Man Who Carried Gun In Park Has Permit Revoked (Even though he was lawfully compliant)

[shadowrider]

--snip--

Embody's name and story have been appeared in news reports and online blogs for months. He was thrust into the media spotlight last December when he carried an AK-47-type pistol into Radnor Lake State Park.

"It wasn't modified in any way except for a sling, and I had painted the tip orange on it," he said.

His gun-carry permit was current and the gun was legal, but park rangers stopped Embody and detained him for three hours. He was later released with no charges filed.

The next month, he made headlines again when he took his handgun on a walk down Belle Meade Boulevard, in full compliance with the law.

"The only way you can carry the handgun is to carry it openly in your hand," Embody said.

http://www.wsmv.com/news/22834140/detail.html

[onehandle]

1. Truth to power, Rosa Parks!

Oh, when will the so oppressed gun owners be truly free?

[shadowrider]

3. Dumb move on his part?

Probably. Against the law, no.

[proteus_lives]

81. Yeah political protest is dumb.

When will those morons learn their rights don't matter. :eyes:

[SteveM]

102. Rosa Parks packed. nt

[east texas lib]

2. Here's your new carry permit, sir!

Just don't carry, that's all we ask.;-)

[The_Commonist]

4. Just because something is legal...

...does not mean it's a good idea.

Why do people need to walk around carrying guns?
What are these people afraid of?
What point are they trying to make?
Why would anybody need to take their "handgun on a walk down Belle Meade Boulevard"?
Even if it is legal to do so?

[shadowrider]

7. Well

Why do people need to walk around carrying guns?
You never, ever know when you'll need it to protect your life or the life of a loved one OR stranger

What are these people afraid of?
The bad guys who pick "easy targets" to rob, rape, threaten, break into your home and who wish to protect themselves by changing the odds.

What point are they trying to make?
Besides LAWFULLY carrying, it might be a second amendment thing. You know, that pesky document that says "shall not be infringed"

Why would anybody need to take their "handgun on a walk down Belle Meade Boulevard"?
Because in that town it's the only legal way to do it

Even if it is legal to do so?
I didn't say he was right and it may have been a dumb move, but it was NOT illegal.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

13. I still say that this is fearful thinking, might need to carry a fire extinguisher

as well, you never know when you might need one.

[PavePusher]

24. Well, so far I have been accosted by criminals more often than I've needed...

a fire extinguisher while walking around.

My vehicles all have fire extinguishers because I've had/come upon several car fires while motoring. Most places of business have their own, required by law.

The vast majority of businesses however, have not taken any security precautions to protect me in the event of a robbery or murder attempt. So I provide my own. Simple enough.

[madmom]

39. Do we not wear seat belts IN-CASE of an accident?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

63. You should carry a fire extinguisher in your car. That is where you would likely need it.

You should also have a few accessible in your home especially in the kitchen.

[cleanhippie]

94. You don't keep a fire extinguisher in your home?

[guardian]

101. I keep fire extinguishers

1. in my kitchen
2. in my garage
3. in my car

[Callisto32]

117. self delete

just realized this is a zombie thread

[PavePusher]

11. No-one really needs to do anything that is legal...

and a Civil Right. Keep all that shit a home.

Please, don't ever let me catch you with a book in public, those things have no possible use. What point would you be trying to make? Why are you so afraid? Can't you just keep your books at home? Why do you have to carry them everywhere?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

16. Is the only purpose of a book to kill?

[PavePusher]

19. Some books do kill.

Not all, of course.

You seem to imply that the only purpose of a gun is to kill. Even those carried legally by peaceful Citizens. Do you actually think that is true?

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

36. The book doesn't do the killing. Why all the dancing around.

[PavePusher]

38. The book is a tool.

And I'm not dancing.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

41. And a gun is for maiming gently?

When I was free diving the spear I used was a tool, it was made to kill fish and a gun is made to kill, that's what they do.

[Katya Mullethov]

67. I saw a guy get laid out with a textbook

Pretty good chance it wasnt A Farewell To Arms .

[RSillsbee]

92. The gun doesn't do the killing either

[cleanhippie]

95. And neither does the gun. Great point.

Its the PEOPLE who do the killing. I'm glad you brought that point up.. Good job.

