Freedom is Scary: The Civil Rights Lawyer

New Gun Control Executive Orders & the Legal Resistance - with the GOA's John Crump - FIS No. 57

Biden bypassed Congress to target homemade and pistol-braced firearms. At the same time, he is calling on Congress and states to enact Red Flag gun confiscation orders. Like a dictator, Biden is seeking to unilaterally regulate firearms that gun owners currently own.

 

Join me as I catch up with John Crump from the #GOA​ - Gun Owners of America, who are actual #FrontLineHeroes​ in the fight to preserve liberty and prevent tyranny. #2ndAmendment​

 

What do you need to know and how can you help?

 

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is a non-profit lobbying organization formed in 1976 to preserve and defend the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. GOA sees firearms ownership as a freedom issue. Over the last 30 years, GOA has built a nationwide network of attorneys to help fight court battles in almost every state in the nation to protect gun owner rights. GOA staff and attorneys have also worked with members of Congress, state legislators and local citizens to protect gun ranges and local gun clubs from closure by overzealous government anti-gun bureaucrats. As an example, GOA fought for and won, the right of gun owners to sue and recover damages from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) for harassment and unlawful seizure of firearms. https://www.gunowners.org/about-goa/​

 

DONATE TO GOA HERE: https://donate.gunowners.org/​

SHOW LESS

"No Knock" Warrants and Civil Rights Q&A - FIS Live Ep. 16 - thecivilrightslawyer.com

"No Knocks" are in the news following the Breonna Taylor shooting case. What is a "No Knock" warrant and when/how are they legal under federal constitutional law? One of my favorite topics. By favorite I mean that if I was a middle eastern dictator they would flow freely. This has been in the news now following the Breonna Taylor case. I'll offer some analysis on that case, and also answer other civil rights constitutional law questions, if you have any - since this is LIVE.

This is the FREEDOM IS SCARY livecast Episode 16. Please join me. It seems to be happening every Monday evening......

thecivilrightslawyer.com

Should RBG be Replaced Now? - a Lawyer's Perspective - Freedom is Scary, Ep. 15

My thoughts on the Ruth Bader Ginsburg drama. There are 3 currently living retired Supreme Court justices: Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Each of these still-living former justices chose to retire, rather than to remain on the bench until death. RGB was perhaps the most partisan justice ever to serve on the Court, so understandably, she made the purposeful choice to stay on as long as possible. Therefore, it was her choice to politicize the vacancy which would be created by her death. In fact, her last words, as relayed by her granddaughter, were purportedly, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

 

First of all, presidents are elected – not installed – and secondly, the seat belongs to the American people. It never belonged to her. It’s not her seat; it’s not the Democrats’ seat; it’s not the left’s seat; it’s not the right’s seat; it’s the people’s seat. There can be no doubt that the Constitution provides the that the President is tasked with nominating someone new to fill the vacancy, subject to the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. The only issue is the timing.The Constitution doesn’t necessarily provide, or require, that federal judgeships last until “death,” per se, but just that appointments are for “life.” What does the Constitution say about this?

 

Read more: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/09/21/should-rgb-be-replaced-before-the-november-election/

 

The Real Inequality and Injustice - Freedom is Scary Ep. 11

Kamala Harris is now the VP candidate. You may have heard her bring up the topic of systematic inequality, or injustice. Look no further than her achievements as a career prosecutor, and many others like her across the nation, to find evidence that those things indeed exist. They really do. As a country, America is OVER-CRIMINALIZED. Let's take a look at the prosecutors and thousands of criminal laws.

 

Harris was a district attorney in San Fransisco from 2004 to 2011. She served California Attorney General from 2011 to 2017, where at least 1,560 people were incarcerated for marijuana related offenses in those years.

 

The Constitution was initially ratified in 1788. By 1790, we had only 30 federal crimes in existence, which consisted of the basics: treason, piracy, counterfeiting, murder, and so on. At that time, there was no concept in our law of the possession of an object being illegal in and of itself. That was imported from Sharia Law and Far-East authoritarian regimes, such as you see in the laws of Singapore.

 

Read more at my blog at thecivilrightslawyer.com

https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/09/02/to-find-systematic-injustice-and-inequality-look-no-further-than-the-prosecutors-and-the-criminal-laws/

Freedom is Scary No. 3 - BJJ Training and Police Use of Force

Excessive force issues may never be the same after the George Floyd death. Many states have enacted legislation now prohibited so-called "chokeholds," and Trump's Executive Order directed states to do so. In this livecast I'll discuss this, as well as the application of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu training with my buddy, Adam Martin, who is not only former law enforcement, but a BJJ coach, practitioner, and competitor.

