About the author

Phoenix Pizgatti

Phoenix is the Co-Founder of DontComply.com, ComeAndTakeItAmerica.com, and host of the Don't Comply Radio Show.

Related Articles

  • Stephen

    LOL, CJ GRISHAM is the biggest gun toting panty waste around. I can’t wait to see that pussy crying to his momma when the FEDs come and get him for threatening the greatest President the USA has EVER had. He is nothing more than a small dicked little faggot playing with his gun because he has a small dick and doesn’t even know how to use that.

  • jerry


    § 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an
    offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
    (1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar
    language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance
    tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
    (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public
    place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate
    breach of the peace;
    (3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and
    unreasonable odor in a public place;
    (4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in
    an obviously offensive manner;
    (5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other
    than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
    Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no
    right to occupy;
    (6) fights with another in a public place;
    (7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a
    public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section
    250.001, Local Government Code;
    (8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a
    public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
    (9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
    (10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and
    is reckless about whether another may be present who will be
    offended or alarmed by his act; or
    (11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
    (A) enters on the property of another and looks
    into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening
    in the dwelling;
    (B) while on the premises of a hotel or
    comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person’s
    own through a window or other opening in the room; or
    (C) while on the premises of a public place,
    looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or
    dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using
    the area.
    (b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4)
    that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or
    threatening conduct.
    (c) For purposes of this section:
    (1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near
    a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed
    consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
    (2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise
    exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise
    receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is
    a public nuisance.
    (d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
    unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event
    it is a Class B misdemeanor.
    (e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under
    Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm
    had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another
    by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and
    Safety Code.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Amended by Acts 1977, 65th Leg., p. 181, ch. 89, § 1, 2, eff. Aug.
    29, 1977; Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 4641, ch. 800, § 1, eff. Sept.
    1, 1983; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 145, § 2, eff. Aug. 26, 1991;
    Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts
    1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, § 14, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 2001,
    77th Leg., ch. 54, § 4, eff. Sept. 1, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg.,

    HMMMM SECTION b) SAYS WHAT??? Yep, could file a complaint but the law says to not use force. GUESS YOU DON’T LIKE THE LAW BREAK IT!!!!

    TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he
    intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace
    officer or a person acting in a peace officer’s presence and at his
    direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of
    the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or
    (b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that
    the arrest or search was unlawful.
    (c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under
    this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
    (d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third
    degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
    Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 277, § 1, 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts
    1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994


    § 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer’s official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder. Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


    (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder’s person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder’s driver’s license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder’s handgun license. A person who fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by this subsection is subject to suspension of the person’s license as provided by Section 411.187.

    (b) A person commits an offense if the person fails or refuses to display the license and identification as required by Subsection (a) after previously having had the person’s license suspended for a violation of that subsection. An offense under this subsection is a Class B misdemeanor.


    (a) If a peace officer arrests and takes into custody a license holder who is carrying a handgun under the authority of this subchapter, the officer shall seize the license holder’s handgun and license as evidence.

    (b) The provisions of Article 18.19, Code of Criminal Procedure, relating to the disposition of weapons seized in connection with criminal offenses, apply to a handgun seized under this subsection.

    (c) Any judgment of conviction entered by any court for an offense under Section 46.035, Penal Code, must contain the handgun license number of the convicted license holder. A certified copy of the judgment is conclusive and sufficient evidence to justify revocation of a license under Section 411.186(a)(4).


    In 1968 the Supreme Court addressed the issue in terry v. ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889. In Terry an experienced plainclothes officer observed three men acting suspiciously; they were walking back and forth on a street and peering into a particular store window. The officer concluded that the men were preparing to rob a nearby store and approached them. He identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names. Unsatisfied with their responses, he then subjected one of the men to a frisk, which produced a gun for which the suspect had no permit. In this case the officer did not have a warrant nor did he have probable cause. He did suspect that the men were “casing” the store and planning a Robbery. The defendants argued the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by probable cause.

    The Supreme Court rejected the defendants’ arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation.

    The Court was also concerned that requiring probable cause for a frisk would put an officer in unwarranted danger during the investigation. The “sole justification” for a frisk, said the Court, is the “protection of the police officer and others nearby.” Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be “reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.” As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion, a stop and frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

    After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a “Terry stop” or an “investigatory detention.” Police may stop and question suspicious persons, pat them down for weapons, and even subject them to nonintrusive search procedures such as the use of metal detectors and drug-sniffing dogs. While a suspect is detained, a computer search can be performed to see if the suspect is wanted for crimes. If so, he or she may be arrested and searched incident to that arrest.


