Radnor Lake Rambo drops appeal of handgun permit revocation

Thursday, October 7, 2010 at 8:45pm

The man who openly carried his AK-47 pistol in a state park and along Belle Meade Boulevard has dropped his request for a hearing on the revocation of his handgun carry permit.

Leonard S. Embody’s permit will remain suspended by the state Department of Safety unless he reapplies or appeals again, in either case the department would review the matter before making a decision, according to a spokesman for the department.

Embody, 38, was dubbed Radnor Lake Rambo after an episode in December in which he went for a stroll brandishing an AK-47 handgun at Radnor Lake State Park.

Embody said he decided to drop the appeal so that his lawsuit against the state can move forward. That suit claims state law violates his right to bear arms and to due process, and that the handgun carry permit laws are unconstitutionally vague.

It’s just one of a few legal proceedings started by Embody, a part-time nursing student who said he’s representing himself.

On Sept. 20, Embody also filed a writ of mandamus in Williamson County asking a court to order Sheriff Jeff Long to properly sign a National Firearms Act document allowing Embody to legally own a silencer.

Embody claims the sheriff didn’t properly perform his statutory duty when he signed the document only after crossing out a line that stated, “I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purpose.” His application for the silencer was later denied based on that technicality.

Attorneys for the sheriff countered with a motion to dismiss Embody’s petition claiming that it doesn’t meet the legal threshold for a couple of reasons including not meeting certain technical elements.

Also, according to Lisa Carson of the Franklin law firm Buerger, Moseley & Carson, which represents the county on various matters, a writ of mandamus is only allowed against a public official where a “clear legal right has been violated” by an official not performing a mandatory duty.

Carson’s response on behalf of Long states that the sheriff did meet his statutory requirements and that state law only requires the document to be complete but “does not remove the law enforcement officer’s discretion to decline to make certifications that are not supported by the facts.”

A hearing on the motion to dismiss is set for Oct. 18.

Embody’s suit against Radnor Lake Ranger Steve Ward filed in February is still ongoing and remains in the discovery phase. Embody sued after he was detained for two and a half hours while rangers and officers determined if any laws had been broken.

64 Comments on this post:

By: WickedTribe on 10/8/10 at 4:21

I'm confused. I don't know of any nursing students who have time to wander around brandishing an AK-47 much less all the subsequent legal mumbo-jumbo.

I wish this article told where he's attending school, because I'd really like to know.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 6:24

James Nix Wrote in this article: "The man who openly carried his AK-47 pistol in a state park and along Belle Meade Boulevard has dropped his request for a hearing on the revocation of his handgun carry permit."

Get your facts right, Mr. Nix. If you'll at the very least do some research and read the article written by your fellow City Paper writer, Rex Noseworthy (is that a real name?), Sunday, February 14, 2010 at 10:45pm, you'd know Embody carried a Navy model 1851 black powder pistol in the Belle Meade incident, not an AK-47 pistol.

Little screw ups like this takes away from your credibility. Or, was your intention to make Embody look just a little worse by writing he was carrying the more scary AK-47 pistol?

Cookie47

By: govskeptic on 10/8/10 at 6:31

The Ranger was wrong in this long delay, but so was this
crazy Rambo that wanted to challenge the law and Ranger
in a way that makes all Permit holders appear as Rambos.
This is certainly not the case and hopefully won't be considered
as such by the public at large. Most permit holders would
rather not want everyone to know their carrying since that
would only give potential bad guys an upper hand in a
confrontation or potential crime situation!

By: gdiafante on 10/8/10 at 6:37

If I were a legal gun owner and saw an idiot running around with an assault weapon in a park, I'd shoot him.

Yee haw!!

By: yogiman on 10/8/10 at 6:38

Where in the Constitution does it stipulate the government must give you a permit?

By: xhexx on 10/8/10 at 7:16

Yogi, his point is that you shouldn't need a permit. Vermont, Alaska and Arizona have already set that precedent.

By: Jokapsig on 10/8/10 at 7:25

I concur with WickedTribe. Where is this moron going to Nursing School? Better still, lets pack this doofus off to Afghanistan where he can tout his Rambo muzzle.

By: jfwlucy on 10/8/10 at 7:34

Yeah, you totally shouldn't need a permit!! Anyone should be able to buy a gun anywhere! We NEED guns in the hands of people like that man in Memphis who shot those two teenagers because he didn't like their baggy pants!! Guns for all idiot nincompoops everywhere!!!

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 7:49

There is no legal avenue to pursue reinstatement of the handgun carry permit. The suspension is permanent. I have a handgun permit, it is just suspended forever. So application for a new permit would not be the proper remedy. Besides the handgun carry permit is a privilege not a right. This is why I have sued the State. State law currently criminalizes the carry of loaded handguns. Laws prohibiting carry of handguns were declared unconstitutional, as early as 1871, by the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Yes, nursing is difficult, but it is my right to bear arms.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 8:00

jfwlucy,

You're terribly uptight for a Friday morning. You're screaming and calling names and it's not even 9:00 a.m. yet. Perhaps a lot less caffeine is in order.

The point is, according to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we've been given the right to keep and bear arms. Why should that be regulated by a state law?

