TN Man's Permit Revoked: 1st Fall Out @ Post 110-MERGED - Page 13

TN Man's Permit Revoked: 1st Fall Out @ Post 110-MERGED

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 gottabkiddin That's never gonna happen...... The mainstream society will never fully accept it again period. Most of todays society believes that it's ...

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 197

Thread: TN Man's Permit Revoked: 1st Fall Out @ Post 110-MERGED

  1. #181
    Member Array Scar270's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    22
    Quote Originally Posted by gottabkiddin View Post
    That's never gonna happen...... The mainstream society will never fully accept it again period. Most of todays society believes that it's and outdated and dangerous practice, ever how wrong they are about it, that's the way it is.

    I too believe we should be able to carry our pistols for SD, but unfortunately it's the law makers that need to be convinced and not your fellow CCrs. As I stated in my earlier post; if the law is obviously outdated and cannot clearly pertain to todays society, it should be amended or removed to avoid nut jobs from pressing a bad hand intentionally and mucking up our courts and legislation with guff.

    Just to clairify; I'm not saying nor condoning the action as you suggested. I'm speaking to a law that states what this dude was doing with the older revolver in his hand. I mean come on man. If you looked out your window and saw this dude walking down the street with the gun in his hand, wouldn't that send a flag up? Do you want some dude unknown to you just for the hell of it to be able to do stuff like that? I don't know the dude from adam and I have no idea what his problem might be, but out in the country sure do what cha want, but in town, put on the cap that holds the brain power in and act like ya got some sense. What's wrong with in a holster on you person? Why is it so important that this law be left on the books just cause someone put it there years ago when the town had a population of 200 or so.

    The US constitution is in no way the same thing as the state mandated and regulated laws governing concealed or open carry. I get your drift, but respectfully; two different animals altogether. One is for the US the others are defined to individual states and unions. The Constitution should never come into the equation. Just my opinion. Not trying to change anyones mind here, just don't believe in the way some folks like to stir the pot.
    I never meant to say that this law should stand. It sounds to me like a very badly written law.

    Hiding and not being seen with guns is not the way to keep your rights. In Canada that is exactly what is killing us, we have a lot of gun owners up here, but most don't advertise that they have guns, outside of rural areas guns seem to be something to be hidden. Consequently we have all sorts of people who are not anti gun, but buy into the propaganda of the anti's, and don't see the problem with registration, and since it doesn't effect anyone they know, whats the problem.

    All I'm saying is hiding is never the way to go, and I won't condemn anyone for doing what they are allowed to do under the laws of the day.

    If this guy's stunt ends up getting that law removed from the books, the one no one has used in 100 years, whats the harm caused? Was this city ok with open or concealed carry before, and is it going to be taking either one away over this?


  2. #182
    Member Array wildcatCWP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Never more than ten feet from a 7-11
    Posts
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
    Hiding and not being seen with guns is not the way to keep your rights. In Canada that is exactly what is killing us, we have a lot of gun owners up here, but most don't advertise that they have guns, outside of rural areas guns seem to be something to be hidden. Consequently we have all sorts of people who are not anti gun, but buy into the propaganda of the anti's, and don't see the problem with registration, and since it doesn't effect anyone they know, whats the problem.
    Most people in the states know people with guns down here and are fine with it. The problem comes when people do things outside of the norm. The majority of our state's constitutions have enshrined open carry in belt holsters as a right! But carrying rifles or carrying guns in the hand is not at all common, even in rural areas. There's a difference between reminding people that guns are a common part of everyday American and Canadian life ("utilitarian individualism") and trying to stir up trouble ("expressive individualism").