[shadowrider]

22. Not all, but YES

Especially those that detail how to make pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs and other methods of mass destruction.

Should we confiscate all books because a FEW address those topics?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

60. So that's why they used living targets in the last Olympics!

[X_Digger]

28. Who's the Secretary of Need in the current administration?

I thought Napolitano was in line, but no, she's DHS, right? Oh wait, that's right. The seat is currently empty because there's no fucking Department of Need that oversees which rights one can exercise.

[cabluedem]

86. they are angry people who need an excuse to act like dirty harry.

[cleanhippie]

96. People like you?

[X_Digger]

97. Your interlocutor has left the building..

[cleanhippie]

98. Damn, I just noticed the timestamp.

Guess I need to pay more attention.

[cabluedem]

87. they are angry people who need an excuse to act like dirty harry.

[cleanhippie]

93. Well, when the Department of Need comes up with some guidelines, we will have answers

to your questions. Until then, "because he can" is the only reason he "needs" at all.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shadowrider]

9. In other words

I have to be a mean evil right winger to appreciate the 2nd and the right to bear arms?

Lotsa DU'ers who post here would disagree with you, but it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.

[katandmoon]

6. Good.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

8. To bad most of you are not all that concerned about nuclear weapons

being held over all our heads for far to long now. No country has the right to use them and they need to be destroyed.

[shadowrider]

10. Provided Every country

gets rid of their arsenal, I'd agree, but that'll never happen.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

15. If it won't happen then they will be used and ???

[shadowrider]

29. I'm checking my crystal ball

But am unable to see the future. Your question, unfortunately, must remain a question.

[Euromutt]

73. At the risk of going off an a tangent, I disagree

Use of atomic weapons forced the Imperial Japanese government to surrender, obviating the need for an invasion of the Japanese home islands, which probably prevented hundreds of thousands of American military casualties, and several times as many Japanese casualties (given that the Japanese government was arming every person over 13 to resist the invasion, even with sharpened bamboo spears, and explosive charges to act as anti-tank suicide bombers). The only alternative to invasion would have been a naval blockade, which would have required the seizure of several port cities on the Chinese mainland, which, given the presence of two Japanese army groups in China and three more in Manchuria, would likely have resulted in comparable American casualties, plus large numbers of Chinese civilian and Japanese military casualties; and then the naval blockade itself would probably have resulted in Japanese civilian suffering.

Nuclear deterrence kept the peace in Europe for half a century, and it's probably kept something of a lid on the Arab-Israeli conflict at the international level.

I really can't see a compelling argument why a country threatened with aggression by an enemy with vastly superior conventional forces should not have the right to defend itself with nuclear weapons, though it's even better for all parties involved if the threat of nuclear weapons successfully deters the enemy from attacking in the first place. Rather like how having a firearm allows a smaller, weaker prospective victim to see off an aggressor who is larger, stronger, and more skilled at unarmed combat.

[jody]

12. Opportunity for ACLU to live up to its claim "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working

daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country."

I won't hold my breath until that happens.

[safeinOhio]

40. The ACLU gets limited funding.

I have no problem with them focussing on other rights as the NRA already spends so much on the 2nd. We never see any of the NRA money spent on GLBT or other rights. I know they are a single issue group, so that issue is covered.

[jody]

42. ACLU should change its position, see below, and acknowledge the 2nd is an individual right.

The ACLU interprets the Second Amendment as a collective right. Therefore, we disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in D.C. v. Heller. While the decision is a significant and historic reinterpretation of the right to keep and bear arms, the decision leaves many important questions unanswered that will have to be resolved in future litigation, including what regulations are permissible, and which weapons are embraced by the Second Amendment right that the Court has now recognized.

[safeinOhio]

47. I'm fine with their view

Just because they see it as a collective right, there is no reason for outright bans or unreasonable restrictions. I'm all for different restrictions in NYC than in rural New Mexico.
I will still send money to the ACLU and not to the NRA.

[PavePusher]

49. Civil Rights by Geography...

Haven't we been there before?

Would you support the 13th Amendment being applied differently in Georgia than it is in Montana?

'Cause that's what you seem to be saying.