Why? Because ever since the death of George Floyd, “chokehold” has been the word of the day. Trump brought them up in his June 16, 2020 Executive Order, and now many states have issued orders, or enacted legislation, banning the use of so-called “chokeholds” by police officers.

The problem is, that the term doesn’t mean what they think it means, and in doing so, they’re changing the rules of self defense for police officers. As with other civil rights, if you allow it to be done to one group of people, it always grows like a virus to include groups of people who were not intended to be affected. In this video we discuss what that means.

On June 16, 2020, President Donald Trump (R) issued an executive order, titled Executive Order on Safe Policing for Safe Communities, addressing changes to policing on June 16, 2020.The order directed the U.S. Department of Justice to create an independent credentialing body that would develop a set of criteria for state and local law enforcement agencies to meet in order to be awarded federal grants. The order stated that the criteria should address excessive use of force, include de-escalation training, and ban the use of chokeholds, except when the use of deadly force is lawful.

https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/08/07/bjj-and-police-use-of-force-freedom-is-scary-livecast-no-3/

Check out my blog at https://thecivilrightslawyer.com

Freedom is Scary - Episode 2: Lawsuit Against WV Governor

Today, on "Freedom is Scary," a live discussion with one of our patriot defenders of the Constitutions in our state legislature, Delegate Jim Butler. Discussing the West Virginia governor's executive orders and the efforts at disposing of them. He is one of the plaintiffs in the writ of mandamus we filed with the WV Supreme Court. ETA: also gubernatorial candidate, Del. Marshal Wilson joined us. Read the writ of mandamus, and learn more about why the executive orders are unconstitutional: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020...

Freedom is Scary - Episode 1 - WV Governor's Travel Ban

In Episode 1 of the Freedom is Scary Livecast, West Virginia Civil Rights Lawyer, John H. Bryan, goes live at 12:00 noon about the West Virginia Governor's threatened Travel Ban. Read the blog post at: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020... In this video, I will explain why doing so would be unconstitutional. Also, it looks like my friend and client, Delegate Marshall Wilson, was successful in getting on the ballot for Governor. Follow along live. If you have any questions, put them up in the comments. Check out my blog at: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com

Episode 3: Impeachment 1998 vs. 2019 - just the facts

In episode 3, I go through the actual transcript of President Clinton's 1998 impeachment trial, and you might be surprised by what was said then, as opposed to what was said now.  For instance, did you know that law professors also gave their opinion in 1998 about impeachment law, and unlike Trump's impeachment, they all spoke out against impeachment, warning against damage it could cause to our country.  Oh.... and instead of just 4 of them, there were 200 of them!  And 400 history professors warned against it as well.  I wonder what happened to those guys?

Civil Rights Attorney, John H. Bryan. Find my contact info, and more info about my civil rights work, at johnbryanlaw.com.  Follow me on Facebook @johnbryanlaw

Episode 4: Scopes Trial, Leopold and Loeb, a Boy Named Sue, Mayhem and Manipulation

 The Scopes "Monkey" Trial in 1925 was called the "trial of the century," and it was the second "trial of the century" in less than a year - both featuring famous lawyer, Clarence Darrow, a genius of verbal manipulation and communication. Learn about the interesting backstory of "A Boy Named Sue," by Johnny Cash, and its relation to the Scopes Trial.

Learn how this "monkey trial" included the 1925 version of Hillary Clinton mixed with Franklin Graham and Fred Thompson, pitted against the 1925 the real life Atticus Finch, mixed with Johnny Cochran. It's actually pretty crazy.  Also, the first "affluenza" case, where two young rich kids tried their hand at serial killing, and discovered they weren't as smart as socialist philosophers convinced them they were....  

All of this ties together in the strange real world we live in.  And of course, my commentary as a trial lawyer and lover of interesting history.

Visit me online and find my contact info at johnbryanlaw.com.  This was a joint podcast with my other podcast, Scavengeology.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Episode 1: Impeachment, Constitution, Gun Laws, Blood Sugar Meters are Crazy, Yo...

Episode 1 of the John Bryan Podcast, a legal pontification session exploring topics such as the impeachment hearings, constitutional law topics surrounding interactions between citizens and law enforcement, including open carry of firearms issues, other gun law and self defense issues, and last, but not least, blood sugar meters. If you use a glucose meter for diabetes, or anyone you know uses one, you have to hear what comes last.  WTF is going on with disparate results between the brands of meters?  Don't miss this, because I haven't heard this anywhere else.....

I'm a civil rights lawyer practicing in West Virginia, with a completely bonafide, but useless, degree as a political scientist, and a love for history, guns, amateur strongman, and many other things that would make this a run-on sentence. 

Visit my website, and find my contact info, at johnbryanlaw.com   also check out my other passion, and podcast, at scavengeology.com - all about history, and much more pleasant, albeit less likely to keep you out of jail, topics.