No products in the cart.


An Example Of What Happens When We Stray

This is not a big story. It is but a small incident, relatively benign. But this story from Texas illustrates something we’d like to observe with our readers at Oath Keepers. Here is the shirt in question, followed by the story in the news, followed by our astute observations.

Wearable Message
Wearable Message

This story is found at KVUE, an ABC affiliate. Link:–246554791.html

Voter wearing pro-gun shirt turned away

February 21 2014 by by Kevin Reece

HEMPSTEAD, Texas — Chris Driskill is a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But this week he found out that his pro-gun support cannot be proudly proclaimed on his clothing if he wants to cast a ballot at the Waller County Courthouse or any other Texas voting location.

Driskill, employed as a private security guard in Houston, went to the Waller County Courthouse in Hempstead on Tuesday to cast his early-voting ballot in the Republican Primary. He was wearing a black T-shirt with a logo on the front and back that says “2nd Amendment – America’s Original Homeland Security.” The words circle a skull and crossbones where the “bones” are short-barrel pistol grip shotguns.

“I heard a gentleman’s voice over my shoulder say ‘he can’t vote with that shirt on. You’ll have to either turn it inside out our you’ll have to leave,’” Driskill said of the polling place encounter.

(end excerpts from KVUE article)

Please read the whole story at KVUE website:–246554791.html

Oath Keepers commentary: As we said, it’s not a big deal, just a small story about a minor nuisance, yes? So why bring it up here?

We bring it up to point out what many of you who went ahead and read that whole article at the above link may have thought of already.

Details in the story reveal that the Texas (quoting) Republican Primary ballot includes a proposition asking for a yes or no vote on expanded support for the 2nd Amendment and the places where a concealed weapon can be legally carried. Under the Texas Election Code rule the proposition is a “measure” and Driskill’s pro-2nd Amendment shirt considered “electioneering” or campaigning for his point of view and is treated the same as those yard signs kept 100 feet from the voting entrance at the courthouse. (end quote)

Why was a bill about the Second Amendment on the ballot anyway?  As strict Contitutionists understand, no law regarding firearms, subsequent to the Second Amendment, can be a “law”. In other words, the Second Amendment is the last law about firearms which should ever be written in this country. It says, plain as day, “…shall not be infringed”. Every law regarding firearms since that Amendment was ratified is an infringement unless it is a law further guaranteeing the Militia’s fully empowered possession of firearms in the hands of  We The People. No law requiring a “permit” of any kind can be a Constitutional law. No law limiting size and length of a barrel on a firearm can be a law. No law restricting how fast a firearm can fire bullets can be a law.  The highest law of the land says so. Period.

Our point is that the Federal government has motive untoward reducing the role of the Constitutional Militia of the several States, and therefore has failed the People by allowing their respective States to pass so-called “laws” bearing all sorts of restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. As are many Americans right now, Texans may be waking up and realizing that their Second Amendment rights have been jeopardized by “unfair” “laws”, and Texas Republicans are striving to reduce the violations against Texas citizens by placing a pro-gun measure on the Texas primary ballot. When Texas citizens truly awaken to the loss of our Union, they will realize that all the “gun laws” on their books (excepting any which further ensure Second Amendment rights) are null and void anyway and need not be acknowledged by the citizens or their police.

But most Americans, and most Texans as well, are not quite that far along in their personal awakening process at present time, so they will meekly bow to Caesar and change shirts before voting, and will meekly bow to Caesar while begging for permission to carry concealed, or whatever else they feel they should be “permitted” to do with their firearms.  That is the not-so-subtle truth this benign little article carries for Oath Keepers.

How think Ye?





  1. I think that you can wear anything you want while voting.

    Those that are INVOLVED in running the polling place cannot because that is their job, even if they are volunteering. They have no right or authority to tell any American citizen what they can wear, we are the USA, and we have individual rights that are unalienable anywhere within the USA.

    There is NO LAWFUL no Constituent border around the USA. The lying traitor(s) who made that up needs to be arrested for treason. They cannot tell us, the voters, what we can or cannot wear to vote in! As Obama said, but I MEAN – PERIOD!!

    Never call Obama the US president, he was NEVER a lawful 2008 candidate and could never be a president – lawfully. But then neither was H. Clinton.

    As Vieira said: The government of the United States has never violated anyone’s constitutional rights…
    The government of the United States will never violate anyone constitutional rights, because it cannot violate anyone’s constitutional rights. The reason for that is: The government of the United States is that set of actions by public officials that are consistent with the Constitution. Outside of its constitutional powers, the government of the United States has no legitimacy. It has no authority; and, it really even has no existence. It is what lawyers call a legal fiction.

    … the famous case Norton v. Shelby County… The Court said: “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties. It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    And that applies to any (and all) governmental action outside of the Constitution…”
    What are the defining characteristics of a limited government? They are its disabilities; what it does not have legal authority to do. Look at the First Amendment… What does it do? It guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion. But how does it do that? I quote: “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press” etcetera. “Congress shall make no law;” that’s a statement of an absence of power. That’s a statement of a disability.

    Those are all lies, being made by those who are domestic enemies or traitors of/to the USA.

  2. If any one of our BOR guarantees can be disparaged or infringed, where does this leave the others? The corrosive of Infringement, often introduced in response to the “Crisis of the Day” can spread, and has spread until all of our inalienable rights are in jepoardy.I must confess to being in my own dream for most of my life. I hope my present activism, and that of my compadres, does not come too late

  3. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. So I carry my pistol under my shirt, without a conceal carry permit. I just haven’t figured out what I am going to do if I get called out on it someday.

Comments are closed.