Unf*ckingbelievable. So many cops are such liars. And bullies.

Here's the actual confrontation and arrest story and video. The cops very considerately left Grisham's video recording activated so the entire event is recorded, even after he is thrown to the ground and arrested. Most of the action is in the first few minutes prior to the arrest... after that it's just him in the back of the police car occasionally asking "What law have I broken" and "Why have I been arrested". Which the cops never answer.

http://www.kcentv.com/article/news/local/cj-grisham-arrested-during-open-carry-demonstration-near-san-antonio/500-532698226

C.J. Grisham arrested during open carry demonstration near San Antonio

A former candidate for Texas State Representative in District 55 was arrested near San Antonio on Tuesday.

C.J. Grisham, who lost in the Republican primary election, was involved in a pro-second amendment demonstration at which he and others were openly carrying firearms, as permitted by Texas law, in the City of Olmos Park in Bexar County. During the demonstration, Grisham was asked to get on the ground by Olmos Park Police Chief Rene Valenciano.

* * * * *
Here's the 10 minute phone call recorded the day before between Grisham and the police chief, during which the chief refuses to answer the direct, simple, and clear questions asked of him by Grisham.



This reminds me so much of my attempts to get answers to direct, simple and clear questions from Kauai PD re the two CCW licenses they issued, and to other police departments, most notably Hawaii County police chiefs regarding a variety of their policies which they totally stonewalled or simply "responded" in a totally irrelevant manner that did not address the question(s) I asked in any meaningful way. F*cking liars and bullies.

Looks to me like Grisham was arrested for obstruction or similar.  Looks like the Olmos PD had some reason to be in contact with the other open carry individual.  Do we know what transpired with that initial individual prior to the starting point of the video?  Did the Police Officers have some type of probable cause to be stopping or in contact with that other person?  If they had PC, then it seems reasonably arguable that Grisham would have been obstructing. 

Now of course if there was no other reason to have stopped that other person, besides he was simply open carrying and following all laws, then things could be a bit more confused.  Do we know what happened prior to the video?  Do we know why the stop was being made on the first guy?

Looks to me like Grisham was arrested for obstruction or similar.  Looks like the Olmos PD had some reason to be in contact with the other open carry individual.  Do we know what transpired with that initial individual prior to the starting point of the video?  Did the Police Officers have some type of probable cause to be stopping or in contact with that other person?  If they had PC, then it seems reasonably arguable that Grisham would have been obstructing. 

Now of course if there was no other reason to have stopped that other person, besides he was simply open carrying and following all laws, then things could be a bit more confused.  Do we know what happened prior to the video?  Do we know why the stop was being made on the first guy?

Their is a city ordinance that prohibits the carrying for firearms openly. State law says that no city can do that. City says yes i can untill a court says otherwise (we have the right to protect our people ect......) these guys decided to try it. Cops did what they do. He got arrested for obstructing and resisting (you can see him pull away in youtube videos)  is what im led to believe.

Their is a city ordinance that prohibits the carrying for firearms openly. State law says that no city can do that. City says yes i can untill a court says otherwise (we have the right to protect our people ect......) these guys decided to try it. Cops did what they do. He got arrested for obstructing and resisting (you can see him pull away in youtube videos)  is what im led to believe.

if you watch the youtube videos that are related, this group has been challenging officers (and the chief of police) in this town for years
apparently, there's a couple of year old video where the lady member gets an officer fired in the same town (didn't watch the video, just read the title)

Their is a city ordinance that prohibits the carrying for firearms openly. State law says that no city can do that. City says yes i can untill a court says otherwise (we have the right to protect our people ect......) these guys decided to try it. Cops did what they do. He got arrested for obstructing and resisting (you can see him pull away in youtube videos)  is what im led to believe.

Do you have a link to the city ordinance? I can't find it. [see edit addition below when the town website was restored to working.] Thanks. OCT was there precisely because the same thing happened to another person open carrying the week before. In the 10 minute phone call (posted above in its entirety) with the chief of police (who personally tased Grisham) the day before, the chief made no mention of any city ordinance that prohibited open carry, all he did was repeatedly say, in a condescending tone, "We/Our department know(s) that it is lawful in Texas to open carry a loaded handgun with a license". Do you think he was deliberately lying about what would happen if OCT members open carried in Olmos Park? Do you think he had an obligation to tell someone asking about that very scenario that he would enforce a local ordinance over state law even though Texas has a preemption law stating that preemption of state law is illegal? And when asked during the phone call by Grisham if Grisham would be confronted by Olmos Park police for open carrying here's how the chief responded:

“Am I going to be forced on my face — if I open carry there — at gunpoint?” Grisham asked Valenciano.

