Federal judge in Bunkerville case did the right thing

Some recent letter writers have complained that the judge in the Bunkerville trial has refused to allow any First and Second Amendment defense arguments. They accuse Judge Gloria Navarro of depriving the defendants of a fair trial.

But the job of any trial judge is to interpret the law and ensure the constitutionality of said law as it pertains to criminal or civil litigation. The First Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to “assemble peaceably.” The Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right of firearm possession. Judge Navarro made her rulings based on the totality of the evidence as it pertained to the defense strategy.

On that day in Bunkerville, about 30 Metro officers faced a crowd of approximately 400 heavily armed, self-described militia members. Metro officers stated that the showdown was a hair trigger away from a gunfight, and that officials were heavily outnumbered. Metro Sgt. Tom Jenkins said at the time that, “We didn’t show any fear that day, but I can tell you, we all thought in the back of our minds, we all thought it was going to be our last day on Earth if it went bad.”

He also said that, “We’d never been faced with a situation where so many people were pointing guns at us.”

Now-Sheriff Joe Lombardo said at the time that, “It was a scary point in itself. They were in my face yelling profanities and pointing weapons.”

As evidenced by the testimony of the police officers, as well as the more than ample media coverage, the confrontation at Bunkerville was anything but peaceful. Nowhere in the Second Amendment does it give permission for anyone to point a firearm at a law enforcement officer during a less-than-peaceful event. For those reasons, any First or Second Amendment defense arguments were negated and could not be entered in trial.