right mind to have access to that firearm , after the purchase, be it one day or 20 years.
They want to have that gun with them, so they can ":legally" murder someone. Which in my mind makes them just as evil as the person they think they are going to defend us from.
Contrary to popular belief the democrats did not invent gun control, it was Marshall's like Wyatt Earp, who got sick of drunk cowboys shooting unarmed or inexperienced civilians.
You can not get a tommy gun anymore, because of the mafia and the use of the tommy gun in the 1920's and later for robbery and murder. There is no difference in this and assault rifles, bump stocks, etc.
Police want gun control more than anyone, because when they know only RESPONSIBLE people have guns, there lives are safer, and how they deal with the public is easier. This is great example of that.
The police showed up, including Chief Valenciano and ordered Grisham and his crew to the ground. Grisham at least refused. It was Valenciano that personally tazed and arrested Grisham.
So, what we have here is simple: FAILURE TO COMPLY.
Isn't the big argument for "blue lives matter" simple: "Just do what you are told?"
This is why open carry is stupid. Not only can the police not tell whoa bad guy is with a gun, i an open carry sate, neither can the civilians. If i was a guy who wanted to rob and kill people with a gun, i would definitely move to an open carry state, that way i could just walk around with my gun, and no one could stop, as there is no PROBABLY CAUSE.
Here is my issue with gun owners:
Most of them do not understand the constitution, or the purpose of the second amendment.
Most of them have that gun because of fear.
Most of them are not qualified to use a firearm in a combat situation.
You do not know if a person who has bought a firearm legally, is still in the right mind to have access to that firearm , after the purchase, be it one day or 20 years.
They want to have that gun with them, so they can ":legally" murder someone. Which in my mind makes them just as evil as the person they think they are going to defend us from.
Contrary to popular belief the democrats did not invent gun control, it was Marshall's like Wyatt Earp, who got sick of drunk cowboys shooting unarmed or inexperienced civilians.
You can not get a tommy gun anymore, because of the mafia and the use of the tommy gun in the 1920's and later for robbery and murder. There is no difference in this and assault rifles, bump stocks, etc.
Police want gun control more than anyone, because when they know only RESPONSIBLE people have guns, there lives are safer, and how they deal with the public is easier. This is great example of that.
(0)
(0)
SSG Jeffrey Leake
I understand where you're coming from, and you make some valid points. Tommy guns can be purchased though. They had them in North Carolina, where I'm from, and I've seen a few here in Arizona. And remember, assault is an action. It's just a rifle.
(0)
(0)
SPC Chris Ison
No it is NOT.
The "battle rifle" was any bolt action, internal box magazine, or a semi automatic, internal box magazine rifle.
The "assault rifle" is a selective fire weapon with a detachable box magazine.
C. Taylor The Fighting Rifle: A Complete Study of the Rifle in Combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8
F.A. Moyer Special Forces Foreign Weapons Handbook, ISBN 0-87364-009-8
Musgave, Daniel D., and Thomas B. Nelson, The World's Assault Rifles, vol. II, The Goetz Company, Washington, D.C. (1967): 1
"The assault rifle is a class of weapon that emerged in the middle of the last century to meet the needs of combat soldiers on the modern battlefield, where the level of violence had reached such heights that an entirely new way of fighting had emerged, one for which the existing weapons were a poor match. The name “assault rifle” is believed to have been coined by Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of World War II, the story goes, Hitler hailed his army’s new wonder weapon by insisting that it be called not by the technical name given it by its developers, the Machinenpistole (the German name for a submachine gun), but rather something that made for better propaganda copy. A Sturmgewehr, he called the new gun: a “storm” or “assault” weapon."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle/489428/
There is no conspiracy on the left, or within the media, to "label" specific weapons in order to have them removed form public circulation, those labels existed BEFORE the argument on gun control.
I can, for one, tell you that the state of California limiting the access to assault rifles, specifically the Ak-47, was a direct link in the reduction of gang violence that had emerged in the 1970's and 1980's.
I do not have an issue with guns, guns themselves are not the problem. The problem i have is the ACCESS to guns.
People talk about "home defense", how can anyone defend thier home, adequately, against a group of people with an M-16; especially if the criminals are armed with a firearm? They can not, thinking a person can Rambo a numerically superior force is video game bullshit.
Best home defense weapon, hands down is a short barrel, shotgun with an extended tubular magazine and improved cylinder choke, firing double aught buck. The Winchester (or is Remington?) defender is a good example of this. 7 rounds in the pipe, one in the chamber, double aught buck, 8 .30 caliber rounds, at 30 feet, has a spread of about 15 inches, the average male width is 18 inches, that is going to kill ANYONE coming through your door, door frame is generally 32 inches so you can shoot two people at once and kill them both. You don't have to "aim", just point and shoot, it is okay for your hands to shake, and it sounds like a giant BOOM when it goes off, letting the bad guys no they done fucked up.
hand guns are great if you need some protection, and you need to conceal it. They should be available by permit only, and for only those who can legally justify the need. i.e. you can't say "i make late night deposits", when you can make those deposits during the day. If you run a gun store, or a gun range, you can have a handgun on that property and it can be stored at said property.
If you need to supplement the dinner table a varmint rifle, a 30-30 for deer, and a shotgun (which you can use for home defense as well, for fowl.
No one needs a mah duece, or a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle. If you want to shoot military grade weapons, hey that is great, go to a range and rent it, we can create a whole new market for sport shooting, hell we can use known distance ranges and stock from military and national guard bases/armories.
