INGOer Denied Carry Lawsuit in TN

[cobber]

May be deliberate but isn't ironice 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.

We should all tend our gardens.

I agree the SAF took the wrong side, however bizarre they might have found Embody's behavior to be.

At the same time, he set out to alarm people and he succeeded in his efforts. Haven't you in the past acknowledged 'time, manner, place'?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, I think time, manner place is going to get intermediate scrutiny.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

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.

He set out to deliberately engineer a confrontation?

That is based on what, his choice of firearm? His clothing? Did he state this in something I did not read?

I don't think he approached them - I am pretty sure they approached him, no?

 

[PointFiveO]

He set out to deliberately engineer a confrontation?

That is based on what, his choice of firearm? His clothing? Did he state this in something I did not read?

I don't think he approached them - I am pretty sure they approached him, no?

If you don't see how he was looking for trouble going to a park wearing camo and carrying a Draco... I mean come on let's just be real. He wanted an interaction with police, he got one, and now he's trying to make a big deal out of it. Feeding trolls is not good.

Riding the fine line of the law to get a negative response just makes the rest of us look bad. Walking around with a 30 round mag in what is essentially an assault rifle (sorry those of you who like to read the letter of the law that finely, but we gun enthusiasts all know what that gun was manufactured for) is really going to make people lighten up about the 2A.

We have a responsibility to use our logic and our reason to interpret the laws in a manner that supports the spirit in which they were forged. By doing this garbage he's spitting in the face of the men who confirmed his right to be a douche. This guy wasn't trying to protect his rights, he was causing trouble on purpose.

Do I find it unfortunate when people get stopped for reasonable open carry? Yep, I get as outraged as anyone. But this guy got what he wanted. I hate the attitude in this country of "I'm going to go out looking for a lawsuit because I know the law." I'm glad he lost.

 

[MrSmitty]

Officer...meet Mr Douche-bag.....

 

[downzero]

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.

Repped for Pangloss quote.

I do think that there's a difference, however, between using qualified immunity in a case with extreme facts to protect the police from § 1983 liability and saying that he didn't have the right to do it. He definitely had the right to do it and I don't think any party to the suit is denying that. That doesn't automatically mean that he is entitled to a remedy.

Yes, I think time, manner place is going to get intermediate scrutiny.

Any comment on how there might be a parallel between the content neutrality requirement for TPM restrictions and the Second?

Here it would seem like one argument could be that this wasn't a time, place, or manner restriction because they weren't telling him that he couldn't carry in the park. They targeted the specific type of weapon he was carrying, not where he was carrying it.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

If you don't see how he was looking for trouble going to a park wearing camo and carrying a Draco... I mean come on let's just be real. He wanted an interaction with police, he got one, and now he's trying to make a big deal out of it. Feeding trolls is not good.

Riding the fine line of the law to get a negative response just makes the rest of us look bad. Walking around with a 30 round mag in what is essentially an assault rifle (sorry those of you who like to read the letter of the law that finely, but we gun enthusiasts all know what that gun was manufactured for) is really going to make people lighten up about the 2A.

We have a responsibility to use our logic and our reason to interpret the laws in a manner that supports the spirit in which they were forged. By doing this garbage he's spitting in the face of the men who confirmed his right to be a douche. This guy wasn't trying to protect his rights, he was causing trouble on purpose.

Do I find it unfortunate when people get stopped for reasonable open carry? Yep, I get as outraged as anyone. But this guy got what he wanted. I hate the attitude in this country of "I'm going to go out looking for a lawsuit because I know the law." I'm glad he lost.

'

So, when I take my Draco to Henryville forestry, I am looking for trouble? Carrying it would obviously be provoking law enforcement, right? I mean, it is not a Glock, so obviously I would deserve detainment - just to make sure it is legal.

Maybe it is the combination of Draco and camo that provokes law enforcement, and all this time I was an outfit away from provoking the man.

Seriously? The firearm you choose to carry as an EDC can kill someone just as dead as a Draco can. A Draco is an inanimate object, and just like other firearms - if it is in the hands of someone that is not posing a threat, it should not be an issue.

The argument that a Draco is "evil" and he deserves to be detained for carrying it follows the same logical path as the argument that carrying ANY gun deserves detainment.

If you get stopped and harassed for your edc - remember, you provoked the encounter.

If the second amendment was respected, there would be no crime to be suspicious of in the first place - since carrying a long arm in a public park would fall under bearing arms, and should not be infringed.

 

[cobber]

He set out to deliberately engineer a confrontation?

That is based on what, his choice of firearm? His clothing? Did he state this in something I did not read?

I don't think he approached them - I am pretty sure they approached him, no?

Follow the links I posted. The appellate opinion doesn't contain all the facts before the court. The SAF brief quotes Embody as saying:

I can’t wait for a cop to arrest me because I open-carried a handgun
and someone called 9-1-1. It almost happened twice but no cigar yet.
Maybe carrying a PLR-16 or AK pistol will change that.

