Open Carry Texas Head Defends His Groups Actions In Radio Interview
C. J. Grisham, president of Open Carry Texas, defended his group going into restaurants with guns and showing up at a meeting of Moms Demand Action where women felt threatened and intimidated. He claims it wasn’t his group that approached motorists while brandishing guns and giving them copies of the Constitution, but he defended the practice. The group that did this, Open Carry Tarrant County, is closely associated with his group. Grisham claims motorists who were approached in this manner while waiting at traffic lights were invited to do so because they wanted copies of the Constitution. Yes, so many times, I’ve been waiting at a red light hoping and dreaming a man with a gun would approach me with a copy of our founding document.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
26 responses to Open Carry Texas Head Defends His Groups Actions In Radio Interview
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Anomaly 100 May 30th, 2014 at 07:36
“Yes, so many times, I’ve been waiting at a red light hoping and dreaming a man with a gun would approach me with a copy of our founding document.”
Yes, me too! Those lucky people.
Alan May 30th, 2014 at 09:36
now that I don’t have a car and travel mostly by subway I am without a copy of the Constitution.
Anomaly 100 May 30th, 2014 at 09:54
You’re in luck! I just bought a car and I’m taking it out now. I’ll try to pick you up a copy of the GOP Constitution at the next red light if they don’t shoot me.
You’re welcome!
Anomaly 100 May 30th, 2014 at 07:36
“Yes, so many times, I’ve been waiting at a red light hoping and dreaming a man with a gun would approach me with a copy of our founding document.”
Yes, me too! Those lucky people.
Alan May 30th, 2014 at 09:36
now that I don’t have a car and travel mostly by subway I am without a copy of the Constitution.
Anomaly 100 May 30th, 2014 at 09:54
You’re in luck! I just bought a car and I’m taking it out now. I’ll try to pick you up a copy of the GOP Constitution at the next red light if they don’t shoot me.
You’re welcome!
Maxx44 May 30th, 2014 at 07:54
Exactly how long does it take for an armed to the teeth “law abiding citizen” to turn into a mass murderer?
Shades May 30th, 2014 at 08:23
I guess we have to wait until he shoots somebody. We can thank the dead people for clarifying that.
Maxx44 May 30th, 2014 at 07:54
Exactly how long does it take for an armed to the teeth “law abiding citizen” to turn into a mass murderer?
Shades May 30th, 2014 at 08:23
I guess we have to wait until he shoots somebody. We can thank the dead people for clarifying that.
Shades May 30th, 2014 at 08:21
I’m not advocating anything, just asking a question. I believe TX has both stand-your-ground and open carry so, if one of these guys approached a car at a stoplight, the driver of that car saw the weapon (yes, I realize the gun is slung over the shoulders) and shot said open-carrier, could he reasonably use stand-your-ground as defense. He could say the weapon frightened him and he thought he was about to be car-jacked? What if the driver were wealthy, driving an expensive car and carrying a lot of cash vs a kid in a Tercel? It goes both ways. The driver might have a vendetta. Seems like the guy with the weapon hanging over his back makes a logical target.
fahvel May 30th, 2014 at 10:30
I agree 99% but heck, I have a Tercel in the states when I visit – boo hoo.
Shades May 30th, 2014 at 08:21
I’m not advocating anything, just asking a question. I believe TX has both stand-your-ground and open carry so, if one of these guys approached a car at a stoplight, the driver of that car saw the weapon (yes, I realize the gun is slung over the shoulders) and shot said open-carrier, could he reasonably use stand-your-ground as defense. He could say the weapon frightened him and he thought he was about to be car-jacked? What if the driver was wealthy, driving an expensive car and carrying a lot of cash vs a kid in a Tercel? It goes both ways. The driver might have a vendetta. Seems like the guy with the weapon hanging over his back makes a logical target.
fahvel May 30th, 2014 at 10:30
I agree 99% but heck, I have a Tercel in the states when I visit – boo hoo.
jasperjava May 30th, 2014 at 08:28
Maybe if those idiots actually READ the Constitution, instead of just handing it out (or, more likely, have it read TO them), they would realize that the Second Amendment is for DEFENSE of the free state, not intimidating your fellow citizens by brandishing lethal weapons in their faces.
There’s a whole lot in the Constitution that these bozos wouldn’t like. Like the fact that Muslims have the freedom to exercise their religion. Or that slavery was abolished, and citizens of every color have equal rights. Maybe they wouldn’t be so hot on the Constitution if they actually knew what was in it.
jasperjava May 30th, 2014 at 08:28
Maybe if those idiots actually READ the Constitution, instead of just handing it out (or, more likely, have it read TO them), they would realize that the Second Amendment is for DEFENSE of the free state, not intimidating your fellow citizens by brandishing lethal weapons in their faces.
