senor honda

[h=1]Keller v. Keller[/h] By Rick Sapp



On the same day that New York advertising exec Ted Kramer landed the biggest account of his career, his wife, Joanna, left him and their young son. Raising his son alone, Ted lost his job but with the help of Margaret, another single parent, he earned a stronger relationship with the child. Eventually, Joanna returned and sued to claim custody of Billy.
Sounds like a movie plot. It was. Kramer v. Kramer. 1979. Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep. What does it have to do with concealed carry?
A North Dakota legal case speaks to deep divisions in America and also to the rights of parents, property owners, spouses/former spouses, protection of women and everyone’s rights, including 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment rights.
Bantry Township Hall, Bantry, ND. If you’ve been to Bantry, you were probably lost or hunting. Nevertheless, America’s constitutional rights and liberties apply to citizens there as much as to citizens of Washington, D.C. Bantry, however, is not a “sanctuary city” and it does not offer “safe places” for snowflakes to hide from opinions and expressions that hurt their feelings. This makes Bantry, a village of 14 people with no paved street, a Great American town.

The Incident
Chad and Karen Keller live in Bantry, North Dakota, a farm town of 14 people just south of the town of Kramer (!) — 30 residents — and 150 miles north of Bismarck. Chad’s kids, progeny of his former marriage with Nichole Keller, live with them.
On August 14, 2016, Nichole emails, “I want to pick up the kids.” Chad says the kids don’t want to go with her. Still, Nichole and a friend, Rachael, drive to Chad’s place, stopping short of the driveway. Nichole does not initially get out of the car.
Karen doesn’t recognize the car and comes out of the house, handgun behind her back, to investigate. Nichole sees the gun and remains 200 feet away. Karen doesn’t leave the property; she doesn’t raise or point the gun or make any threatening, abusive or violent statements. (Actually Karen and Nichole don’t speak at all.) Nichole eventually speaks with her children and departs.
Nichole calls the police, who tell her there’s no cause to file charges against Karen. Nevertheless, Nichole gets a lawyer and he obtains a one-year disorderly conduct restraining order against Karen, on the basis that Nichole was afraid. A local court ruled, “[T]here was a gun. [Karen] brought it out on the property. And it’s obvious that Nichole was very scared. And she testified that she is still scared. And to me, that is the definition of gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security or privacy of another person…”
The Argument
In North Dakota, however, judges may grant a restraining order only if there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that a person has engaged in “disorderly conduct,” defined as “intrusive or unwanted acts, words or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security or privacy of another person.” The state definition, however, expressly excludes “constitutionally protected activity.”
Karen appealed, claiming the court ruling that disorderly conduct existed was wrong. She argued that it wasn’t reasonable for someone to be afraid of another person for just holding a gun. Her lawyer noted the constitutional exception for protected conduct (her 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment rights).
Karen carried a handgun whenever an unknown vehicle arrived at the property. The legal brief she filed with the court indicated she did not know or trust Rachael and that Nichole had previously threatened violence.
The Ruling
Six months later, North Dakota’s Supreme Court [2017 ND 119 (N.D. May 16, 2017)] reversed the lower court’s decision. Simply possessing a gun, it said, while on one’s own private property cannot support a finding of disorderly conduct. In addition, Karen’s actions were protected under both U.S. and North Dakota Constitutions. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in DC v. Heller affirmed that Karen had a right “to possess a handgun on her private property” and simply possessing a gun did not make her dangerous or a criminal. Karen made no threats, did not display her weapon in an aggressive or menacing way and remained near her home.
The Questions
Conflicts between ex-spouses are often emotionally charged. What would you have done or recommended? Would a holstered and/or concealed firearm have caused the same issues? Given the distance between Karen and the unrecognized vehicle, should Karen had carried a shotgun or AR as well as her pistol? Should Nichole (and her lawyer) be forced to pay the legal defense bills that Chad and Karen incurred?