Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying

[DaveH]

The Volokh Conspiracy » Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying an AK-47 Pistol with a Thirty Round Clip In a Public Park: An Unusual Fourth and Second Amendment Case

Inviting A “Stop and Frisk” By Openly Carrying an AK-47 Pistol with a Thirty Round Clip In a Public Park: An Unusual Fourth and Second Amendment Case

The case is Embody v. Ward, handed down today by the Sixth Circuit in an opinion by Judge Sutton. It begins:

SNIP

For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we.

SNIP

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[JD]

As Sixto says,

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Thanks Leonard.


Edited to add:

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.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

[skysoldier29]

I hate these people. Regardless if he was 100% right in his ability to carry such a weapon in a public place why? I guess he went looking for trouble and found it. He is a bad spokesperson for the rest of us. All this wing nut did was scare people and make the rest of us look bad. I'm pretty sure that if he was carrying a Glock, the Ranger would have went up to him to possibly verify he had a permit per TN law and that would have been it. I hate people who challenge LE. They are just trying to do a very difficult job while attempting to make everyone happy.

[Spidey2011]

Yes, walking through a state park with an AK pistol painted orange is not smart. Is it illegal? Nope. Does it warrant a 2.5 hour detainment? Absolutely not. Stop him, measure the barrel, and send him on his way.

[SmokinFool]

I said it in a recent thread on a similar topic and I'll say it again. HE'S AN IDIOT! Idiots like him do much more damage to our cause than good. He strapped on his AK47 pistol, which was only a half inch short of being illegal, and walk out of his door with the intent of causing trouble and ultimately having a run in with law enforcement. He wasn't arrested, simply detained until it was clear that the firearm was indeed legal. In this case it backfired on him. Should it have taken as long as it did to confirm the legal status of his weapon? No. But the fact remains that he went to that park with a HUGE chip on his shoulder, daring someone to knock it off. And when it was indeed knocked off, he decides to sue, which he knew all along he would do.

Sometimes I wish there were intelligence tests for gun owners. OK, I don't really believe that. But all gun owners should keep in the back of their minds that every time they walk out their door with a pistol strapped to their waists (or however each individual chooses to carry) they are representing all gun owners as far as the public is concerned. The RKBA is indeed a right. With that right comes much responsibility.

[ccw9mm]

The RKBA is indeed a right. With that right comes much responsibility.

He harmed and threatened nobody. Once upon a time that was a basic pillar of justice and its execution via the law. It's long since become something else, with respect to firearms specifically and weaponry in general (as well as in many, many other areas).

He and others like him are taking some responsibility for ensuring this swept-under-the-rug thang we've been doing the past 100yrs is discussed, via the courts. Whether this guy ends up with the long-run impacts he's hoping for remains to be seen.

Personally, I'd bet the probabilities of improvements would be far better with, say, NRA-backed strategic attacks against the various restrictions that exist, targeted for maximum effect, with the full legal support of key cases by the NRA. In much the same way as the NAACP supported the strategic attack on the segregation issue via the courts. IMO, the one-off thing that individuals do ends up being far too easily destroyed or swept under the rug simply because it's an individual and not a "pack" effort.

[Bubbiesdad]

Yes, walking through a state park with an AK pistol painted orange is not smart. Is it illegal? Nope. Does it warrant a 2.5 hour detainment? Absolutely not. Stop him, measure the barrel, and send him on his way.

"Stop him, measure the barrel, and send him on his way".

That's not what Lenny is looking for.

[Ionracas]

He harmed and threatened nobody. Once upon a time that was a basic pillar of justice and its execution via the law. It's long since become something else, with respect to firearms specifically and weaponry in general (as well as in many, many other areas).

He and others like him are taking some responsibility for ensuring this swept-under-the-rug thang we've been doing the past 100yrs is discussed, via the courts. Whether this guy ends up with the long-run impacts he's hoping for remains to be seen.

Personally, I'd bet the probabilities of improvements would be far better with, say, NRA-backed strategic attacks against the various restrictions that exist, targeted for maximum effect, with the full legal support of key cases by the NRA. In much the same way as the NAACP supported the strategic attack on the segregation issue via the courts. IMO, the one-off thing that individuals do ends up being far too easily destroyed or swept under the rug simply because it's an individual and not a "pack" effort.

I find myself agreeing with you on this.

Regarding your NRA stratedgy, unfortunatley it dose not help that many gun owners are for restrictions to a degree. Hunters who are against CC/OCing, gun owners who think that we should have some guns but others like AKs or Mac 10's serve no purpose, etc.

If we can not all be on the same page or support the ones who support our rights, then what good is any fight?

