The 'carrying in the hand' part I could only imagine as a trap -- imagine a young black man carrying a revolver down the street in the post-Reconstruction south. He'd be shot on sight by those in power (law enforcement and white planters with guns), and the excuse would be that he was carrying with the intent to kill somebody (why else would he have the gun in his hands?)
Ok, I get that the law is old and badly written, but they are trying to use it to get this guy, in much the same way you just described it was written to justify shooting blacks.
I still think it's bogus to try and pull the guys permit for following the law. That doesn't mean he should have waltzed down the street like that instead of going to council and trying to get the law changed, but it does mean the law is an ass.
I have yet to defend the imbicil or his actions. IMO, he's a pot stirrer and a detriment. The only thing I've defended is the legal process, and since I am not a lawyer, a police officer, or a Tennesseean I really don't have a dog in this fight. It suits me fine to let the idiot spend his money for legal fights he has picked and the lawyers and legal begals can figure it out. As long as legal process is upheld, I could care less about the outcome or this particular idiot. Personally, I hope they do have just cause to uphold the revocation. From a much broader perspective than any single situation, maintaining legal process is important for all law abiding citizens...it's all we have.
Granted I know I was cherry picking from the reasons, it's just that that particular reason which as I understand it refers specifically to this incident, is accusing him of doing something unsafe, although the law specifies thats the only way he can do it.
Irregardless of who he is, I have a problem with the statement that he was unsafe while meeting the specific requirements. Now if the law had allowed him to open carry it, and he chose to have it in his hand, I'd buy into that reasoning.
I also realize you guys have a good thing going down there right now, but it tends to be the pot stirrers that get things moving, I'm sure many said the same things about Rosa Parks at that time, and worried about the repercussions of her actions.
Edit, I'd also like to just add, that even though it think that one reason was bogus, you guys are in way better shape down there when dealing with the law. I'd say that reasoning was fairly well laid out, without deliberately mud slinging. Up here more often then not if you are charged for questioning the governments authority the police lay multitudes of charges, just to make you look like a real hardened criminal, even if most end up dropped by the time it gets to court, the newspapers have reported it and sucked away your support. I'm very envious, and seeing what I see here is maybe why I'm more sensitive to it then you guys are, we deal with some real BS day in and day out.
It is ridiculous that, after the fact, they claim following the letter of the law to be an unsafe act.
Let's say for example, my city's building code says the beams on my home must be at least 20 inches apart (of course it doesn't say that, just giving an example). I put up a home with walls too weak to stand up to wind. Along comes the bldg inspector and says, "your house isn't structurally sound." "That law was passed when beams were beams and came from trees not factories in China."
But sir, "I followed your code. It plainly says the beams must be 20 inches apart."
Oh, Mr. Hopyard, says the inspector, you are an idiot. Everyone knows you don't space those beams that way, we haven't enforced that section of the code in at least 100 years. Now look what you've done turkey. Why didn't you just come to the bldg code board and voice your concern first? That would've been civil. Now sir, you'll have to tear your house down.
Upset neighbor--- "My gosh, he's giving home builders a bad name. Tear his house down!"
1. A firearm that has a round in the chamber?
2. A firearm that is cocked and locked?
3. A firearm that has a magazine capacity of 16 or more rounds?
4. A firearm of the CCW holder is being openly carried in his hands down the streets of a populated community?
5. A firearm's muzzle that has been painted blaze orange to simulate a toy, and is being openly carried in public by the permitee?
6. A firearm of the permitee is used by said person to rob a liquor store?
7. A firearm of the permitee is used by said person to execute his wife?
Mr. Embody, we know, clearly and purposely did do #4 and #5. He may also have done #1 to #3.
So, just how far do we go with this? Well, the answer is rather surprisingly simple, because it is used in court's of law throughout the United States each and every day: the main thing that need be answered here is, "What would a reasonable (i.e., normal/typical/sane) man do" when carrying a firearm in public?
The amazingly easy answer to that is that a typical, reasonable man may perform #1 through #3, but would NOT walk down the public street with a firearm in his hands (#4), he would also most certainly not paint the tip of a REAL firearm orange in order to simulate a toy gun (#5), and he would also (obviously) not rob a liquor store (#6), and he would also (obviously) not execute his wife (#7).
Thus, anyone guilty of #4 through #7 may, at the discretion of the court or other appointed entity, lose his permit.
All of the above should be crystal clear to any reasonable/typical/sane person, but apparently not to Mr. Embody.
The guy is a attention seeking nut. Yes I said it. Who determined that he's nuts? Me, and anyone with any common sense.
This belongs in the humor section.:image035::image035:
A man that goes around looking for trouble; will usually find some.
Gotta wonder just how much his actions actually hurt our cause by such negative publicity.:twak:
There's a right way and a wrong way to make a point. IMO opinion he chose the wrong way.
Does any one here think requiring toys to have an orange end really does anything? I'm just glad that this time when the police ran into someone with their gun painted with an orange tip, it was just an attention nut, and not a real criminal, using it to give the police a false sense of security.
in an unsafe manner = in his hand
in an unsafe location = outside a holster
in an unsafe condition = ??old revolver??
Is it really that hard to understand that this guy was maybe a little out of line by carrying a pistol in his hand while walking down the street?
As for the home builder analogy it makes absolutely no sense...
For a private residence framing walls of a house the studs are normally 16" apart and for structures for which there is no second floor like a garage or shed they can be up to 24" apart. This is not a "law" whereby your structure would be torn down. Building codes are checked with design at the time you obtain a building permit. If you get the OK and you do not build to the approved plans then you may be subject to penalty or fine not because of the structure itself but because of the permit terms. You will then have to fix it. Permits are issued to make sure that building in the location is safe and to deal with logistical issues such as underground services and height restrictions if applicable. Most structures that are approved for the type of building that is being erected are only reviewed by an inspector at the time of sale or if requested by the owner. The only time they can tear the structure down without permission is if you build in the "no no zone" translation is if its outside your property or within a certain distance to a structure/property line/etc. It's how it worked here in my state, and county when I renovated several rooms in my parents house, built a pole barn, garage, and pool deck. Deal with it.
Of course for commercial building and professional home building companies the information above may or may not fully apply, with other or additional restrictions. See local Department of Building Inspections for terms and conditions, Void where prohibited.
Bottom line is if you are to get your structure inspected and it does not meet code you will be required to fix it. That's the way it is and has nothing to do with gun laws or open carry.
Not to mention that if you KNOW that you're using building code from 1900 but do it just to thumb your nose at the building inspector, yeah they probably will tear your stuff down. :rofl: