Embody v. Ward
Threats to gun rights: bad lawsuit edition
You’ll recall that Leonard decided to grab an AK pistol with the barrel painted orange so that it resembled a toy and go on a traipse through a park. Not a good move from a PR perspective and not one designed to win hearts and minds. He sued after being detained by the police. The SAF stepped in what looks to be an attempt to stop Embody’s history of helping make bad gun laws. They filed a brief that, and I’m no lawyer, seems to say that yes, you can carry a gun and yes, you can own an AK. But running around the park with a gun disguised as a toy trying to be intentionally provocative is not exactly something protected by the second amendment:
Plaintiff naturally, and quite unnecessarily, terrified other park visitors in a manner plainly inconsistent with the traditional right to bear arms for self-defense. Unfortunately, he compounded the problem by filing a meritless lawsuit that generated an opinion jeopardizing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, responsible people.
The SAF brief is here.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:28 am
Classic Precedent: Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean yelling “Fire” in a Crowded Theater, unless there really is one.
So don’t take a REAL Firearm, and try to disguise it as a Toy, then get all Whiny because you got caught being a Dick.
Glad Alan wrote what he did.
December 13th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Hear hear.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
One wonders if this guy was an antigun carry rights provacateur.
Carrying one’s weapon for self-defense should be done preferrably concealed (although open is legal) or carried in a discreet and non-threatening manner. It’s a right, but should be exercised responsibly and not in a needlessly offensive way.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:08 pm
But “terrified”?
Really?
Maybe I have a higher threshold for becoming “terrified.”
December 13th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
“Terrified” is right.
He was running around the park wearing an outfit straight out of casting for “Generic Terrorist/Henchman.” This park, which is on the other side of a hill from where I am sitting right now, is in the lowest crime/highest median income area of suburban Nashville. The homes that surround the park cost between $400,000 and $1.8 Million. That context matters.
The rangers exercised extreme levels of restraint here and he is incredibly lucky he wasn’t killed. In fact, the case could be made that the rangers were derelict in their duty by not approaching him using overwhelming force. Given the way he was acting, the way he was dressed, and the method of carry (Draco slung across his chest), it would have been reasonable and prudent to shoot him based on that alone. It’s not like he had a 1911 in a holster and was just walking his dog.
His behavior here is the problem. He stated before the fact that his intent was to alarm people to induce them to call emergency services and report him. He did everything he could think of to terrify people.
So yes, “terrified” is the correct term here.
December 13th, 2011 at 12:31 pm
Added: The initial contact was not overwhelming force, but a single ranger responding to the call. That ranger had a conversation with him, decided something was not quite right, and called for others to meet him with overwhelming force. My contention is that the first contact should not have been so…relaxed.
December 13th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
But…but…but…shall not be infringed! I have a right to OC and be a dick!
In all seriousness, I wonder if now the anti-NRA weeaboos will start calling SAF a sell out for “compromising” our gun rights or some nonsense.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
My contention is that the first contact should not have been so…relaxed.
So you prefer the police to act like paranoid a delusional? I would much rather have easy going than neurotic…
I found that embody goes over the top pointing out a fear based society… People don’t like having the fact they are cowards thrown in their faces… He seems to get a sadistic glee from making people face the truth about themselves… What the fuck is a Generic gunman? Its that person you see on tv that has no basis in reality. As for doing it in a rich neighborhood I understand that too. Its about stereotyping people just because they do not look the way you do.
December 13th, 2011 at 2:23 pm
He likely chose the neighborhood thoughtfully, believing that in that upper class park the police would approach him less violently that, say, if he pulled that s#!t closer to the gang-infested ghetto.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Excuse me, could someone fill me in on what the crime was? To have a crime you MUST have a victim that can prove damages, so who was the victim to this crime? Officers says somethings not right here but cannot cite a law… makes unlawful arrest anyway. It doesn’t matter what your method of carry is, you can find many LEOs who will say somethings not right with it. Is that the standard you beg for?
Sorry folks, but I will not stand with you and judge someone on the color of their gun, that is racist. And what about all the fathers who proudly got their daughters a pink AR for Christmas? Just so long as they never actual show it in public – least the fear meter rise too high amongst a gun fearing wussie. The other standard you wish to be ruled by?