I personally don't have a problem with the requirement of a permit. I have one myself. What I do have a problem with is people such as yourself who bring nothing more than immature name-calling to an argument. If you have that out of your system, lets step it up a few notches and debate like adults.

Is it that you hate EVERYTHING as your previous post would indicate or just guns in general?

Cookie47

By: Ellie G on 10/8/10 at 8:25

@kwikrnu

Keep up the fight. You have supporters out here.

-EG

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 8:32

kwikrnu,

Like Ellie, I support you as well. I do think you brought all this on yourself but I do support you.

I have to ask, was it worth it?

Cookie47

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 8:41

To rephrase cookie47, I brought all this upon myself because I obeyed the law and have never been charged or arrested or in violation of any part of tca 39-17-1351.
That is laughable. I expect local and State governments to follow the law. At the end of the day I think it will be shown that Tennessee has no constitutional authority to prohibit me from carrying loaded handguns. I'm not the first one Tennessee has done this to and I won't be the last. Until the court decides the Department of Safety will continue doing this.

By: Tull on 10/8/10 at 8:59

"according to the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, we've been given the right to keep and bear arms. "
The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms it says the goverment shall not infringe upon our right to bear arms.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

By: jfwlucy on 10/8/10 at 9:08

You're avoiding my point by quibbling over jurisdiction -- why SHOULDN'T guns be heavily regulated at any level if it helps keep people like Kenneth Hall from easily obtaining them?

By: jbritt on 10/8/10 at 9:22

Everyone who's pissed off at this needs to try a little exercise. He's pushing the boundaries trying to reinforce and/or expand a civil right (yes, the Second Amendment protects a civil right). If you don't like it, imagine it's a different civil right being tested. "Nashville man sues state after being detained for holding 'kiss-in' for gay men in city park." Oh, no that's different you say. BS! This is what you have to do to expand civil rights. You have to push the boundaries. He didn't break any laws, do anything evil or harm anyone. All he did was test your comfort zone.

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 9:23

jfwlucy said, "-why SHOULDN'T guns be heavily regulated at any level if it helps keep people like Kenneth Hall from easily obtaining them?"

That is easy, the Constitution of the United States states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Unfortunately the Supreme Court, in 2008 Heller v McDonald, gutted the Second Amendment when it stated;
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms."

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 9:28

kwikrnu,

No, you haven't broken any laws and I've always defended you in that respect.

In my opinion, you forgot who you were dealing with - THE GENERAL PUBLIC. People that know nothing about HCP laws and probably don't care. Then they see a man in the park carrying what looks like to them to be an assault weapon. You and I know it's not but all they see in their minds eye is Columbine, Drive By Shootings, or two men robbing a bank in California using the same looking weapons. Or when they see a man carrying a revolver down the side of the street in BELLE MEADE where a bunch of blue-blood or blue-blood wannabees live including a former U.S. vice president and they freak out.

Yes, I also expect local and state governments and their law enforcement personnel to know the laws - ALL OF THEM - but we're dealing with the most flawed thing on the planet - PEOPLE. In my opinion, that's the first element in all this you didn't consider.

The next thing you didn't consider is the fear you've instilled in the very people that issue the permit for you to legally carry according to state law. Due to your actions, they now think you're crazy. They're not going to take the chance of allowing you to keep your permit, you possibly doing something illegal, and them being blamed for letting you keep that permit.

I hope you prevail but I do think you were your own worst enemy by going about all this the way you did.

Cookie47

By: jbritt on 10/8/10 at 9:38

And jfwlucy provides an excellent example of how to re-examine the situation minus the scary guns.

"You're avoiding my point by quibbling over freedom of from unreasonable searches -- why SHOULDN'T young, black males be profiled and randomly searched at any level if it helps lower the homicide rate?"

Guns are used to commit violent crimes therefore they must be heavily regulated in spite of the Second Amendment. Young, black males commit the majority of violent crime therefore they must be heavily regulated in spite of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both precepts are facutally correct, therefore there's no other conclusion...unless you're not a statist pining for the comforting bosom of the nanny state.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 9:42

jfwlucy wrote:
You're avoiding my point by quibbling over jurisdiction -- why SHOULDN'T guns be heavily regulated at any level if it helps keep people like Kenneth Hall from easily obtaining them?

Okay, I have a feeling I'm going to regret this but I'll bite. Who is Kenneth Hall and what does he have to do with this discussion, if anything? In a Google search, all I got was a story about a dead Connecticut State Trooper.

In answer to your question about guns being heavily regulated, Thomas Jefferson said,"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

That is one answer among many.

Cookie47

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 9:43

There are only a couple of ways to have standing in court to sue. I could carry a loaded handgun and be arrested and charged and fight the system. This is how most court decisions come about. I can do as I did, obey the law and be the target of official oppession and official misconduct.
My handgun permit was taken for what appear to be political reasons. I have no recourse other than to sue and claim that Tennessee State Law, TCA 39-17-1307, is unconstitutional. I have shown that the Department of Safety can prohibit a law abiding resident from carrying a loaded handgun. Yet, the Supreme Court, by their wording in Heller and affirmed in McDonald, will not allow a law to stand which allows the prohibition on the carry of loaded handguns. Even the Tennessee Supreme Court saw to that in 1871 in the case of Andrews v. State. It seems the State needs a reminder.

