JayC

I understand that is what CA law says... but using that definition, a black powder rifle is an explosive device.  

Willard, I see one issue with the logic here, per the ATF these binary mixtures are not 'explosives' under federal law - even when mixed.  It falls under the same category as gun powder which is also not an explosive.  Technically Tannerite is an oxidizer and fuel and doesn't 'explode'...  it just burns really fast...   So it is a stretch under CA law to charge these folks...  It's like saying that reloading bullets with smokeless powder is making a destructive device, or loading a black powder rifle is making an explosive.   Tannerite is not dynamite, C4, det cord or even ANFO...  And it's a stretch to make it fit under this law.  

I don't see an indictment or information posted to the court record yet...  while he was arrested for a felony violation, I don't think the DA has done the paperwork yet or sent it to the court.   My understanding is an arrest is different from an indictment (which requires a true bill from a grand jury) or an information (which I'm not sure how much we use in TN).   You can read more about an information here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_(formal_criminal_charge)   From Leonards other postings, he's requested a preliminary hearing, where a Judge will determine if there is probable cause to bind the charges over to trial, and I think at that point he'd lose his firearm privileges.  But again I could be wrong.   Then again, I'm betting that the conditions of his bail have restrictions on firearms as well, I've heard that in most cases those restrictions can be very draconian in nature.  

While concerning, the fact is this isn't new...  Police Officers have had poor firearms performance at least as far back as the 1970's (when they really started collecting data)...  While firearms training budgets have drastically increased over the last 40 years, like many other government ran programs the results are lackluster at best.   Police Officers are 5 times more likely to kill an innocent person in a justified shooting, than an untrained citizen.   What has changed is the lack of punishment from the police department in these shootings...  in the 70's and 80's if you shot an innocent person by mistake, it was a career ending move, you'd be lucky not to be fired within 48 hours.  Today, firings are rare at best for the same.   We can do a lot to reduce these mistakes, but they will come at a slightly elevated risk of more crime...  Requiring that warrants only be served during daylight hours, and by uniformed officers knocking on the front door...  for example would help a lot.  

Dave how do they pull his FFL or SOT?  There are no public danger exceptions the FFL requirements...  they'd have to get a conviction for the FFL to be taken away...  The ATF pretty limited in it's enforcement powers when it comes to FFLs to begin with.  I don't see how they can take enforcement action unless there is a conviction.   And my guess is if Leonard wants this to go away, he'll hire an attorney who will messenger over a copy of the NFA paperwork to the local DA, and come to some agreement on dismissing the charges...  and my guess is that agreement might well include not filing a civil lawsuit against the police department.    

I own 4 myself, and there is more than 1 lbs of difference between the lightest one I own, and the heaviest.  And all of them are the same basic configuration, telescoping stock, 16 inch barrel...  I'm not talking about the weight of the rail mounted stuff...  just the base guns vary by over 1lbs.   And yes Carbon fiber...  I managed to pick up one of those bushmaster carbon fiber AR (for it for a steal) and it's a lot lighter than my M&P.   Just look at a single manufacturer Bushmaster...  They have identical looking 5.56 AR's ranging from 5.5 lbs for the Carbon 15 quad rail to 8.2 lbs for the Patrolman's Carbine Quad Rail...  And that is just looking at a single brand of AR's that have the same basic outward appearance.  And you have a 2.5+ lbs difference between them.   I'd be happy to put my money where my mouth is Mike, I'll put together 2 Glock 19 locked pistol cases, and if you can guess correctly on both if they are loaded or unloaded I'll buy you a case of beer.  And I think we can agree that is a much simpler test than some random model AR15 being loaded or unloaded.  And that is before you start adding in 300 blackout models :)  

Mike,   There is a lot of variance in different model AR's, a carbon fiber lower and upper vs a heavy milled lower and upper can have a weight different of more than 1 lbs, and that doesn't include any other features of the firearm (such as the stock,  front handguard/rails, silencer and other addons, etc).  Not to mention the unknown weight of the case itself...  I've never seen a kydex rifle case before, and I have no clue how heavy it is, have you every held a kydex rifle case?   The variables that you can't see are greater than the weight of 30 rounds of ammo...  So no reasonable person could tell if the firearm was or wasn't loaded by weight alone in this situation.    

