Defensive Carry banner

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

15K views 196 replies 66 participants last post by  Scar270 
#1 ·
Man Who Carried Gun In Park Has Permit Revoked
Gun Rights Supporter Attempts To Set Record Straight
Reported by Heather Jensen

POSTED: 9:24 pm CST March 13, 2010
UPDATED: 12:01 am CST March 14, 2010

NASHVILLE, Tenn. –– You may not know Leonard Embody's name, but you might know his recent troubles with the law and guns.


"I'm a private person," Embody said. "I didn't want to be in the spotlight. I didn't want my name in the news reports."

Embody's name and story have been appeared in news reports and online blogs for months. He was thrust into the media spotlight last December when he carried an AK-47-type pistol into Radnor Lake State Park.

"It wasn't modified in any way except for a sling, and I had painted the tip orange on it," he said.

His gun-carry permit was current and the gun was legal, but park rangers stopped Embody and detained him for three hours. He was later released with no charges filed.

The next month, he made headlines again when he took his handgun on a walk down Belle Meade Boulevard, in full compliance with the law.

"The only way you can carry the handgun is to carry it openly in your hand," Embody said.

Once again, he was stopped, searched, and released.

Since then, Embody has filed a federal lawsuit against the Radnor Lake State Park ranger. And on Friday, he received a certified letter from the Tennessee Department of Safety stating his gun carry permit was revoked.

"There was a material likelihood that I was a risk to the public," Embody said of the letter.

Embody doesn't consider himself an gun rights activist; but he strongly believes gun legislation is flawed, often outdated, vague, or contradictory.

"I'd like to see that here in Tennessee we have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed," he said.

Regardless of his thoughts on gun rights, his run-ins with authorities, or the talk around town, Embody said he's not trying to make a political statement.

"I always carry a gun. I usually carry open carry. I believe open carry is a deterrent to crime," he said.

Embody will appeal the decision to revoke his gun carry permit.

Attorneys on both sides of his lawsuit are scheduled to meet in April.
 
See less See more
#108 ·
So , subject to a few common sense restrictions, you support the 2nd amendment.

Seems like I've heard that somewhere before
 
#110 ·
Man loses permit, see below.... 1st fall out...

Just got this emailed to me from the NRA...

"Right-to-Carry Ban Proposed in Belle Meade!Please Stand Up and Make Your Voices Heard! On Wednesday, March 17, the Belle Meade Board of Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 2010-2) that would forbid any person with a handgun carry permit to carry within the city limits.Not only does this legislation create a victim zone inside Belle Meade by disarming law-abiding citizens, it is also a clear violation of Tennessee’s preemption statutes. The Board of Commissioners will meet at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday at the Belle Meade City Hall located at 4705 Harding Road. Please make plans to attend Wednesday’s hearing and voice your opposition to Ordinance 2010-2. If you are unable to attend, please contact the Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Board of Commissioners TODAY and respectfully urge them to oppose this illegal and ill-conceived proposal. Contact information can be found below. Telephone: 615-297-6041Fax: 615-297-0255 Gray O. Thornburg, Mayorgray.odwonline@comcast.net James V. Hunt, Sr., Vice-Mayorjhunt@citybellemeade.org Tom Corcorantcorcoran@corcoranmaddox.com Cathy Altenberncaltenbern@citybellemeade.org George W. Crookecrook@comcast.net"


So, looks like the guy walking around Belle Meade with a black powder revolver may have stirred it up for the rest of us.

Thoughts now?

ETA: sorry bout the email links being dead, doing this off my Iphone and am a bit lazy today.
 
#111 · (Edited)
Tankdriver: "Right-to-Carry Ban Proposed in Belle Meade! On Wednesday, March 17, the Belle Meade Board of Commissioners will consider a proposed ordinance (Ordinance 2010-2) that would forbid any person with a handgun carry permit to carry within the city limits."
I am just SO shocked. Didn't see that one coming; no sirree, that bit of news has taken me COMPLETELY by surprise (NOT!!). :aargh4:

As many of us stated in the below thread on "TN Man has Carry Permit Revoked", such idiotic behavior demonstrated by that armed TN fool causes just this kind of backlash.

PaxMentis: "I personally think that people like youself who are willing to accept the assertion that carrying a gun is a privelege validly subject to bureaucratic whim are far more dangerous to the 2nd Amendment than anyone who carries a gun perceived as "evil" or who points out the foolishness of an archaic law by following it."
And to respond directly to PaxMentis: Sorry, but the courts in the United States have consistently stated that concealed carry is NOT mandated under the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, unlike our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, CCW is NOT a right, but a privilege, which can be taken a way as easily as your driver's license.