BTW, I have posted most of my court documents online at google documents. Or they are available to the public at Davidson County Chancery Court or Williamson County Chancery Court.
The court date for my suit against the State is early in January.

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 10:00

To jfwlucy and anyone else who thinks handguns should be heavily regulated;

1. Who gets to regulate?
2. Are the records open?
3. Are the standards objective?
4. Are rights subject to revokation without first a hearing?

To anyone who thinks my permit should be suspended, what about the thousands who have been charged and convicted of misdemeanors? Yes, the State of Tennessee issues permits to misdemeanants. Look up Carlos Antwan Fletcher in the Davidson County Criminal Court Clerks website. Then see if he has a handgun carry permit according to the Memphis Commercial Appeal website. There has been a couple of news articles floating around about him.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 10:01

kwikrnu,

I have to ask. Rather than nursing school, why not law school?

Cookie47

By: Doveplayer on 10/8/10 at 10:12

Yes, we are given the right to bear arms. This is the point where we as citizens make a common sense decision about that. Do we follow the gun laws that are written for safety, or do we sue for the right to carry what amounts to an assault pistol and that with a silencer?
First, why does he need that much firepower in a pistol? Second, it has to be big and unwieldy so he could easily be outdrawn by someone with a pistol. If he wants to carry, that's all well and good. There are plethora (literally, have you looked at gun magazines?) of pistols to choose from. From a lowly 22 to a massive 50 caliber. If a 50 cal pistol isn't big enough for him, he needs to stop carrying a weapon at all!
Second. If he has an AK-47 rifle in his house that he uses for home and family protection, or even the outlandish AK-47 pistol he loves so much, I see no need to carry anything like that in public, especially in a park and along Belle Meade Blvd. The man seems to need serious help.

By: jfwlucy on 10/8/10 at 10:41

Kenneth E. Bonds, my error.

jbritt, please do not equate human beings of any sort to guns. A gun's rights cannot be violated and a gun cannot choose a moral action.

No one is addressing my original point. Why do you want guns to be in the hands of so many people -- any of whom could be having an off day, bad temper, going through family troubles, a road rager, have bad sight, have bad hearing, have some mental problems, actually be having some problems with a neighbor but then he shoots the wrong neighbor, feeling suicidal, drunk, drugged, or just be a nincompoop idiot with a low tolerance for baggy pants?

Yes, I am well aware that gasoline, ropes, knives, poison, etc. exist. Use of these items, however, takes some planning, strength, and skill. Only a gun can end a life in a single moment of uncalculated rage.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 11:07

jfwlucy,

You obviously don't like guns. You may have your reason(s) but they are just that - your reason(s). I have my reasons for having a permit to LEGALLY carry, none of which I have to explain or justify to you. Perhaps your energy would be better utilized in lobbying our law makers to come up with tougher laws to keep CRIMINALS in jail where they belong rather than trying to regulate guns owned by law-abiding citizens.

You sound like you would be completely happy with a nanny state where the government made all your decisions for you. You sound as though you fear EVERYTHING including your own shadow. STOP blaming inanimate objects such as guns for your fears and realize guns don't kill people, people kill people. Taking away guns won't change that no matter what you may think. All you can do is do whatever is necessary to make sure it doesn't happen to you.

You can hide in your house but I've found the best way for me to do my best to make sure nothing happens to me or my family. I have a permit to carry a gun for personal protection. I do so whether people like you like it or not and I'll fight to keep that right.

Cookie47

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 11:24

Doveplayer, Tennessee defines a handgun as not having a shoulder stock and a barrel less than 12 inches long. There is no caliber restriction. My AK handgun is defined in Federal law as a handgun and was imported as such. My black powder pistol under Federal law is defined as an antique and isn't regulated.

By: jfwlucy on 10/8/10 at 11:50

Cookie47, both guns and people kill; guns make it easier.

Guns enhance the ability to kill, and make killing an easy, feasible choice for a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have the nerve, strength, or skill to murder someone.

Guns let you murder from far away, murder secretly, frighten away bystanders, reduce your risk of injury from someone fighting back, enable you to avoid getting blood on your clothes while committing murder. All in a society where people get drunk, furious, mentally ill, or suicidal ALL the time.

You are like a drunk driver claiming that because YOU personally haven't killed anyone, that drunk driving is okay.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 12:15

jfwlucy,

I can take my gun out of its holster and lay it on the table and until it's touch by a person it will do nothing more than lay there. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns are nothing more than a tool just like alcohol is to the drunk. Both have gotten blamed for a lot of things they never did.

It sounds as though you've put a lot of thought into what it would take to murder someone. You've thought of all the ways its easier to kill with a gun and yet you criticize me for carrying one. Thing is my gun is for personal protection. Never once have I considered murdering someone but you've thought of it all. Perhaps it's best YOU don't have a gun nor a permit to carry it.

No, I've never killed anyone. Nor have I thought of all the ways it would be easier to "murder from far away, murder secretly, frighten away bystanders, reduce your risk of injury from someone fighting back, enable you to avoid getting blood on your clothes while committing murder" as you put it.