[safeinOhio]

54. I've see no conflict with the 2nd and reasonable restrictions.

Is requiring a CCW a violation of the 2nd? Is a ban on convicted felons and those deemed incompetent from possession a conflict? Is discharging a firearm within the city limits a violation of the 2nd Amendment? How about special license for fully autos? There are tons of restrictions on the use and ownership of arms that are legal and constitutional. Any call for removal of ALL laws and rules on firearms is insane. That would include the random firing of weapons in highly dense population areas, like hunting with a 30.06 in Central Park.

[PavePusher]

58. Endangering other people is always a valid restriction.

All the rest? Not so much.

I prefer to err to the side of liberty, not perceived "safety". How many times do we have to prove that restricting the Citizen does nothing to restrict the criminal?

[jody]

51. I dropped my ACLU membership after decades when they refused to acknowledge Heller. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Their view is inconsistent with an actual ruling.

[Euromutt]

74. The ACLU also lost a sizable chunk of its investments in the crash

They were really hurting for cash last year, and it's probably not much better this year.

I don't like the national organization's stance on the RKBA, but Kitzmiller v. Dover alone bought them enough goodwill on my part to remain a member. There's more I don't like about the NRA than about the ACLU, but I'm a member of that organization as well.

[DissedByBush]

99. The ACLU doesn't believe in the 2nd

They state on their site that they don't believe it's an individual right.

Funny, a supposedly rights-oriented organization picking one right not to believe in.

[Ten Bears]

14. Do some research on him before you try to make him look oppressed to fit your agenda

He makes a living by buying out the supply of ammo at local stores and then reselling it at a profit on the internet. Even the local gun nuts hate this guy. He spends his time looking for confrontations and then tries to hide behind the Constitution. With rights comes responsibilities and this guy is highly irresponsible.

[shadowrider]

17. I'm addressing the article in question

In which he did nothing wrong, complied with all laws and had current permits.

If he resells ammo on the net and makes a buck, who am I to argue with that? My problem would be with the people who pay inflated ammo prices when they could save money by going to the local gun shop.

Even if local gun nuts don't like him, he did nothing illegal.

[Ten Bears]

23. and park rangers didn't detain him for three hours either.

They released him quickly but he insisted on talking to a supervisor. They told him it would take a while to get one onsite and he chose to wait. This is not a guy you want to hang your hat on.

[shadowrider]

26. Maybe he wanted to know why he was detained in the first place

When all permits were in order.

[Ten Bears]

30. And maybe he was using it as an antenna to pick up alien radio signals

All the maybes in the world did not justify this stunt. Why don't you go with him next time, he says he is going to do it again. Do you think he had his permit taped to his forehead? I don't know, to use your technique, Maybe! He did it so he could sue the rangers who questioned him. He is claiming some kind of public humiliation but the public would never have learned about it if he hadn't contacted the media himself. He's all over the internet, the forums that haven't kicked him off yet anyway, patting himself on the back for this. And now here's shadowrider pumping him for his foolishness.

[shadowrider]

31. Sheesh

I'm not pumping ANYONE. His actions may be considered foolish and dumb but they were NOT illegal.

[Ten Bears]

33. The guys just looking for attention

And you're helping him. The only question left then is are you complicitous or duplicitous?

[PavePusher]

37. So what?

once again, NOTHING ILLEGAL WAS DONE.


So the guy is an attention whore... so what?

Ignore and move on.

[Katya Mullethov]

69. There is much iron in the words of Ten Bears

The dudes is a weasel and ban hammer magnet .

[Callisto32]

79. Does anybody else find it disturbing...

that you just made a comment about your papers being order, and being detained, in the United States?

[kwikrnu]

89. wrong

I was stopped with a shotgun pointed at my face. Put on the ground and searched. I was held for about 20 minutes with no lawful reason. I was in fear that these cops and rangers would attempt to hurt me or worse. I was not released until about 2.5 hours after the shotgun was pointed at my face. They never said,"you're free to go."

[d_r]

18. why did he paint the tip orange?

Why try to make it look like a toy? I don't get that. Isn't that enough right there to revoke an open carry permit (I know states have different laws).

[shadowrider]

20. On that one

Your guess is a good as mine. I have no idea.