    We're hardly inactive down here in the states. Just the other day was Illinois Gun Owners Lobby Day. See the comparison with the numbers marching on the state capitol vs. another protest in another state against Starbucks:

    Days of our Trailers: Sorry PEG* heads

    Quote Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
    All I'm saying is hiding is never the way to go, and I won't condemn anyone for doing what they are allowed to do under the laws of the day.
    We don't hide. But we certainly don't want bad press that could turn things against us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scar270 View Post
    If this guy's stunt ends up getting that law removed from the books, the one no one has used in 100 years, whats the harm caused? Was this city ok with open or concealed carry before, and is it going to be taking either one away over this?
    'Pyrrhic victory' applies here. Yes, he got the law of a tiny town in Tennessee removed. But the damage to the image of gun owners is of a much greater concern. When you have even the most ardent gun-ownership supporters on forums like these questioning this guy's motives, then one might also assume that a lot of non-gun owners might have negative opinions of us as a group through this guy's antics.

    Opposition to gun ownership is not based on fear about crime (no matter how many times the anti-gunners dress it up as such). It's a cultural issue. They (the urbanites) particularly in California and New England, (in southern Ontario and Quebec, in your case) think we are a bunch of knuckle-dragging, cousin-humping, reactionary, violent 'rednecks'. And they want to show they are superior to us and punish us for our 'retrograde' ideas by taking our firearms away. The more ammo we give them toward that stereotype, the easier it is for them to label us as such, and the easier it is for them to vote for political parties that will inflict harm on us.

    That's why gun owners worldwide must be on our best behavior. And, of course, do all the other things necessary to prevent further encroachment of our rights -- write legislators, give towards lobby groups, introduce more people to firearms to swell our ranks, and carry when we legally can.

  3. #183
    Senior Member Array unloved's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southeastern Pennsylvania
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Treo View Post
    I'm thinking Jim Zumbo or Dan Cooper would feel right at home in this crowd
    Yep.

  4. #184
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,056

    re: Tinkerinwstuff

    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Haven't read 9 pages of this thread - but good posts Hopy
    Thank you. 'preciate it.

  5. #185
    Member Array Scar270's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    22
    Wildcat, this is a great discussion, but I'm not sure I buy into the fact that this guy gives them that much ammunition. The anti's arguments tend to revolve around the fact that because we have guns we are going to shoot someone. The more times the people who are neutral, see people with guns not shooting someone, the less effective their arguments are.

    The whole strategy of taking someone who doesn't like guns, but isn't a hard core anti, out shooting, so they realize that holding a gun doesn't turn them into a mass murderer.

    I agree this wasn't the most appropriate way to fight this law, at least not the place to start, but some on here are all for him having his carry permit revoked. I don't think we should be cheering a move like that, because next time it might be a law that we are trying to challenge, and went through all the right channels, but still couldn't get to happen.

    I don't like when the law starts to be heavy handed, especially when the guy was following the law.

    When we had our registration coming in during the 90's, we had people trying to fight it on every level, and we were being completely ignored by the government, so we had people trying to get arrested for unregistered firearms to publicly challenge the law in court. The people took stripped recievers, the part we have to register, to the protests, and when the police arrested them, they never laid charges under the new law, that they were protesting, they intentionally left that off so they couldn't take it to court, instead charging them with having a firearm at a public meeting, as if the intention of that law was to deal with people who have a chunk of steel.

    We have had people here serve jail sentences for taking a couple 5 gallon pails of grain across the border and donating to a Montana 4H club in protest of our Wheat Board monopoly.

    You guys are maybe lucky down there to not be dealing with that level having the police push the political agenda, but if you allow guys like this to go down without any support, it will get worse.

    You can think he's a loon, thats fine, but a loon or not he doesn't deserve to have his carry permit revoked for following the law, if there is more reasons to do it, let them pull it on legitimate reasons.

  6. #186
    New Member Array Crewdog135's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Scott AFB
    Posts
    7
    As belligerent as this guy’s actions have been, and as much as disagree with his tactics, what is the material difference between his stunts and the folks carrying around in Cali? Both trying to prove a point and being “out there” and “in your face” with the sheeple to make a statement. Let me stress, I don’t agree with his stunts and think it does hurt the image of responsible gun owners, but the fact that no laws were broken really makes his stunts no different than what the folks in Cali have been doing—just more shocking.