While I am the type who dosnt like attention, I think OCers and maybe even the guy in this story stand taller than most of us. Provided they are not breaking any laws or being stupid of course.

[dukalmighty]

I guess one good thing is if an AR or AK pistol scares the bejesus out of people when they see a 1911 they will accept it as one of those nice guns

[gottabkiddin]

He harmed and threatened nobody. Once upon a time that was a basic pillar of justice and its execution via the law. It's long since become something else, with respect to firearms specifically and weaponry in general (as well as in many, many other areas).He and others like him are taking some responsibility for ensuring this swept-under-the-rug thang we've been doing the past 100yrs is discussed, via the courts. Whether this guy ends up with the long-run impacts he's hoping for remains to be seen. Personally, I'd bet the probabilities of improvements would be far better with, say, NRA-backed strategic attacks against the various restrictions that exist, targeted for maximum effect, with the full legal support of key cases by the NRA. In much the same way as the NAACP supported the strategic attack on the segregation issue via the courts. IMO, the one-off thing that individuals do ends up being far too easily destroyed or swept under the rug simply because it's an individual and not a "pack" effort.

While as usual, your point is well made, with that said..... Open carrying a Glock handgun and supporting our right to bear arms is one thing. Open carrying a pistol grip assault weapon that has come in on the cusp of the "definition" of what makes it a pistol is entirely different IMO. There's the "letter of law", but IMO, that needs to run hand and hand with many factors that society dictates during the course of time. The acts of mass shootings used to be far and few between, but nowadays it seems like there's one every few weeks or so. Just this morning I see where another mass shooting happened in a PathMark and the guy was wearing body armor. Personally I think the guy is a jerk for doing what he's doing and I'm glad he's is being inconvenienced.




Regarding the AK, it's a tool meant to be used for for a totally different reason, not a means to cost tax payers money defending and prosecuting his butt. Baiting is WRONG. It's wrong when law enforcement does it and it's wrong when the public does it, simple as that. If he's toting a glock openly and he catches grief, I'd be totally on his side in the matter, but fact is, he carrying a weapon that clearly has the common armed citizen out gunned and for what reason, rule of law hasn't broken down, a thousand bucks says, he doesn't have a bounty on his head. Bottom line, he's doing it for all the wrong reasons and crushing the common sense factor for the rest of us. Like it or not. The (not armed crowd) is much larger than the armed crowd, and there will always be the "oh my God, he's gotta gun" folks. Some idiot thrusting it into the court system over and over will not better the situation, or cause. We don't have to convince the masses we're normal law abiding folks, we have to convince the law makers that we the people put in office. Getting um all jacked up with crap like this slows the process JMO.

[archer51]

Quite clearly this individual set out with the sole purpose of causing a confrontation. He got exactly what he wanted. Now he's hoping for a big payday from it. If the judge finds in his favor, I hope he receives an appropriate compensation. Something like damages in the amount of $1.00. After all, it's not about the money, it's the principal of the thing.

[mkh]

I am all for open carry but what this guy did is wrong. It's no different than crying "fire" in a movie theater. Yes you have freedom of speech but with that comes some responsibility to not alarm or cause panic in public.

He set out to deliberately cause trouble and he got it. It didn't do our cause any good and probably harmed it with some people.

[Roon]

I am all for open carry but what this guy did is wrong. It's no different than crying "fire" in a movie theater. Yes you have freedom of speech but with that comes some responsibility to not alarm or cause panic in public.

He set out to deliberately cause trouble and he got it. It didn't do our cause any good and probably harmed it with some people.

So you believe that laws should be there to stop crime from happening eh?

How is that working out so far?

[whoppo]

There are many things responsible gun owners can do to improve the "image of the gun" in society and this just wasn't one of them.

Obvious case of LEO baiting...
Obvious case of what a friend of mine would call a "BoucheDag".

[Badey]

Quite clearly this individual set out with the sole purpose of causing a confrontation. He got exactly what he wanted. Now he's hoping for a big payday from it. If the judge finds in his favor, I hope he receives an appropriate compensation. Something like damages in the amount of $1.00. After all, it's not about the money, it's the principal of the thing.

I have mixed feelings on this one. They could have approached him for a consensual conversation, but what reasonable suspicion did they have to detain him?

Also, cops bait citizens all the time to see whether or not they will break the law, so why is it OK for them to do it, but not for a citizen to do the reverse (I'm not saying I approve of baiting on either end, I am just saying why the double standard?)?

I don't want him to make a bundle of cash if that was his goal, but I do think he should have his attorney fees covered and lost wages compensated (for his time in court). Beyond that, I don't want him to make a cent.