    However, the Court retreated from this holding in Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266, 120 S.Ct. 1375, 146 L.Ed.2d 254 (U.S. 2000), in which it ruled that an anonymous tip identifying a person who is carrying a gun is not, without more reason, sufficient to justify a police officer’s stop and frisk of that person. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the tip, stating that a young black male was standing at a particular bus stop, wearing a plaid shirt, and carrying a gun, lacked sufficient reliability to provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop. After announcing its decision in Florida v. J. L., the Court vacated two other state court decisions with similar fact patterns, one from Ohio (Morrison v. Ohio, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 [U.S. 2000]) and one from Wisconsin (Williams v. Wisconsin, 529 U.S. 1050, 120 S.Ct. 1552, 146 L.Ed.2d 457 U.S. [2000]).

    So that is the laws of Texas. You don’t like them change them through normal legal channels. Failing to follow the laws agree with them or not is a criminal act. No different from the kid that walked up a few days ago on my front porch and walked off with my sons old broken down bike that sat there for 2 years. When the neighbor confronted the kid he said he wasn’t stealing it because it was just sitting there unused. In his mind it wasn’t theft in mine and my neighbors it was just that THEFT.

    In C.J. Grisham mind his carrying was not calculated to alarm but clearly based on someone calling 911 they were alarmed. As a Texas CHL he agreed to the requirements of the CHL license and understood he could be disarmed. Where does it say he can’t be disarmed because he has a long gun and his concealed weapon? Officer safety disarming is standard practice. The officer advised him he would give the weapon back after determining he could legally carry the weapon. This could be that he was not a convicted felon unable to carry a weapon, the weapon was not fully automatic and as such could not be carried without proper licensing, was he carrying ammo he was not authorized to carry armor piercing, he was not subject to being prohibited carrying a weapon due to domestic violence, under court restraining order or other legal reason not to carry a weapon. I also do not based upon my past experience in the military or short time in law enforcement for a minute believe that C.J. Grisham while in Afghanistan was unconcerned for his safety or others by unknown persons carrying weapons. While the officer was not in a war zone he was responding to a call from a concerned citizen (that he is sworn to protect) regarding an armed individual. The officers responding to these calls can not simply disregard the call by saying that its ok to carry a long gun. What happens that one time the person carrying the long gun is the nut job that goes on a shooting rampage or decides he wants to be the next beltway sniper ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks )? Which one of those responding here or in right to carry arguments are going to pay for that officers defense or awards by the civil courts to the families because he failed to check it out? Who is going to pay for the defense in any criminal proceedings because the officer disregarded the call because open carry is legal so there is no reason or legal justification to stop and check? Who is going to take care of that officers family the one time that one person open carrying who the officer leaves armed snaps and shoots him or shoots him because he is out to commit suicide by cop?

    While strongly I support the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, I do not agree with violation of the other laws. I personally agree with open carry. I don’t believe it is unreasonable in the current times we live in for me to be disarmed while it is determined my weapon is legal, I am legal to carry that weapon. My rights are important but so is the rights and safety of my fellow man. I personally do not believe that scaring the members of the public who are afraid of my right to bear arms by forcing confrontations with members of the public or Law Enforcement futhers the protection of my rights. I have had many that I know that “Don’t Like Guns” tell me that open carry walks and protests scare them. The public needs education I just think there are more constructive ways to educate the public.

    As for the jury charge perhaps some need to go sit in a court room and observe or do some research. Commonly jury charges are cookie cutter or they are points of law agreed on by both sides of the attorneys and ruled on by the judge. Most often clarifications of those jury charges or requests for direction are reviewed by the states attorney, defense attorney and the judge prior to a request being granted or an explanation given. These charges and explanations can be objected to in many cases and done in a way to allow for grounds for an appeal.

    • RickK

      That’s a long list of bullshit. The constitution is the law of the land, and all the above regulations are null and void, by law. The states are not permitted to make laws or regulations concerning arms, as “arms” are enumerated in the constitution.

