Posts tagged ‘Massey’

Camp Lone Star – Massey Moved to Minimum Security Satellite Camp

Camp Lone Star
Massey Moved to Minimum Security Satellite Campfci-seagoville

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November  23, 2016

Congratulations to KC Massey!

This morning, I got a phone call from Kevin “KC” Massey. We knew that his move was coming for over a month. Today, however, he called me from the Federal Correctional Institution Seagoville – Satellite Camp, a minimum security facility outside of the walls of the prison. It is for those who are not a flight risk and have demonstrated good behavior.

Less than ten months, since his arrival at the low security Seagoville FCI, he has earned an honored status among both guards and prisoners. You see, Massey is not a bad guy. The bad guy in this while story was Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Hagen. Hagen had constantly encouraged US Marshals to do what they could to make life hard on Massey when he was in jail in Brownsville, and through his rather lengthy transit to Seagoville. One of the methods was to mark his “jacket” (folder) as “Gang Affiliation”, which resoled in Massey being put in solitary confinement. He would talk his way out of solitary, since there is no record of, and Massey has never been involved with, gangs.

This change in status is indicative of the persecution imposed by Hagen, through US Marshal Service, to punish Massey because he challenged the law that he was charged with violating.

Tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day. Today, Massey gives thanks to those who supported him through his ordeal with the “justice” system.

Unfortunately, he has not yet received at date for his Appeal. However, it should be on the 2017 docket at the Fifth Circuit, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Massey can be reached at:

Kevin Massey  76555379
FCI Seagoville
Satellite Camp
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, Texas  75159

For donations to his commissary account, use his PayPal account:
freekcmassey@gmail.com
Any contribution will be forward directly to his commissary. It is run by Massey’s family.

For the entire series on KC Massey – Camp Lone Star

Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner – Wolf

Burns Chronicles No 40
Allen Varner (Wolf)

av4

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
November 15, 2016

When I wrote “What is Brandon Curtiss?“, I had nothing but gratitude for Wolf.  He had stepped up when I was faced with Brandon Curtiss and his goons.  His involvement allowed me to continue packing in order to leave Burns.  The above picture was taken during this event.

There were some unanswered questions from an earlier incident.  When the shootout occurred at Camp Lone Star, back on August 29, 2014, Varner was with Kevin “KC” Massey and John Foerster, on the Texas Border near Brownsville, when a Border Patrol (BP) Agent fired in the direction of Foerster.  (See “The Arrest of K. C. Massey“.)  Now questions arose as to Foerster’s role, but Varner appeared to be without sin.  Varner, however, was the first to offer his pistol, in his belt under his shirt, to the BP agent, which led to Massey then turning his pistol over to BP.  In hindsight, there were other questionable actions by Varner, though unrelated to the topic at hand.

Varner was quite cooperative in my interview with him and provided some information that only he had, which indicated that much of what BP did, out of sight of Massey, was not consistent with the testimony they offered in court.  This could be interpreted as an attempt to ingratiate himself to Massey and myself.

According to Massey, Varner left Camp Lone Star within a couple of days of the shooting.  He did not return until two days before Massey’s arrest.  Was he there to report when Massey was going to spend the night in the motel room?  Only someone at Camp Lone Star would have that information.  At that critical time, Varner was at Camp Lone Star.

Now, often people have suspicion that someone could be an informant.  I may have reason to believe someone is an informant.  However, I will not write that someone is an informant unless I can prove that someone is an informant.  So, ironically, the person that helped me while I was in Burns is, well, an informant.

Let’s get to the heart of the matter.  To do so, I will be referring to FBI documents that I have obtained.  They are marked, at the bottom left corner, “Dissemination Limited by Court Order”.  So, let me make this perfectly clear — I have no intention of “disseminating” the documents, nor am I bound by any “Court Order”.  I am writing about a Public Trial, which was held in September and October 2016.  Had I access to these documents during that trial, I would have written the same article that I am writing now.

A Public Trial, as intended by the Founders, was guaranteed so that we could judge both the alleged crimes of the accused and the role of the government.  This article, and subsequent articles on the subject of informants, is about the role of the government.

Informants are nothing less than spies, albeit, they are not spies set against foreign enemies or other countries.  No, they are spies sent by the agents of the government to act against their own people.  Whether they are paid, as was the case explained in my article “Terri Linnell (Mama Bear)“, to avoid prosecution for a crime they may have committed, or simply because they disagree with the politics of whomever they are informing against, they are nothing less than those contemptible creatures who, in most situations, face death if caught practicing their trade.  The only exception would be when they realize that they are on the wrong side, and willingly change to the right side.  This is addressed in another article, “Informants – What to do About Them“.

Using form “FD-1023”, also known as “CHS Reporting Document”, agents assigned to an informant provides information, based upon their communication, face to face, via text or email, by phone, or even secret messages, to place this information into the record.

Unfortunately, some of the records I have obtained are so severely redacted that nothing but the pre-printed form information is visible.  However, often what the informant reported can be compared to information obtained in speaking with victims of the informant, or the information reported may become available in other public forums.  Often, such information is “exculpatory” in nature, meaning that it tends to provide evidence that the accused may not be guilty of the crime with which he has been charged.  So, I will provide some of the text from the reports and offer a perspective regarding both aspects.  The entire body of information will not be provided in this article.  A sampling should be sufficient to provide the reader with understanding of just how these spies operate, and how they may set their own trap.  The spies will identify themselves as “CHS” (Confidential Human Source).

We will begin with January 4, 2016, two days after the occupation of the Refuge and the first identifiable report from Varner.

There are 25-30 people on the property to include 5 women who are assisting in cooking, etc.  Most individuals are carrying side arms and CHS has not seen any Iongrifles, but knows they are there. CHS has not yet seen any explosives and one militia member is in the watch tower approximately 100 feet in the air. The militia will be conducting patrols at night.  CHS will obtain license plates later this evening and saw one militia member driving a white 4X4 truck bearing US Government plate number I487752 presumed to belong to the refuge. The militia is expecting the FBI to arrive and know that they are being called trespassers and not domestic terrorists.

CHS observed the following vehicles:

                [Note: first two vehicle descriptions and plate #s not included for the privacy of the owners]:

3) Jason Patrick, White Male, mid 40’s, 5’10″, 230 lbs, beard, mustache, seen driving the white 4X4 truck bearing US Government plate I487752.

So, we can see that this informant, along with others, provided a snapshot, updated frequently, of what was going on and who was present at the Refuge.

