Open Response to the Robed Man Who Believes He Controls This Blog

If you’ve been reading this blog in the last week, you are aware of the controversy brewing around FK blogger and former cop Brad Jardis’ plan, along with former military member Tommy Mozingo, to walk onto the campus of Plymouth State University with guns, openly carried. Their purpose was to educate the students about their supposed right to carry weapons for self-defense. He announced it in advance here three days ago and since the government university system has been freaking out.

Now they have gone to the “Grafton Superior Court” to save them from the peaceful gun rights demonstration and outreach event. A man who wears a robe has decreed some pretty outrageous stuff in a “TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER”, issued today to Brad and Tommy.

First, Brad and Tommy are “enjoined” from carrying any weapons on any state university campus, including Keene State and UNH. But not just Brad and Tommy, also “their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any person acting in active concert and participation with Bradley Jardis and Tommy Mozingo”.

Second, Brad and Tommy (who does not have a blog account here) are both ordered to post the order to this website! The relevant paragraph:

Bradley Jardis and Tommy Mozingo are ordered to post a copy of the Temporary Restraining Order on the blog/website in order to provide notice of the enjoined activities to any individuals who plan to bring firearms or other prohibited weapons to the Plymouth State University campus, or any other campus administered by the USNH Board of
Trustees, in response to the “press release.”

The “ORDER” goes on to threaten anyone who brings a weapon on a state campus with “contempt of court” and arrest, “after receiving notice of the Temporary Restraining Order”.

So in America, people are supposed to have the freedom of speech. Doesn’t that also mean one should have the freedom NOT to speak? What obligation (besides the threat of a cage) does Brad have to do as he was told by this robed man? Can the robed man also order Brad, or you dear reader, to do anything he wants them to? Can he order Brad to do fifty pushups?

This particular man in the robe, Timothy J. Vaughan, appears to believe that he can just wave his little pen and have us obediently post his ramblings.

To Timothy J. Vaughan and other robed men: This blog is not your property. You do not get to tell us what to post here. Sure, you have men with guns and cages and you are very scary to a lot of people. Usually you can get your way through intimidation. You’re used to everyone telling you “yes, your honor”. Well, those of us here at Free Keene are telling you, “NO.” What you do is not honorable. You are just a human, like all the rest of us. You may be able to get away with threatening and harming peaceful people, but that doesn’t make you better – it just makes you a tyrant.

The only reason this article linked to your outrageous “ORDER”, was to prove to people that it was real. One attorney, when interviewed about this, commented that he has never heard of an order compelling action like this. Please note for the record, your paperwork has not been posted in full anywhere on this blog.

Free Keene is a news and opinion outlet that supports free speech and its converse, the right to remain silent. The people who blog here don’t appreciate you telling us what to do.

If you don’t like it, you could always try writing an “ORDER” telling us to bow before you, kiss your ring, and lick your boots. I bet that would really turn you on.

Photo courtesy Chris King’s First Amendment Page.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. So the transvestite in the dress (not that there is anything wrong with cross-dressing) can prevent an admin from deleting the post after Brad and Tommy comply? Thought not.

  2. WOW'

    Court ordered traffic to the fk site………..WOW lol

  3. I love Brad Jardis. This is some of the best activism in a while.

    So its looks like its Brad's move. Is he going to violate the so called "order?" Or will he respect the temporary restraining order for now? Does this automatically give him standing for some court action? It would seem so. Maybe he can get them in court now that they have apparently infringed on his interpretations of his rights.

    Kudos on not posting the courts order. You are 100% correct FK: what do they think you are a court reporter?

  4. i also don't think its the gun they are actually afraid of. They are actually afraid of Brad and Tommy's opinion that people ought to be allowed to carry a gun on campus as if it were any other place in the state. They are afraid of the idea getting out. They know there's a good chance that they would lose, you can carry a gun into the statehouse afterall.

    So wheres the national press. maybe RT?

  5. Did this man take a oath of office?

  6. ok i know it would be complying with an unconstitutional order… but i hope you will post the full message if you haven't already so I can find fault with it lol.

  7. Seriously? Did the first poster, "Name", just compare a judge to a transvestite???

    That is such an insult to transvestites.

  8. None, I linked to it in the post.


    Really, I didn't see it *ANYWHERE*!

    Honest, I didn't see it!



  10. Interesting. What is this judge planning?

    Is he hoping that a contempt of court charge will deter Brad and Tommy from their activism?