You want to know why HCP holders decide to carry LEGALLY?

It's because some people sit around thinking of all the ways it would be easier to "murder from far away, murder secretly, frighten away bystanders, reduce your risk of injury from someone fighting back, enable you to avoid getting blood on your clothes while committing murder," again, as you put it.

You ARE part of the problem.

Cookie47

By: jfwlucy on 10/8/10 at 12:32

Yeah, YOU are speaking about yourself.

"No, I've never killed anyone. Nor have I thought of all the ways it would be easier to "murder from far away, murder secretly, frighten away bystanders, reduce your risk of injury from someone fighting back, enable you to avoid getting blood on your clothes while committing murder" as you put it. "

But lots of people have. More than 29,000 alone in 2004.

Again, you are like a drunk driver saying _I_, cookie47, have never gotten in trouble with DUI. Therefore DUI is not a problem.

GUNS MAKE KILLING EASIER FOR EVERYONE. THE MORE GUNS AROUND, THE MORE OBTAINABLE THEY ARE TO EVERYONE.

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 1:02

Tennessee law is a joke anyway. If I were to move to Georgia I could apply for and receive a Georgia handgun carry permit. If I then returned to Tennessee on vacation I could carry a handgun in State Parks, bars, and every other legal place I chose.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 1:15

Nice try but no cigar, jfwlucy.

I have never sat around thinking of ways to kill with a gun or anything else but yet YOU easily discuss them all here for all to see. You clearly stated it in your previous post.

I also do NOT drink. Never acquired a taste for it. However, YOU talk about it like it's second nature for you. That would explain some of your ramblings in your post above. Let me guess, you had a beer for breakfast.

YOU openly admit that YOU think about and discuss the ease in which to kill someone with a gun. I'm not the danger here. IT IS YOU!!!

People like you make me sick. You probably want to give the guy that just killed someone over a dice game a hug. It's not his fault, you say! You're certain he did it because his daddy wasn't around or his mother spanked him when he bad. Poor baby!!!

Give me a freakin' break.

Again, you want to know why HCP holders decide to carry LEGALLY?

It's because people like you sit around thinking of all the ways it would be easier to "murder from far away, murder secretly, frighten away bystanders, reduce your risk of injury from someone fighting back, enable you to avoid getting blood on your clothes while committing murder," again, as you put it.

Here's an idea, jfwlucy. Take your meds. Chug them down with a cold one and crawl back into your hole. Watch out, now, the boogy man is peeking around the corner!!! He's going to get you!!! The whole world is out to get you, jfwlucy!!!

Cookie47

By: jfwlucy on 10/8/10 at 1:42

Sorry, I just don't sit around with my head in the sand ignoring reality, saying "it's not me, it's not me, it's not me -- so there's no problem -- because it's not me." Neither you nor I have ever shot a weapon aimed to harm or kill, most likely. But 30,000 OTHER PEOPLE a year have, and did, and will continue to do so.

By: Cookie47 on 10/8/10 at 2:39

jfwlucy wrote: "Sorry, I just don't sit around with my head in the sand ignoring reality, saying "it's not me, it's not me, it's not me -- so there's no problem -- because it's not me." Neither you nor I have ever shot a weapon aimed to harm or kill, most likely. But 30,000 OTHER PEOPLE a year have, and did, and will continue to do so."

Have you ever looked down the barrel of gun?

Have you ever looked into the eyes of someone holding that gun who didn't care if they died tomorrow mush less whether or not you did?

Have you ever hid in fear waiting for the police for what seemed like a life time to show up wondering if they'd find you alive or dead?

Take YOUR head out of the sand, jfwlucy, AND FIGHT THE RIGHT PEOPLE!!!

STOP fearing an inanimate object that can do nothing to you unless it's in hands of someone who wants to do you harm. Banning guns is NOT the answer. It'll NEVER happen in this country without one hell of a fight. Also, fighting law-abiding HCP holders is a COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE OF YOUR TIME!!! WE'RE NOT THE PROBLEM EITHER!!!

Fight to have stronger laws to keep the CRIMINALS IN JAIL!!!

Place the blame for society being the way it is on the right people - THE CRIMINALS and PANTIE-WASTE LIBERALS THAT WON'T KEEP THEM IN JAIL!!!

Lets do that together and I'll GLADLY put my gun away. I'll NEVER give them up but I wouldn't have to carry it everywhere I go!!!

STOP fighting the law-abiding citizens that have chosen to take their personal protection seriously!!! WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM AND NEITHER ARE OUR GUNS!!! We take our protection seriously because something happened in our lives to MAKE us feel we HAD TO!!!

IT'S NOT THE GUNS BUT THE PEOPLE WHO USE THEM ILLEGALLY TO GET WHAT THEY WANT BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO DAMN LAZY TO WORK FOR IT THAT ARE THE PROBLEM!!!

Think about it, jfwlucy, and I think you'll realize banning guns will NOT fix anything. By the same token, giving them to everyone won't either. Removing the people from society who choose to use them illegally is the answer. Until that happens, I WILL carry my weapon with me.