PaxMentis, I too sure as heck wish CCW were part of the 2nd amendment, but my -- or even your -- wishing just ain't going to make it so. In the future, you may want to look a little deeper into things that you are so passionate about, instead of simply stating fallacious arguments that are completely and provably untrue. [There is quite enough misinformation out there as it is without bringing up the old "CCW is our RIGHT" chestnut].

-Bill
 
#112 ·
I, for one, think it's a wonderful wake up call for gun people to learn that the body of law involving firearms does not begin and end with The Bill of Rights to the Federal Constitution, amendment #2.

Regardless of those who say "What part of shall not be infringed do you not get" their are many more considerations at issue than your simplistic interpretation of the constitution.

The sooner people wake up and start being able to inteligently address these issues (and that means reading things outside of other people's posts that you agree with on firearm related internet sites...) the better.

Your thoughts and feelings on the state of law in the USA are insignificant compared to the realities of the law.

I assure you, those who would disarm you are very aware of the law, its interpretations and implications, because while you were talking about how things SHOULD BE, they were implimenting how things ARE.

Think carefully next time you retreat to your retorical soap box and start talking about what should be to the dismissal of what is.

You may be doing a favor for people you'd rather you didn't help.
 
#114 ·
Seems to me like this is going to have to go to court

According to the NRA email included TN does have preemption statues so all that is needed is someone willing to spend the time and money to get charged with a violation and then fight it in court.
I wonder if the NRA would be willing to foot the court cost?
 
#115 ·
I have said this was all he wanted all along, a Lawsuit. If it hurt the rest of us or not. There is no Righteous cause, just a get rich scheme....

On other forums, he has stated that he knows how much damage his lawsuits can do to us, if they don't go the way he wants them to (and he says he will represent himself, due to the high expense for a lawyer). Even knowing the damage that could be done, he's still going on with his plans to try to win the lawsuit lottery.

From his posts to Glocktalk, from last August:

"I have already told my wife if I am arrested for legal carry of my handgun to not bail me out of jail. I'll stay in there and it will add to the money that the city is going to have to pay me after I sue them."

"At some point I will be arrested for legally open carrying. I haven't met the right cop yet. Maybe I need to dress down or get a bigger handgun like a PLR-16."

"I can't wait for a cop to arrest me because I open carried a handgun and someone called 911. It's almost happened twice but no cigar, yet. Maybe carrying a PLR-16 or AK pistol will change that."
 
#117 ·
Mitchell, why?



Why? Look, either the state has a pre-emption statute or it doesn't.

If it does and the city is passing an ordinance in violation of the state statute, that rule can be challenged.

It isn't necessary to wait for someone to be charged. Any licence holder ( someone affected by the rule) should have standing to ask for an injunction against it being enforced.

Why isn't that the NRA's (or TN Gun Owner's) business?

This stuff is going exactly as the provoker of the incident wanted it to go. Of course he will seek an injunction--- uh, now that they took his license maybe he will lack standing. Duh, there's the motive for finding an excuse to take it from him. Still an license holder in that city could file for an injunction against the city enforcing its rule because it conflicts with the state pre-emption.

Also, state officials ought to uphold their own statutes and the TN Attny General has a distinct interest in preventing cities from running rough shod over state preemption rules in general. It is their job to uphold TN law.
 
#119 ·
Wow this story has been beaten to death. All week long it has been back and forth. We all know this guy is a tool and we knew that the city was going to do some thing. I for one am tired of hearing about it, us sitting here debating whether this guy should have done what he did or if Belle Meade should try and pass an ordinance about CC won’t do any good. Here is an idea; members on here that live in and around TN should stand up for their rights there (not the idiot's that has been making a mess of things) by writing the mayor, congressman, or any other representative that can help. When we start arguing amongst ourselves then we do no good for anybody or our 2ndAmend rights. Just my 2 cents!!
 
#121 ·
Not only does this legislation create a victim zone inside Belle Meade by disarming law-abiding citizens, it is also a clear violation of Tennessee’s preemption statutes.
Seattle tried this and got their pee-pee spanked.By all means Belle Meade pass the law.

Maybe some of us haven't caught on that politicians are starting to realize that gun control is the third rail but the politicians are getting it.
 
#124 ·
Yes and no. The old mayor presumptuously just went and created the new city 'laws.' And they were struck down because they are in conflict with the state consitution.

The new mayor (failing on many levels so far) has taken the knee-jerk step of now saying he wants to change the state constitution re: gun laws. (And he has alot bigger problems he should be dealing with).
 
#123 ·
I still want someone to convince Lenny that it's against the law to walk down the middle of the street, at night wearing a white robe ...in the projects.


let nature take it's course
 
#128 ·
I did not intend to get a fight going, I just wanted to show that everthing we do as gun owners can reflect on ALL gun owners. I make many trips to the Nashville area from Memphis on a monthly basis, and now I might suffer because of what someone else did......