I celebrate differsity
December 13th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Pink pistols,
Trolling? Parody of absolutist “shall not be infringed” types?
If not, what part of “deliberately painting only the tip of the barrel of a slung AK pistol orange to resemble a toy to avoid being shot while conducting a deliberate provocation in an attempt to get arrested” has anything to do with people lawfully, and responsibly, bearing pink or any other color firearms?
Gura addresses the applicable charge (and likely sound originalist 2nd Amend exception) pretty clearly in the long-standing common law crime of going armed to the terror of the public; which as discussed wouldn’t reach a father and/or daughter, however dressed, simply strolling about bearing, whether openly or concealed, holstered pink, magenta, or lilac handguns.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Paranoid delusional would be sending in SWAT because someone at CostCo accidentally uncovered their gun while bending over to pick up a case of water.
Paranoid delusional would be proning out a guy in khakis and a polo open carrying a holstered Glock 19 while shopping at Whole Foods.
Paranoid delusional would be thinking that just talking to the guy wearing BDU’s and carrying an AK strapped across his chest in a suburban, extremely low crime park is the proper response.
Let’s say you’re eating at Denny’s and a guy walks in with the exact same kit: BDU’s and a front-slug Draco.
Do you:
A) Note it, and then go back to eating your waffle and talking to your children about their soccer game.
B) Immediately go into condition red, get your kids moving, and keep your eyes on him and your hand on your gun until your family is safely out.
C) Wait and see if he starts screaming “Allah Ackbar!” while shooting up the place to decide what to do.
December 13th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
He was not arrested (using the common meaning of the word, because a case can be made that you are under arrest when you get pulled over for speeding). There was no crime. What they did do was hold him while they determined if his AK was really a pistol or if it was a homemade SBR. If it had been an SBR or a honest to goodness rifle, he would have committed a crime and would have been arrested.
December 13th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
On a lighter note, what is the step past *headdesk*?
What a foolish jerk. Has anyone gotten any word from him as to what he was trying to do or prove?
December 13th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Me, in that neighborhood, I figure it’s an airsoft gun. I think we have different meanings of “terrified”.
December 13th, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Ted N, I appreciate your interest in conjugation. Bet you don’t hear that one too often. Usually, they just decline.
I guess it’s “had-dusk”? But then, is it “face-plum” or “-plam”?
December 13th, 2011 at 6:42 pm
At Matt, no I don’t think the Pink Pistols was trolling, I have to assume that it was genuine. Trolling is a little more overt.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
So when I drive down the street past an Anti-war protest in my Ferret Armored car with a dummy machine gun fitted in the turret….am I committing a crime?
Mind you, I’ve seen Leonard’s disputatious methods on Georgia Carry.org’s forums and he’s NOT very well ummm… balanced. Half a bubble shy of plumb….
December 13th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
Pink Pistols wrote: “To have a crime you MUST have a victim that can prove damages, so who was the victim to this crime? “
Uh, no. There is no such requirement.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Doofus ba$tard is lucky he was killed by someone with a CCW. The Darwin Effect does work.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:35 pm
Actually … a good argument could be made that he was carrying an unregistered AOW.
Guns disguised as other objects fall into the AOW bin. This could include guns deliberately disguised as toys.
December 13th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Whoops — make that “…wasn’t killed…”.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:33 pm
If someone with a CCW shot him that would be an unjustified killing. You are supposed to be sure they are breaking the law before you kill them. We are not the cops…
December 13th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
Good brief, I have issues with some of what is said but I realize this is damage control… This could have all been solved if Embody had followed the “dont be a dick” rule.
December 14th, 2011 at 4:50 am
SPQR, a crime without a victim? So, the King’s decree is all it takes for you is it? As you wish.