Cookie47

By: 18Echo on 10/8/10 at 4:01

jfwlucy, Bad people will always commit violence. That is a given and has not changed since the story of Cain slaying Able. To disarm the law abiding under the guise of protecting them has a consequence I'm not sure you have considered. Your solution would leave the weak at the mercy of the strong, the one at the mercy of the gang, the old at the mercy of the young and the peaceful at the mercy of the violent. When it comes down to brute strength, the brute wins almost every time. When the felon that just spent years in prison lifting weights and survining prision fights, decides to invade your home, or the elderly lady's next door, he is not going to be stopped with harsh words. You are going to need something to equalize the situation. Something to, at least, level the field. In a home invasion, an armed 99lb 60 year old lady that can shoot is exactly EVENLY matched with an armed 30 year old, 230lb weightlifter/ rapist. A disarmed lady in the same situation is raped and/or dead.

This is why we have firearms. It lets the little old lady, or my loved ones, or me use technology to even the field against stronger men or larger or numbers or anyone that would harm them. There is really nothing better at doing that than a firearm and it's why we invented them. Unless and until you can show me that men have stopped doing evil and that governments will never use power rather than persuasion to coerce the masses to do it's bidding, I will choose to retain the right to level that field.

Let's try another angle and an admittedly imperfect analogy

We know that the odds of our house burning down tonight are vanishingly small right? We also know that the odds of someone's house burning down tonight are almost 100% agreed? It *could* be you or me though the odds are against it. Now, in spite of those odds, I own a fire extinguisher. I bet you own one too, even though you are not expecting to use it, ever.

When someone's house burns down and they didn't have one we usually wonder what in the world were they thinking. Extinguisher are cheap, easy to obtain, you don't need permission to own one and almost anyone can use it.

Think of a gun as that fire extinguisher. If there is a fire I have something that I can use to fight it Naturally, I pay firemen (police) to do that job for me so if I have any possibility AT ALL, I will let the professionals deal with it. You know. Call 911 and run away...

Sadly, however, there might come a time when there is only me to deal with the problem and the ability to do so might mean the difference between life and death for me or my loved ones. I still might fail, life is not the movies, it doesn't always work out but at least I have a *chance* and I have the best tool I can own that I know, for sure, can make a difference in a bad situation.

Without a fire extinguisher you literally DEPEND on the ability of the fire department to get there and save you or your loved ones. They are good people, they will do their best to save you and your family, but it does take TIME for them to get there. Of course, that is always your choice. I would never deny you the ability to choose to not own one and to solely rely on the FD. I'd wonder "what in the world is he thinking" but I wouldn't demand that you own one since we are free to make both good and bad choices as we see fit. That is the nature of freedom.

My problem is why in the world would you deny me the choice? Your assertion boils down to this. Because YOU wish to depend only on the fire department, I should be forced to depend ONLY on the fire department too because it makes you feel safer. (note I said feel safer , not actually be safer)

I don't know about you, but I never want to look in the mirror and say "if only I had had the means, my family might be alive today" You might be able to live with "Well, the fire department got there as fast as they could, too bad it wasn't in time"

Not me.

That's the very reason why we tool makers make tools and learn how to use them.

By: SgtScott31 on 10/8/10 at 9:19

The Handgun Carry Permit (HCP) statute under TN law is not constitutionally vague. The US Supreme Court has always allowed states to put further restrictions on handgun ownership/carry. Obviously by the D.C. decision, states can't ban guns outright and I don't think they should attempt to. With that said, I do not see anything wrong with the current weapon laws in Tennessee and I think your lawsuit is futile.

The 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" continues to be one of the most controversial issues in the U.S. If you pay close attention to how the US Supreme Court has ruled on gun-related issues, you should have a good idea that neither that court or the TN Supreme Court is going to rule in your favor. I think you're wasting a good amount of time and taxpayer money in your quest, but that's your perrogative. TN is a pretty liberal state when it comes to gun carry. A background check and an eight hour class is all it takes (along with some fees) to go armed. No restrictions on long guns and rifles and no restrictions to have one in your home or business. The state is not going to allow handgun carry without some restrictions and those restrictions are not vague or unconstitutional. 80-90% of the other states have similar laws and none have been found to be in error. The fact that people can still have permits when convicted of certain misdemeanors plays in the state's favor so I'm not sure where you're going with that one. Obviously if you're convicted of a misdemeanor involving domestic violence or gun crimes, you can't have a permit. The state of TN goes easy on those convicted of non-violent or non-domestic misdemeanor crimes by not taking your permit away. The laws are clear and they are in favor of the citizens of TN and I would bet money that the court will rule that way when they look at your lawsuit. I doubt the Court of Appeals would even look at your case and I'm almost positive the State Supreme Court will not (if you decide to try to take it that far).

Your methods to gain attention to gun issues are what landed the revocation of your permit in the first place. Since you seem to want to be a legal guru, it surprises me that you didn't address the Belle Meade issue through the proper channels. What did you think was going to happen when you walk down the street of a high-end neighborhood with a pistol in your hand? Well I shouldn't ask that question. Since you posted your intent on the o.c. website, it was apparent you knew what was going to happen. It's obvious that the ordinance was outdated and forgotten (which has now been changed to reflect current state law). If you honestly believe that was the right (and smart) way to address it, then I'm gald your permit was revoked.

