The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 8, 2011, 07:26 AM   #26
icedog88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: norwich ct
Posts: 737
Quote:
I wonder what his reaction will be when he does not get it? Will he fly into a murderous rage as people are known to do occasionally when they lose judgments in court? I hope not. People like that who become fixated on stuff can be quite dangerous when they find out they are not getting what they wanted.
Which is precisely why I agree with detaining him in the first place. It isn't normal behavior to do what he has been. How many times has a case come up where someone's actions have been bizarre, not illegal, and then when something tragic happens, it is said that something should have been done to prevent it? He has a pattern and is on record saying he wants to provoke a response from the police. He is in possession of firearms. Legally. Bad combination. Responsible gun owners have and should continue to distance themselves from him and his opinions. Whether I agree with his right to carry, the manner in which he chooses to do it, precludes me from supporting his actions.
__________________
"The bended knee is not a tradition of our Corps"-LtGen. Holland M "Howlin' Mad" Smith, USMC,1949
Have you forgotten yet? Look down and swear by the slain of the War that you'll NEVER forget. [Siegfried Sassoon,"Aftermath,"1919]
icedog88 is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 09:24 AM   #27
kadar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: December 7, 2011
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Norris
It's all about him.
Yes it is. He has no interest in the harm that he can do to others.
http://forum.pafoa.org/1415181-post-159.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwikrnu
I don't care about your rights and your name isn't attached to my suit. I'm not a pro-gun group and never promised to defend your right to carry in court. When your right to carry in Tennessee is infringed feel free to file your suit.
I believe in the principal of standing up for your rights when wronged, but his method is purely self centered.

Does this also mean if our rights are infringed due to his actions, we can sue him?
kadar is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 11:20 AM   #28
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
With all the heightened sense of fear/awareness in the public at large, due to school shootings, incidences like the Gifford's mass shooting and terrorists in general; The whole idea that one could walk around in a public place, with an AK-47 pistol strapped to your chest, not alarm people and be scrutinized by the police seems even more ridiculous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kadar
Does this also mean if our rights are infringed due to his actions, we can sue him?
I think the best that we can hope for, is that the judiciary and perhaps the various legislatures, don't penalize all of us for the acts of an individual. Although there are plenty of past instances of exactly that happening.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 01:42 PM   #29
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,342
Quote:
Mr. Embody's actions were designed solely to
Quote:
… gain attention to and change the laws
How does that work again?
brickeyee is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 01:44 PM   #30
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Quote:
Mr. Embody's actions were designed solely to
Quote:
… gain attention to and change the laws
Fixed it for you.
Al Norris is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 02:59 PM   #31
krucam
Member
 
Join Date: September 21, 2010
Posts: 24
As Al mentioned, I borrowed his well-written summary leading up to the SAF & Gura Amicus to CA6 to post on mdshooters.com.

No more than an hour after posting, Mr Embody (kwikrnu) created an account on mdshooters and began is indignent act. Unbelievable is all I can say after the experience.

I woke up this morning to find the thread "nuked" and Mr Embody's account nuked as well.

The yardstick for his overstaying his welcome is measured in minutes apparently...
__________________
Mark C.
DFW, TX
krucam is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 03:14 PM   #32
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
I noticed last night that the MDShooters thread got nuked. Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm a little sorry the thread's gone. Embody got banned pretty quickly, and that was no surprise.

The reality is that even with the good start we have with Heller and McDonald the courts will be sustaining as constitutional some gun control laws. Gun control will not completely go away, and it is fatuous to believe that there is any real possibility that it will.

Our challenge is that how much or how little gun control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.

The process of working out in the courts the permissible scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is just getting started. The challenge for gun rights advocates is, of course, to minimize the scope and extent of permissible regulation. Ill conceived and ill advised litigation, like the Leonard Embody saga, isn't helping.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 03:39 PM   #33
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 717
My concern is with Mr Embody's actions, both those in the past, and the post he has made about his ideas for the future, is when is he going to stop? Is he going to keep going until something negative happens to the 2nd ammendment rights because of his actions, or til he winds up behind bars or worse?