 

Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 40 – Allen Varner – Wolf’ »

Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute

Camp Lone Star #31
The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I
Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute

kc-now

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 17, 2016

It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is today, can guess what it will be tomorrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

James Madison, Federalist #62            

Do we simply accept the government interpretation of a law, without consideration for the grammatical structure(incoherent, or just misrepresented?)? If so, do we simply rely upon the enforcers of the law to tell us what we may, and what we may not, do?

Gary Hunt, October 17, 2016               

We will begin with a brief discussion of the legal/historical context of what result in Kevin “KC” Massey standing trial for “felon in possession of a firearm.  The, we will go into detail, including excerpts from the transcripts, of KC’s trail in Brownsville, Texas.

Kevin Massey organized what became known as Camp Lone Star (CLS), located on the property of Rusty Monsees.  The property abuts the Rio Grande River, about six miles southeast of Brownsville, Texas.  Massey had lived on the Monsees property for months, prior to the incidents that will be described.

The area in which the Camp was located is well known as a crossing point for illegal immigration.  The Camp was established to discourage illegal crossings, primarily to persuade those attempting to cross to return to the south shore of the River.  On occasion, the illegals were detained and turned over to United States Border Patrol (BPS).

Camp Lone Star was the most successful private, permanent, border operation along the entire southern border until the events described below began to unfold.  Though it only covered a few miles of common crossing areas, it was a full-time operation and reduced, significantly, crossings within its area of operation.

On August 29,  2014, there was a shooting incident where three of the CLS Team were patrolling the border, on private property, and with the consent of the owner’s representative.  A Border Patrol agent shot at one of the Team, who never raised his weapon and who then placed it on the ground, without the need for a command from the agent.  When the other Team members and BPS agents came together for the BPS to “investigate” the shooting by their agent, the CLS Team members cooperated, fully, with the investigation.

The only violation of any sort was the agent shooting, in violation of BPS policy.  However, it appears that the agent has not been subject to any hearing or punishment because of his actions.

. Continue reading ‘Camp Lone Star #31 – The Case of Kevin KC Massey – I – Challenging the Interpretation vs. the Wording of a Statute’ »

Burns Chronicles No 24 – To Plea, or, Not To Plea

Burns Chronicles No 24
To Plea, or, Not To Plea

white-flag-surrender-question

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 16, 2016

As some of those staunch defenders of our rights, in both Burns, Oregon, and Bunkerville, Nevada, decide to make a plea agreement with the prosecutors, the Internet has both armchair quarterbacks damning them and sympathetic supporters who will stand by their decision.  However, perhaps it is necessary to look a little deeper into who those people, at both the Ranch and Refuge are, and to consider their respective objectives.

We can categorize those who participated in both events by comparing them to those who stood up against the British, 240 years ago.  In so doing, there are three general categories, so that we can consider them in a contemporary context.

The first category is, for want of a better term, the politicos.  Historically, these would be those who served on local and Provincial Committees of Safety and, those who went to Philadelphia and served in the Continental Congress.  There may be others, such as newspaper editors and others who were outspoken against the British, so that we can lump them into this category, as well.

Now, in the past two years, we have, likewise, the politicos, those whose involvement is to challenge the government concerning both rights and that which should be right.  Their objective is educational as well as political, desiring to provide understanding to other citizens as well as to attempt to get the government to stay within its limits and to remain obedient to the Constitution.

The second category is those with military inclinations.  For the most part, they had prior military and leadership experience in the French and Indian wars.  Their purpose was to use military force to protect the rights of Englishmen and defend against forces thrown against them.

In the contemporary context, it would include those with military and leadership experience who have taken the task of protecting those politicos against attempts at violent suppression of their right to seek redress of grievances and to speak freely on subjects of concern to others.

These first two categories can easily be equated to the First Amendment, for the politicos, and the Second Amendment for those with military inclinations. Continue reading ‘Burns Chronicles No 24 – To Plea, or, Not To Plea’ »

Camp Lone Star – AUSA Hagen: “Wah, Wah, Wah!”

Camp Lone Star
AUSA Hagen: “Wah, Wah, Wah!”

KC Smile bars

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
January 6, 2016

KC Massey was sentenced on Monday, January 4, 2016. The sentencing hearing was scheduled for 8:30 AM, in the morning session; however, the Prosecutor, AUSA William (Bill) F. Hagen, ably assisted by his sidekick, Jason Edmund Corley, had filed a “SEALED – GOVERNMENT’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR NON-GUIDELINE SENTENCE” on December 30, just five days before the scheduled sentencing. Judge Hanen reschedules the hearing until 3:00 PM, at which time Massey’s Sentencing Hearing resumes. The Sentencing guidelines statute, referred to in that Motion, especially paragraphs (a) and (a)(1), can be found at 18 USC §3553.

Hagen wanted to move up the sentence from the suggested 51-61 months, as per the guideline, to the next step, 61-71 months. Instead, Hanen gave Massey two minus points. Generally, if you choose to go to trial, instead of plea, you end up with two points against you. Hanen, understanding the merit of the arguments brought forward by Massey, was convinced that the merit of the arguments overrides the built in trial penalty.

Note: Article 6, Bill of Rights, provides for a “public trial”, so whether the document is sealed, or not, if it is to be public, then it is disingenuous of the government to “Seal” a document, since they are supposed to be working for us. As a consequence, and being one of those in the “public, I hereby unseal said document, so that you can see just what the government wants to hide from you, the rest of the public.

Before we get into the other subject matter of the Sealed Document, there is one “exhibit” that is simply referenced in the “Sealed Motion” (page 6), but is actually shown in the “Government’s Sentencing Exhibits” (page 13); it is a picture of DVD disc with a sticker marking it as “Exhibit 1-J”.

To know what was said, in this exchange between Massey, who had been sworn in, and Hagen, absent access to the audio DVD, we can get some direct partial quotes from the “Sealed Motion”, when he is speaking of Massey, to wit:

His appeals are not only to the public, but also to a higher power. In a phone call from the jail to his daughter, Defendant Massey stated that while he “[didn’t] hold hate in his heart” for the prosecutor and that he had “asked God to forgive [the prosecutor],” he did nevertheless expect “God to punish [the prosecutor]… to kill his kids” and “to kill his wife.

Now, that was written, but two other sources have described the spoken word, during the Sentencing Hearing. Massey’s wife, Khristi, recalls Hagen describing what Massey said as:

Hagen is a bitch. Fuck him. God will punish him. I hope God kills his wife and her kids.

