Ammo For Sale

« « Gun Control And Race | Home | Hold the bayo » »

Who would have thought?

Remember the guy who took his AK-47 pistol with tip painted orange to look like a toy gun and went gallivanting through the woods and was shocked when the other folks in the park weren’t fans. And then was held by the po-po who determined that, well, he had a permit? Yeah, that guy. His carry permit has been revoked by the TN Department of Safety because he posed a material risk to the public.

Kinda weird because that particular disqualifier isn’t actually listed as a, err, disqualifier.

Update: More from Linoge, who notes that the guy’s sheriff had issues with the required sign off on paperwork for a NFA weapon.

It’s really kinda like this guy wants to screw it up for everyone.

Update 2: M4shooter notes in comments that the revocation of handgun carry permits comes under a different statute, 39-17-1352:

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(1) Is prohibited from purchasing a handgun under applicable state or federal law;

(2) Has not accurately disclosed any material information required by § 39-17-1351;

(3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;

(4) Has been arrested for a felony involving the use or attempted use of force, violence or a deadly weapon or a felony drug offense;

(5) Has been convicted of a felony;

(6) Has violated any other provision of §§ 39-17-1351 — 39-17-1360;

(7) Has at any time committed an act or omission or engaged in a pattern of conduct that would render the permit holder ineligible to apply for or obtain a permit under the eligibility requirements of § 39-17-1351;

(8) Has been convicted of domestic assault as defined in § 39-13-111, or any other misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and is still subject to the disabilities of such a conviction;

(9) Is subject to a current order of protection that fully complies with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8); or

30 Responses to “Who would have thought?”

  1. m4shooter Says:

    Actually, it is a ground for revocation. You are referencing the requirements for being ISSUED a carry permit — not the grounds for REVOCATION, which is an entirely different code section (39-17-1352).

    Specifically, “The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder… poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public”.

    On top of that, open carry is an anathema. It amazes me that so many gun enthusiasts do not understand that the general public will simply not tolerate guns openly being displayed on “Main Street”. It’s one thing if you live in a rural community out West, but West Nashville…??? Come on!

  2. TomcatsHanger Says:

    There is a saying that goes “I disagree with what you have to say but will fight to the death to protect your right to say it.”

    Why does this only apply to speech?

  3. SayUncle Says:

    m4, thanks for the tip.

  4. Spook45 Says:

    I saw an interview with this guy and he NEW what he was doing when he did it. I hate that anyone would have thier permit revoked however I must opine that THIS ASSHOLE deserved what he got. There was nothing discrete in what he did, he even took action to hide it by painting an orange tip on a real gun. If had worn this thing on a sling under his jacket, it would be a little weird, but not threatening to anyone, just a little exotic. what he did was with purpose and he screwed up. BUY MORE AMMO

  5. Pol Mordreth Says:

    m4shooter….

    Open Carry is anathema? I regularly OC in West Nashville, Murfreesboro, Franklin, Brentwood…. and have never had anything untoward happen. It only scares the white people when you go out of your way to appear scary.

    Now, having read many of this individual’s rnts on opencarry.org, He got what he was gunning for, and theis will stick. he often sounded a little off the rails, and without record of action it was generally passed off as Internet Tough Guy syndrome. Combine his written words with these odd actions, I can see the application of section (3) above.

    I disagree that this should be an available reason to strip someone of a permit, because where is the showing of proof? how low can the bar be set to effectively remove all permits from TN residents if you arent politically connected?

    Respectfully,
    Pol

  6. Hyman Roth Says:

    That guy needs a talking-to, before he screws everything up for the rest of us and earns himself a blanket party.

  7. Matthew Carberry Says:

    Whether you are right or wrong, decisions have consequences and deliberately being stupid can hurt.

    He picked the wrong hill to die upon, especially considering his side had already won the fight.

    If OC is legal, making an ass of yourself doing it can only hurt your cause. All you can do is lose, not win “more”.

  8. Miguel Says:

    Granting that the guy is a total douche bag and not helping, I have a serious problem with having his permit revoked because he “Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public.”
    What are the parameters? how is it defined? Who determines it? Do we have a consistent set of rules to be applied or is it up to the local LEO to determine?

  9. Robert Says:

    ^ What Miguel said. Sounds like the perfect “We don’t like you so we’re going to revoke your permit” clause.

  10. Dave Says:

    Being an asshole isn’t against the law last time I checked. I’ll grant that I haven’t paid close attention to this dingbat, but so far as I have heard, he actually hasn’t broken any law.

  11. Chris Says:

    Audio of the incident here…

    http://www.zshare.net/download/703183611f7f0f89/

    (apparently originally posted by “kwikrnu” who posts it over at http://www.tfaonline.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2958&p=11160).

    After listening to the audio myself – fast forward to 28:40 – I have no problem with his permit revocation. He’s a nut, for sure, out looking for trouble.

  12. Linoge Says:

    Hey, I tried to point out the 1352 (a) (3) line to you… not my fault if you did not catch it ;).