“I’m not even gonna respond to that question, sir, that’s a very unreasonable question to ask,” Valenciano replied. “Provided that you have a license to carry a handgun and you are not committing any criminal activity, you don’t have anything to worry about.”

And, of course, that's exactly what happened... except he got tased onto his face on the ground, not just "forced".

Here is what he was arrested for:

According to Bexar County records, Grisham was charged with a number of things including assault of a peace officer (second-degree felony); interfering with the duties of a public servant (Class B misdemeanor); obstruction of a passageway (Class B misdemeanor); and resisting arrest (Class A misdemeanor).

And people wonder why some people refer to some cops as "pigs"? What is the "appropriate" term for such law enforcement officers?

Edited to add (also included that it is illegal to discharge a bb gun within the city limits):

The previously non-working city ordinance website is back up:

ARTICLE IV. - FIREARMS AND AIRGUNS[3]   

Sec. 24-84. - Unauthorized discharge.   
It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a duly authorized peace officer, to discharge within the city, any gun, pistol or firearm of any kind, or to discharge an air rifle or air pistol of any description by whatever name known that, by means of compressed air, gas, springs, or any other means, is capable of discharging shots, pellets, missiles, or any other solid object or projectile.

(Code 1985, § 10.100; Ord. No. 219, 5-18-1961)

Sec. 24-85. - Unauthorized carrying of loaded rifle or shotgun.   
It shall be unlawful for any person, other than a duly authorized peace officer, to carry a loaded rifle or loaded shotgun on any public street within the city. A rifle or shotgun shall be considered loaded if it contains a shell or shells in either barrel or magazine.

(Code 1985, § 10.200)

Sec. 24-86. - Offense.   
Any person, firm, or corporation violating any provision of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(Code 1985, § 10.300; Ord. No. 2000-01, 1-19-2000)

* * * * *
This explains why when Grisham clearly asked about open carry in general the police chief repeatedly only mentions "legal to carry a handgun if you have a license". He was lying by omission, despite being clearly asked the question. How difficult would it have been for him to cite the above two short sentences city ordinance?  A cynical person might be led to conclude that the police chief actually wanted Grisham to show up with a long gun so he could Tase and arrest him.

Not that the video or audio records are complete, but since the ordinance only prohibits the open carrying of "loaded" long guns, I never heard any officer asking if the gun was loaded. Is the policy to tase and take down and arrest people to check the long gun to see if it's loaded? Also, I don't believe it's required to demonstrate whether a firearm is loaded or not to a law enforcement request without an articulable reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

Here are the city council member email addresses in case you want to express your opinion about their law and/or police policies: ronberger@sbcglobal.net, etp22@yahoo.com , splant@epmp.com, kenyonmcd@yahoo.com , frycasey@me.com, OPCityCouncil@gmail.com 

Well, that didn't take long.

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Olmos-Park-repeals-gun-ordinance-after-arrests-12791443.php

‘Oathbreakers’: After arrests, gun rights activists call out Olmos Park PD

Excerpts:

Following an outcry about the arrest of a prominent gun rights activist, the Olmos Park City Council unanimously repealed a city ordinance Thursday morning that prohibited anyone other than an authorized police officer from carrying a loaded rifle or shotgun on public streets.

The ordinance was a clear violation of state law, which allows individuals to openly carry a long gun without a license. State law also prohibits local municipalities from pre-empting state law by regulating the transfer, ownership or carrying of firearms.

The local ordinance came to light earlier this week after CJ Grisham, president of Open Carry Texas, was arrested and tased during a small gun rights demonstration in Olmos Park. Two other activists were arrested at the same time.

Police suggested additional charges for all three, but those charges were rejected — either by the Bexar County district attorney’s office or a magistrate judge.

The protesters also say the arrests follow a pattern of similar behavior by officers with the Olmos Park Police Department. Between Feb. 7 and March 17, three other activists who were open carrying in Olmos Park were arrested, detained or threatened during similar demonstrations, the group says.

City officials have refused to discuss the arrests or ordinance, which dates to at least 1985, according to the city’s Code of Ordinances. After the meeting Thursday morning, Mayor Ronald Hornberger declined comment, saying he doesn’t speak to the media. City Manager Celia Deleon also declined to comment.

Police Chief Rene Valenciano did not respond to a request for comment.

Several activists said they also contacted the Texas attorney general’s office to complain. A spokeswoman for the agency said she could not confirm or deny any potential complaints or ongoing investigations.

* * * * *
I hope the Texas Attorney General investigates and prosecutes the police chief and any other officers involved in violating state law. Even that won't stop the rogue cops, but it might dissuade a few.

