INGOer Denied Carry Lawsuit in TN

[stephen87]

Again, rifles are illegal in park unless case and unloaded. This guy had a firearm that is a rifle variant and was probably fairly close to the legal limits of a handgun/rifle. That makes the stop reasonable. Afterwards, the guy wanted the supervisor which is what kept him longer. Just from what I see.

 

[Clay]

I still contend that its doesn't meet the legal definition of a handgun in TN, unless I have the only Draco with a 12" barrel

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Am I going to be the first person to suggest that we have an intelligent, well-dressed, non-lunatic open carry a Draco through a State park and calmly, non-erratically stroll around so that we can at least flex the facts in our direction some when the court case pops up in our district?

I nominate Titanium_Frost whenever he gets out of radio silence.

Any seconds to that nomination?

 

[GBuck]

Are officer's allowed to assume all firearms are illegal until they are convinced otherwise, or are they to assume the firearm is legal unless they have an reasonable suspicion otherwise based on specific and articulable facts? .

In Indiana, carrying a handgun is a crime. It is assumed you are committing a crime until you produce your little pink permission slip, if the officer wants to "investigate". This does not apply to long guns in Indiana. It APPEARS that in Tennessee it is illegal to carry a rifle around, even with a "permit". That's where the problem lies, they believed it was a rifle.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

I still contend that its doesn't meet the legal definition of a handgun in TN, unless I have the only Draco with a 12" barrel

Mine is between 11.5" and 11.6", but is definitely not 12".

Mine is also instantly recognized by half the recreational shooters at the range. They are uncommon to find lying around in gun stores, but I would bet that most firearm enthusiasts have seen one or two in their lifetime.

A law enforcement officer that knows that little about guns probably shouldn't be stopping people for them.

Remember, this story is about someone being "felony take down" stopped without the commission of a crime. The only perceived crime was a stupid rule that would not exist if the second amendment was respected and honored. I fail to see how anyone can claim to support the second amendment, but consider it justifiable to detain someone for bearing an arm.

An AK47, and ALL variants, should fall under the guise of military weapons, without any suspicion to believe bearing it is a crime in the United States. If it was a full sized Ak47, that should never have been a problem in the first place. That should not be a crime, and a Draco being confused for a rifle should not be a perceived crime.

Stopping someone to check their weapon, based on suspicion of a crime - being the weapon....

Can I see your papers?

 

[j706]

What kind of blooming IDIOT strolls around a park wearing camouflage and carrying a weapon. Perhaps one of the dumber things I have ever heard of. If these kind of clowns keep up with this stupid stuff it will backfire resulting in more restrictive legislation.

 

[Clay]

Mine is between 11.5" and 11.6", but is definitely not 12".

Im just curious, but how are you measuring the barrel length?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Is it from the back of the chamber or the front of the chamber? To the end of the unadorned barrel, or to the end of whatever barrel attachments/flash hiders that happen to be attached at the moment?

I would submit it should just be measured as the length of the rifling inside the object which goes by the name of barrel.

 

[Clay]

the technical measurement is from the bolt face of a cocked firearm (ie flush against the bolt face, not against the firing pin), to the end of the barrel. This doesn't include any flash hiders, muzzle brakes, etc, UNLESS they are blind pinned or silver soldered in place.

That said I think the *physical* length of just the barrel is around 11.5" to 11.75" but once you include back to the bolt face is it closer to 12". The numbers are just all over the place from what Ive seen. *Mine* is just a hair over 12" (well, its actual 16.25" now), but Ive seen everything from 11.5" to where mine is reported on the internet. I just can't believe there that much variation considering all of the parts that have to line up to make the assembled rifle.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

All these pages and no comments on how the Second Amendment Foundation fought against carry rights?

If it was the NRA instead of SAF how many denounciations of the NRA would we have by now?

 

[downzero]

That's where the problem lies, they believed it was a rifle.

"They" were wrong. The question is whether that was a reasonable mistake or unconstitutional error. If this was about anything other than guns, the question would be presumed to be the latter.

All these pages and no comments on how the Second Amendment Foundation fought against carry rights?

If it was the NRA instead of SAF how many denounciations of the NRA would we have by now?

It's not like this case went to jury trial and they got it wrong. What the SAF thinks about the current state of Second Amendment law doesn't reflect the view they might hold if there were another two decades of favorable SCOTUS rulings on the subject.

This guy is an idiot, and that's not furthering any of our causes. I'm not surprised that the SAF or the NRA for that matter are afraid of making bad law. Because that's what this case just did.

Fortunately, the Fourth Amendment area is full of bad law, and state constitutions are not bound by Federal Courts' interpretations of state law search and seizure rights. Because if it would be up to the Supreme Court and the other federal courts, we wouldn't have any Fourth Amendment rights left, and nearly any search or seizure, no matter how off the wall or seemingly ridiculous, would be "reasonable" for constitutional purposes.

These cases also have to be read in context of their rampant abuse in the 1970s and 80s, because you and I both know that nobody takes § 1983 cases seriously.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What the SAF thinks about the current state of Second Amendment law doesn't reflect the view they might hold if there were another two decades of favorable SCOTUS rulings on the subject.

Read the past INGO attacks on the NRA doing exactly this getting out in front of suicidal litigation, yet when it comes to SAF we hear crickets. Strange, no?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

the technical measurement is from the bolt face of a cocked firearm (ie flush against the bolt face, not against the firing pin), to the end of the barrel. This doesn't include any flash hiders, muzzle brakes, etc, UNLESS they are blind pinned or silver soldered in place.