And, Massey describes some of Hagen’s words as:

He didn’t hold that against me, but he wanted God to kill my family and he called me a maggot.

Now, According to Massey, this seemed to be a matter of great emotional distress to Hagen. Though we do not have Hagen’s voice, inflections, or body language, given the words, we have an idea. It appears that Hagen was concerned for his wife and kids. Apparently, he believed, possibly understanding the sinfulness of this prosecution, that God just might listen to Massey and act on his behalf.

I will take a moment to wave my own flag. In one of the allegations in the Sealed Motion, we find the following:

On April 19th, 2015, while Defendant Massey was charged in a four count indictment for being a felon in possession of a firearm, he provided a link on his Facebook account sponsoring an article related to the Oklahoma City terrorist attack.3 That article referred to the Oklahoma City bombing as the act of a “patriot who intended to light the fuse of violent resistance to the government’s overarching, and deadly, imposition upon the rights of the people.”4 This same article goes on to analogize the prosecution of Defendant Massey with the previously stated motives of the so called “patriot” who attacked the Murrah Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma City in an act of terrorism thereby murdering innocents, including children.5 One month later, on May 16th, 2015, Defendant made a lengthy statement on his Facebook account asking others if they were “willing to defend this countries(sic) constitutional republic with [their] life and property.”6 Defendant went on in that same statement to call for a “plan of action to restore our Constitutional Republic” including “committees of safety.”7 Most alarmingly, on May 3rd, 2015, Defendant called upon others through his Facebook account “to make a STAND and not back down.”8 Defendant elaborated in this post to social media stating: “I have suffered long enough under this illegal prosecution (over 6 months) and either the Judge will do the right thing or I will. I have been very patient and they have cost me my freedom of movement and cost me thousands of dollars UNLAWFULLY and against the Constitution, and I will not keep taking it laying (sic) down. I am not a criminal nor will I be treated as such without repercussion. This is my call for Action if the courts fail to adhere to law. When criminals get killed rioters tear down cities, when patriots get arrested we all sit back and do nothing. Its (sic) time to take a stand America.” (emphasis added).9 On that same date Defendant commented through Facebook on the above referenced post adding: “I am requesting ALL who can to come to my house incase (sic) the feds try and pull some bullshit. They have already been trying to set me up to revoke my bond. I will NOT allow them to retake my freedom. This is an urgent call and I am not taking this call lightly. I have several acres and home to secure to make sure no unwanted people come here. If people will stand for Bundys (sic) and the Sugar Pine Mine will they stand with a proven patriot. No matter I am on a heightened alert and I will NOT allow anymore harassment or abuses by the federal government toward me. If you are really serious about making a stand, Come make it with me on my PRIVATE property.10

[Footnotes]

3 See Attachment 3, Government’s Exhibit 1 C. This post was made on the twentieth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Terrorist Bombing.

4 See Attachment 4, Government’s Exhibit 1 D. “April 19, 2015” by Gary Hunt published to Outpost of Freedom. The writer of this article, Gary Hunt, has remained in close contact with Defendant throughout the pendency of the prosecution. Defendant has communicated with Gary Hunt on at least eighty (80) occasions from the jail since his detention. This article is still available online at http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog…

5 See Attachment 4, Government’s Exhibit 1D.

6 See Attachment 2, Government’s Exhibit 1C.

7 See Attachment 2, Government’s Exhibit 1C.

8 See Attachment 9, Government’s Exhibit 1K.

9 See Attachment 9, Government’s Exhibit 1K.

10 See Attachment 9, Government’s Exhibit 1K.

Exhibit “1 D” is the entire article. What Hagen, who by this time probably really hates me, has tried to demonize Massey by his association with me, as this is just one of the instances where he tried to make Mosey own my words.

Rest assured, however, whenever I suggest that my efforts might hurt rather than help (what I offer to all of those I work with for such stories), his response was, emphatically, I don’t care, but I believe you have helped immensely. And so he laughs whenever he mentions Hagen repeatedly trying to effect such demonization.

Back to the sentencing, as this is what it is all about. Although it is necessary to understand the rather childish name-calling nature of Hagen’s efforts, we left Hanen’s decision and the reduction of the two trial related points.

So, Hagen, once again, after those points are removed, revisits, with additional arguments, and tries to elevate it back up, an “upward adjustment” to the 51-61 category, and additional discussion ensues, primarily between Hagen and Massey (who has, obviously, taken up his own defense), we approach the two hour mark. Hanen asks if anybody wanted to continue the hearing. Massey says he does not. Hanen, then, sentences Massey to the minimum in the guidelines lever, to 41 months, with credit for time served. Once more, when Hagen wants to go up, Hanen goes down, in Massey’s favor to the lowest possible sentence.

For those that know KC Massey, since he was first arrested, I had not seen, in those entire 13 months, his spirits as high as they have been, these last few days. He has taken his task to challenge the “felon in possession” law to get it contained within the limitations of the Constitution, and “Bill” Hagen has been instrumental in laying the foundation for an appeal and eventually a limitation properly imposed on the application of that law.

A final note: As much ground as the government has lost in the sentencing of KC Massey, in their press release, they appear to gloat over their success of conviction, that conviction happened months ago, but they really don’t address this current failure to get “the last ounce of blood”.

Camp Lone Star – Follow Up on a Show of Support for KC Massey

Camp Lone Star
Follow Up on a
Show of Support for KC Massey

KC Smile bars

The Lone Warrior

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 7, 2015

 

I spoke with KC on Monday.  He had received a number of “I Care Gifts” (https://camerontx.icaregifts.com/), and some money has come in to his commissary account, via PayPal.  Letters, cards, and money orders would not have arrived since the Show of Support for KC Massey was put out last Thursday, but what has come in has given KC an understanding of just how many people support him and are willing to do something to demonstrate their concern.

Let’s look at it from KC’s perspective.  He is in jail and his contact with outside is very limited.  He talks to Khristi, his wife, regularly; he talks to me quite often; and, he is in phone contact with a few other close friends.  Beyond that, the world does not exist.  He has felt like the patriot community has abandoned him, since he has no idea of what transpires in discussions on Facebook and other Internet communications areas.  The government follows all of this, but they damned sure will not tell KC what support he has, so KC thinks, regardless of what we tell him, that he has been abandoned.

The display of support that has come in, so far, has given him to understand that the support is still there.  Reality has hit him, like “a 2×4 up the side of his head”, that people realize the potential effect of his battle with the misinterpretation of a federal law, and that the support that he was hoping that he had through this ordeal was really there, all along, but the means of showing that support has manifested itself in something quite demonstrable in the form of gifts, monetary, and especially, the letters of encouragement that he has, and, hopefully, will continue to receive.