Yes, the stop was an arrest. There was no crime, no PC nor even reasonable suspicion any crime occurred. [Unless the 911 caller lied in the desciption of the events in the park. That might allow for reasonable suspicion, but puts the real crime on the caller for false reporting.] Even detainment at a traffic stop must be justified as to the enforcement of a violation and only take as much time as required for database checks and paperwork exchanged, (ie. LEO detaining you further while waiting for drug sniffing K9 has been thrown out – although still heavily practiced by LEO since the majority of K9 searches don’t turn up any drugs, even when the dog/handler indicate. The victim, having only his time wasted, generally doesn’t stand up to this illegal detainment.)
You wanna cite the man’s clothing choice as reasonable suspicion??? Wow…. sad.
You may continue to hold tight to your fears and religious beliefs that LE will save you. I don’t believe free men will ever coexist peacefully with the violent arm of the political class until the 911 call of a man with a gun is answered with, “So what? Do you have an actual crime to report?” It is either that or we just watch LE run around answering everyone’s irrational fears.
December 14th, 2011 at 8:03 am
Pink Pistols,
Yes, crimes without victims occur all the time and people are arrested and taken to jail all the time on them. Drug charges are one example. If I arrested someone for having illegal drugs, who is the victim? No one directly, which is why the case reads “The State of (wherever) vs (insert defendants name here)”. Same for Public Intoxication, Driving While Intoxicated, Driving While License Invalid, etc.
No, the stop was not an arrest. According to the Law.com legal dictionary: “An arrest may be made legally based on a warrant issued by a court after receiving a sworn statement of probable cause to believe there has been a crime committed by this person, for an apparent crime committed in the presence of the arresting officer, or upon probable cause to believe a crime has been committed by that person.” The officer did not have PC nor a warrant for the person’s arrest, so the person was not arrested, he was merely detained until the officer was able to determine the situation.
December 14th, 2011 at 10:27 am
That’s not the standard. The standard is whether a reasonable person would be afraid for their life.
December 14th, 2011 at 10:44 am
So you are saying that standard says you can kill someone because they scare you??? Yeah that is going to fly in court….
December 14th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Perfectly legal to open carry, one should not be an ass about it though.
December 14th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
December 14th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Love the discussion! I cautiously side with Pink Pistol – there was no crime here. The detention was not reasonable. And drug users and DUIs do have victims, often directly, always indirectly through their cost to society.
The reasonable man test should have been applied here. As Pink Pistol averred, when the 911darkness dispatcher asks, “Ok, but what crime is he committing? Whom is he directly threatening? What terroristic threats is he making?”, then law enforcement will truly be serving the public.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
…Continued from above:
In my State, my CCW instructor said it’s legal to open carry, but if peaceably walk the main street of our liberal Capitol City with a fully holstered pistol openly carried, just one call from a stupid panicked liberal citizen horrified by the thought of someone carrying a gun will me arrested for “disturbing the peace!” I am not kidding! He was a former State Patrol officer. This standard is totally unreasonable.
There MUST be a reasonable threat or actual crime. Anything else is tyranny!
IMHO.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Then tell me which law he broke and when he was charged and convicted? By the way. Why didn’t the police kill him then? Lord knows they only need any reason.. If the cops could not find a reason to kill him then neither can you.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
A disguised weapon is a weapon that is disguised. Paint is not a disguised weapon and not an “any other weapon”.
I wore one piece of camouflaged clothing that cold 30* winter day, a gore-tex jacket.
The conversation between me and the first ranger is on audio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyR-cxfFAcs
I did not run in the park, I simply walked as any other person. In fact running is illegal in that particular state park.
If guns should not be carried in high crime poor areas and guns may not be carried in wealthy areas then where may they be carried? radnor lake park is the closest state park to my home. I live 5 minutes from it.
There was no crime. The rangers state in depositions that they were not threatened. They say in depositions they do not agree with the parks carry law.
The problem is that in the state of tennessee and across the nation cops have a feeling of entitlement where they believe they may acost anyone with a gun. Well, not this open carrier.
I have a FFL, have multiple state carry permits,and even nfa weapons. I won’t take this abuse from law enforcement.
My case may lose in the 6th circuit, but I will file for a writ of certiorari to the scotus. The saf is wrong and they are arguing against the 2A, but if you have been paying attention you would know that.
December 14th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
If anyone took the time to read gura’s idiotic brief, they should be asking why he did not cite case law about “affray”.