    As for open carry being an anathema, granted, I hvae only been openly carrying for less than six months now, but the only conversations have had concerning it are ones of interest of support. But, then, I openly carry a standard pistol in a relatively conservative holster.

    Openly carrying a pistol-receivered AK47 with its tip painted orange in an intentional and admitted attempt to confuse and deceive police officers – that is an anathema.

    Might want to check your friendly fire, there, M4.

    As for the laws, no, he has not broken any, but someone put up a positively glorious quote about him on OpenCarry.org one day:

    It seems like this sheriff is using the letter of the law to thwart the intent of the law to make some kind of political or public statement.

    That sounds a lot like a guy I read about who found an arcane city ordinance and used it as an excuse to walk the streets of Belle Meade brandishing a black powder revolver.

    That reminds me of the saying: “You reap what you sow.”

    ‘Nuff said for me.

  13. SPQR Says:

    Felony stupid IMO. Not broken-hearted that this one lost his permit.

  14. Diomed Says:

    He’s been over on Silencertalk trying to get advice on how to force the signoff, and then threatening lawsuits since some people told him what they really thought of him. A master strategist he is not.

    Ugh. I can only say what I said there, which is that actions have consequences, and legality ain’t got shit to do with it.

  15. Tango Says:

    This guy is a tool… he’s been doing BS stuff like this for a long time. He goes by the name Kwkrnu or something similar to that on the OCDO forums. I hope he was within his rights legally, but if he wasn’t, I hope they hit him with the law with all he deserves.

  16. John Smith Says:

    I guess the west nashville I have been to is different then the one you guys have been to. The west nashville not in guide books is one of poverty, gangs, drug dealers, prostitutes and dirty cops. Of course over here on plus park all I have is ms13 to deal with. My landlord has to have the tags removed every week or so. They leave me alone so all is well. As for this guy open carrying well I cannot say he is a threat to the community. Now the orange tip is going to far not in a legal sense, but in the sense that the metro cops are really dumb and might decide to shoot an 8 year old because they saw this guys real gun has an orange tip. Carrying it in your hand so what. The cops put their hands on their pistols when I walk by them so the public needs to get over it. So what if the guy is a prick. You should be glad a guy like this does not have a badge too. Yes I have a mild dislike for the metro police. They like pulling me over and searching my vehicle because of the neighborhood I live in. They cannot seem to get it through their thick skulls that I cannot afford better.

  17. m4shooter Says:

    We are all friends here, so please don’t take offense to my comments. I’m just tossing out my two cents.

    By saying open carry is an anathema, all I’m saying is that open carry is going to universally create negative feelings towards carry rights. If you disagree, then I suggest you strap on an AK- or AR-style pistol in a single point sling and walk down Belle Meade Blvd, or maybe right down Broadway when a Predators game is getting out, and see what kind of reaction you get. It’s legal right?

    I’ll bet my dollars to your donuts (doughnuts?) that police will be dispatched to intercept you in a matter of minutes. Wife of congressman X will have a hissy-fit about the crazy guy with a gun, the local PTA will decide that guns in public are preventing their children from being able to focus in class, and the Tennessean will have yet another anti-gun headline. These are public opinion altering events. Of course, most of us don’t live our lives according to public opinion, but public opinion does affect the laws that are created each day in this country.

    I don’t believe that it is fair to say, well open carry of a “standard handgun” is ok, but open carry of an AR/AK style pistol is not ok — because they are both equally legal. So you either have to support open carry or not. Otherwise, we are just making a distinction between “regular” handguns and scary, evil “assault” pistols. Who here believes that a firearm should be classified based simply on its appearance? I know I don’t.

    I want to protect my carry rights, and I believe that open carry jeopardizes those rights. Can anyone say that this most recent open carry incident has not hurt our carry rights? My guess is that certain local administrative bodies might choose to take a broad view of “Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public” in order to take other permits away. Only time will tell though. Clearly they are using this broad language to take one individual’s permit away.

  18. Linoge Says:

    So… wait a second… demonizing an entire class of firearms due to their appearance is not acceptable (a concept I completely agree with, but we will get to that in a minute), but demonizing an entire form of carrying due to one man’s actions is acceptable? Consistent your position is not.

    I actually have absolutely no problems with him carrying his Draco-receivered pistol openly, however he so desires, in whatever locations he is so permitted – such an action is legal, and I have expressed that many times before. I do have a problem with him intentionally and admittedly attempting to confuse and deceive police officers, I do have a problem with his actions throughout the past two years or so being specifically and intentionally designed to seek out conflict, and I do have a problem with him now taking the aggrieved “oh woe is me” position now that that history has finally caught up with him.

    And, clearly, we know no such thing about “broad language” or any other such administrative actions – whatever evidence/information the TN DOS / Belle Meade police department have on Leonard has not been released, so making baseless assumptions concerning its nature is just that – baseless. Now, if you have an in with either of those organizations, feel free to speak up.