    Is he planning to arrest weapon carriers for contempt of court, and not for carrying weapons, so that they can't contest the law? That would be pretty creative, but, at the same time, the restraining order might not stand up in a court case (I don't know how this works), making it a moot point.

    Seems like it's time for Brad and Tommy to adjourn for legal advice. I'm curious to see how this turns out.

  11. @ Skepitkos: I think they now HAVE cause to challenge the University Policy and or the order. Their rights to carry firearms have now been officially infringed by the order. By contesting the order, they contest the policy. If you read Alan guru's brief b4 the supremes in mcdonanld v chicago, and specifically the heller case, it was the denial of the permits that was being charged. In heller, other plaintiff had to drop out because they didn't apply for the permit which was implicitly deemed a reasonable regulation.

    If the restraining order goes away, then they may also have to fight the policy itself if they are arrested for carrying weapons on campus.

  12. I really appreciate this response from Ian.

    I know it's something he doesn't have a problem saying but surely some of the court personnel will be reading this to monitor if Vaughn's order was complied with.

    It's hard to imagine to what must go through their minds when they find out there is active resistance to their petty mandates. What emotions do they feel? Are their feelings hurt, or do the they get mad and take an "I'll show them" attitude?

    The stakes are now raised for Brad and Tommy as they face arrest if they carry out their planned outreach today. This will only make the State look bad and it will be a huge win for gun rights. Thank you Timothy Vaughn.

  13. I need to see a copy of the Motion. Without a requisite showing of some kind of exigent circumstances or Good Faith belief that any of these individuals pose a specific threat due to police records or psychological evaluations, etc. the TRO appears to me to be patently Unconstitutional.


  14. Here is a direct link to the Courier story that noted Vaughn was supposed to issue an order granting costs.

    Here is the video of Bruce McKay OC Spraying Sarah that I got because of the lawsuit. Trick is, he violated her Civil Rights because he doesn't give her any reason why he is arresting her, just get out of the car, no sobriety test, no nothing. Click on the "epiphany post" link as you read this post showing how they hid the ethics complaint from Troy Watts.

    Peace again.


  16. Looks like everyone complied with the order

    PLYMOUTH, N.H. — Two activists decided not to bring guns onto the campus of Plymouth State University on Friday but still brought pamphlets arguing against a school policy that prohibits guns on campus.

  17. School Admin: We "took precautions".

    Some maniac opened fire on innocents, killed & seriously wounded many. Of course our hands are clean in this matter even though we did not allow students to protect & arm themselves against the murderer. Someone who came here precisely because he knew that our "precautions" were and could never be anything like something that would actually protect you from persons with evil in their hearts, no respect for life and bad intentions.

    Now go bury your dead and forget about holding us responsible. We own you, remember?

  18. As I have mentioned in the Ridley piece, the FSP and FK you guys went up against an entity a little stronger willed than the Keene city council. This is a little more than chasing Pam Slack through the parking lot isn't guys? Ha? ha? Whats that?

    From someone who is pro-gun let me say it you guys making it harder than it has to be!

  19. Do any of these students that are "scared" realize theres already armed thugs around them all the time. How is seeing these people carrying UNLOADED rifles on campus any more threatening than seeing the "campus police" with LOADED handguns on them? Can anybody answer that

  20. I sure hope I am not ordered to give the judge 50 pushups. I can only do 20 before it really starts hurting.

  21. Judge Vaughan is extremely anti-gun. He was appointed by Queen Jean Shaheen. I spent 4 months in Grafton county courtesy of Vaughan, for displaying a weapon in self defense. He did nearly everything within his powers to send me to state prison for 3 years. In the courtroom he made it quite clear to me how much he despises gun owners and openly admitted he does not care about any laws that give gun owners rights. I have the transcripts of the proceedings. This judge is enacting his own agenda of back door gun control. He's totally out of control and out of his fucking mind.

  22. Admitted he despises gun owners and doesnt care about any laws? And your lawyer didnt get you a reversal on appeal? I mean if those feelings are on the transcripts I dont see how you couldnt beat that on appeal…


  1. CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest | Cop Block - [...] Mozingo – in direct violation to University “law(s)” but was kept from doing so by restraining order. Brad claims…
  2. CopBlockers Question Police and Expose an Undercover Officer at Gun Protest | - [...] Mozingo – in direct violation to University “law(s)” but was kept from doing so by restraining order. Brad claims…

Care to comment?