Quote:
|
Mr. Embody's actions were designed solely to...well, I honestly am not sure what he was trying to do, other than to actively solicit a confrontation with the police to satisfy his ego.
|
Actually, he's out to solicit a lucrative lawsuit. He said so himself. I can't remember which forum he stated that in, but I can dig it up.
He unintentionally set another disastrous precedent in Tennessee. He went walking down the streets of Belle Meade (again, looking to provoke a lawsuit) carrying a Colt Navy clone
in his hand. Following his detention and subsequent losing lawsuit, the state revoked his carry permit. Basically, the cause for doing so was "acting like an unstable nutjob."
Part of me is glad that his permit was revoked, but part of me really worries about a precedent that says the state can revoke a permit for simply acting weird. Where's the line drawn, and who draws it?
Believe it or not, there are people who cheer Mr. Embody on, and that's what he's looking for. He stated on his thread here that he couldn't care less about furthering the cause of the 2nd Amendment.
Gura's used Embody as an example once before, and in an
amicus for
Masciandaro:
Quote:
Mr. Embody was temporarily detained by police because, to the alarm of various park visitors, he was walking about in camouflage with an AK-47 pistol slung over his back, the barrel tip of which he had painted orange to disguise as a toy. Regardless of whether any one of these facts are properly the subject of criminal prohibition, their combination was plainly intended to provoke a confrontation with police. Upon verifying that Embody’s particular AK-47 was lawfully carried, he was let go.
Having obtained his desired confrontation, Embody sued the police. The court noted that a significant question existed of whether Embody’s particular weapon enjoyed constitutional protection, but it was easier to dismiss the case because the orange-barreled AK-47 was carried in a park, particularly in light of the Fourth Circuit’s precedent in this case.
Just as differences exist among various government-owned properties designated as “parks,” so too are there differences between people like Mr. Embody, who actively sought police confrontation, and Petitioner Masciandaro, who slept peacefully in his car with an ordinary gun he keeps for self-defense. (...) Unlike Embody’s behavior, Petitioner’s actions are typical of the manner in which Americans exercise the right to bear arms, and would provide this Court a better platform upon which to announce a rule of constitutional law for the responsible majority of the people. [pp. 21-22]
|