By David Codrea
Sure seems like a good reason to disarm all of us who didn’t do anything bad, no? Although how the robed incompetent expects police to catch and bring such murderers into his courtroom remained unstated.
And so much for the false narrative from the left that “no one wants to take your guns.” Of course they do. That “common sense gun safety” line is just for the rubes.
Walker went on to wish for Australian-style citizen disarmament, called guns a “scourge,” and claimed there is “no defense to guns … just absolutely no reason to have them.”
He did acknowledge with regret that “it is a right of people in this country to own and possess them, and I will not say anything to affect that right.”
He kind of already did. Perhaps he felt compelled to add that because he has not yet ordered court security to disarm. Or perhaps there’s a more self-serving reason he remembered to mention it.
Judge Walker’s outburst make it fair to question how serious he can be about keeping faith with his oath of office, which is required in accordance with Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and § 1.212 of Oregon Revised Statutes. His oath applies to both the Second Amendment as well as to Article I. Sec. 27 of the Oregon Bill of Rights, which states:
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]
Perhaps Walker feels his last-minute addendum gives him cover.
The thing is, he’s also made it fair to question how someone on trial for a gun-related offense can reasonably expect fair treatment in his courtroom. That’s also a requirement from the Oregon Code of Judicial Conduct, which compels, among other non-negotiable mandates, compliance with Rule 3.3, “Impartiality and Fairness,” and Rule 3.10, “Disqualification”:
A judge shall uphold and apply the law and perform all duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, fairly, impartially, and without bias or prejudice…
A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice…
A judge shall not take any action or make any comment that a reasonable person would expect to impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any Oregon court…
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality…
It would appear that only an unreasonable person would not question Judge Walker’s impartiality when it comes to guns.
So what can be done? In a just world, he’d be impeached. There certainly are grounds for it. Here’s how to get that process started.
If I were an Oregon gun owner, I’d be inclined to fill out a complaint form and send it to the Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability. They’d be required to advance it through their system, it would be something to rally other gun owners around, and it would demonstrate to the public that there’s no place for bias on the bench — regardless of the issue. It would also let the judgment-impaired judge know that — contrary to the intemperate arrogance that makes him think a courtroom is a forum for his un-American bias — he’s just a lousy employee, not a ruler.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.