Dear Mr. Murray,
I read your brief article with great interest. Is there an expanded version somewhere? I’m very curious about the scenario in Scioto County. Who came up with the concept? Local law enforcement, or federal DHS employees?
“Two school employees who are disgruntled over the government’s interpretation of the Second Amendment, plot to use chemical, biological and radiological agents against members of the local community.”
It’s very interesting that people who are interested in protecting their 2nd Amendment rights, rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, appear to be being scapegoated as evil villains who would poison their own communities.
Please let me know if you discover the originator of the scenario.
Please let us know as soon as he replies to your message. I’m very curious about this.
Back in January 2013, a local police chief had preached that any supreme court has the final say about what is law, in reply to concerned citizens who had challenged his remarks disparaging the right of the people to protest against further loss of the Bill of Rights, and specifically therein, the 2nd Amendment.
The chief had posed protestors as being "disgruntled over the 2nd Amendment," and the chief had posed political charges similar to those tossed around in the nefarious "peoples court" of NAZI Germany: The protestors were posed as "domestic terrorists" to the court of public opinion and to the "mind's eye" of police and military forces in an anti-terrorist training exercise, where the chief challenged these martial forces to confront the chief's degrading and disparaging represenations of the citizens.
Today, after the public elected to the Ohio State Supreme Court, three new judges in favor of individual freedom and individual rights, and in a case brought against the chief of police, the court decided that the chief of police was in fact, the greater threat to the community and to the people of the state of Ohio.
The assertion by the chief of police, that "any supreme court has the final say," came back to be applied to *him personally.* In the court decision, the chief of police - who was a proponent of "police state security," was *decided by the court,* to be "an enemy of the state."
The chief of police was, just like that, the person of interest, and several court observers noted that he promptly became "very disgruntled about the loss of his rights" outside the court building, and he had to be restrained after making "threatening and 'terroristic' remarks" about his no longer caring about the safety and security of members of the community. His last words were, "... but I have the right to protest!"