Jan. 6 Journalist Will Appeal Judge’s Order Denying His Right to Carry Firearm

Journalist Steve Baker at the Blaze Media headquarters in Irving, Texas, on March 5, 2024. (Bobby Sanchez/The Epoch Times)

A journalist charged with four misdemeanors for being at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said he will appeal a federal judge’s denial of his right to possess and carry a firearm based on an allegation that he threatened “high-ranking federal lawmakers” during the incursion.

Stephen Michael Baker, 64, of Raleigh, North Carolina, said he was flummoxed when reading the May 14 minute order issued by U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in Washington.

“All of this is not only the height of absurdity but not at all what I’m charged with,” Mr. Baker told The Epoch Times on May 16.

“It is a lie told him by pretrial services, which is a division of the court, and not even by the DOJ or the government which has accused me of four non-violent misdemeanors and which has not itself argued that I am a threat to society,” Mr. Baker said.

He said his attorney, William Shipley, is preparing an expedited appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Mr. Baker, a columnist for Blaze Media who was at the Capitol as an independent journalist on Jan. 6, turned himself in to the FBI in Dallas on March 1. Video footage of him being led from the FBI guard shack in handcuffs to a waiting sedan went viral, racking up millions of views on the social media platform X.

Related Stories

Steve Baker, on the Jan. 6 Front Lines and in the DOJ’s Crosshairs

3/23/2024

INTERVIEW: Steve Baker, a Journalist in the Crosshairs of the DOJ

4/2/2024

He was charged in a criminal complaint with knowingly entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds without authority, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building or grounds, disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, and parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.

Mr. Baker entered not-guilty pleas to all charges during an April 4 hearing in Washington. In his May 14 order, Judge Cooper denied Mr. Baker’s motion to modify his terms of pretrial release to allow him to possess a firearm. The decision was based on a report from the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services System that alleged Mr. Baker uttered threats while at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“These safety concerns are heightened because of Mr. Baker’s alleged threatening statements directed at specific public officials during the riot on January 6, 2021,” Judge Cooper wrote, without specifying the threats or the alleged targets.

The judge also denied a request by Mr. Baker that he not be required to notify pretrial services before entering the District of Columbia.

Judge Cooper said he found the required notice “appropriate given the gravity of his purported misconduct inside the Capitol on January 6, which was allegedly targeted at high-ranking federal lawmakers.”

Mr. Baker flatly denied making threats.

“I have never threatened anyone before, during, or after my time at the Capitol,” he said. “Is this some kind of new legal precedent being made that calling a lawmaker a [expletive] or a [expletive] or worse over drinks with a friend is now cause for denying someone’s Second Amendment and privacy rights?”

Commented on Speaker Pelosi

The FBI’s statement of facts in the case alleges Mr. Baker, after walking through the office of then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), noted damage done by some of the rioters.

“They got Pelosi’s office and you know, it couldn’t happen to a better deserving [expletive],” Mr. Baker said, according to the document.

Mr. Baker said the comment was made on the night of Jan. 6 as he and a colleague created a video reflection of the day’s events. The remarks were made at a hotel in Virginia after 8 p.m. that day, he said.

“Is there a single American adult not guilty of this new crime of using colorful language to describe high-ranking federal lawmakers?” Mr. Baker asked.

In an April 19 motion, Mr. Baker told Judge Cooper he needed a firearm for protection because he had received threats since his arrest and had at least two stalkers follow him around the country.

Federal prosecutors opposed his firearm request, claiming he routinely shares his location online.

Steve Baker at Blaze Media headquarters in Irving, Texas, on March 5, 2024. (Bobby Sanchez/The Epoch Times)

“His employment does not require him to possess a firearm and he has made an insufficient argument regarding self-defense,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Anita Eve wrote in a May 3 court filing. “Although he has claimed that he has an alleged stalker who follows his movements, it is Baker who regularly posts on the internet and shares his location information.”

Mr. Baker has condemned the charges brought against him, arguing the government is more upset about his words—especially his critical Jan. 6 coverage of U.S. Capitol Police—than about what they think he did on Jan. 6.

“As I’ve consistently pointed out since the first Oath Keepers trial, January 6 prosecutions are more about scary words than anything else,” he told The Epoch Times. “Throwing a wet blanket—or more accurately an Iron Curtain—over disapproved speech.”

The issue of a Jan. 6 journalist asking to maintain the right to a firearm before trial is not without precedent.

In a March 2022 order, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly granted then-defendant Stephen Horn’s request to carry a firearm for protection. Mr. Horn, 25, a journalist also based in Raleigh, was later found guilty by a Washington jury of four Jan. 6 misdemeanors and sentenced in January to a year of probation.