Anyone who looks into it will find case law here in Tennessee. Simpson v State 1833.
Simpson dressed is a “war like” manner and simply was seen in the street. He was charged and Judge Whyte had the following to say in writing for the majority of the court:
“But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, (p.360)or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, “that the freemen of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.” Article 11, sec. 26. It is submitted, that this clause of our constitution fully meets and opposes the passage or clause in Hawkins, of “a man’s arming himself with dangerous and unusual weapons,” as being an independent ground of affray, so as of itself to constitute the offence cognizable by indictment. By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgment a constitutional privilege which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it the absence of such a view.
On the authorities, therefore, I am of opinion that this record of an indictment against the plaintiff in error does not contain the charge of an affray, or any other specific offence cognizable at common law by indictment, and that there is nothing either in our Constitution or acts of Assembly in repugnancy to this conclusion, but, on the contrary, strongly corroborative thereof.”
December 14th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
We don’t reply to the SAF, but here is our reply brief,
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B4xDZlk5vthcMTg0NjcyMWItZmJkNC00OTU5LThmMjItZjE2MWY4MWFiYzJl&hl=en_US
December 14th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I recently bought a bullet proof vest to protect me from idiots who would shoot law abiding citizens. Next time I open carry in tennessee it will be with an ar pistol stamped “pistol only”, a chest rig to carry my extra mags full of m855, a ballistic vest, and a silencer on my ar pistol. No one should be alarmed because I have given notice. It is a lawful weapon.
December 14th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Jay, a crime without a victim? I understand the just-us system we have AND the reason it survives. Where theft is called asset seizure, when “arrest” is distorted by law and where victimless crimes can even exist. This system requires the distortion of words, because it is the words you use which destroy. Label them under the wrong words and the state gains the consent needed to continue — “indefinate detention” means no charging documents… you only need those for an “arrest”.
Goodluck! Enjoy the system while YOU can.
December 14th, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Kwikrnu, you are welcome in my home anytime. You have your knowledge of the law down better than those sworn to uphold it, and you have the courage of your convictions. If we ever meet, I’d like buy you a steak!
December 14th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Gura makes good law.
You make bad law.
Which one is the idiot?
December 14th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Whether or not you are legal… WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE???
You will not get anywhere unless the entire goal is to create even more shitty laws and court decisions that we folks that don’t leave our house looking to have a confrontation with police are going to have to deal with.
December 14th, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Gura doesn’t make the law. He does influence people with his brief/rant which is not based upon the 2A. Gura would take away the right to open carry. He would take away the right to carry w/o a permit. If that is not clear you have not been reading his briefs.
I simply obey the laws on the books and expect not to be harrassed for doing so.
December 14th, 2011 at 6:59 pm
Who said I was looking for a confrontation. I simply walked in a state park. There was no strange behavior, unless bearing arms is strange. There was no threat, unless a threat is implied by the mere bearing of arms.
The fact is that the rangers confronted me, twice. The first time I showed my carry permit and explained why the handgun was indeed a handgun. The second time was 20-30 minutes later when a gun was pointed at my face, I was placed on the ground, searched, cuffed, placed in a cop car, and held against my will for almost 3 hours.
December 14th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Sounds like excessive detainment times for not committing a crime. They are liable for that.
December 14th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Now we’ve reached the truth of the matter. There are many quite content with the status quo. The “I’ve got mine” crowd. The “when I act polite enough the state only slightly infringes on my rights”. They aren’t much for being citizens just subjects. They have always been around… the “shutup and get in the back of the bus” crowd. Sorry folks, some gun owners are not content with just being allowed ON the bus.
Personally, I don’t care what Rosa Parks was trying to prove. Being treated as a suspect for exercising your rights should not be accepted. Many gun owners don’t really think it is that important, but we are talking about civil rights.
December 14th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
You’re not going to stop until you get open carry banned in Tennessee, are you?
December 14th, 2011 at 8:27 pm
What good is open carry if one may not open carry? Gura would be happy if open carry is banned in Tennessee. Have you read his briefs in Kachalsky and Richards?