There’s a whole lot in the Constitution that these bozos wouldn’t like. Like the fact that Muslims have the freedom to exercise their religion. Or that slavery was abolished, and citizens of every color have equal rights. Maybe they wouldn’t be so hot on the Constitution if they actually knew what was in it.
mea_mark May 30th, 2014 at 08:31
(I posted this comment at FreakOutNation also)
The Blue Mesa Grill serves alcohol, according to state law it is against the law to have firearms where alcohol is served or sold and that extends to the parking lot. These people are law breakers. At Chipoltes they also serve alcohol, when the San Antonio Police officers went with them, were they then also breaking the law? Perhaps this entire incident should be investigated more thoroughly. We certainly don’t need police officers that think they are above the law and only want to enforce the law when they feel like it. I would certainly like to know who these officers were and if they were committing a crime.
Les Finesse May 30th, 2014 at 09:29
I believe law enforcement is exempt. They can carry their weapon into a federal building, except courtrooms, while the rest of us are forbidden.
mea_mark May 30th, 2014 at 09:42
But if they are there when a crime is being committed and are participating in that crime, are they culpable? They can carry as officers of the law but does that extend to those around them? I would certainly like to know what TABC thinks about that.
mea_mark May 30th, 2014 at 08:31
(I posted this comment at FreakOutNation also)
The Blue Mesa Grill serves alcohol, according to state law it is against the law to have firearms where alcohol is served or sold and that extends to the parking lot. These people are law breakers. At Chipoltes they also serve alcohol, when the San Antonio Police officers went with them, were they then also breaking the law? Perhaps this entire incident should be investigated more thoroughly. We certainly don’t need police officers that think they are above the law and only want to enforce the law when they feel like it. I would certainly like to know who these officers were and if they were committing a crime.
Les Finesse May 30th, 2014 at 09:29
I believe law enforcement is exempt. They can carry their weapon into a federal building, except courtrooms, while the rest of us are forbidden.
mea_mark May 30th, 2014 at 09:42
But if they are there when a crime is being committed and are participating in that crime, are they culpable? They can carry as officers of the law but does that extend to those around them? I would certainly like to know what TABC thinks about that.
arc99 May 30th, 2014 at 20:26
If these laws that allow people to stroll around with firearms are such a good idea, how come only four states where these laws have been passed, extend the practice to the state capital buildings where the legislature does its work?
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-15/guns-allowed-all-over-except-near-politicians
Steve Hickey, a Republican state legislator in South Dakota, has 17 guns, a National Rifle Association card, and a faith that pistol-packing residents make public places safer—except for the one where he works. “We have the most contentious issues being debated in public policy, affecting people in irate, angrily ways and affecting millions and millions of dollars,” Hickey says of the copper-domed capital in Pierre, where he sponsored a bill that allows some teachers to carry firearms in schools but opposed one that would let law-abiding citizens bring them into the statehouse. “This is different than when you go work at the bar,” he says. “This is different than you working at the bank.”
arc99 May 30th, 2014 at 20:26
If these laws that allow people to stroll around with firearms are such a good idea, how come only four states where these laws have been passed, extend the practice to the state capital buildings where the legislature does its work?
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-15/guns-allowed-all-over-except-near-politicians
Steve Hickey, a Republican state legislator in South Dakota, has 17 guns, a National Rifle Association card, and a faith that pistol-packing residents make public places safer—except for the one where he works. “We have the most contentious issues being debated in public policy, affecting people in irate, angrily ways and affecting millions and millions of dollars,” Hickey says of the copper-domed capital in Pierre, where he sponsored a bill that allows some teachers to carry firearms in schools but opposed one that would let law-abiding citizens bring them into the statehouse. “This is different than when you go work at the bar,” he says. “This is different than you working at the bank.”
Grumpyoldman May 31st, 2014 at 10:29
These bozos do read the constitution. As it was originally written, in 1787. They fail to understand we as a species have evolved since then.
I’m all for open carry – as defined in 1787 – everyone gets a musket. Honestly, WTF the need for an automatic rife? As soldiers we are trained “one shot. One kill”. Everything else is waste.
I’d be more than happy to have OCT meet “stand your ground”. I think that court case would be fun to watch.
Grumpyoldman May 31st, 2014 at 10:29
These bozos do read the constitution. As it was originally written, in 1787. They fail to understand we as a species have evolved since then.
I’m all for open carry – as defined in 1787 – everyone gets a musket. Honestly, WTF the need for an automatic rife? As soldiers we are trained “one shot. One kill”. Everything else is waste.
I’d be more than happy to have OCT meet “stand your ground”. I think that court case would be fun to watch.