All I saying is PLEASE think. Just because you can, does not mean you should.....

They make a Speedo in my size, but you would not want to see me wear one.........:image035:
 
#129 ·
I don't know all the details of this guy, but from the Canadian experience where we have been doing nothing but lose more and more of what our government call's privileges, going along, and playing nice so as not to lose more has not been an effective method.

We are starting to make ground back, with hopes of having our long gun registration repealed, but it's only through being more out there, and challenging the community that we are gaining. We still have many up here who hide that they own firearms, and sneak between the house and the range so as not to upset people, then wonder why their friends and coworkers can support a party that wants to take away their guns, while the coworkers have no idea that the law would effect someone they know.

I'm not saying there may not be set backs by being out there and visible, but hiding in order to keep what you have does not work in any way.
 
#131 ·
I don't know all the details of this guy, but from the Canadian experience where we have been doing nothing but lose more and more of what our government call's privileges, going along, and playing nice so as not to lose more has not been an effective method.

I'm not saying there may not be set backs by being out there and visible, but hiding in order to keep what you have does not work in any way.
Who is hiding?

The NRA is the strongest and most well-funded civil rights organization in the world. Support for gun control in America is at its lowest levels in my lifetime. All but two states have concealed carry legislation, we have Heller in our favor, (McDonald soon too) and a slew of right-to-carry lawsuits in the works for DC, California, NYC, and other localities. Our current executive has ran so far away from his gun control record he might as well be in Nunavut by now.

In other words: we've won. That doesn't mean we can take a break, but we don't need this 'in your face' attitude that Embody prefers (if he was smart, he'd realize this -- but since he's filing frivolous lawsuits left and right I assume he's in this solely for himself.) Giving the other side 'ammo' (so to speak) to think that gun owners are a bunch of people who like toting AKs around while wearing fatigues or walk down the street with replica army revolvers could flip things around so the climate is not so much in our favor.

In the Belle Meade incident, he did something that was apparently perfectly legal -- but it appears that the law was so outdated that it was not even enforced anymore and nobody but him knew about it. He could have politely asked Belle Meade to revise the statute to align with state preemption, as the Mayor now wants to do, but Embody took the dumb option.

Should there be any criminal penalties against him? No, he doesn't appear to have done anything illegal. Should there be administrative penalties? Honestly, this guy's attitude points to being seriously screwed up in the head, and I don't fault the state government for swiping his permit (unlike the 'disgruntled employee' in Oregon who was visited by the SWAT team, Embody actually seems to be a few rounds short of a full mag). Embody probably should not get his carry permit back without taking a mental health evaluation first.
 
#133 ·
I think that if someone walks up to me and he is carrying an AK pistol in his hand I am going to be concerned, and Im not going to ask him if he's trying to make a statement on gun laws etc., Im going to think he's a nut case, especially if I'm with my family, that guy is using very little common sense.
 
#143 ·
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.
 
#144 ·
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.
 
#146 ·
Does anyone know for certain that no one tried to go to council first?
He's posted in every firearms-related forum (and some non-firearms forums) in existence. He has never once mentioned going to the Belle Meade mayor or council.
Also from what I understand there was no way to carry in this town, except openly, in the hand, with pistol XXX.
Yes and no. Technically, the law was grandfathered in so that was in fact the only legal way to carry in town. However it was never actually enforced. Or remembered. The fact that the police stopped to investigate Embody for carrying in that manner shows that the law was forgotten about. The mayor said she would never have a policy of arresting people who had HCPs and carried concealed in the normal manner.

Tennessee still has laws against interracial marriage on the books. Seems that people there just don't remember to revise their statutes that often.

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?
Nothing. except it's bad public relations. There are numerous ways to change bad laws. There's the old saying in America: we have the the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. We should resolve to solve problems in that order -- informing people first, then trying to vote on it second, filing lawsuits third, and only going armed last. Now, Embody wasn't out to shoot anybody -- but the citizens of Belle Meade didn't know that!

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.

I apologize for not being more familiar with what is being discussed, but I hope someone can fill me in.
Everything you never wanted to know about Leonard Embody, aka kwikrnu:

the wheel keeps on turning | walls of the city

http://www.wallsofthecity.net/2010/03/funny-how-things-work-out.html
 
#147 ·
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.
 
#149 ·
I think this explains it well enough

More info:

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."

-Bill

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??!!
 
#157 ·
One in the pipe?

More info:

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."

-Bill

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??!!
By the reasoning used in the letter, carrying one in the pipe could be sufficient to get your license lifted. They have made an accusation that he did carry, "the weapon in an unsafe manner, in an unsafe location and in an unsafe condition," but provided no specifics as to their definition of unsafe.

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!"
 
#153 ·
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.
 
#154 ·
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.

I'm out.
 
#156 · (Edited by Moderator)
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top