Easily the least expensive and the easiest to provide, in terms of you showing support, is a letter or card.  And, perhaps, the most meaningful and long lasting, as the commissary account will, eventually, dry up, and the I Care Gifts will eventually be consumed.  Those letters and cards, however, will, like the Bible that he keeps close, always be there as a reminder of the good things that make his ordeal worthwhile.  You need not stop at just one letter.  He needs the Commissary for pen, paper, and postage, but I am sure that he will have plenty of time, until this gets before the Appellate Court, to reply to those of you who send their words of support.

For those who wish to participate in the Support for KC Massey, and for those who want to add to the support that they have already shown, mailing address and other information can be found at the bottom of the Show of Support for KC Massey.

Finally, I will pass on what KC asked me to express to those who have supported him with action, and those who have simply supported him with their thoughts:

 

“Express to them my Heartfelt Thanks for their support for me,
and, my standing against a despotic government.”

Camp Lone Star – Show of Support for KC Massey

Camp Lone Star – Show of Support for KC Massey

KC barsThe Lone Warrior

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
October 1, 2015

Yesterday, September 30, 2015, was the big day for KC Massey’s challenge to the federal Felon in Possession of a Firearm law (18 USC §922(g)(1)). Though there were hopes that somehow Judge Andrew Hanen would rule, finding KC not guilty, that was not the case. However, there was a reason that Hanen could not come to that verdict, but had to rule Massey guilty.

What is known as “stare decisis” (The legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent), which requires that a Circuit Court judge must abide by previously decided cases from the Appellate or Supreme Courts, was held to. Unlike some District Court judges, Hanen abides by his responsibility to the law and cannot use the Wisdom of Solomon to make his decision.

However, as pointed out in previous posts, Hanen has gone overboard to assure that the record of the current case is loaded, as the Appellate Court can only rule on the record (official court documents) of this case. He has, twice, extended to Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, the opportunity to load that record so that there is sufficient argument to make a good case before the Appellate Court.

In an interview with Mike and Khristi, who attended the trial, I can provide a little insight into the proceedings. A more detailed explanation will be provided, once the transcripts of the trial are available.

The government brought in an expert witness that testified that the weapons that had been taken form Massey had been manufactured out of state, explaining, in detail, how he was able to come to that conclusion. This does raise an interesting question. It would require that someone who provided you a gun to patrol the border knew that it was manufactured out of state, and, it would also require that you knew that the gun was manufactured out of state. I suppose that the federal law, as interpreted by the government, requires specialized knowledge for the people to come to the conclusion that the firearm was manufactured elsewhere, though by their own admission, it took an expert to make that determination on behalf of the government.

There is another possibility, that the government’s interpretation of the law is other than what the law really means. And, that is the subject which keeps the door open for Massey’s case to make law, once it is heard before the Appellate Court.

What we have been referring to as the “Has/Had” argument challenges the government interpretation that any gun that has crossed state line cannot be possessed by a felon, regardless of how long ago that felon was committed, and sentence served. In Massey’s case, that was 28 years.

So, Hanen, in open court and on the record, stated that the “Has/Had” argument seemed valid and that it was “ripe for appeal”. That means that the particular “Has/Had” argument has never been decided by a higher court, and it appears that he sees merit in the argument and believes that the higher court, the one that makes “stare decisis” (law), based upon the wording in the statute, needs to hear this case on appeal.

After the trial, Louis told Khristi and Mike that Massey’s case would rewrite history. With this, I am inclined to agree. And, we can consider the consequences to those who are patriotic, though fearful of being charged and convicted under this federal law, when the law is misapplied by the government and falsely creates a crime where none exists. Even transporting, not for commerce, would no longer be criminal for those who have a felony on their record.

KC had expressed his desire to speak to the judge, though if he went on the stand, it would open for the prosecution the right to extensive cross-examination. However, during closing arguments, Massey kept trying to state his feelings. After some discussion, the Judge decided that he could, as a part of the closing statements, say what he felt.

What Massey managed to get on the records (not verbatim) is, “As a common man, all I have is the letter of the law to go by. And you f***ers screwed up on the law, so, what else am I supposed to do?” To this, the Judge said that he was sorry and that he was held by case precedence.

Twice, during the trial, the Judge said that he didn’t agree with what was going on, in his heart. That is not what a judge intent on holding up the government’s position would say, and that, too, is a part of the record.

In a brief conversation, after the trial, Hagen, the US Attorney, expressed is apprehensive as to the results of an appeal. I believe he knows that he will, eventually, loose this case.

At the end of the trial, Hagen ask for permission to take pictures of all of the guns and then destroy them. Judge Hanen refused to give permission, most likely because the guns will have to be returned to Massey, after the Appellate decision, as his property. Apparently, Hanen is that sure that the conviction will be overturned and case law adjusted to limited the federal felon in possession law to apply only, and specifically, where it belongs, to the government’s overstretched authority under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

Though Massey and I have frequently, for the last twelve months, discussed the probability that this would have to go to the Appellate Court, when the finding of guilty was given, it had an effect on him.

He called me as soon as he got back to jail, but he was forlorn. He said that he can’t take any more, that this guilty verdict has sapped all of his strength. There was nothing that I could say that would cheer him up. He feels that he has been abandoned by the patriot community and his friends. And, this leads us to where we can help this brave soul as he fights a battle that will serve the patriot community more than any other act in recent years. We need to show our support for KC Massey. It doesn’t have to be a lot, but it has to be numerous, so that he knows that we are behind him. So, here is what you can do:

Show of Support for KC Massey

Note: changed to this permanent address as of July 2016

Kevin Massey  76555379
FCI Seagoville
Federal Correctional Institution
P.O. Box 9000
Seagoville, Texas  75159

For information about Seagoville, sending money, etc., go to:

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/sea/

Remember, KC Massey is like a Prisoner of War, but still fighting the battle, the outcome of which will be a significant return to the Constitution, and curtailment of unwarranted government power.

Camp Lone Star – Down to the Wire – Ninth Amendment Rights

Camp Lone Star — Down to the Wire

Ninth Amendment Rights

9th_amendment

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 27, 2015

As was explained in “The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?“, Massey’s attorney had brought two matters up in his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment. They were the Tenth Amendment and Intrastate v. Interstate commerce. The government, through their apparently novice attorney, Corley, argued that Massey did not have standing to challenge the government’s prosecution of him (sort of a “bend over, we will take care of everything” mentality).