“Plaintiffs do not lament the prohibition of unloaded open handgun carry, which they have consistently asserted is dangerous, useless, and in any event not constitutionally protected. It is now crystal clear that the only way to bear handguns for self-defense in those portions of the state where most people might actually be found is by having a license to do so, the issuance of which is improperly left to the licensing authority’s complete discretion. Notably, the prohibition on the open carrying of unloaded handguns exempts current or retired peace officers, Cal. Penal Code § 26361, and individuals licensed to openly carry loaded firearms in sparsely populated counties, Cal. Penal Code § 26362, but does not exempt individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns. The people of California have spoken: they generally do not want to see openly-carried handguns, but they will accept the licensing of concealed handgun carrying. This is a valid choice under the Second Amendment.”
Richards v Prieto 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 11-16255 10/25/2011 Docket Entry 37
Kachalsky is the same…
Kachalsky v. Cacace 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals 11-3642
December 14th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Don’t confuse people with the facts.. That is against the first rule of mindless, directionless hero worship…
December 14th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Embody V Ward 6th Circuit CA 11-5963
Appeal brief
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMTg1MTY4Y2EtZjU0YS00NGFkLWIyOTUtYjI4MmY0ZTVmMWRj
Ward reply
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcM2JmZmI4YjItYzljNS00YzczLThmYzUtOGMyNmM2ZjkwOTE4
Embody reply
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMTg0NjcyMWItZmJkNC00OTU5LThmMjItZjE2MWY4MWFiYzJl
SAF /GURA / Calguns amicus curiae
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcODdkNmEzZWMtYTFkYi00ZWZmLTg3ZDYtZTY4OWQ0Yzk2NzZm
December 15th, 2011 at 12:58 pm
Pink Pistols: excellent point about Rosa Parks! I don’t hear any Uncle Toms here asking what she was trying to prove! But I’ll answer for her anyway: the same thing Mr. Embody was trying to prove – that I have the right to be here and to do this and no one has the right or authority to restrict me!
Kwikrnu: well stated – what good is open carry if you can’t open carry? That’s the problem here: open carry is legal, but if you do it in public you and someone complains, you get arrested for disturbing the peace. That is NOT open carry!
December 15th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
To clarify, I meant to say, “that is the problem here where I live.”
And please forgive the extraneous “you” in the previous post.
December 15th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Kwikrnu:
You are a fucking nincompoop.
Yes, dressing like a mall ninja and carrying an AK pistol is legal.
But like that idiot who insisted on hauling his shotgun into libraries in Ohio, it will only result in the state legislature banning your behavior, to the detriment of all of us who would like to be able to OC without interference.
The best possible result would be for the BATFE to prosecute your dumb ass for disguising an AK as a toy without filing a Form 1 for an AOW, so this state matter can be quietly dropped.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Arnie: He was looking for a confrontation. He wasn’t just walking around with a holstered sidearm.
He got the confrontation he was looking for, and now expects us to support and praise him for endangering OC rights.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
So that’s a “yes”, then?
December 15th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I didn’t know mall ninjas wore camouflage jackets and blue jeans.
As I have stated before paint does not make an AOW. It never has and never will.
I have since open carried in other states including GA.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcNjU3M2ViNmYtMTg1MS00ZTIyLWFjNmUtYmM4ZTRkZmJjYTQ3
I will continue to open carry, most likely wearing a ballistic vest, chest rig with multiple mags, an ar pistol with an attached silencer.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/kwikrnu/iiiaresizedwithsilencer.jpg
December 15th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
It is amazing (sad) the standards that people set on other people.
“OC is ok, but carrying a gun into a coffee shop is not.”
“OC has its place, but it is not OK if you do it for political reasons.”
…
December 15th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
In an ideal world, OC of an M240 should garner no more than a raised eyebrow or a sidelong glance (in jealousy from those only able to afford a lowly M3 or other item) but this is not an ideal world.
OC of an AR pistol with a silencer. Words fail me… In an ideal world with people aware of such items, sure why not. In our world…we’re looking to likely have some major gun control next year whether or not we have people actively not just pushing the envelope, but looking to “exercise rights” by scaring the sheep.