[Ten Bears]

25. Here is your answer shadowrider:

Embody is getting online criticism as a prankster who could turn public opinion against laws allowing handgun carrying. Some commenters also are objecting because Embody capped the tip of his pistol’s muzzle orange, a sign commonly used to show the weapon’s actually a toy. They say police were right to be suspicious of Embody because of his strange behavior.

Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of the pro-gun Web site OpenCarry.org, likens Embody to the protester who drew public outrage last summer by openly carrying a handgun outside one of President Barack Obama’s town hall meetings.

In an e-mail to The City Paper, Stollenwerk says: “Many people in the open carry community are not very happy with this fellow's apparent stunt to carry a ‘handgun’ that looked like a long gun slung over his shoulder, and capped with an orange tip to make it disguised as a toy — no wonder the police took an interest and investigated the guy. Had they seen a person wearing a normal handgun in a proper holster on a walk, they probably would have just said ‘hello.’”

Stollenwerk writes that Embody “slung his pistol over his back almost as if he was baiting the police to mess with him — very poor form and not helpful.”

Still think this guy is helpful to your cause?

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/gunman-vows-continue-carrying-ak-47-parks

[shadowrider]

27. Go back upthread

and show me where I said he was helpful to the cause. On the contrary, I've stated it was probably a dumb move, but it was not illegal.

[Ten Bears]

32. Posting this by itself indicates that you think it will help the cause

Or do you also post items that carry the day for 2nd amendment limitations. You just didn't know the full story and your misfortune was to run into someone who knew more of it than you did.

[nebenaube]

44. because he is a griefer...

The asshole should be stripped of his rights for endangering kids. They should have canceled his permit, put him on a no buy list and confiscated his damn gun because he tried to disguise it as a toy. The intent is obvious as being to make a LEO hesitate.

[PavePusher]

46. How did he endanger kids?

Look, he's an ass, but even ass's have rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Every time you disguise a real firearm as a toy you endanger children.

The last thing I want is a cop seeing my kid playing in the woods near our house with a toy gun thinking to himself 'oh crap that might be real', and taking the lawful, appropriate measures that must follow that thought.

Dude's a piece of work, hope they found something actually illegal on him. (I suspect decorating a firearm like that might not be legal in my state)

[TheCowsCameHome]

21. Poor Leonard.

Even his imaginary friends won't play with him.

[Guilded Lilly]

34. If I (and my children or a loved one or a stranger)

was walking in a park or down any street U.S.A. and saw a man openly toting a handgun in the palm of his hand, or an AK-47 assault rifle flung over his shoulder, I can guarantee the very last thing going through my mind would be his legal rights to carry arms. It would be that this man poses an immediate threat to me and my children AND strangers and is, frankly, very shaky intellectually at the least and capable of instantaneous lethal violence at the worst.

Not going to get into a love guns/hate guns guns kill/people kill argument. I do not stand behind the people who think carrying assault weapons openly in public areas or hand guns in the palms of their hands while walking down a street... is OK. Period.

[TheCowsCameHome]

35. Best post yet.

:thumbsup: Well said.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

43. I agree. I don't want to live in a country where everyone is walking

around armed just because they can. Let me say this as clear and simple as I can. NO ONE IS COMING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS!

[PavePusher]

48. "I don't want to live in a country where everyone is walking..."

"around exercising their Civil Rights just because they can."


Silly person, you don't seem to understand what a Civil Right is.

[shadowrider]

50. Did you ever get your yardwork done?

And if so, wanna come do mine? I only have 2.5 acres and can't pay you, but just imagine how much knowledge and experience you'll gain..:)

[PavePusher]

52. Been there, done that.

That's why I have easy-to-weed gravel in the desert. :D

And only a feww thousand square feet of that.

[shadowrider]

53. You're bypassing the opportunity of a lifetime

But that's your choice.

[PavePusher]

59. And I appreciate the offer...

the spirit it was given in, and how difficult it was to try to share your munificence. :evilgrin:

Hope it went well, I've still got "large" patches of green to weed out. Cripes, we've gotten a lot of rain this spring...

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

56. So you assume that I'm anti-gun and you call me silly for not understanding

civil rights. I'm not anti-gun and I think the end result of EVERYONE BEING ARMED WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR ALL OF US. A lot of our Civil Rights are threatened, like to be charged with a crime and not just locked up. The point was EVERYONE BEING ARMED not that they did or didn't have the right to be, but I guess it was lost on you.