The second amendment is very clear at what it says it says the following:
a well regulated militia (and who regulates the militia? congress, so these home grown militias DO NOT COUNT), being necessary for a free sate (i.e. the militia has the police power), the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The word people here is used in the sense of the general populace of a state, not the individual, per the 10th amendment as the militias have ALWAYS BEEN STATE UNITS.
Article 1, the enumerated powers of congress, section 8 specifically grants congress the right to "keep and maintain a Navy"; but it specifically limits the federal government from funding an army to two (2) years. When the majority of your army is int he hands of the states, one doesn't have to fear military tyranny. It is that simple.
How do we know this is true? Simple, read the history of the Army and you will find that, one, the army says it traces its lineage back to the minute man (i.e. the militia), and, two, that up until WWII, and the creation of the military industrial complex, every war fought was fought by state militia units.
The 82nd airborne "All Americas" comes form the 82AEF, form WWI, which was a unit comprised of national guard units from all over the country, thus it was "all American:"
The "battle rifle" was any bolt action, internal box magazine, or a semi automatic, internal box magazine rifle.
The "assault rifle" is a selective fire weapon with a detachable box magazine.
C. Taylor The Fighting Rifle: A Complete Study of the Rifle in Combat, ISBN 0-87947-308-8
F.A. Moyer Special Forces Foreign Weapons Handbook, ISBN 0-87364-009-8
Musgave, Daniel D., and Thomas B. Nelson, The World's Assault Rifles, vol. II, The Goetz Company, Washington, D.C. (1967): 1
"The assault rifle is a class of weapon that emerged in the middle of the last century to meet the needs of combat soldiers on the modern battlefield, where the level of violence had reached such heights that an entirely new way of fighting had emerged, one for which the existing weapons were a poor match. The name “assault rifle” is believed to have been coined by Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of World War II, the story goes, Hitler hailed his army’s new wonder weapon by insisting that it be called not by the technical name given it by its developers, the Machinenpistole (the German name for a submachine gun), but rather something that made for better propaganda copy. A Sturmgewehr, he called the new gun: a “storm” or “assault” weapon."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle/489428/
There is no conspiracy on the left, or within the media, to "label" specific weapons in order to have them removed form public circulation, those labels existed BEFORE the argument on gun control.
I can, for one, tell you that the state of California limiting the access to assault rifles, specifically the Ak-47, was a direct link in the reduction of gang violence that had emerged in the 1970's and 1980's.
I do not have an issue with guns, guns themselves are not the problem. The problem i have is the ACCESS to guns.
People talk about "home defense", how can anyone defend thier home, adequately, against a group of people with an M-16; especially if the criminals are armed with a firearm? They can not, thinking a person can Rambo a numerically superior force is video game bullshit.
Best home defense weapon, hands down is a short barrel, shotgun with an extended tubular magazine and improved cylinder choke, firing double aught buck. The Winchester (or is Remington?) defender is a good example of this. 7 rounds in the pipe, one in the chamber, double aught buck, 8 .30 caliber rounds, at 30 feet, has a spread of about 15 inches, the average male width is 18 inches, that is going to kill ANYONE coming through your door, door frame is generally 32 inches so you can shoot two people at once and kill them both. You don't have to "aim", just point and shoot, it is okay for your hands to shake, and it sounds like a giant BOOM when it goes off, letting the bad guys no they done fucked up.
hand guns are great if you need some protection, and you need to conceal it. They should be available by permit only, and for only those who can legally justify the need. i.e. you can't say "i make late night deposits", when you can make those deposits during the day. If you run a gun store, or a gun range, you can have a handgun on that property and it can be stored at said property.
If you need to supplement the dinner table a varmint rifle, a 30-30 for deer, and a shotgun (which you can use for home defense as well, for fowl.
No one needs a mah duece, or a Barrett .50 cal sniper rifle. If you want to shoot military grade weapons, hey that is great, go to a range and rent it, we can create a whole new market for sport shooting, hell we can use known distance ranges and stock from military and national guard bases/armories.
The second amendment is very clear at what it says it says the following:
a well regulated militia (and who regulates the militia? congress, so these home grown militias DO NOT COUNT), being necessary for a free sate (i.e. the militia has the police power), the right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The word people here is used in the sense of the general populace of a state, not the individual, per the 10th amendment as the militias have ALWAYS BEEN STATE UNITS.
Article 1, the enumerated powers of congress, section 8 specifically grants congress the right to "keep and maintain a Navy"; but it specifically limits the federal government from funding an army to two (2) years. When the majority of your army is int he hands of the states, one doesn't have to fear military tyranny. It is that simple.
How do we know this is true? Simple, read the history of the Army and you will find that, one, the army says it traces its lineage back to the minute man (i.e. the militia), and, two, that up until WWII, and the creation of the military industrial complex, every war fought was fought by state militia units.
The 82nd airborne "All Americas" comes form the 82AEF, form WWI, which was a unit comprised of national guard units from all over the country, thus it was "all American:"
A Brief History of the Assault Rifle
The gun’s name may have been coined by Adolf Hitler.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
WTH! - this is the complete opposite of what LEO's I know have told me. I was actually some what berated once for not having my weapon on me - "You have a CCW - so why aren't you carring!?! - you're defeating the purpose of a CCW - carry your weapon!" I hope this gains some traction.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Because that LEO was speaking from his personal stance, not necessarily that of which is believed by the entirety of the LEO community across the state or country, which can widely vary.
(1)
(0)
SPC David S.
SFC (Join to see) - very true - different circumstances - different views. As well in this case I feel this guy was looking to cause a problem with LEO. Really not the best approach to the situation. Take it to the courts for infringement first and see where that leads. Really no need to get into a physical confrontation with the police - that's a lose/lose outcome.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google