This past Wednesday (September 23rd), Judge Andrew Hanen filed his Opinion and Order, addressing all three of the sought actions.

First, he addressed the government’s, stating that “Massey makes a… claim – that § 922(g)(1), as applied to him, impermissibly regulates intrastate activity. Therefore, he has standing to challenge § 922(g)(1).” So, we have dispensed with the government’s feeble effort to claim that Massey had n standing to challenge the government’s interpretation of the law he was charged with violating..

Next, he addresses the Tenth Amendment claim. Unfortunately, being a District Court, the Judge is bound by previous decisions of the Fifth Circuit, to which it is subordinate. Justice, perhaps not, but still the rules of the corrupt game for what passes for justice, in these times.

However the final ruling, this one has, apparently, not been addressed by the Fifth Circuit, at least to the extent that Massey’s attorney, Louis Sorola, has taken it. In what Hanen has described as “The Purely Intrastate Claim”, he states:

“Since the Government bears the burden of proving this element, and since the trial has yet to be held, the facts upon which Massey’s claim stands have not yet been established one way or the other. Until evidence has been presented, the Court is unable to evaluate this claim.”

“Therefore this argument is denied without prejudice because it is not yet ripe. Massey may reassert it at trial should he conclude that the evidence supports this claim.”

So, it appears that Judge Hanen is willing to venture into a substantive argument with regard to the difference between Interstate and Intrastate commerce. He has also placed the burden on the government to prove its jurisdiction. This leads us to review some things that have been brought up in discussion, though, perhaps, not in Court. We will revisit a previous article, “Massey is Protected by State Law” to put this argument before the people, if not the Court.

To begin with, the State of Texas has granted authority for federal agents certain powers with the enactment of Texas Penal Code, Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS. From that law (pertinent portions only):

(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

 (c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].

Though the Tenth Amendment argument has been denied, there can be little doubt that the above enactment, by the State of Texas, is an assertion of the State’s rights (not the individual’s right, as per denied motion) to limit federal authority within the State.

So, it would be rather interesting to discover if the government’s witnesses are aware of this grant of authority, and the limitations imposed upon them, by Article 2.122. If they are not, was the government remiss in advising them, or did the government hope that they would assert authority not granted to them so that the federal government would have a broad reign over activities within the State, in the hope that case law would help affirm authority beyond that which was left to them by the State grant?

So, if the federal authority is limited by “any offense under the laws of this state”, they exceeded their authority by the detention of people who were not witness to any crime that might have been a felony under state law, and the only possible violation of that law was committed by the BPS shooter, and, perhaps even those who illegally detained (kidnapped) Massey and Varner.

Let’s revisit state law regarding firearms. From Texas Penal Code Section 46.04 Unlawful Possession of Firearm

(a) A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possess a firearm:

(1) After conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the persons release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later; or
(2) After the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

So, this law makes it illegal to possess “at any location other than the premise”. However, apparently exception was made in another provision, Texas Penal Code, Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS (again, pertinent portions):

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

Since Massey is no longer prohibited from possessing a weapon, and where we have a definition of “premises” (re: 46.04) and the ability to transport a weapon, then it is clear that Massey was not in violation of state law, and if in violation, it would only be a misdemeanor, unless he was in a place that sold alcoholic beverages, then clearly the state has no objection to his possession of a firearm under the circumstances surrounding Massey, throughout this entire ordeal.

Now, the enumerated right is the right to keep and bear arms. The government argues that 18 USC 922(g)(1) includes any firearm that is:

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Intrastate Commerce

Now, let’s look at how 18 US Code defines “interstate commerce”:

18 U.S.C. § 921 : US Code – Section 921: Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter –

(2) The term “interstate or foreign commerceincludes commerce between any place in a State and any place outside of that State, or within any possession of the United States (not including the Canal Zone) or the District of Columbia, but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State

However, I find no definition of “Commerce” in 18 US Code, so we will look at the legal authority, Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition):

“The exchange of goods, productions, or property of any kind; the buying, selling, and exchange of articles…”

So, commerce is the exchange of goods, barter, sale, trade, or any other means, to be “in and affecting commerce” would require that one be involved in such a transaction.

Defining that even further, we have “interstate or foreign commerce” specifically excluding “intrastate” commerce, to wit:

“but such term does not include commerce between places within the same State but through any place outside of that State”

So, if Massey had purchased (commerce) a firearm within the state, it would take a real stretch to include “interstate”. However, Massey never purchased (commerce) any firearm, he merely possessed a firearm. Even if Massey had received it as a gift, it is inconceivable that this could create the necessary nexus to interstate commerce that the statute addresses. However, the government cannot even prove that he owns a firearm, and that is the burden that is placed upon them, by Hanen’s Opinion.

Now, that is twice removed from the apparent extent of the charges brought under 18 USC §922(g)(1). No interstate, and, no commerce.

Since the Fifth Circuit has ruled on the Tenth Amendment, and it is no longer a legal defense for Massey, it does not preclude the state from passing laws that are consistent with the Tenth Amendment, which, obviously, they have done.

So, let’s refer to this as the Ninth Amendment argument. The federal government has raised no objection to the state laws referred to above, so they must be constitutional. The Ninth Amendment reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The question is whether Massey has the right, under the Ninth Amendment, to possess a firearm, if he is totally in compliance with state law, and has not been involved in interstate commerce.

Camp Lone Star – The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?

Camp Lone Star – The King Can Do No Wrong, or Can He?

KC Smile

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
September 13, 2015

At the last hearing, Judge Hanen had told KC’s attorney, Sorola, that the Motion to Dismiss Indictment wasn’t written correctly. That motion had been denied in, which is discussed in Act II – A Kangaroo Court – Scene 1 – How Case Law Subverts the Constitution. Judge Hanen allowed that Sorola might submit a supplemental motion, and said that he was willing to hear a jurisdictional argument. AUSA Hagen was not pleased with the decision; however, dates were set for both the motion and opposition to be submitted to the Court.

Sorola filed his Second Motion to Dismiss Indictment, which “incorporates” the previous Notion to Dismiss. So we will look at what has been entered in support of the jurisdictional aspect of the case.