[PavePusher]

64. well, a few points...

1. No-one is claiming "everyone" should be armed. We are claiming everyone who is not a proven danger to society should have the choice to be armed if they wish. And if they harm or threaten their fellow Citizens without just cause, they should be held responsible for their actions.

2. Gun ownership is trending upwards. Crime is trending downwards. Crime in areas with fewer gun restrictions has not generally gone up, nor does it rise when laws are loosened. So your assertion "the end result of EVERYONE BEING ARMED WOULD BE DANGEROUS FOR ALL OF US", is demonstratably untrue.

3. "I don't want to live in a country where everyone is walking around armed just because they can" certainly sounds like you want to keep people from exercising the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". I don't know how you'd do that without taking peoples firearms, so please forgive me for making the assumption. If you can explain your plan better, I'd certainly appreciate it. And since you seem to feel that firearms are endangering, I'm not sure how to interprete your claim that you are not anti-gun.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

70. I feel firearms are endangering in the same way vehicles are.

The accident numbers are there and having more won't likely make them come down, maybe the human nature part? Gun ownership is up for many reasons as you well know by being on DU. I live on the Southern Oregon Coast in a little town of 1200 and most all have more then one firearm and I don't feel threatened at all by them. When I lived in San Diego for sixty years of my life a lot of my friends had weapons stolen during break-ins, weapons they had in case of a break-in, but they weren't home. We were lucky and never had one but we did always had large barking watch dogs, much easier to go to another place to break-in. Our society, culture, or lack of it has many unstable persons in it, the vast majority of them unknown, I guess I was saying that if they also had firearms it wouldn't be demonstrably safer, there would be higher accident numbers, mistakes.

[PavePusher]

71. Except, again, the numbers don't support that.

Firearms accidents have also been dropping.

[SteveM]

104. Where is your source for "...having more won't likely make them come down..."?

[spin]

108. Here's a graph that shows the trend in accidental firearm accidents ...

Since 1984 there have been over 122,000,000 firearms purchased by civilians, and yet somehow the accidental firearms death rate has plummeted 71.4%.
http://blog.robballen.com/2009/10/29/p3805-not-accidental-either.post

[SteveM]

103. Anyone advocating "EVERYONE BEING ARMED..."? Please cite.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. That's certainly a wise thing for them to avoid.

[shadowrider]

45. I understand your position and you have every right to hold it

But I have to ask, what is your opinion of police officers, security personnel and others who open carry? Do you not feel they too are at risk of instantaneous lethal violence? Do you feel they have a right to carry when off the job?

FYI I too would get a little nervous if I saw someone carrying an assault rifle flung over the shoulder, but, if it's legal, it's legal.

I carry concealed. IF that person suddenly decided to go nuts, I'd like to at least have a fighting chance to survive AND stop them.

I don't mean to belabor the point, just curious how you feel about the above questions.

[Guilded Lilly]

55. Fair enough and respectfully questioned :)

"But I have to ask, what is your opinion of police officers, security personnel and others who open carry? Do you not feel they too are at risk of instantaneous lethal violence? Do you feel they have a right to carry when off the job?"

It is their well-established, societally accepted job. They have been professionally trained and publicly paid to be society's *peacekeepers*, and are clearly presented as such in appearance...so for me, to see those professionals openly carry does not bother/threaten me, no. A great deal of that rests on educated societal trust.

Being trained and educated and easily recognizable AS society's paid peacekeepers, I feel they are not nearly as much at risk.

Carry openly? Out of uniform? Off the job? Though legal, no, that doesn't thrill me at all.

This subject will always be full of intense and passionate stances. And difficult solutions. Responsibility and accountabilty cannot be legislated as clearly. Shades of gray and all that.
Legal IS legal. My feelings remain the same :)

(It isn't easy, this world of potential violence, is it?)

peace,
Lilly

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. I've only seen a few plainclothes cops carry concealed weapons.

The vast majority of them carry openly. Funny thing is I never see people freak out when they see a firearm in a holster of someone without a badge in plain sight.