Sheep will bleat and bleating usually forces (ahem) and encourages the political class to “do something”.
Sure, go ahead and “OC” an AR pistol (where does one find a holster long enough to hold the attached silencer anyways) but don’t be surprised if there’s a push to at minimum, require it be holstered, or at worst, maybe a push to end the whole “OC” experiment once and for all in your world.
Worst of all, maybe imagine that if you “visibly print” an otherwise concealed pistol (as in my place, Ohioland, that’s not exactly legal as of now) you get arrested for it.
In Ohio, we can OC. It’s legal, but one sheep calling the law and you’re “inducing panic” and you better plan on a conversation with the authorities about it.
Is that right? Of course not, but all it takes is one “scared sheep” bleating about the “crazy weirdo down at the park with the machine gun” and you may have some trouble.
My father may be part sheep, but he did always tell me to pick my battles. Won’t claim to be good at it, but I don’t OC on a general basis. Last time I did was at the rifle range, but that’s another story.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
And, if you do that, I will view you as a potential active shooter, and respond accordingly. And I say that as someone with firmly-established open carry “creds”.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
So to you, open carry = potential active shooter. lol
What does that mean? Will you shoot me? Will you hold me? Will you draw you gun and point it at me? Will you call the cops? Will you run away? Will you start crying and piss your panties?
Open carry is lawful in the KY state capitol, without a permit.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
No, no one is saying that “open carry = potential active shooter”. What we are saying is that dressing up like a clown with a deceptively painted gun is going to get you treated like a clown. Rightfully so.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
That is not what I said, Leonard, and you know it.
I would kindly ask you to stop misrepresenting my very plain-to-read words, and likewise stop playing the idiot… unless, of course, it is not an act, as I am starting to suspect.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Why don’t you explain why you would consider a law abiding open carrier to be a potential active shooter.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
I didn’t say I was going to paint my gun, it is black with an attached registered silencer. I will be wearing a button down shirt with a tie.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I do not. Because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.
Yup, I was right – it is not an act.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
I will view him/her as a potential active shooter, and respond accordingly.
In other words… You will not do damn thing…
December 15th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Either you are going to shoot or you are not… I say NOT!
December 15th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Thanks kwikrnu,
You have once and for all exposed Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation as frauds. They are just hustlers trying to chase Second Amendment ambulances to line their own pockets and do the King’s bidding. Three cheers for KIng George III , His Loyalist friends of Alan Benedict Arnold Gura and his band of Merry men at the SAF . Certainly Arnold knew of Simpson v. State, but he did not disclose it. That’s not honest lawyering and I hope the Court sees the perfidy.
December 15th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Again with the assumptions – you know scant little about me, and effectively nothing about how I would respond in any given situation.
Again with the arm-chair mall-ninja-ing – are you so insecure that you have to prove how badass you are on the intertubes?
And again with missing the point – the only options are not exclusively “shoot” or “do not shoot”, and it concerns me greatly that as someone who carries a firearm (as I assume you do, given your position in this farcical debate) that you would see the world only in those terms.
In conclusion my original estimation was accurate – you are scant more than an idiot troll, and my playtime with you is over. Y’all go right on ahead slapping each other on the back while you provide ammunition to those who would deprive us of our rights and help set up horrible case law that will haunt open carriers here in TN for years to come. Appreciate it, guys!
December 15th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
The only thing I know about you is that you would treat an open carrier as a potential active shooter.
You sound like a nut job. Why would you shoot someone who has not broken any law and is in fact exercising a fundamental civil right?
You and your kind are the reason I bought a ballistic vest. You are dangerous.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Again with the arm-chair mall-ninja-ing – are you so insecure that you have to prove how badass you are on the intertubes?
I advocate no bloodshed you advocate that bloodshed is on the table. Who is the badass wannabe?
You talk about handling armored targets, armed with rifles. I do not. Who is the badass wannabe?
I advocate the right of a law abiding citizen to be armed in public. You advocate reacting as if the law abiding citizen is an active threat. Who is the badass wannabe….
Compared to you I sound like a pacifist bleeding heart.
you know scant little about me
That is why we have to go by your words for better or worse… Much worse in this case.