Sure, he wasn't looking for trouble.

This quote is also in his deposition, on p. 52, so his own words, not SAF. Apparently he posted this very statement on an online forum.

 

[cobber]

Oral argument before the 6th Circuit:

http://youtu.be/YmPkqZHALTs

At least in oral argument, his attorney was underwhelming.

 

[maxmayhem]

My thoughts on this...

This is why, if you look through my posts, that I advocate a position of advocacy of firearms through diplomacy. Though I am ardent supported of the constitution, I realize that people like Embody annoy me. A non-gun owner is going to be terrified by a sight like this. Is this within his rights to do? Yes, but it belies common sense. He was trying to make people be afraid and he was looking for a confrontation. Reasonably, a handgun means a sidearm not a semi-automatic machine gun. (I know it is not a machine gun but non-gun owners and anti gunners don't know and dont care to know the difference.) If you dont want more restrictions on your rights by a government who has the power to enforce them, then don't act like this guy. I am always careful to portray myself as a gun owner who is reasonable, considerate, cautious, and concerned for the safety and well being of others. This includes fears they have of guns though I have no obligation to do so. I have found gun owners to be the best people on earth and Embody does not characterize this personification. He carried a gun that is typically used by bad guys in movies, painted orange, with a high capacity mag, wore camo to indicate he might be a combatant or a hunter, and overall was just a duma$$. He looked for trouble and found it. He inconvenienced a lot of people and as a result he lost 2.5 hours of his time. I say lesson learned. The ruling found that he had a 11.5 inch barrel though legal it was nearly illegal which justifies a reasonable search of his property and person. (The length of the stop and the extent of intrusion must be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference.”) I think the officer was justified and Embody should not be surprised that he found trouble because he was looking for it. This is what we as gun owners should not do--"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." Embody may say he was making a point. All he will succeed in doing is forcing legislators to make a handgun law that is more confusing and more obtrusive. Is this unconstitutional? Maybe, yes, or no, doesn't matter--they are the powers that be and we are their subjects-like it or not.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Follow the links I posted. The appellate opinion doesn't contain all the facts before the court. The SAF brief quotes Embody as saying:



Sure, he wasn't looking for trouble.

From the horses mouth - cannot disagree with that.

 

[cobber]

Here's Embody's deposition:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864.16.1.pdf

Deposition includes some of his online posts. Enjoy!

From the horses mouth - cannot disagree with that.

It's in his depo, p. 52.

 

[maxmayhem]

On Glocktalk Embody said, "I cant wait for a cop to arrest me because I open carried a handgun and someone called 911. It almost happened twice but not cigar yet, Maybe carrying a PLR 16 or ak pistol will change that'"...draw your own conclusions...

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

My thoughts on this...

This is why, if you look through my posts, that I advocate a position of advocacy of firearms through diplomacy. Though I am ardent supported of the constitution, I realize that people like Embody annoy me. A non-gun owner is going to be terrified by a sight like this. Is this within his rights to do? Yes, but it belies common sense. He was trying to make people be afraid and he was looking for a confrontation. Reasonably, a handgun means a sidearm not a semi-automatic machine gun. (I know it is not a machine gun but non-gun owners and anti gunners don't know and dont care to know the difference.) If you dont want more restrictions on your rights by a government who has the power to enforce them, then don't act like this guy. I am always careful to portray myself as a gun owner who is reasonable, considerate, cautious, and concerned for the safety and well being of others. This includes fears they have of guns though I have no obligation to do so. I have found gun owners to be the best people on earth and Embody does not characterize this personification. He carried a gun that is typically used by bad guys in movies, painted orange, with a high capacity mag, wore camo to indicate he might be a combatant or a hunter, and overall was just a duma$$. He looked for trouble and found it. He inconvenienced a lot of people and as a result he lost 2.5 hours of his time. I say lesson learned. The ruling found that he had a 11.5 inch barrel though legal it was nearly illegal which justifies a reasonable search of his property and person. (The length of the stop and the extent of intrusion must be “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference.”) I think the officer was justified and Embody should not be surprised that he found trouble because he was looking for it. This is what we as gun owners should not do--"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." Embody may say he was making a point. All he will succeed in doing is forcing legislators to make a handgun law that is more confusing and more obtrusive. Is this unconstitutional? Maybe, yes, or no, doesn't matter--they are the powers that be and we are their subjects-like it or not.

While I understand this stance, I feel differently.

Fear of inanimate objects is irrational, and fear of firearms seems to thrive the most in places where guns are not common place. When people get used to seeing firearms without incident, sometimes they change their mind - or never develop that fear in the first place.

Illogical fears originate from the mind of an individual, and are not caused by inanimate objects. If the sight of a rifle alone scares someone, that is not the fault of the firearm's owner.