On a side note, I don't see the 2-hour wait to verify the status of your weapon in the state park incident an unreasonable amount of time. Many people when looking at the Draco are never going to believe that it is a "handgun". To me, the federal law involving length shouldn't have anything to do with it. The simple fact is, no one carries such a weapon for personal protection. You are nothing more than a narcissistic attention craver who is putting a bad name on the rest of the legitimate permit holders in this state and I look forward to the rulings involving your legal action against the ranger and the state firearm law(s).

By: SgtScott31 on 10/8/10 at 9:37

The Heller and Mcdonald opinions have nothing to do with your case. In both instances, the states attempted to ban guns altogether, which is obviously attempting to put a much greater restriction on gun ownership than Tennesse's current carry laws. TN laws simply ask that you carry your gun responsibly (or face the consequences). If you think the state Supreme Court will make their decision based on an 1871 ruling you are in for a rude awakening.

By: kwikrnu on 10/8/10 at 10:11

Heller and McDonald based their ruling off of the Second Amendment which is almost 100 years older than the 1871 TN Supreme Court decision. Also the Fourteenth Amendment which was a few years before the TN Supreme Court ruling.

TCA 39-17-1307 criminalizes the carrying of loaded handguns. It is, in fact, a prohibition. In my my case because as a law abiding resident I am prohibited from carrying a loaded handgun.

By: SgtScott31 on 10/9/10 at 4:13

Again, Heller and McDonald are not applicable in your argument. Their proposed gun bans violated the 2nd Amendment because it was an attempt to completely ban handguns outright in their respective areas. This means no one could possess handguns at all in their home (without permission from Chief), which is obviously in contradiction to the "right to keep and bear arms" as how the US Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment. The US Supreme Court will not allow states to ban the ownership of guns, but it HAS allowed states to place restrictions on the carrying of weapons, hence why there are dozens of states (including TN) that require some steps before being allowed to carry a handgun on one's person. If courts disagreed with handgun carry permits or concealed weapons permits then they wouldn't be in existence or all of the states' laws would have already been found unconstitutional. Why is that so hard to understand? TN allows ownership and possession of handgun without a permit in one's home or business. TN allows ownership of rifles and shotguns without a permit. The only restriction is carrying a pistol/handgun on one's person, which is the reason for the HCP. There is no specific and articulated statement in the 2nd Amendment which gives anyone the ultimate right to carry a handgun on their person and it has been interpreted this way by the courts in many states, hence why some require a permit to carry and some don't. Obviously people are figthing this argument every day. It all boils down to one side interpreting it a different way than the other. Anyway, the US Supreme Court emphasized this in the recent (DC) Heller case that you yourself mentioned at the top of this page. The Heller case reinforced the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that people cannot carry whatever they want, whenever they want. To suggest that TN law is violating your right to carry a loaded weapon (per the 2nd Amend) is basically ignoring all of your own research that you have conducted on US and TN law. Bottom line, I suggest you move to a state that doesn't require a permit to carry, because TN's law isn't changing anytime soon and it is in complete compliance with the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (hence no violation of your constitutional rights).

By: kwikrnu on 10/9/10 at 5:49

sgtscott31 stated, "If courts disagreed with handgun carry permits or concealed weapons permits then they wouldn't be in existence or all of the states' laws would have already been found unconstitutional. Why is that so hard to understand?"

Tennessee's current handgun permit system was designed mostly in 1997. It was designed as a privilege. Did you listen to hearings in the Senate and House of Representatives? If you haven't I suggest you go to the Tennessee Archieves and listen to them. The hearings are on a set of 28 audio tapes. I have most of them on digital audio. How long did it take people to find out that the DC and Chicago ban was unconstitutional?

Tennessee Legislators tried to prohibit carry of handguns in 1870. They criminalized the carry of all handguns. The Supreme Court came back and said the State Constitution said they could regulate, not prohibit. The Legislature came up with the army/navy carry openly in the hand law. The Supreme Court ruled that the law was constitutional because it regulated and did not prohibit.

In 1989 Tennessee revamped its criminal code and threw out the army/navy law. In doing so they criminalized the carry of all loaded handguns. The law has not been challenged. The sixth circuit was of the opinion that it is not a fundamental civil right to bear arms. Now that the right to bear arms is decided it isonly a matter of time before someone challenges the validity of the state law. I am prohibited from carrying because the state suspended my permit indefinately and it is a criminal act to carry a loaded handgun. It is only natural that I sue to challenge the validity of the State law. Remember, the State Constitution says the legslature may regulate not prohibit.

We do not know what persons, places or arms the United States Supreme Court will prohibit. They haven't made a decision and won't until a law is challenged. They have hinted that long standing prohibitions on felons, mentally ill, and places which are sensitive will be okay. However, just because they say that the decision is not designed to allow people to carry whatever arms whenever they want does not mean Tennessee Law is constitutional. Prohibitions in sensitive places or prohibitions or NFA weapons seems to be what they were refering to.

By: AmyLiorate on 10/9/10 at 7:41

Cookie47 you are pretty much on the spot as far as I am concerned. I think you're responses are well phrased and done in the proper and legal frame of mind.