Every right has a responsibility

Every right has a responsibility

You mean like the right to keep and bear arms entails the responsibility of never bearing arms outside the home for self-defense? Or the responsibility to never possess a handgun magazine over 10 rounds, or possess a stun gun? Or the responsibility to make sure the state knows everything about your rightful possessions and health? Or the lawful right to openly carry firearms in public bears the responsibility of never openly carry firearms in public? Or what?

Every right has a responsibility

Help me out here, REN.  The first 10 amendments comprise the Bill of Rights, of which the First and Second Amendments are very well known.

Third:  No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Fourth:  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
              and 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.

Fifth:    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases
            arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same
            offense, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life,
            liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Help me out, if you can.  What are my (our) responsibilities when it comes to these rights?  I could continue listing the rest, but I think these are a good starting point -- for brevity of discussion.

"Having responsibilities" is ambiguous.  While I understand I have civic duties, such as serving on jury duty, obeying the law, and so on, none of those duties apply to the rights I listed. 

Please, let me know what responsibilities have been captured in statutes the way they have been for the Second.

Open carry doesn't equate to openly flaunting it.
Akin to the first amendment right and going up to a police officer saying fuck you.
Why be an ass about it?

Open carry doesn't equate to openly flaunting it.
Akin to the first amendment right and going up to a police officer saying fuck you.
Why be an ass about it?

That's what I thought. You believe that lawfully openly carrying a firearm in the manner prescribed as legal is "flaunting it" and "being an ass". There are laws against "reckless endangerment" and "brandishing" a weapon (to wave or flourish
menacingly). These people that were attacked by police were lawfully bearing openly and not brandishing nor recklessly endangering anyone or anything. And no such charges were filed against any of them, nor were such complaints made by anyone.

If you oppose open carry for whatever irrational and evidence-less false arguments you imagine, that's fine, but you're full of shit when you mischaracterize what happened with these people. Why are you being an ass about it?

I'm not being an ass about it - just giving MY opinion. Disagree with it. That's fine. I'm eating my ice cream.
I did not direct my "ass" comment to anyone. It was a broad generalization to those that want to flaunt a right. I wasn't there so I interpret what I saw on Youtube and comments.
I'll legally open carry but I won't make a big deal about it.

I'm not being an ass about it - just giving MY opinion. Disagree with it. That's fine. I'm eating my ice cream.
I did not direct my "ass" comment to anyone. It was a broad generalization to those that want to flaunt a right. I wasn't there so I interpret what I saw on Youtube and comments.
I'll legally open carry but I won't make a big deal about it.

I see. Your comments weren't related to the topic of this thread nor the people involved in the incident but just randomly appeared in this thread as a "broad generalization". Sure they did, and sure they are.

If you can say someone is an ass about something and it's just YOUR opinion, then certainly someone else is entitled to say your an ass about something and that's just THEIR opinion, right? That's an obvious truth. Why even mention it? Maybe because you don't have any facts to back up your "generalizations" about people "flaunting" and "being asses"? Why don't you tell us specifically what you saw on Youtube and comments that you "interpreted" as "flaunting" and "being asses" and provide links to that information so we can all be as informed as you? I'd like to see and read those first hand accounts from witnesses at the scene.

So if you are legally open carrying and the cops come and Tase you and throw you on the ground you wouldn't "make a big deal about it" because they decided you were "flaunting" and "being an ass", and that's THEIR opinion, right?

I saw people yelling at the police officers in the video. I didn't see what transpired before or after. I wasn't there. I'm not calling you or any member of this forum an ass. I wasn't there at that particular event. Don't know what happened. Peace out.

I see. Your comments weren't related to the topic of this thread nor the people involved in the incident but just randomly appeared in this thread as a "broad generalization". Sure they did, and sure they are.

If you can say someone is an ass about something and it's just YOUR opinion, then certainly someone else is entitled to say your an ass about something and that's just THEIR opinion, right? That's an obvious truth. Why even mention it? Maybe because you don't have any facts to back up your "generalizations" about people "flaunting" and "being asses"? Why don't you tell us specifically what you saw on Youtube and comments that you "interpreted" as "flaunting" and "being asses" and provide links to that information so we can all be as informed as you? I'd like to see and read those first hand accounts from witnesses at the scene.

So if you are legally open carrying and the cops come and Tase you and throw you on the ground you wouldn't "make a big deal about it" because they decided you were "flaunting" and "being an ass", and that's THEIR opinion, right?

I see you're fixated on my comments. I remind yout that this stays on this forum. I know one of you (unknown forum member) wanted to have some words with me at the gunshow. Don't. Keep these things on this forum. Don't approach me at the range or anywhere else to argue with me about stuff on this forum.