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) Violates The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment provides: 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. As this Amendment makes clear, and as the Supreme Court has long-recognized, the federal government is one of enumerated, limited powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland. Accordingly, the federal government may act only where the Constitution so authorizes. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

A corollary to this rule is that Congress may not act in areas prohibited to it. As Justice Thomas noted in his concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 937 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring), the Constitution “places whole areas outside the reach of Congress,” such as the First Amendment’s preventing “Congress from ‘prohibiting the free exercise’ of religion or ‘abridging the freedom of speech.'” Id. Justice Thomas went on to explain that the “Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government’s authority,” and stated: This Court has not had recent occasion to consider the nature of the substantive right safeguarded by the Second Amendment. If, however, the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to “keep and bear arms,” a colorable argument exists that the federal government’s regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment’s protections. Although Printz dealt with a successful challenge to the Brady Act’s requirement that state law enforcement officers conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, the logic of Justice Thomas’s reasoning is compelling with respect to § 922(g)(1): the Tenth Amendment limits federal power; the Second Amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing the individual right to bear arms; thus, it surely cannot be constitutional for the federal government to prohibit a person’s purely intrastate possession of firearms.

For the reasons stated above, Mr. Massey respectfully requests that the Court find 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him and dismiss the pending indictment.

Of course, AUSA Hagen has to answer this Motion, who knows, maybe even his future as a United States Attorney is in jeopardy, since this is a high profile case and Hagen has stated that he has been pressured from above to win this case. However, it appears that Mr. Hagen was not up to answering Sorola’s Motion, so we have a new player, AUSA Jason Corley (the new King), who filed the “Government’s Response” to Massey’s Motion.

Massey’s motion was simply three pages, the above being the substantial portions thereof. However, the Government’s Response was 24 pages. And, as I began reading the Government’s Response, a quote from W. C. Fields popped into my mind:

“If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.”

As I continued reading, I realized that the position Corley was taking, he was asserting as if he were King. He has his interpretation of what something means, and there is absolutely no attempt to balance justice with what he believes. This brought to mind another historical quote, most often expressed shortly before the ousting, or abdication, of a King, who refused to abide by the constitution or exercise any semblance of justice. – The King can do no Wrong!

Now, to restrain you from falling asleep or rolling on the floor laughing, I will only address some of the aspects of the government’s argument.

First, we will talk about legal theory, since that seems to be an important consideration on the government’s part. The following, though interspersed through the Motion, are consolidated simply to demonstrate their concern:

  1. Defendant’s motion is not ripe for consideration as a factual matter. Defendant has presented merely a legal theory, namely that “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm cannot be infringed by the federal government of the United States. Defendant has not, however, presented any facts whatsoever let alone “sufficient facts which, if proven, would justify relief.” (page 4)
  2. Defendant now files a motion to dismiss the indictment based solely on a proposed legal theory that “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm by a felon (or presumably any other individual) cannot be regulated or criminalized by the federal government. (page 6)
  3. But this factual issue does not tangentially create a legal dispute on a matter not in controversy, namely an unrelated constitutional theory cloaked as a suppression issue. (page 7)
  4. Article III of the United States Constitution grants the Court authority to adjudicate ‘cases’ or ‘controversies’, not irrelevant and tangential legal theory… Defendant does not have standing to challenge any supposed government regulation or criminalization of “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm. (page 8)
  5. Because Defendant’s second motion to dismiss proposes an irrelevant and tangentially reached legal theory, and because Defendant does not have standing to challenge that issue, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion to dismiss the indictment. (page 8)
  6. Because both legal theory and binding case law are contrary to Defendant’s proposition, the Government respectfully requests that Defendant’s second motion to dismiss be denied. (page 11)
  7. The legal theory postulated by Defendant is just that, a legal theory. Other legal theory supports the proposition that the federal government through an act of Congress may indeed have the authority to criminalize “purely” intrastate possession of a firearm by a felon should Congress make the requisite findings that it is necessary and proper to criminalize possession of a firearm by a felon to promote the general welfare of the American people, insure domestic tranquility, and establish justice. (page 15)

So, let’s look at what he has said. In #1 and #2, he suggests that it is a “legal theory” the “‘purely’ intrastate possession of a firearm cannot be infringed by the federal government”. Well, the Second Amendment notwithstanding, the Commerce Clause is based ” foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”. And, the government has yet to directly control intrastate commerce under the provision.

There is little doubt that the government has tried, by twisted abuse of our language (See Motion to Dismiss Indictment), tried to extent their authority to any firearm that had been in interstate commerce, though, as we will discuss, they change the language when it suits their purpose.

In #3 and #4, he suggests that it is an “unrelated constitutional theory”. In this same document, he cites the Constitution as the authority, as he sees it, as absolute, as if spoken by the King, himself. So, there is no theory allowed on the public side, since only the government side can cite their interpretation of the Constitution as legitimate. This kinda makes you wonder why they even use a pretext of justice when they simply want to imprison someone.

In both #4 and #5, he suggest that it is “irrelevant” that Massey challenge the Indictment because he has no standing, presumably, to defend himself. Once again, the King has spoken.

In 1936, in the Supreme Court decision of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (297 US 288), Justice Brandeis, in a separate but concurring decision, provided insight into the evolving role of the United States Supreme Court, wherein he said:

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

[Rule] 5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation…”

It was clear that the matter of standing had to do with matters brought to that Court, on certiorari, or error. It did not provide a means whereby a trial on criminal charges, in the lowest court of the federal system, could deny standing to challenge the law or the jurisdiction of the matter upon which one was charged.

In #6 and #7, he tends to give credence to the legal theory by stating that theory and case law are “contrary to [Massey’s] proposition”. However, we must understand that the government proposed another “legal theory”. That “theory” is suggested in the following excerpt:

Were Congress to make the proper findings and act in the interest of the “general Welfare” of the people of the United States, it is theoretically possible Congress could, and theoretically possible Congress does, have the constitutional power to regulate and criminalize all possession of firearms by felons. Congress, however, has not chosen to act pursuant to alternative powers and has instead relied on the Commerce Clause. Because of this, an interstate nexus relating to possession of the firearms is an element of the crime and any challenge the Defendant is raising in regard to “purely” intrastate possession is a factual challenge, not a constitutional one.

Now, this brings us into a whole new world of conjecture. He theorizes that Congress could, do, and does have the power to, criminalize any possession by any felon, anywhere within this (mythical) Kingdom. It has bee clearly established, when Equal Protection was discussed, that if a firearm or ammunition were manufactured in a state, those possessing such firearms and ammunition are not subject to criminal charges, since the firearm and/or ammunition had not entered interstate commerce. So, is Corley suggesting that Congress is too damned stupid to see the loophole that have left for those who live in certain states, or that they are wise enough to know that those living in those states are not the type that the felon in possession law was intended for, regardless of the fact that those with felony convictions are still felons. Or, his the King (government), perhaps, capable of doing wrong?