[PavePusher]

66. Your entire argument for "professionally trained and publicly paid"...

completely falls apart when you get here: "Carry openly? Out of uniform? Off the job? Though legal, no, that doesn't thrill me at all."

So, there is something magical about the uniform and a time card that makes them safe during one part of the day, but not 5 minutes later?

Your logic chain has some gaps.

[Guilded Lilly]

68. I don't care what you think

about my opinion.

[mvccd1000]

72. ...so for me, to see those professionals openly carry does not bother/threaten me, no.

And of those of us who open carry, that is usually either a primary or secondary consideration.

If you see me, and others like me, out there in public, looking and acting normal, and having a holstered pistol on one hip, perhaps that will begin to become more societally accepted and less bothersome.

[Euromutt]

75. I have a few niggles with your point of view

Okay, fine, we accept that law enforcement personnel are "society's paid peacekeepers" and that they openly carry firearms as part of their job, but the question also covered private security personnel. These are not paid by society, and their task is not to maintain public order, but to protect privately owned property. Are you comfortable with such people openly carrying firearms?

Secondly, when you point out that there exists societal acceptance of uniformed police officers openly carrying firearms, that suggests that the main objection to private citizens carrying openly is that it is not socially accepted. And that, in turn, suggests that if open carry were to become more widely accepted, there would be no reasonable objection to it. At which point I should point out that that is precisely one of the objectives of the open carry movement: to foster the attitude that the sight of a private citizen openly carrying a firearm is, in and of itself, nothing to get worked up about. Which, it might added, used to be the prevalent attitude in large parts of the country.

And it also raises the question to which extent lack of societal acceptance is a substantial argument. Fifty years ago, it was de rigeur for men to wear their hair short, and wear hats outdoors. That couldn't have changed if some people hadn't decided they didn't care about what was considered socially acceptable, and in so doing, they changed the standard of what was. And again, in large parts of the country, openly carrying a firearm used to be perfectly normal; that attitude changed. Why should the current attitude be the correct one, and the 19th century one the incorrect one?

[jeepnstein]

78. Society's "peacekeepers"?

That's a noble title to bestow. The problem is the law enforcement community doesn't really embrace that concept in the way many people think they do. It's nice if one gets to come to the rescue but they really don't get any points deducted if they arrive in time to take the report and call the meat wagon. Their job is to identify and apprehend people suspected of committing crimes. You're on your own other than that.

I'm no fan of open carry, but probably not for the same reasons as you.

[Callisto32]

80. No, they are not society's peacekeepers.

In fact, they have no obligation to protect any individual at all, ask the SCOTUS.

The purpose of that firearm is to protect the OFFICER, not YOU, or ME.

[SteveM]

105. Concealed-carry is in my opinion preferable to open-carry...

Though I am not sure I can defend my position, concealed-carry would make a person less subject to a concerted attack by several thugs who wanted someone's gun; I am open to debate on this. But where concealed-carry is not allowed, then those wishing to carry guns have no choice but to carry openly (if the law allows).

I am curious about "this world of potential violence." While I see in domestic affairs potential for violence, I don't see it coming from those who are lawfully carrying. The danger is most often found where thugs are carrying; in fact, most "gun-crimes" are committed by veteran thugs with several felony convictions, often committing such crimes on fellow thugs with convictions.

This violence is acted out, and well beyond "potential."

[Euromutt]

57. I have a hard time sympathizing with Embody, but...

Look, let me get it clear that I think Leonard Embody is a fucking moron. I don't see the point of "handguns" that are essentially SBRs minus the stock, but if you want to spend your money on one, well, that's your business. But you cannot repeatedly go out in public open-carrying an AK-based "handgun" with the muzzle painted orange and the expect me to believe that "I didn't want to be in the spotlight. I didn't want my name in the news reports." It's perfectly possible to open carry without being made a spectacle, e.g. by just carrying a Glock in a Serpa holster, but when you haul something that conspicuous around in public, the only person making a spectacle of you is you yourself. It's the equivalent of going for a walk with a battle axe strapped to your back and expecting people not to take notice.

All that having been said, however, I don't see that Tennessee Dept. of Safety has any valid grounds for revoking Embody's carry permit if he hasn't actually done anything illegal. I should hope there are some statutory criteria for determining whether there is a "material likelihood" that someone forms "a risk to the public," and that violating those is an offense. If such an offense has not been committed, that's all she wrote.