“shoot” or “do not shoot”
When you treat law abiding citizens as potential shooters it comes down to whether you shoot or you do not. There are no other possible outcomes.
As for trolling I could say the same of you…
December 16th, 2011 at 4:16 am
Mr. Embody
On numerous times I have seen you lie, insult and act an ass. Please stop shitting on the second amendment for your personal amusement.
December 16th, 2011 at 7:45 am
If we assume that Leonard Embody is a ‘troll’ or some kind of Brady ‘plant’, can I offer a thought?
What looks worse than someone lawfully open carrying in a park? How about the people who we are supposed to respect the opinion of threatening to shoot someone (or ‘respond accordingly’, whatever that means) when that person is not breaking the law and is not an imminent threat to anyone’s life?
I understand people don’t like Leonard’s actions, lawsuits or internet attitude. He certainly doesn’t do himself favors in this respect even if one views his open carrying as righteous.
All I am recommending is that this negative back and forth looks much for ‘the cause’ than Leonard’s open carrying or his lawsuit.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:37 am
To Kristopher: your opinion may be correct that Mr. Embody was “looking for a confrontation,” but an opinion is not proof, and I hesitate to derisively condemn a man’s actions based on my suspicions of his motives.
His rhetoric here is becoming a bit more aggressive, not surprising after all the nasty name-calling from us who purport to support his rights (if not his methods), and certainly not as belligerent in tone as most of those who disagree with him.
May I suggest that he may simply be an admittedly ardent follower of the principle that he who fails to exercise his rights (even in their extreme) will inevitably lose them? And perhaps we could gently ask him to use more discretion without trying to squelch the liberty-loving fire within him?
May I also remind everyone that after the extreme protest in Boston that led to a massacre, loyalists and even some patriots rued the actions of the protesters (victims) because it led to further restrictions on freedoms and increased taxes on sugar, stamps, and eventually tea, which led to the famous “Party” in Boston. Do we, like Tory loyalists condemn the victim for vehemently “confronting” the tyrant, or do we like Sam Adams celebrate the affair for exposing the true motives of the despotic authorities who take down innocent people who stand up for their inalienable rights, even though knowing it means alienating a large segment of the population (loyalists) and bringing on further, even more unconstitutional restrictions? In the end, the increased restriction of colonial rights turned the opinions of enough Massachussans (?) to foment a revolution that gave us then the free-est country in human history.
Although I am no fan of John Brown, many attribute the abolition of slavery to have begun with his clearly illegal and over-the-top activities, far more disconcerting than Mr. Embody’s. Yet as violent and repulsive as his methods were, he ultimately brought about the events leading to emancipation. There were better says to do it for sure – more legal and peaceable like Mr. Embody’s, but how many of you criticize the ultimate result?
So, I ask, is Mr. Embody really a nut case as averred here, or is he more a Samuel Adams or a less extreme John Brown? Just asking.
Respectfully, Arnie
December 16th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“Responding accordingly” means different things to different people apparently. For some in this thread it is a binary shoot no shoot decision. I don’t agree with that.
For me it includes other options. If I am not on a shooting range, and I saw someone with any sort of AR or AK and they didn’t have a badge visible or “POLICE” stitched on their vest I am going to assess their demeanor if possible to do so safely, and if not I would notify law enforcement.
To think that the only way to respond to threats in life is either to shoot or not is a very disturbing proposition.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Dan. The final decision you make is always whether to shoot or not.. If you choose to tackle you chose not to shoot. If you chose to stab you chose not to shoot. If you walk away you chose not to shoot. If you fire you chose to shoot. Whether or not you shoot you still make a conscious decision to do one or the other. There can be all sorts of complex factors like backstops, penetration, cover and camoflage but you still make the choice one way or the other. Think of it like this. The only person who has does not have the choice of whether to shoot or not is an unarmed person. They can tackle or walk away without having to make that choice to shoot or not because they are not equipped to shoot.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Arnie: He was looking for trouble. He found it.
December 16th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
John Smith. I think the difference in our viewpoints is how we define not shooting. I throw a lot of different actions in that category (call cops, run away, run to cover, etc…) whereas you don’t seem to go there in your analysis. I don’t see a disagreement beyond that.