  7. #187
    Senior Member Array tankdriver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Memphis, TN
    Posts
    656
    The guy did this for a reason, and almost, got the reaction he wanted. He was detained, not arrested. After repeatedly using bad judgement, the Police did what they were allowed by the law to do and stated he was a "possible" danger and requested that his permit be pulled. The State did what it felt was best to do and pulled is permit, which is allowed in the law to do. He now can appeal to get it back, which is in the law to do.

    What if the Police did nothing, and the State did nothing, and this guy goes postal at a Park and kills several people? AND if you read all his posting on SEVERAL forums, it sounds possible.

    The Police, and the state would have a HUGE number of lawsuites against them. The media would have a field day. They were in a no win situaition.

    They did what the law allowed, and he if he can canvince a Judge he is OK he can get it back. The law works to protect the public, and individual.

    Just remember he is the one that instigated this.
    1942 M3 Autocar Half-track...M3A1 Diamond T Half-track...57mm Anti-Tank Cannon

    NRA Endowment Member...President West TN Military Vehicle Collectors...MVPA Member

  8. #188
    Senior Member Array jem102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by tankdriver View Post
    The guy did this for a reason, and almost, got the reaction he wanted. He was detained, not arrested. After repeatedly using bad judgement, the Police did what they were allowed by the law to do and stated he was a "possible" danger and requested that his permit be pulled. The State did what it felt was best to do and pulled is permit, which is allowed in the law to do. He now can appeal to get it back, which is in the law to do.

    What if the Police did nothing, and the State did nothing, and this guy goes postal at a Park and kills several people? AND if you read all his posting on SEVERAL forums, it sounds possible.

    The Police, and the state would have a HUGE number of lawsuites against them. The media would have a field day. They were in a no win situaition.

    They did what the law allowed, and he if he can canvince a Judge he is OK he can get it back. The law works to protect the public, and individual.

    Just remember he is the one that instigated this.
    Excellent post!
    "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure " is the most viable option open to the rule of law (the legal systems first obligation is to the well being of the state in general, the individual is second) and they followed that course...no surprise there.
    Who is John Galt?

    Sometimes there's justice, sometimes there's just us...

  9. #189
    Senior Member Array rmodel65's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by tankdriver View Post
    The guy did this for a reason, and almost, got the reaction he wanted. He was detained, not arrested. After repeatedly using bad judgement, the Police did what they were allowed by the law to do and stated he was a "possible" danger and requested that his permit be pulled. The State did what it felt was best to do and pulled is permit, which is allowed in the law to do. He now can appeal to get it back, which is in the law to do.

    What if the Police did nothing, and the State did nothing, and this guy goes postal at a Park and kills several people? AND if you read all his posting on SEVERAL forums, it sounds possible.

    The Police, and the state would have a HUGE number of lawsuites against them. The media would have a field day. They were in a no win situaition.

    They did what the law allowed, and he if he can canvince a Judge he is OK he can get it back. The law works to protect the public, and individual.

    Just remember he is the one that instigated this.


    Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability
    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

  10. #190
    Senior Member Array jem102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by rmodel65 View Post
    Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability
    Exactly!
    Who is John Galt?

    Sometimes there's justice, sometimes there's just us...

  11. #191
    Member Array 2ndAmend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    164
    My opinion of this guy is poor. I mean he isn’t doing this stuff for the greater good he is doing it for himself and to be in the spot light. Most reasonable people know that to get a law fixed or to bring it to the attention of the people making the laws is to voice your opinion, not to go out with the sole intention of getting into a confrontation with LEOs. I for one try and avoid LEO confrontation (not that I am doing anything wrong or afraid of them) as much as possible. If the state feels that this guy's blatant, confrontational attitude is grounds to revoke his CCL then so be it. If he is willing to get into a confrontation with LEOs then can I assume that he would be willing to get into a confrontation with anybody? I can not fathom that the LEOs in this case were just trying to harass him, he was after all walking down the street with a loaded handgun in his hand, law or not that is just stupid. I am not comfortable with someone with no common sense even owning a gun let alone carrying one on his person. JMO
    A good friend will come bail you out of jail...But a true friend will be sitting next to you saying "Damn we screwed up".