[shadowrider]

76. I agree 100%

The man is an attention seeker whose attempt at exercising his 2nd amendment right was ill-conceived, dumb and it doesn't help the cause. That being said, he did nothing illegal and his permit was revoked because of a "material likelihood" he'd be a "risk to the public."

That's akin to putting an ankle bracelet on someone and placing them under house arrest for a violation of the 1st amendment if the police consider them to have a "material likelihood" they'd be a "risk to the public" because at some point in the future they MIGHT yell fire in a crowded theater.

[jeepnstein]

77. Embody...

is looking to hit the lawsuit lottery. He's doing nobody any favors, except maybe his lawyer, by going around in a manner he knew was going to provoke a response from the police. His behavior is irresponsible. Irresponsible people may very well be allowed to keep and bear arms but that doesn't mean the state has to issue a concealed carry permit.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

82. if his state is shall issue...

and he has no disqualifying offenses then his state MUST issue him a CHL if he wants one.
He's still a damn moron.

[jeepnstein]

83. 39-17-1352 a-3

"(3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;" - Moron, in plain English. The section I'm citing is the part about suspension or revocation of the permit. http://www.michie.com/tennessee/lpext.dll/tncode/11920/1234e/126a6/12752?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0#JD_39-17-1352

He did his best to call attention to himself and get a response from the police.

[PavePusher]

85. I'm pretty sure that statuate means harmful criminal behavior..

or a record of making threats to people.

I'm pretty sure trying to be a law-suit magnet would not qualify if taken to court.

[jeepnstein]

88. That was my first look at the statute.

I would think the revocation would have to look at the responding officer's report and all of the relevant facts. He gets extra points for painting the muzzle of his AK orange to make the officer second-guess himself. The guy was acting in such a way as to guarantee a confrontation with police. That makes the stakes and the threat to public much higher than someone who simply chooses to exercise a right. He can prevaricate all he wants about his conduct after the fact but his actions speak volumes.

[kwikrnu]

91. please don't speak out of ignorance

You say I, "was acting in such a way as to guarantee a confrontation with police." It is a fundamental civil right to bear arms. I carried my handguns in a lawful manner. I was not a threat and threatened no one. I presented my handgun carry permit to the first ranger who stopped me. I also informed him that my handgun was real. He let me go. It was 20-30 minutes later that another ranger pointed a shotgun at my face.

[pipoman]

100. .

[Abq_Sarah]

106. Why did you paint the muzzle tip orange?

Were you trying to "fake out" the police? Make them think it was an airsoft?

What's your rationale for orange tipping a real firearm?

[kwikrnu]

107. why

The ranger was told the handgun was real and shown the handgun carry permit. 20-30minutes later I was stopped by another ranger, in contact with the first, who pointed a gun at my face and held me 2 1/2 hours.

[rrneck]

110. But, why did you paint it orange? nt

[kwikrnu]

111. why not?

Because I can, why does that matter? Why do some people paint their guns pink? Why do some paint their gun to look like a tree branch? There is nothing illegal by painting a gun.

[rrneck]

113. LOL! You're funny.

An orange tipped muzzle on something that looks like a firearm has a very specific meaning. I doubt you are ignorant of that. You were obviously trying to send some sort of message. What that message might be I have no idea, and I doubt it matters; but two evasive answers from you say a lot more than a bit of orange spray paint.

[Abq_Sarah]

114. On another forum

He mentioned painting it orange for "safety". His rationale was that the police wouldn't be allowed to shoot him if his AK appeared to be an airsoft.

That really makes me question his judgment and intent.