December 16th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
To Kristopher:
Very well, sir, I concede your point.
But may I submit that the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party also went looking for trouble 238 years ago this very day, and they, too, found it; and brought upon us a revolution — and they won our freedom!
(And their activity WAS illegal!)
Respectfully, Arnie
December 16th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
No, you made that up, because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.
Repeating a lie (like you are here in this thread) does not make it true, Leonard. It does make it libel, though.
This.
December 16th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
I lawfully/peacefully carried an ak pistol while I walked in park and you stated you would treat me as a potential active shooter. People like you are sick and need help, seek it soon before you murder someone.
December 16th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Leonard, you are the “Embody”ment of a manipulative button pusher. You constantly play the “I’m not touching you” game and somehow take great joy in aggrivating the piss out of people for absolutely NO PRODUCTIVE REASON what-so-ever. To use an analogy, you are the guy at a party who looks up some girl’s dress, and when you get caught you say “What’d I do?”. While I agree that your choice of how to OC is legal, and should be viewed as such, I also have enough common sence to know that everyone is not ready for that yet. Some are just now becoming comfortable with “normal” OC. It’s about helping the uninformed and uneducated become comfortable a little bit at a time. Baby steps to complete comfort for the masses. Right or wrong, that is concrete, real world, common sence. To behave as you do by constantly pushing the fear button of the uninformed, you will not benefit anyone but you. So why don’t you stop playing stupid and quit acting like you don’t know the trouble and discomfort you are inciting on a regular basis. Let’s not pretend anymore that you don’t realize the negative impact of your actions. I ask this of you because you, and your intent, are far more transparent than you would like to think. You simply are not that clever. You are very intelligent and I am optimistic enough to believe that your heart is in the right place, though my better judgement disagrees. Why don’t you spend that talent and energy on making our Rights under the 2nd Amendment the way they should be (unregulated)instead of providing points of contention for those who would subvert our rights. Or is that the one part of your master plan that isn’t so transparent? You either have little dreams of being the guy who champions the 2nd Amendment or you have little dreams of being the one who destroys it. Either way your current designs will fail to accomplish either. Why don’t you try to be productive for a change? Right now you are just a village idiot with a two-village-jurisdiction.
Respectfully,
Disavowed With Honor
December 16th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
… And Leonard still lies, and engages in pointless ad hominem attacks to boot.
I stated that if you met ALL of the following conditions:
1. Openly carried an AR pistol.
2. Had a suppressor on it.
3. Were wearing a fully-magazine-loaded tactical vest.
4. Were wearing a bullet proof vest.
… I would treat you as a potential active shooter and respond according.
Nowhere did I say “shoot”, nowhere did I say “murder”, and nowhere did I say I would do it for all open carriers. You made assumptions. You colored the situation with your own warped perspective on the world. YOU (and your pathetically ignorant little buddies) were the ones who misinterpreted and misrepresented my words to mean something which they may or may not mean, and which, if I had meant that, I would have said.
That you assume “respond appropriately” means “shoot-to-kill” speaks volumes about you… and absolutely nothing about me.
You, Leonard, are the one who needs serious psychological help – you have massive indications of a persecution complex, along with a hugely overinflated sense of self-worth, and the underlying desire to be a martyr for some great, specious cause. Unfortunately, I fear that if you go through with your KY Capitol plan, you will get exactly that which you desire, which, in turn, will set back open carry in KY and TN massively, all through your own greed and idiotic desire to push other people’s buttons to absolutely no end and for no actual purpose.
And, for the love of God, on your way to your self-inflicted blood-filled future, would you please invest in an ESL course, because it is obviously not your first langugae.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I found what linoge meant by respond appropriately….
http://www.nlconcepts.com/products/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=87_91&products_id=229
I had no idea.. I would not have been as hard on him.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and make a guess. Based on this fellas response here, I’m thinking he just may have been looking for trouble.
Does that sound right?
I agree that you, me and most anyone should be able to carry whatever the hell we want, but the negative feedback from this is just gonna make the legislators get a case of, “Do Something” fever.
And that’s never good.