If his theory were correct, under the “general Welfare” provision of the Constitution, they (Congress) could dictate any, and every, aspect of our lives. Now, there is little doubt that they are slowly creeping in that direction, but AUSA Corley seems to think that we have already arrived.

Moving right along, we find, on page 6 of the Government’s Response:

“Article III of the Constitution grants the Judicial Branch authority to adjudicate ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’ In our system of government, courts have ‘no business’ deciding legal disputes or expounding on law in the absence of such a case or controversy.” Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc. and DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno. “A controversy is mooted when there are no longer adverse parties with sufficient legal interests to maintain the litigation.” “Accordingly, an actual, live controversy must remain at all stages of federal court proceedings, both at trial and appellate levels.”

Talking about stretching the hell out of an argument, the controversy here is a criminal charge brought by the US government against Massey. It is not a dispute between parties, it is an accusation based upon the misapplication of a statute. Is it even conceivable that someone, especially a highly paid public servant attorney, could deny an accused person of challenging the misrepresentation? Or, can the King (Corley) do no wrong?

Now, I expect that you are getting as bored at reading this as I am at having to wade through it (I do have my boots on), to find the little gems that (if I were a psychiatrist) demonstrate the insanity, or at least the mental instability, of the person who prepared the Government’s Response. Surely, not even the King would allow him to pass the background check, on mental grounds, to own a firearm.

But, there are two more rather interesting point that warrant our attention. Sorola cited McCulloch v. Maryland with reference to “limited powers” of government, according to the Constitution. In what appears to be a DOJ (Department of Justice) boilerplate insert (page 10), he suggests that the limited powers of government have a broad interpretation. From the Government’s Response:

In citing from McCulloch:

This government is acknowledged by all, to be one of enumerated powers.

“But, there is no phrase in the instrument which, like the articles of confederation, excludes incidental or implied powers; and which requires that everything granted shall be expressly and minutely described. Even the Tenth Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word ‘expressly,’ and declares only, that the powers ‘not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people;’ thus leaving the question, whether the particular power which may become subject of contest, has been delegated to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to depend upon a fair construction of the whole instrument.”

“So with respect to the whole penal code of the United States; whence arises the power to punish, in cases not prescribed by the constitution? All admit, that the government may, legitimately punish any violation of its laws; and yet, this is not among the enumerated powers of congress.”

Then, in Corley’s own words (the King has spoken):

It should come as no surprise then that the Supreme Court ruled in McCulloch v. Maryland that Congress had the power to incorporate a bank despite having no specifically enumerated power to do so. The precedent set nearly two hundred years ago in McCulloch v. Maryland works against Defendant, not for him.

Now, he talks about if not prohibited, and in the case of the matter of McCulloch, dealing with the creation of a bank, there is no prohibition against the government so doing.

But, the “legal theory” presented makes clear that there is a prohibition against the government’s intervention into the right to keep and bear arms, known as the Second Amendment, and the prohibition therein is called “infringement”.

Nowhere does the constitution address the government’s inability to infringe upon the creation of banks. In fact, there is much said about coin and currency, all implying such powers as necessary with regard to banks. So, just how does that work “against the Defendant”?

The second is an effort to conjoin “Militia” and “people”, as expressed in the Second Amendment, as only the “body of the people” (pages 11-13). He cites a “Second Amendment constitutional scholar”, which, apparently, he places the opinion of above the written laws.

If we consider that the framers of the Constitution were far more particular in the choice of words that the AUSA, we can easily dispute the effort to co-join, since they used both “Militia” and “people”. And Congress, surely, is more meticulous than the AUSA, when they enacted the following:

10 U.S.C. § 311: Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are –

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So, here we have “members of the militia”, who are, clearly, individuals, like people. However, that doesn’t stand as the only element that suggests individuality.

10 U.S.C. § 312: Militia duty: exemptions

(a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty:

(1) The Vice President.

(2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty.

(4) Customhouse clerks.

(5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail.

(6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States.

(7) Pilots on navigable waters.

(8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States.

(b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe. However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.

Though some are general in nature, others are, without a doubt, applied to individuals of certain character. So, if the “theory” of the AUSA is correct, and whether the Congress wanted to us the “general Welfare” provision, or the Commerce Clause, they would have, if what Corley wants to suggest, surely have included a class of people known as “felons”.

So, I wonder what the King will have to say about the obvious, and rather discomforting, exclusion of “felons” from the most logical source of limitation of the right to bear arms. Is it possible that the King (Congress) can do no wrong, and accordingly, will not “infringe”, except via the “Commerce Clause”?

 

Camp Lone Star – Massey is Protected by State Law

Camp Lone Star – Massey is Protected by State Law

Federal Government Violates State Law

10th-amendmen

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
August 28, 2015

There is a presumption in the minds of many people that the federal government has jurisdiction, anywhere. We even see the FBI investigating incidents in foreign, sometime hostile nations. Our purpose here however is to look at the extent, if any, of federal jurisdiction, within the geographic boundaries of the member States of the Union. It should be understood that there is a lot more to the extent of jurisdiction than will be discussed here. We are simply addressing those limitations as the apply to the recent events involving KC Massey and Camp Lone Star.

To its credit, the Texas State Legislature, in its wisdom and understanding of the relationship with the federal government, enacted Article 2.122 of the Texas Penal Code. This “law” provides for granting of certain authority to federal agents. The pertinent parts of that Act are as follows:

Art. 2.122. SPECIAL INVESTIGATORS.

(a) The following named criminal investigators of the United States shall not be deemed peace officers, but shall have the powers of arrest, search, and seizure under the laws of this state as to felony offenses only:

(1) Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation;

(3) Special Agents of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement;

(4) Special Agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives;

(9) Marshals and Deputy Marshals of the United States Marshals Service;

(b) A person designated as a special policeman by the Federal Protective Services division of the General Services Administration under 40 U.S.C. Section 318 or 318d is not a peace officer but has the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state.

(c) A Customs and Border Protection Officer or Border Patrol Agent of the United States Customs and Border Protection or an immigration enforcement agent or deportation officer of the Department of Homeland Security is not a peace officer under the laws of this state but, on the premises of a port facility designated by the commissioner of the United States Customs and Border Protection as a port of entry for arrival in the United States by land transportation from the United Mexican States into the State of Texas or at a permanent established border patrol traffic check point, has the authority to detain a person pending transfer without unnecessary delay to a peace officer if the agent or officer has probable cause to believe that the person has engaged in conduct that is a violation of Section 49.02, 49.04, 49.07, or 49.08, Penal Code, regardless of whether the violation may be disposed of in a criminal proceeding or a juvenile justice proceeding.