  • yeh sure

    The juror is an apologist for the cops. You can’t see this any other way than police overstep. IT IS NOT THE PUBLICS JOB to account for officer “feelings”. Cops need to have broad shoulders. They need to understand that the public employs them. They need to understand that non-lawbreakers are not criminals. Citizens are the boss if they are not the criminal. The cop was wrong. Period. This was a perfect opportunity for jury nullification.

    • just saying

      If they cant , they shouldn’t work as cops.

    • Paul Velte

      You are right. These poor ‘pro gun’ jurors got all tripped up over the judge’s jury charge, which tells them they must convict if they believe the facts were proven–which is a lie invented by the legal profession to hamstring juries and better control their verdicts. I know, I am a trial lawyer who has done his research on the history of jury trial procedure over the centuries. Before 1900 judges routinely informed jurors that they were judges of both facts and the law, not just facts. Jurors need to assert their traditional role to judge the entire case and do justice. They are not mere robots there to follow orders. In order to fulfill their intended purpose of protecting liberty from tyranny of government, they have to look beyond the judge’s charge. What lawyers have managed to do over the course of our 200+ history is to steal the power of the jury and give it to themselves. For a good primer on the whole topic, check out http://fija.org/download/ES_Goodloe_jury_nullification.doc

  • G. Fawkes

    Wallace is completely correct legally–not withstanding the obvious entrapment by the police officer! I am respectful of the time the officer has served the public-however if this is an example of his “service”, perhaps he has held the trappings of power too long. ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS. I thought that the serviceman showed very good restraint and complied with the officers request. He has every right to verbally disagree with his treatment to any and all who can hear. Furthermore this serviceman took an OATH to defend the CONSTITUTION for ALL ENEMIES both FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Arguably, since the officer was definitely violating his rights the serviceman had every right to defend both himself and this country, since in accordance with the law the officer did not request the weapon he “rudely” grabbed for it I should think that the normal individual, without the benefit of twenty years of weapon retention discipline and ADHERENCE to the Constitution, might react differently. ESPECIALLY IN TEXAS. Someone on the video stated “…in these days and times…” Take note Gestapo The SOVEREIGN RIGHTS of the PEOPLE ARE THE LAW–Neither you, your department nor your government are above THAT

    • Ukiyoe

      No way I will ever serve on a Jury to be given an ORDER to return a Verdict . I saw an assault occur under the Law , the moment hands are placed upon Body or property on that person i.e. how would one handle a purse snatcher under the law ? Peace officers “city employees ” are granted no special privilege in this regard. Under the law an assault is commented , when one makes unwanted physical contact with another person. There fore case dismissed , COP fired and charged .

  • Ted Montoya

    Matthew Short way to cash in your “short” term journalistic, Alex Jones modeled, internet career. Let alone your credibility!!! You and your boys should have practiced the script more than swigging beer!!! My neighbor works with the L.J, the correction officer on the jury. I asked my neighbor to call him and on speaker phone, L.J. said he has’nt been interviewed by anyone since the day he walked out of court, when he was released from jury duty. For a time, to think at one point I thought, CJ had a point. This sh*t is a scam.

  • The Original Andy

    Wow!!! I can’t believe nobody has caught it yet. That’s CJ Grisham pretending to be the correctional officer juror!!!! You can totally tell it’s him. At first he’s trying not sound like himself and by the 5:00 minute mark he’s slipped back into his own vocabulary, cadence and speech rhythm!!! If you don’t think so listen to him speak in other YouTube videos!!! That CJ!!! I know!!!I’ve worked around this guy!!! It’s obviously CJ Grisham and a staged interview!!! He even starts the “interview” with disclaimer similar to his twitter page!!!! EPIC FAIL!!! I called a buddy who was in CJ’s old unit!!! He even said, “that’s 1SG Grisham on the phone!!!!”

  • My opinion is that the jury erred in adhering strictly to the jury instructions because of the judiciary, executive and legislative branches none but the people are sovereign and in the courtroom the jury represents the people. The people, in the form of the jury, has the right to ignore any directions given to them and consider anything they want to include nullification. Judges only run trials, they do not control juries.

  • Erik McKinster

    You have the law wrong. It does not say “as long. As it doesn’t cause alarm”. The law is clear. It says you can not carry it ” in a manner to cause alarm”. When a rifle is slung over or across the body, he was in compliance.

    • Ken6151 .

      The law is very poorly written. There is no definition of “alarm’ in this Texas law. In some places drinking a soda causes alarm– look at the places that place extra taxes on soda.