This is a discussion on TN Man's Permit Revoked: 1st Fall Out @ Post 110-MERGED within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by Hopyard Yes, like work hard to preserve state preemption. By way of a "ferinstance," assist with challenges to that city's new code. ...
I can speak to the felony loss of CCP in VA anyway, as one of my best friends has been dealing with this very issue since January 1st of this year. My friend was indicted on 2 felony charges. While indicted, he cannot purchase any firearms, but he does not lose his CCP unless he is convicted. One charge has been dropped and the other is continued. If he fulfills community service and gets in no trouble for a year, the remainder of the charges will also be dropped. His lawyer did verify that he can legally retain his CCP and carry but he cannot purchase during this one year "probation" period.
Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.
Guns are like sex and air...its no big deal until YOU can't get any.
In reaction to the provocation, the city appears to have chosen to forbid CC within the city, disregarding the state wide preemption statutes. (Do I have it right so far?)
Please explain, because I clearly am missing something, how his utilizing his right to legally open carry an antiquated military pistol, logically should cause the city to knowingly pass a law in conflict with the state's code and why that is his fault.
Let's see. I wear orange T shirts on st. patty's day. This is perfectly legal but it upsets some folk, especially in the PD who happen to be of Irish descent. So the city passes a law forbidding the wearing of orange T shirts on st patty's day... notwithstanding both state and federal law and case law on freedom of political expression.
Is the above analogy close?
How is it logical that my wearing orange on st. patty's day causes the rest of you to lose your right to wear orange or green? How does that become my fault? I didn't pass the law which violates decades of case law on free expression. See?
(Not attempting to be smart or funny here. I'm still struggling to understand why everyone is so down on someone who engaged in a lawful act, and why folks seem to think this is a set back.)
And rather than try to engage the mayor (who seems really reasonable in this case and sympathetic to aligning w/ preemption despite Embody's stunts) or the city council to try and first inform them, educate them, and convince them to change it -- Embody goes ahead and carries anyway, knowing that he will cause a scene. I would be sympathetic to him in this case if I hadn't already heard of his Radnor Lake shenanigans with the BDUs, AK pistol, and painted orange tip.
Embody has no sense of diplomacy or tact. He's in this to create as much trouble as possible and either gain money through his many frivolous lawsuits and/or turn people against gun owners as an agent provocateur.
As far as the activist's situation goes, it will be interesting to learn how the State justifies its determination that he represents a material threat to the public, when he has broken no laws, and neither been arrested nor charged with anything, including brandishing or discharging a weapon or somehow causing a a member of the public to believe their life was in danger, made no threats. Nothing. I don't see how the State can justify its determination and revocation of his permit. To me, this is a lot like the State deciding to silence someone with whose speech they disagree.
As far as Bellemeade goes, it appears he accomplished what he intended. They're changing their law, and it will either conform with State pre-emption, or it will be pre-empted, but it will no longer ban the carry of all firearms except the Army or Navy revolver carried openly in the hand.
You have the power to donate life.
my colt navy is from 1862.....and they were made before that more than likely the point of the ordinance was to make it a hassle to carry a pistol unless you were white because if you were white the ordinance didnt apply to you...just like GA racist gun laws that look race neutral...
S&W M&P40/M&P9c OC rigs
S&W 640-1 or Sig P238 as a CC rig
proud www.georgiacarry.org member
Second Amendment Foundation Life member
It amazes me how people who are "so careful to obey the law" and stress deesclation and conflict reduction, are so tolerant of an irresponsible, confrontational moron who is doing whatever he can to provoke people.
Kinda blows the mind, doesn't it?
If the nashville-ninja really wanted to, he could have simply appeared at a town council meeting, addressed the issue and they probably would have gotten rid of the ordinance without much problem.
But no...that would have been non-confrontational and made him come off as reasonable.
Does anyone know for certain that no one tried to go to council first?
Also from what I understand there was no way to carry in this town, except openly, in the hand, with pistol XXX.
If that is the case, and meeting that law so he could carry is seen as a problem, what was lost if that exemption is removed?
I apologize for not being more familiar with what is being discussed, but I hope someone can fill me in.
Tennessee still has laws against interracial marriage on the books. Seems that people there just don't remember to revise their statutes that often.
By not exercising the first three options Embody has effectively embraced the stereotype of gun owners as pushy and prone to violence (read Mark Morford's bigoted rant against gun owners and see how Embody is an anti-gunners wet dream for ridicule.) He's effectively working for the other side. If I was a non-gun owner and saw only Embody's antics, I would vote for gun confiscation in a heartbeat.
the wheel keeps on turning | walls of the city
Ok I think I caught on to what I missed. The state says it's legal to carry with a permit, but this ancient city ordenance said you can't unless it's open in hand with pistol XXX, so by the letter of the law, everyone carrying with a permit was illegal, just no one, including the council and police new that, or were enforcing it.
If thats the case, then certainly one has to wonder the order in which things were done.
Thanks for the explanation, greatly appreciated.
Letter from the Belle Meade police department (from links posted by wildcatCWP):
"I [Thomas Sexton] am the Criminal Investigator for the Belle Meade Poilce Department and in that capacity request that the Handgun Carry permit issued to Leonard Stanni Embody be revoked.
This request is not made lightly and based on the increasingly unsafe methods of displaying and/or carrying a firearm by Leonard Stanni Embody over the past 24 months.
Leonard Stanni Embody has shown by his actions that he is repeatedly engaging in behavior while carrying or displaying a firearm that compromises the safety of the general public, responding law enforcement officers, and his own.
On January 22, 2010 Leonard Stanni embody did knowingly and willfully carry a weapon within the City Limits of Belle Meade. Leonard Stanni Embody did carry the weapon in an unsafe manner, in an unsafe location and in an unsafe condition. Tennessee Code Annotated 39-17-1342 (a) (3) states that any actions by the permit holder that poses a material likelihood of risk or harm to the public will be grounds to suspend or revoke a handgun permit.
Recent incidents have been well documented and published by Leonard Stanni Embody clearly show that his actions clearly are for his own benefit and do not represent the actions of a responsible citizen wishing to safely carry a handgun for legitimate purposes."
PS: But, even after reading all this, I'm sure some (not many) here in this forum will still come to this dangerous imbecile's defense, feeling that Belle Meade is still in the wrong, and that Embody is some great Martyr to our 2nd Amendment cause??!!
Makes one wonder why the law would specify that to carry a gun it must be in an "unsafe manner, in an unsafe location and in an unsafe condition."