[rrneck]

115. Yep. Sounds like he's fulla shit. nt

[kwikrnu]

90. Before you argue the meaning of the statute...

you should understand what it means. Tennessee is a "shall issue" state. This means that the state shall issue a handgun carry permit if an applicant meets the objective requirements, in this case set out by TCA 39-17-1351. I meet all requirements set out by TCA 39-17-1351. TCA 39-17-1352(a)(3) refers to those who have been charged with a non violent felony and the criminal court judge has a hearing where the charged is present. The hearing is to determine if the person charged with the felony is a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public. If declared a material risk the permit is suspended only until the person charged is acquitted or the prosecution drops the charges. At that moment the permit is reissued with no additional hearing. This is stated in TCA 39-17-1352(e)(2)-(3).
Tennessee law is clear on this subject, but the Tennessee Department of Safety is bent on trying to make a case. I dropped my appeal of the handgun permit and now my handgun carry permit has been suspended indefinately. There is no recourse for me to follow to get the permit unsuspended. I have since filed a lawsuit against the state becuase I am not a prohibited person, but am not alowed to carry a gun for self-defense.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

109. Why not apply for a permit from a state whom yours has reciprocity with?

Grammatical abominations aside (sorry)...

Since you could honestly state that you have no criminal record I'm sure you could obtain a CCW from some other different state. For example, Tennessee honors Utah Non-Residential permits.

[kwikrnu]

112. permit tca 39-17-1351(C)(i)

I could apply for and receive handgun permits from many states. I do not believe a permit is a requirement to exercise a right which is why I have sued the state of tennessee and asked the law be declared unconstitutional.

If I were to apply for and receive a permit from one of many statesthe permit is not valid for a person who is a resident. So,I would still be prohibited.tca 39-17-1351(C)(i)

[alabama_for_obama]

119. nonsense!

@ mr. Emobdy: it doesn't matter what you personally believe about how tennessee law operates. you decided to agitate against the police, rather than find constructive ways to fix the legal situation in belle meade. you did not help the cause of gun rights. If you look for trouble, you will find it and it will find you. good luck getting your concealed carry permit back. just remember next time, Rule #1 when dealing with law enforcement and bureaucrats is to not piss them off (especially without good reason).

@ everyone else on the forum :since they deleted the subthread that mentioned this before, I will repeat it again without using the "t" word to describe him. there is no reason to feel any sympathy toward mr. emobdy, or to feel bad about his situation. he stuck his hand in a hornet's nest and got stung. Mr. Embody did this for sport, and was hoping to get in a fight with them. you can read about it on other forums he has posted to as "kwikrnu". he claims to have done it to advance gun rights, but has done no such thing. and he just lost his lawsuit against the local sheriff who won't sign off properly on his form 4 (for a silencer transfer) as he posted on another forum a few times today. moral of the story, if you are going to be an agitator instead of working peacfully within the system to change it, you have to be ready to pay the consequences for being noticed.

[kwikrnu]

120. I'm not subscribing

I don't subscribe to your theory. Government is to work for the people not against. The lawsuit was lost because the judge and sheriff do not know the law. I spoke with the sponser of the bill this evening at a political function.

[alabama_for_obama]

121. if you had not misbehaved elsewhere...

you wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

sometimes the people who write the laws don't actually put it in language that means what they want them to. sometimes you can't force a person to fill out federal paper work, where the federal law superceeds state law. i.e. (just an hypothetical example here) if the state law says that the sheriff has to violate a federal law, the state law is null and void. sometimes your personal interpretation of the law doesn't matter.

you acted badly in belle meade, you acted badly in the park. this is documented fact. and your version of events makes you sound bad too (perhaps worse at times). you didn't need to do this. but you decided to cause trouble where there was none instead of looking for constructive solutions to your imagined problems. it's not like anyone was refusing you a silencer. they just said they weren't going to be responsible for helping you get it. maybe they should have just come out and said "this guy is a troublemaker. we don't think he should have this silencer." but they didn't. you could have formed a trust and bypassed the CLEO signature. you could have gotten any number of people other than the sheriff to sign this form for you. it's not like you are a black guy who can't get served in a restaurant because of the color of your skin. this is all about people not wanting to have their names on your documents because you might make them look bad. given the pattern of behavior shown in your various manufactured incidents with the police, I bet they think you are going to keep at it.

you get more with sugar than with salt. you went out of your way to make the cops look bad. this is fact. it is on any number of internet forums that this was your intent. you make them look bad for no reason, they are not going to help you either. you can cry about that being illegal, but sometimes that's not how the game works.

[kwikrnu]

122. facts wrong

Please define acted badly. I simply obeyed the law. I will fight to preserve my rights.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krispos42]

118. "an AK-47-type pistol"