That said I think the *physical* length of just the barrel is around 11.5" to 11.75" but once you include back to the bolt face is it closer to 12". The numbers are just all over the place from what Ive seen. *Mine* is just a hair over 12" (well, its actual 16.25" now), but Ive seen everything from 11.5" to where mine is reported on the internet. I just can't believe there that much variation considering all of the parts that have to line up to make the assembled rifle.

Yup, still a good .4 from 12"..

If I include the stock flash hider, it is STILL not 12", which I believe is the way the ATF document I have instructs measurement (since my flash hider seems to be silver soldered on)

The ATF procedure for measuring barrel length is to measure from the closed bolt (or breech-face) to
the furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device. Permanent methods of
attachment include full-fusion gas or electric steel-seam welding, high-temperature (1100°F) silver
soldering, or blind pinning with the pin head welded over. Barrels are measured by inserting a dowel rod
into the barrel until the rod stops against the bolt or breech-face. The rod is then marked at the
furthermost end of the barrel or permanently attached muzzle device, withdrawn from the barrel, and
measured.

Site: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-2.pdf

It is interesting how big of a discrepancy in numbers I hear reported, but since they took the time to look his over attempting to find any reason to classify it as illegal, I think it is a safe bet to assume that it was less than 12". If it was not, he would have likely been arrested without hesitation.

A legal firearm is a legal firearm. Stopping someone because you *believe* a legal firearm *may* be illegal, without any suspicion other than lack of knowledge, is bull hockey.

Obviously, I am in the minority even in the gun community on this point. Apparently wearing camo or carrying a firearm that is not a Glock justifies harassment.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

All these pages and no comments on how the Second Amendment Foundation fought against carry rights?

If it was the NRA instead of SAF how many denounciations of the NRA would we have by now?

Considering how many people justify this situation, blaming him for "provoking" the encounter based on the firearm he chooses to carry - are you surprised?

When it comes down to it, the provocation came from law enforcement. It would seem that he delayed his detainment by demanding a supervisor, and I cannot justify blaming law enforcement for that delay - but the encounter itself was not his creation, but a choice made by law enforcement.

It would seem that many would condone this behavior. The threat the second amendment faces in the future does not come from people like this individual - it comes from the indifference of citizens to stand up for the rights of other citizens even when they do not carry the same weapon themselves.

Carrying a rifle in a public park should not be a crime. (note the period)

Detaining someone for carrying a handgun that you incorrectly believe to be a rifle is ridiculous. There should be no possible crime to be suspicious of in the first place.

I own a Draco myself. If it was an illegal firearm, I would not have bought it. I do not carry my Draco, and consider it for the most part a recreational firearm, but I would like to *believe* that I could if I chose to, being a handgun lawfully possessed by an American citizen. Apparently, some have drawn the line in the sand behind this, and doing so would be provoking harassment.

I am just happy knowing that of all the Indiana law enforcement officers I am friends with, the vast majority would not have detained me for this.

 

[downzero]

Read the past INGO attacks on the NRA doing exactly this getting out in front of suicidal litigation, yet when it comes to SAF we hear crickets. Strange, no?

I'm not surprised, and have made many such attacks myself, sir. That was before I suffered through two years of law school and actually got my hands dirty in litigation.

Today, I realize that strategy is a tough question even for the seasoned litigator, and reasonable minds can disagree on the optimal way to get the desired result.

But I don't expect the general public to necessarily agree with me. They read the final opinion after all the briefs have been filed and the court has ruled and issued an order. They expect a "right" to be taken seriously. I don't disagree with them on the merits, but the procedural strategy is just more complicated. And obviously you know this already.

I do think the NRA was wrong to try to sabotage Mr. Heller and his fellow plaintiffs. But, like you, I have the benefit of hindsight.

I do agree with you that there is a well-represented internet hatred toward the NRA due to the shenanigans they pulled with Mr. Heller. If those people knew some of the people I've met, who actually worked on the litigation, they would probably be even more pissed. I agree with you that the double standard with SAF is unjustifiable. I think it's unfortunate that those people, who hate on the NRA for trying its best to assert a moderate and what they thought was a winning position are wrong. I also think that the NRA was trying to play its cards too close to its chest and played dirty. But this is one of the problems with making this a 'political' issue in the first place.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to my PM.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

Stupid is as stupid does... he wanted trouble and he found it, bravo zulu to him!

 

[thebishopp]

"BUT" should never enter come after "I'm all for exercising our rights".

 

[cobber]

This appears to be the SAF's amicus brief. Might as well read it first, then dump on the SAF...

http://www.kwikrnu.com/Embody%20v%20Ward/Gura%20saf%20amicus%20brief%20for%20embody%20ward%2012-5-2011.pdf

Amici seek to inform the Court that the right to bear arms applies in
public parks. The decision below should be affirmed, however, because
the right does not encompass Plaintiff’s extraordinary conduct.

For other filings in this case, see:

http://www.kwikrnu.com/embody_v_ward.htm

Might be worth reading the appellant's brief as well.

 

[cobber]

When it comes down to it, the provocation came from law enforcement. It would seem that he delayed his detainment by demanding a supervisor, and I cannot justify blaming law enforcement for that delay - but the encounter itself was not his creation, but a choice made by law enforcement.

No, Embody set out deliberately to engineer a confrontation after which he could sue the authorities. Is that the purpose of the 2A?

In doing so, he set a precedent which will probably be used by the courts of the 6th Cir. in similar circumstances. Other circuits may well use Embody in deciding similar cases.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

May be deliberate but isn't ironic that the Bill of Rights protects conduct as long as the majority first approves of it.

Real gutsy? What happened to "I disagree but I defend your right to say it?"

This is not the best of all possible worlds, Candide.