Anyone that makes the decision to carry a specific firearm over another because of the irrational fear of others is free to do so, and there is nothing wrong with their decision - but the idea that it advances support for the second amendment is in my opinion a fallacy.

A decreased frequency of firearm carry without incident due to the irrational fear of others leads to a higher frequency of irrational fear of firearms.

When I was young, I was against the idea civilians owning ak47 rifles. I was an avid hunter, having fired shotguns and a few handguns in my life - but an AK47? "What would they need that for" I thought. Movies, news stories, and the lack of military firearms I noticed in my day to day life created a correlation in my mind between an ak47 pattern rifle and bad things happening. Then one day I saw a man walking with one, and low and behold no shooting or terrorist attack transpired. That peaked my interest, and after shooting one - I wanted one myself. Today I own 11 variants of the ak47 pattern rifle, and to this day none of them have transformed me into a terrorist or gang member. I do not know who the individual I spotted walking with an AK47 was, and I am sure he has no idea he had an impact on my life - but that was the trigger that peaked my interest in firearms, and one more young mind changed their long held opinion.

We seem to agree that this is not the individual we want representing the firearm community, but a firearm in the hands of a respectable well mannered citizen can have a large impact on the perception of others.

 

[maxmayhem]

i get what you are saying but...

My beef with the man is that he did several irrational things that in my mind add up to duma$$.

1. He painted the tip of his gun orange. Why did he do this? Was to confuse law enforcement? Was it to dupe them into a confrontation? Law enforcement recognized the orange tip as a toy but this was not a toy. This is unethical in my opinion and not representative of what we, as gun owners, are about.
2. I think carrying a handgun on a sling and not in a holster is going to alarm people. Should they be alarmed? I dont know. Embody could not answer simple ballistics questions about his firearm in his deposition. He doesnt really know what he was doing.
3. He was looking for a confrontation according to his comments on the forum and he said that the forum edited his comments. I dont believe him.
4. He is like that broad ripple guy that bought a lcp and hung it on his on the outside of his pants with the trigger exposed. This does not promote safe practices with firearms. The average person is left to wonder if this thing is loaded. Both of these guys lack the cool factor and I do not want them representing me. Just like that girl from DC with a gun who went before the council about getting her gun. If you watch the video she talks about her training and how she forgot to keep her hand off the trigger by her own admission. The council member said to paraphrase..."you violated your training." Well he one the argument right there and she, as good as her intentions are, should not be representing me. I carry a gun concealed everywhere i can legally--and i mean everywhere. I am safe with my firearms and try to ease non gun owners into being comfortable. This is important. When you have an person like this representing us it hardens public opinion against us. There are so many people out there who are anti gun, those on the fence, and those like us. We should try to convey ourselves as reasonable, fair minded, level headed, and not trigger happy, intimidating people.

I will give you an example of this. I recently ran into a kid who was wearing a clone of a beretta with wife beaters and a belt buckle that said killer . He kept on staring at me when i was at taco bell not realizing that i had a glock 26 and a beretta on me. It just seemed like he was looking for a confrontation. That is just shi!!y if you ask me because I am comfortable with guns but it is inconsiderate and rude. I think a little civility and common sense goes a long way.

While I understand this stance, I feel differently.

Fear of inanimate objects is irrational, and fear of firearms seems to thrive the most in places where guns are not common place. When people get used to seeing firearms without incident, sometimes they change their mind - or never develop that fear in the first place.

Illogical fears originate from the mind of an individual, and are not caused by inanimate objects. If the sight of a rifle alone scares someone, that is not the fault of the firearm's owner.

Anyone that makes the decision to carry a specific firearm over another because of the irrational fear of others is free to do so, and there is nothing wrong with their decision - but the idea that it advances support for the second amendment is in my opinion a fallacy.

A decreased frequency of firearm carry without incident due to the irrational fear of others leads to a higher frequency of irrational fear of firearms.

When I was young, I was against the idea civilians owning ak47 rifles. I was an avid hunter, having fired shotguns and a few handguns in my life - but an AK47? "What would they need that for" I thought. Movies, news stories, and the lack of military firearms I noticed in my day to day life created a correlation in my mind between an ak47 pattern rifle and bad things happening. Then one day I saw a man walking with one, and low and behold no shooting or terrorist attack transpired. That peaked my interest, and after shooting one - I wanted one myself. Today I own 11 variants of the ak47 pattern rifle, and to this day none of them have transformed me into a terrorist or gang member. I do not know who the individual I spotted walking with an AK47 was, and I am sure he has no idea he had an impact on my life - but that was the trigger that peaked my interest in firearms, and one more young mind changed their long held opinion.

We seem to agree that this is not the individual we want representing the firearm community, but a firearm in the hands of a respectable well mannered citizen can have a large impact on the perception of others.