His post from this and other forums leads me to believe that until he is stopped, he willing keep doing more and more, trying to get attention for hisself. His actions have the potential to make everyone interested in firearms as a hobby and sport look very bad.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old December 8, 2011, 03:51 PM   #34
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
Quote:
His post from this and other forums leads me to believe that until he is stopped, he willing keep doing more and more, trying to get attention for hisself. His actions have the potential to make everyone interested in firearms as a hobby and sport look very bad.
He could if he has followers of standing in the community. If only nut jobs are following him around than he will find it for anyone to take him seriously. The legal damage is much more worrying than an image problem. Most of the antis already believe that is how gun people are already.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 03:04 PM   #35
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,323
Frank had just alerted me, a few minutes ago, that the decision of the 6th Circuit on Embody's case is in. Predictably, he lost.

It is a brief 6 pages and luckily does no damage. The Opinion and an article on it.

Thanks, Frank.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 03:15 PM   #36
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,321
He also filed a similar suit in Chancery Court in Tennessee, which was dismissed in July.

http://nashvillecitypaper.com/conten...chancery-court

Now that I read that article, I remember when he came here and was talking about carrying around a black powder revolver. IIRC he didn't get a particularly warm reception.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 03:50 PM   #37
Woody55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
What is the offense of committing an affray?
You would have to look up TN law to get the correct answer. But the way I recall it used is that if there is a fight and the state wants to throw the book at everyone, they call it an affray - as opposed to charging one person with whatever they call unlawfully hitting another. Kind of the junior high principal approach to fights.

However, I think it can also mean acting in a way that makes reasonable people nearby feel threatened with unlawful violence. I think that is what is meant here. If so, there was probably testimony that he did more than just walk around with the weapon as is his right.
Woody55 is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 04:28 PM   #38
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 373
From the 6th Circuit decision:
Quote:
For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we.
and

Quote:
Embody’s AK-47, carried openly and fully loaded through a state park, gave Ward ample reason for suspicion that Embody possessed an illegal firearm. The barrel was a half-inch shy of the legal limit, and, when coupled with the thirty-round ammunition clip, it reasonably could look more like a rifle than a handgun. All of this explains the reactions of visitors to the park, who became frightened at the sight of a man in camouflage carrying an AK-47 across his chest, including one couple who reported a man with an “assault rifle.” R.22-3 at 6. Making matters worse (or at least more suspicious), Embody had painted the barrel tip of the gun orange, typically an indication that the gun is a toy. An officer could fairly suspect that Embody had used the paint to disguise an illegal weapon. On this record, an officer could reasonably suspect something was amiss.
Quote:
Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT

Last edited by Armorer-at-Law; August 30, 2012 at 04:34 PM.
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 04:31 PM   #39
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody55
...I think that is what is meant here. If so, there was probably testimony that he did more than just walk around with the weapon as is his right....
I think that you really need to read the opinion instead of making assumptions which, in this case, are wrong.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 06:54 PM   #40
Woody55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2012
Location: East Texas
Posts: 407
I believe I described affray correctly.

However, the word does not appear in the 6th Circuit opinion. There was probably no need because Embody was not charged with a crime. I think it would be difficult for a state to expressly grant a right for someone to do something and then charge them with a crime because the doing of it scared someone - even if the fear was reasonable.

However, the issue was whether the police officer violated Embody's 4th Amendment rights by conducting an unreasonable search and seizure and his 2nd Amendment rights by interfering with his armed walk in the park. The answer was no.
Woody55 is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 06:54 PM   #41
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,695
Quote:
Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.
This statement sounds modestly reasonable, under the circumstances.

And this decision could also be pertinent to a recent discussion about an officer who stopped a man walking along a sidewalk (videographer in tow) carrying a .22LR clone of ... some kind of "assault" rifle (the details escape me at the moment). The question was asked: did the officer violate the person's rights by stopping him and asking to examine the firearm to determine whether or not it was a fully automatic assault rifle. I was on the fence to a considerable degree, but I ultimately sided with the police officer, and this decision neatly sums up why I did so.

If you don't want to hook a shark, don't chum the waters.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 11:07 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,641
The only real utterance on the matter of the 2nd Amendment is this:

Quote:
No court has held that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to bear arms within state parks. (...) Such a right may or may not exist, but the critical point for our purposes [emphasis mine] is that it has not been established—clearly or otherwise at this point.
So, at least no harm done.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14526 seconds with 9 queries