I liked this part-
"Both precepts are factually correct, therefore there's no other conclusion...unless you're not a statist pining for the comforting bosom of the nanny state."

JFWLucy, you talk about gun rights as if the gun itself is the target of the right. People have rights. It may seem like a tiny semantic point but it makes a big difference when you keep your mind in tune with the way the law works.

The biggest obstacle that I see in Kwikrnu's case is that the State of TN says in it's constitution that the state can regulate wearing of arms for the purpose of safety.

Do you think the TN Supreme Court will rule in your favor over the state constitution?
Are you going to take this beyond the TN SC and get the US SC to over ride a state's ratified constitution?

When you signed up for the permit was that not you, yourself agreeing to the terms and limitations of the carry permit law and authority?

Ideally we good people would be free in the manner of carrying handguns like the people in the state of Vermont. No process, no finger printing, etc. If TN has such freedom, like Arizona and Alaska, then you would not have been held up for carrying your gun and there would not be a "permit" for them to have revoked in your case.

Not 100% relative but here is a video of how people should deal with the police:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYGSv8dfbU0

Notice that he never agrees to give ID because he isn't required to. In TN this may be different once you have subjected yourself to the permit regulations.

By: kwikrnu on 10/9/10 at 10:35

amyliorate states, "The biggest obstacle that I see in Kwikrnu's case is that the State of TN says in it's constitution that the state can regulate wearing of arms for the purpose of safety.

Do you think the TN Supreme Court will rule in your favor over the state constitution?
Are you going to take this beyond the TN SC and get the US SC to over ride a state's ratified constitution?

When you signed up for the permit was that not you, yourself agreeing to the terms and limitations of the carry permit law and authority?"

I obeyed the law and the permit was still suspended. How do you explain that?

As I have stated TN may regulate, but they cannot prohibit. Look up and read Andrews v State. It is the definitive case and states a prohibition is unconstitutional.

I plan on taking this to the court of appeals and tn supreme court. From there an appeal to the supreme court of the us.

By: jfwlucy on 10/9/10 at 12:22

ALWAYS with the extreme examples, you people.

"You're alone, in the woods, with a broken arm, and you have giant shackles on your legs, and then 75,000 Hell's Angels are coming at you from the east, and the entire membership of Al-Qaeda is coming at you from the south, and there's a thunderstorm, and an earthquake, and a forest fire, and then a giant boulder is rolling down at you from the northwest -- would you use a gun THEN?!!!"

The problem with your fire extinguisher analogy is that a fire extinguisher is not a lethal weapon. If someone breaks into my home, they are unlikely to use it to commit another crime. If I get angry, I am unlikely to use it to kill someone else. If I shoot before I know who or what I am shooting at, all that person will get is a face full of foam. ALL of these things can and frequently DO happen with firearms.

Amy, I don't really understand your point and I don't think you do either. Jbritt's original statement was to equate a set of human beings to lethal weapons, ignoring the fact that human beings have civil and human rights that must be respected. Saying that they are equivalent is not rational.

Finally, If gun control laws are a violation of the Second Amendment, then why doesn't the NRA just go ahead and challenge them on constitutional grounds before the Supreme Court? I'll tell you why not -- because they know they are going to lose. Over the entire history of the Supreme Court, they have ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives rules allowing MILITIAS regulated by the state and the government, not individuals, the right to keep and bear arms. This is settled law. So, the NRA has taken the tactic of trying to get Congress to change the rules instead. More than fifty percent of all Americans still favor stricter gun laws. http://www.publicagenda.org/charts/two-thirds-americans-favor-stricter-gun-control-laws-just-one-third-favor-ban-sale-all-handguns.

I ask you one last time, people. Why do you want people like Kenneth Bonds to have such easy access to guns? People with mental health issues, with domestic problems, people with anger management problems (looking at you, cookie)?

By: kwikrnu on 10/9/10 at 12:34

jfwlucy states, "Over the entire history of the Supreme Court, they have ruled that the 2nd Amendment gives rules allowing MILITIAS regulated by the state and the government, not individuals, the right to keep and bear arms. This is settled law."

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is an individual fundamental civil right and that it is incorporated to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

By: SgtScott31 on 10/10/10 at 11:44

It seems you're caught up between the interpretation of regulating vs. prohibiting. TN is not prohibiting you from owning a gun or having one in your home or business. TN is a "permit" state and restricts the carrying of a handgun on your person unless certain steps are made, which you were familiar with because you had a HCP. I don't see any court ruling that this law is too restrictive. If TN tried to make it illegal to have a handgun in your home without permission, then you would have a ruling like Heller, but it's nowhere near that restrictive.

You say, "now that the right to bear arms has been decided." I'm assuming you're referring to the Heller ruling. In my opinion, this is where you are in error (as I've already mentioned). The Heller ruling should not be interpreted to mean that all state laws regulating (or prohibiting as you see it) handgun carry are unconstitutional. You seem to be reading way more into the case. D.C. tried to ban handguns inside the home unless approved by the police chief and tried to force gun locks on long guns in the home. The US Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional (which was a no-brainer to many). Those types of laws were far more restrictive than most of the gun laws in other states. I'm not going to continue this conversation forever because you seem to think that the Heller decision has broke open some sort of free-for-all when it comes to handgun carry. I believe you are mistaken, but we will know for sure when our courts address your lawsuit. Honestly I don't think it will make it past the TN Court of Appeals (who will probably be affirming the trial court's ruling in tossing it), but it's your time & money, so I will sit back and watch.

