A Kansas Court of Appeals is being asked to reverse a felony conviction resulting from a vague statute, addressing interference with public business, that is being used to violate First and Second Amendment rights.
The story begins with Earl Ray Harris (78), who, in March of 2019, individually protested against public employees who had breached his property and were digging a ditch without his permission. Harris lodged the initial complaint with a city council member, then followed up by walking out to the site of the incursion, where he sat on a stool holding an unloaded shotgun without making threats or pointing the firearm.
Like many overly entitled government employees, aware that they can disrespect the public, treat us like we have no rights or humanity, and still hold on to their jobs until retirement, a pair of public works employees responded by taking cover behind vehicles and calling authorities. While it seems these public works employees have never heard of the Second Amendment, calling the police isn’t nearly as bad as what happened next.
“There’s nothing wrong with calling the police for this type of thing… The mistake came when they arrested him for doing nothing more, really, than walking on his property with his own gun and turning his back, in a completely nonthreatening manner, on these employees,” said Reid Nelson, a state appellate defender representing Harris.
When the Girard Police Department arrived on the scene, officers arrested Harris, who was openly carrying on his own property without making any threatening gestures or physically doing anything to interfere. I contacted the Department to inquire about protocol for arresting a man who openly carries on his own property without making any threatening gestures, given that Kansas is a Constitutional Carry state. Unfortunately, and embarrassingly, the question went unanswered.
Of course it did. They can’t say it isn’t protocol, because my next question would be, “Then why did you do it, and what has happened to the officers responsible?” Likewise, they couldn’t tell me it is policy, as that would not only be diametrically opposed to the Second Amendment, but it would also be incongruent with Kansas state law, which supersedes local restrictions, barring counties and cities from creating their own laws to regulate the open or concealed carry of firearms.
Harris was ultimately acquitted of aggravated assault, and it is shameful that he was ever charged, as the law requires proof of an actual threat of bodily harm, none of which exists. But when the government wants you, they’ll lie, cheat, and sell their souls down the river to get you. This is how they were able to get a jury to convict Harris on a charge of “aggravated interference with the conduct of public business in a public building.”
A public building?
Nelson reminded the three-judge panel that his Crawford County client was on his own property, and not in a public building, arguing that the conviction should be overturned because the law implicitly states that the interference must occur in a public building. Unfortunately, reason and logic are not contagious, and Judge Amy Fellows Cline responded with what would have become my stupid remark of the week, until I read the prosecution’s arguments.
“In this day and age, when you invoke a weapon, doesn’t that change the character of the message?” said the “judge.”
First of all, using the word “invoke” in place of carry, or exercise the right to bear arms, doesn’t change the fact that Harris wasn’t breaking the law. Further, facts and laws don’t care about your feelings. How many times has a person been arrested despite being unaware they were breaking the law at the time, or feeling as if their actions were benign and caused no harm to anyone? Do you think their feelings on the matter prevented conviction? Apparently, that only works in one direction.
“The First Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression and the Second Amendment right to bear arms are both rights that can make people uncomfortable… The United States Supreme Court says clearly that before the exercise of these important rights can be criminalized, the jury must determine that the action involves a true threat of violence,” Nelson argued.
Andy Lohmann, a Kansas assistant solicitor general, implored the panel to reject Harris’s appeal, claiming the law is perfectly clear in its protection of government workers outside the walls of a government building; however, K.S.A. 21-5922 says no such thing, and refers repeatedly to violations of the statute occurring in public buildings and chambers.
“Ultimately, you can commit the crime of ‘interfering with the conduct of public business in a public building’ — not in a public building,” said Lohmann, who should be disbarred immediately for his illiteracy, abject stupidity, and the damage one could inflict upon citizens given his position and lack of intelligence or integrity.
Appeals Court Judge Sarah Warner took issue with the idea that the statute was clear.
“It’s kind of a strange statute… Everyone is willing to argue that this is a clear statute, but I’m not sure that I’m among your number,” Warner said.
The panel, unable to believe that this waste of a law degree said what he said, asked him to confirm that he did not find any distinction between Harris protesting in a public building or in his own pasture, but when you’ve already committed to a fool’s argument and are a disappointment to the justice system, the American people, your own family, and even your parents, you might as well double down.
“That’s correct… He knew he was going to impede public officials by intimidating them with the weapon,” Lohmann said, avoiding the crux of the question.
But why stop there? Why not demonstrate your full contempt for the Constitution? He did, telling the panel that Constitutional issues were not relevant to the appeal. Listen, comrade, this is America, and the Constitution is the bedrock of our justice system; therefore, it is always relevant. By the way, which document was it you swore your oath to? Yeah…
“The right to bear arms is not the right to carry a weapon for whatever purpose… The state has the ability to make sure that someone is not carrying the weapon in order to intimidate a city worker so they stop working,” Lohmann continued to embarrass himself.
Actually, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I read that somewhere once. Didn’t you get the memo? And who are you to determine intent? A threat was made or it wasn’t. A gun was pointed or it wasn’t. Plain and simple. The Second Amendment is universal to Americans. It is not a states’ rights issue; however, criminals tend to do what they want, especially once they get their .gov email address. The left hates any freedom of speech and expression that doesn’t agree with them, and the only thing they hate more is the right to bear arms.
Read the full article here