    Yes, this incident probably has hurt our campaign to expand and protect our Second-Amendment-protected rights… but how many open carriers are just like me, who quietly, calmly, and politely openly carry their firearms in public with nary a reaction, and with more and more people realizing that folks can do so without being raving lunatics? I am going to bet that answer comes out to be something greater than “one”… My perspective on the matter is quite simple: I support carry, simply because picking and choosing what form of carry is “right” based on your own personal prejudices makes you no better than the Brady Bunch picking and choosing what forms of firearms we should be allowed to own – I doubtless think there are a great many fudds quite annoyed at people for “risking” their rights by owning/fighting over “evil assault weapons”.

  19. David Fox Says:

    I can’t believe the comments I’m reading – that somehow he deserved to loose his license. This is utter crap. He has a NATURAL right to bear arms as a means of self defense, regardless of whether the public will “tolerate” it or not – just like you have a natural right to free speech regardless of whether the public will tolerate what you say or not. And the fact that he carried a gun openly being grounds for revocation of the right to carry a gun openly, I can think of no more of an asinine than that. Folks need to wake up and stop excusing behavior like the sheriff’s. Totally unacceptable and unnatural regardless of what people may think – period.

  20. David Fox Says:

    I completely fubar’ed my comment above. Let me try again (it’s too early in the morning):

    And the fact that he carried a gun openly being grounds for attempted revocation of the *liberty* to carry a gun openly, I can think of no more of an asinine argument than that. Folks need to wake up and stop excusing behavior like the sheriff’s. This is totally unacceptable and unnatural regardless of what people may think – period.

  21. Anonymous Says:

    People defending this Kwikrnu guy don’t know the whole story or are just like him. He actually does pose a material likelyhood of risk to the public. All he states online is “his story”. Not only does Embody leave out details he also blatantly lies.

    An earlier newscast stated that he previously lost his permit because of a domestic incident. What he has done in the past couple of months happens to be his latest antics, but he has done much more and continually infringes on the rights of others using his gun to bully and intimidate others.

    He’s been playing this game for years and somebody finally pulled his card.

  22. David Fox Says:

    If he was involved in a “domestic incident” or criminally “continually infringes on the rights of others” then why not take the permit at those times?
    It doesn’t matter why he openly carries. It is a natural right to bear arms, and until he breaks a law, goes to court, and as a matter of due process a judge/jury revokes his permit, there is no problem.
    I suppose I am “like him” in this respect. It a simple matter of Natural rights and the Bill of Rights – period.

  23. Tomcatshanger Says:

    It is not anyones place to defend this guy.

    It is everyone’s place to justify attacking him.

    Come on folks. Lay it on the line. Why do you support restricting his rights?

    It must be obvious to yall, why support the state acting against someone who has cause no harm?

  24. Anonymous Says:

    @DavidFox – yes, you are right in your assessment that you are like him.

    1. You added “criminally” to my statement just like Kwik would do.

    2. You totally ignored my statement that he did, indeed, lose his permit once before. (just like Kwik would do)

    3. You addressed “open carry” as if I referenced it when I clearly didn’t. (just like Kwik would do)

    Leonard Embody (Kwikrnu) WILL do something crazy and end up on the news again. Then it will be obvious to most that he poses a risk.

  25. SPQR Says:

    David Fox, perhaps actually reading the comments would give you some insight.

    Many commenting here think he deserves to lose the permit not because he open-carried, but because he open-carried in a suspicious and deceptive manner.

    Pay attention.

  26. mariner Says:

    I’m sometimes pretty disgusted by the supposedly-pro-2A crowd, and this is one of the times.

    Either what the guy did was legal or it was not. It seems to be generally recognized here that what he did was legal. Therefore the actions of “law enforcement” are unwarranted, and themselves illegal.

    I am not at all receptive to the “we can’t carry openly if somebody might feel bad”. This is the stick anti-gunners have been beating us over the head with for fifty years — we shouldn’t be able to exercise our Constitutional rights because somebody might feel bad about it.

    F***’em!

    I guess Rosa Parks should have sat in the back of the bus like she was told, because exercising her Constitutional rights made people uncomfortable.

    Wear your chains lightly; I don’t plan to.

  27. SayUncle Says:

    it’s legal to be an asshole. it doesn’t mean we should encourage it. the guy painted his gun barrel orange so it looked like a toy, got on the internet and said it was so cops wouldn’t know it was a gun, then went looking for trouble.

  28. David Fox Says:

    mariner, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  29. straightarrow Says:

    Well Good Lord! I certainly wouldn’t want to do anything that was unpopular with people who didn’t want me to do it. Even if it was legal and harmed no one. Just can’t be revving up the people who wouldn’t want me to, because I judge my rights by everybody else’s opinion of what they would want me to do. And if they don’t want me to do something and somebody tells me they just won’t tolerate it, well, I’ll just give it up.

    Wouldn’t want to stand on principle when popularity and pragmatism is the issue.

  30. kwikrnu Says:

    It was stated earlier as fact that I have been involved in a “domestic incident”. Not only is that not true, but it is a blatent lie.