  12. #192
    Senior Member Array jem102's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    East TN
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by 2ndAmend View Post
    My opinion of this guy is poor. I mean he isnít doing this stuff for the greater good he is doing it for himself and to be in the spot light. Most reasonable people know that to get a law fixed or to bring it to the attention of the people making the laws is to voice your opinion, not to go out with the sole intention of getting into a confrontation with LEOs. I for one try and avoid LEO confrontation (not that I am doing anything wrong or afraid of them) as much as possible. If the state feels that this guy's blatant, confrontational attitude is grounds to revoke his CCL then so be it. If he is willing to get into a confrontation with LEOs then can I assume that he would be willing to get into a confrontation with anybody? I can not fathom that the LEOs in this case were just trying to harass him, he was after all walking down the street with a loaded handgun in his hand, law or not that is just stupid. I am not comfortable with someone with no common sense even owning a gun let alone carrying one on his person. JMO
    Good post!
    Who is John Galt?

    Sometimes there's justice, sometimes there's just us...

  13. #193
    Senior Member Array dunndw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    1,123
    All Lenny is trying to do is get someone to "wrong" him so he can sue. He doesn't give a crap about YOUR or MY rights...he's only trying to get rich doing something that is legal, but stupid as the day is long.
    Just because he claims he's doing this for "our" rights, don't be fooled. I've spoken to people who know him personally...he's out for a payday...nothing else.
    "If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

  14. #194
    Member Array Scar270's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    22
    Even if thats all he's out for, be careful about willfully letting him be thrown under the bus, once someone has gotten away with doing it to him, they may come for you next.

    If they can come up with legitimate concerns and deal with him fine, but just because the guy is an idiot, doesn't mean he doesn't have the same rights as the rest of us.

    Maybe this guy really is an idiot, but every time some up here gets arrested trying to challenge a bad law, the police and media drag them through the mud and do everything they can to make the person look like a nut job, so they can get the exact kind of reaction towards that person, as this guy is getting from here.

    I don't know this guy from Adam, it sounds like many of you are familiar with him, and maybe this is not a snow job by the powers that be, I'm just wanting to toss out there that it does happen, I don't want to see any of you fall for the sort of BS that seems to work so well up here, either on this issue or any others.

    From hanging out a bit here, I don't see you guy's being prime candidates for a snow job anyway, but it pays to be vigilant.

  15. #195
    Senior Member Array dunndw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    1,123
    He hasn't been arrested...only detained and investigated. He got his feelings hurt and now wants to sue anyone and everyone.
    His situation has already been brought up by the antis in our state gov while we're trying to get our right to carry in places that serve booze for onsite consumption back. We don’t need his type pushing the legal boundaries right now. Every time he comes up in the local news…we look that much bad and it’s going to be that much harder to get our reps behind us.
    "If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."

Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Pistol-packing Pa. soccer mom loses gun permit (Merged)
    By Fixintu in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: November 26th, 2008, 01:08 AM
  2. MN permit renewals down...(Merged)
    By duerrs in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 24th, 2008, 08:26 PM
  3. Revoked CC licence
    By Mikey in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 21st, 2008, 11:42 PM
  4. Petition to Permit Firearms in National Parks: MERGED
    By BlackPR in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 141
    Last Post: March 4th, 2008, 01:37 PM
  5. Your CCW Permit Has Been Revoked
    By Joshua M. Smith in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: April 28th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Search tags for this page

embody hand gun permit revoked

,

legalcarry.org in tennesee

,
man's tyrad gets chl license revoked
,
revocation of ccp in tenneessee
,
tenesse man gun permit reviked
,
tennesee concealed revoked
,

tennessee concealed carry revoked

,
tennessee hand gun permit revoked possessioon of weapon illegal
,

tennessee pole barn building permit code

,
tn man loses concealed permit for posts
,
tn man stripped of concealed carry
,

what happens when your gun permit is revoked in tn

Click on a term to search for related topics.