Their is a city ordinance that prohibits the carrying for firearms openly. State law says that no city can do that. City says yes i can untill a court says otherwise (we have the right to protect our people ect......) these guys decided to try it. Cops did what they do. He got arrested for obstructing and resisting (you can see him pull away in youtube videos)  is what im led to believe.

Got it thanks, makes sense from both sides.

For the others who have opposing views, let's look at this.  One side says State law trumps City ordinance.  Cops, on the other hand, are upholding the current City ordinance.

IMHO, no matter our personal beliefs we are obligated to comply with laws/ordinances lawfully accepted within the area we are located.  Again no matter our beliefs, we should comply and then redress the process elsewhere, as in what London 808 is doing and is what our society is allows for.  Not saying it is automatically fair or correct but is accepted as common practice within the society that we live.  Now we can argue Constitution, State Law, etc, but that is not how our accepted society functions.  The redress by Grisham was not by obstructing local law enforcement officials, but rather tackling the issue at the appropriate level.  Get an official ruling and go after any other necessary litigation from there.  He may obviously do what he wishes and get arrested and it may even lead to change, so good for him, but on the flip side of that coin, he may get shit and make his case worse, because the officers were operating within the rights of the city ordinance and would be in the scope of their duty.   

Of course, there are many hardcore Constitutionalists who might say eff that, the Constitution and State law is my permit, but if you wish to play along the lines of what is accepted within our society then be prepared to face whatever consequences.

I am a very Constitutional type, however, I am not appreciative of the initial post and it's implications.  Far too many holes for an absolute type of statement.  I also believe that activism is an absolute necessity, but some activists are an absolute detriment. 

I see you're fixated on my comments. I remind yout that this stays on this forum. I know one of you (unknown forum member) wanted to have some words with me at the gunshow. Don't. Keep these things on this forum. Don't approach me at the range or anywhere else to argue with me about stuff on this forum.

I see. My asking you to explain why you call law-abiding citizens asses, when you present no evidence other than your baseless "personal opinion" is "fixation". Good to know. Gee, where have we seen that kind of language before from people who don't seem to appreciate being asked questions?

What? Now you're claiming that people don't have a First Amendment right to speak in public? Where'd you get that from? Is that a warning or a threat your majesty? Just curious. 'Cause it kinda seems like you're being a pompous ass.

Got it thanks, makes sense from both sides.

For the others who have opposing views, let's look at this.  One side says State law trumps City ordinance.  Cops, on the other hand, are upholding the current City ordinance.

IMHO, no matter our personal beliefs we are obligated to comply with laws/ordinances lawfully accepted within the area we are located.  Again no matter our beliefs, we should comply and then redress the process elsewhere, as in what London 808 is doing and is what our society is allows for.  Not saying it is automatically fair or correct but is accepted as common practice within the society that we live.  Now we can argue Constitution, State Law, etc, but that is not how our accepted society functions.  The redress by Grisham was not by obstructing local law enforcement officials, but rather tackling the issue at the appropriate level.  Get an official ruling and go after any other necessary litigation from there.  He may obviously do what he wishes and get arrested and it may even lead to change, so good for him, but on the flip side of that coin, he may get shit and make his case worse, because the officers were operating within the rights of the city ordinance and would be in the scope of their duty.   

Of course, there are many hardcore Constitutionalists who might say eff that, the Constitution and State law is my permit, but if you wish to play along the lines of what is accepted within our society then be prepared to face whatever consequences.

I am a very Constitutional type, however, I am not appreciative of the initial post and it's implications.  Far too many holes for an absolute type of statement.  I also believe that activism is an absolute necessity, but some activists are an absolute detriment.

What are the "implications" of the initial post? What are the "holes" or the "absolute statement"? Define which "activists" are "an absolute detriment".

Are you claiming that the people in this incident are "absolute detriments"? Why?

Maybe you missed the post that today the city council repealed the law. You think that's a coincidence that they repealed it within 36 hours of the "absolute detriment" "activists" interacting with the police? (I'm pretty sure behind the closed door session their attorneys mentioned the likely outcome of the forthcoming lawsuits.)

I suppose if you had your way that trouble-maker Rosa Parks would still be riding in the back of the bus.

Then by all means according to our 1st amendment rights you are free to call me out in public and say that Im a pompous ass. I never met you to make that claim but go ahead. You recognize me at the range or anywhere feel free to come up to me and say that. These are just words on a forum. I share the same 2a passion. Some take it a bit further and confront me where I dont want to address topics like this. Take it whatever you want. I also have the right to not be bothered at the range or anywhere else for words I put in this forum. I have the right to walk away from whomever.