So, the extent of the authority to arrest, which would also include detaining a person, is only “the powers of arrest and search and seizure as to any offense under the laws of this state [Texas].” We will address the limitation to the laws of the state, below.

BPS also has a greater degree of authority, but only at Ports of Entry and Checkpoints. So, at Sabal Palms, where the alleged “crime” took place, which may have been a violation of the laws of the state, the BPS agent who fired at Foerster had committed the only possible crime, and the BPS agent the only possible criminal. It might be stretching the point to say that Foerster, the only witness to the crime, might be detained, though that is a gray area that we need not address.

Clearly, Massey and Varner, not even witness to the crime, are well outside of the authority granted by the state to the designated federal agents. Take note, also, of the word “premises” in paragraph (c). We will also address that later.

So, the State of Texas saw fit to extend certain powers to certain agents of the federal government. The federal government has never contested the right of the State to enact such laws. If it had, and if they had the authority to refuse the state’s authority to limit their powers, then surely, there surely would have been a federal challenge, before now. If that is not correct, then, perhaps, the federal government needs to challenge that State authority now, or live by the law, as enacted.

Now, let’s revisit that word in paragraph (c), “premises”. Mr. Hagen has stated that KC was not on his premises, since he was not in his home. By that construct, we can assume that the word premises, in federal law led to Hagen’s presumption of the meaning under state law. However, I doubt that even Mr. Hagen would presume that the “premises of a port facility” would include ONLY the building that had “port facility” posted over the doorway. Surely, it includes the entire premises which comprises the entire port facility.

Now the federal government may have two definitions, though they have not provided an alternate definition. Texas Penal Code provides insight into the meaning of “premises”, under State law. Remember, the federal authority applies to felonies under State law. So, let’s look at Texas Penal Code:

Sec. 46.04.  UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARM.

(a)  A person who has been convicted of a felony commits an offense if he possesses a firearm:

(1)  after conviction and before the fifth anniversary of the person’s release from confinement following conviction of the felony or the person’s release from supervision under community supervision, parole, or mandatory supervision, whichever date is later

(2)  after the period described by Subdivision (1), at any location other than the premises at which the person lives.

Meaning that five years after the completion of all portions of the punishment, he regains the right to possess a firearm, subject to the limitation imposed by sub-paragraph (2).

Sec. 46.02. UNLAWFUL CARRYING WEAPONS.

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun, illegal knife, or club if the person is not:

(1) on the person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control; or

(2) inside of or directly en route to a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control.

(a-1) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries on or about his or her person a handgun in a motor vehicle or watercraft that is owned by the person or under the person’s control at any time in which:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

(2) the person is:

(A) engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic or boating;

(B) prohibited by law from possessing a firearm; or

(C) a member of a criminal street gang, as defined by Section 71.01.

(a-2) For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. In this subsection, “recreational vehicle” means a motor vehicle primarily designed as temporary living quarters or a vehicle that contains temporary living quarters and is designed to be towed by a motor vehicle. The term includes a travel trailer, camping trailer, truck camper, motor home, and horse trailer with living quarters.

(a-3) For purposes of this section, “watercraft” means any boat, motorboat, vessel, or personal watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used for transportation on water.

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (c), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(c) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed on any premises licensed or issued a permit by this state for the sale of alcoholic beverages.

So, the “person commits an offense” if he is not “on the “person’s own premises or premises under the person’s control.” It also provides for en route travel, but our concern is what “premises” means. Then, from (a-2), we find that ” For purposes of this section, “premises” includes real property and a recreational vehicle that is being used as living quarters, regardless of whether that use is temporary or permanent. So, the “premises” is where you live, if you have control of it. It includes real property, not just the house. And, surely, if you were a guest, with the consent of the owner, to live on his property, or a motel, whether temporarily or permanently, then the premises would include his land, and any other land that you were on, if you had the consent of the owner and he had knowledge of your firearm. So, unless argued to the contrary by the federal government, Sabal Palms would be the recreational premises upon which Massey’s stay was temporary. Likewise, the motel room, over which he had control as the renter, though temporary, for recreational purposes, would include those “premises” where he was arrested. To assume that he can have a firearm in the motel room, though he cannot leave the motel room, then cross that premises to his vehicle, with the firearm is the sort of absurdity that the government excels in. To assume such would be to assume that a law with a specific purpose is impossible, since the construction that federal government has applied would say that you have a right, though there is no way in which you can exercise that right.

The question also arises as to whether the detail of the intent and application of the State Law is properly heard in the Federal District Court, or if the original jurisdiction can reside only in a state court, with the State of Texas as the Plaintiff.

Now, it may seem as if I am stretching the right to travel with a firearm, in support of the other provisions. However, Texas did clarify the broadness of the right to possess framers in their state, with Section 46.15 (pertinent parts):

Sec. 46.15. NONAPPLICABILITY.

(b) Section 46.02 [prohibition of possession] does not apply to a person who:

(2) is traveling;

(3) is engaging in lawful hunting, fishing, or other sporting activity on the immediate premises where the activity is conducted, or is en route between the premises and the actor’s residence, motor vehicle, or watercraft, if the weapon is a type commonly used in the activity;

Now, let’s ask ourselves just why Texas thought that they could enact these laws. Did they do so despite the Constitution and what other tend to believe is the federal government’s overarching authority to enact any law that they want? Especially if the law they are using specifically cites “commerce” as the authority for such enactment? Or, as has been discussed previously, are the stretching their authority under the commerce clause beyond the scope granted by the Constitution and affirmed by the authors and proponents of the Constitution? See Federal Gun Laws and the Commerce clause.

The ratification of the Constitution came with instruction for the submission of a Bill of Rights, to assure that the assertion of federal authority did not exceed that which was intended by the document. There are two amendments that are applicable, one with regard to the people, themselves, and the other with regard to both the States and the people.

First is the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And, more importantly and appropriately to this discussion, the Tenth Amendment:

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.

So, there can be no doubt that Texas, with powers not granted to the federal government, nor denied to the State, is, without question, acting within its purview, as were the Representatives in the State Government, in expressing the Will of the People in asserting their rights through the enactment of the laws cited above. None of those laws encroach, by any stretch of the imagination, on the powers granted to the federal government.