As far as your permit getting revoked for "obeying the law." Your idea of "obeying the law" seems to be slightly skewed. In the state's opinion, who is the governing body when it comes to handgun regulation, you acted irresponsibly. You went out on a personal mission (or more like a vendetta) to attract as much attention as possible with firearms involved. You carried an assault-rifle style weapon openly in a park with the tip painted orange to get a rise out of citizens & law enforcement. When that wasn't enough, you carried a pistol openly in your hand down the shoulder of the road. For some reason you have yet to grasp the idea that just because something is printed on paper (although extremely outdated as the Belle Meade ordinance was) doesn't necessarily mean it's the right (or smart) thing to do. Step out of your shoes for a minute and look at it from a "reasonable person" standard. Would a reasonable person in any city, regardless of what gun laws are in force, carry a gun openly in their hand or a Draco for personal protection? How many times have you carried the Draco as a normal personal protection weapon prior to the state park incident? I bet ZERO. Permit holders for the most part carry concealable handguns in TN. I know state law doesn't specify open or concealed, but you and I both know that HCP holders in this state for the most part carry concealed. Back to the point.....Your tactics were out of line and irresponsible, which is why you no longer have a HCP. Responsible gun owners/carriers do not put their gun in their hands unless they plan on using it. Responsible gun owners do not carry assault-rifle type weapons when they go strolling through the park. Anyone crossing your path probably thought you were some nutjob ready to go on a shooting spree. And please don't intepret that to mean they were just scared of the gun itself. It was the ridiculous manner you decided to carry those firearms that was the problem.

By: AmyLiorate on 10/11/10 at 7:42

JWFLucy said:
"Why do you want people like Kenneth Bonds to have such easy access to guns?"

Where I might say that in the opposite way.

Why do you want other people (who are unlike Kenneth Bonds) to be disarmed? 1/4 to 1/3 of the 275,000+ permit holders in the state of TN are women. Did they not spend their 8 hours in training and get a back ground check because they felt a real need?

By: Cookie47 on 10/11/10 at 8:03

jfwlucy wrote: I ask you one last time, people. Why do you want people like Kenneth Bonds to have such easy access to guns? People with mental health issues, with domestic problems, people with anger management problems (looking at you, cookie)?

Here's looking at you, jfwlucy. Especially when we discuss naivete and stupidity.

ME - All I want is the ability to protect my family and myself without having to wait for the police show up. Because I want this ability, I carry a gun. It's my right and when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

YOU - All you want to do is ban all guns, thinking this will magically eliminate and remove some of the violence from society. What sugar-coated, lollipop dream did you just wake up from? You are woefully naive.

You've stated yourself that people are going to commit violence on others no matter what. I want every option available to stop them if they decide to commit said crimes against me or my family. That doesn't make me an angry person. That doesn't make me paranoid. It makes me prepared. That's all. Just prepared for the worst with the sincere hope of NEVER having to use it.

If you wish to go through life having someone blow rose-scented smoke up your backside, you're free to do so but I want you to understand something CLEARLY so read CLOSELY.

I will give up my gun when they pry my cold, dead fingers from around it. Save your pie-in-the-sky vision of the world for your pantie-waste liberal friends because you're wasting your breath on people like me - people that REFUSE to be the victims.

I sincerely hope nothing ever happens to you, jfwlucy. Given your naive state of mind, you won't be able to handle it. It'll screw you up so bad you'll end up a drain on society if you aren't one already.

Cookie47

By: Cookie47 on 10/11/10 at 8:10

Amy,

I'm beginning to think we're wasting our time on jfwlucy and people like her. While we try to be prepared for anything, she thinks it would be better to hug the thug that's trying to rob or rape her. We're having a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

She's naive and I really hope it doesn't get her killed one day.

Cookie47

By: kwikrnu on 10/11/10 at 10:33

scott, you're missing the point. Tennessee may not prohibit the carry of a loaded handgun. They may regulate, prohibition is not regulation. I've not been arrested, charged, or accused of breaking the law. There has been no court hearing. The law specifically allows for the carry of handguns and does not prohibit open carry. The law in Belle Meade required open carry in the hand.

The minute Tennessee prohibited me from carrying a loaded gun they were in violation of my constitutional rights.

By: SgtScott31 on 10/11/10 at 12:38

I will make it simple. It is YOUR opinion only that it is unconstitutional for a state to prohibit the carrying of a handgun without a permit. Whether open carry or concealed carry, a permit is required in TN under statutory law, otherwise you're in violation of 39-17-1307. Your basic argument is that 39-17-1307 is unconstitutional. The Courts have commonly ruled that such laws to regulate handgun carry (open or concealed) are not too restrictive to be in violation of the 2nd Amendment. Some states allow carry without a permit, some don't. And in my opinion, this will not be a hard decision for TN courts to rule on.