Robert, let me say this again slowly.... Just because you have probable cause does not mean you do not need a warrant to search. The rule of thumb is that ALL searches require a warrant based on probable cause signed by a judge. There are exceptions to this rule of thumb which are referred to as exigent circumstances. Now some of those exceptions are big and some of them are small, but unless you meet all of the requirements of a specific exception federal guideline state you should get a warrant before performing the search. I took the time to quote directly from the federal training manual on searches involving locked containers, and gave you a federal case on point having to do with searches similar in nature to the one we are discussing that we're ruled unlawful. You've hf at least one trained police officer confirm that my cites generally match with their training on the subject. Yet you still 'feel' I'm wrong.... Only a judge can determine if a search was conducted lawfully... But this search as documented by the YouTube video, and screen grabs from the news media raises some serious questions about the search. But, more importantly we no longer have to guess as to what the probable cause was in this case since we have a copy of the officers report. Have you read that report? In the report the officer claims he was able to tell by the weight of an unknown model of firearm that this specific firearm was loaded, and therefore he believed he had probable cause to search. Now I hope we can both agree that nobody can tell whether an unknown model of firearm is loaded or unloaded by just it's weight? That no reasonable person could make such a claim nor could anybody have specialized training to determine this firearm was or wasn't loaded by weight alone. And what makes the claim even more laughable is the officer was completely wrong, not only was the firearm not loaded it didn't even have a magazine in the case. Now can we all think of other ways the police could have come up with probable cause? Sure I can think of many different ways, but none of those mater because we know with 100% certainty the exact probable cause the search was based on, and at best it is laughable. So, the search even with probable cause was questionable at best under federal guidelines for searching locked or sealed containers.... And the documented probable cause is a joke, because nobody could tell be weight if the firearm was loaded or not.

Public safety exception (and officer safety exception) goes out the window the instant they separate the suspect from the sealed container if they believe the sealed container holds a firearm.  A firearm in a sealed (even crappy) container is of no threat to the public or the officers once it is outside the reach of the suspect.   There are very few limited situations where public/officer safety exception would be allowed on a container separated from the suspect...  for example if the police believed the container contained a bomb...  but if that was the case, the police officer failed to follow SOP of a suspected bomb in trying to open the container...  and more importantly the officer's own report contains no claim of a public safety exception.   Have you read the officers report?  He documents exactly what he thought the probable cause was to open the container.   He claimed that he could tell from the weight that the container held a LOADED firearm.     Now, do you believe that you could tell whether an unknown AR15 model in an unfamiliar closed container was or was not loaded based solely on the weight of that firearm?   Because that is what the officer in question wants us to believe was his probable cause that the firearm in that case was a loaded and not an unloaded firearm.    

Please re watch the video that has been posted on the second encounter, it takes then over 2 minutes of ripping off 'tape' and prying the case apart before they're even able to tell the weapon has a silencer attached to it....  And they were not able to access the chamber of the firearm without tools...  I'm pretty sure that meets the standard of a locked/sealed container in United States v Strickland.   You also have the separate problem that the case was moved outside the reach of the suspect and I'm pretty sure that fact negates the exigent circumstance you're talking about in current case law.    

Mike,  you're putting words in my mouth...  I've never said Leonard will or deserves to get anything lawsuit wise from this encounter.   You continue to equate my critical questions about the legality of the search and arrest, into some form of support for what Leonard did...  I'm not a Leonard fan by any stretch of the imagination...  I just don't think the police officers crossed their t's and dotted their i's during this arrest, and there is virtually no chance of a conviction...  And some of their actions and/or statements may increase possible civil liabilities.   The police department and the DA's office will waste $5k+ on this incident even if they dismiss the case tomorrow...  and the meter keeps on ticking everyday they delay dismissing the case... a case I have yet to hear anybody here say they think the DA's office have any chance of winning.   You have to remember that even if Leonard just filed a 1983 suit and acts as his own attorney it will end up costing the taxpayers of Nashville tens of thousands of dollars in legal costs even if the suit is killed in summary judgement, that amount is likely to increase to $100,000+ if he survives summary judgement, which is not out of the question.   Now what do you think the chances are Leonard is going file a 1983 lawsuit?  I'd say given his past history nearly 100%, the chance of him surviving summary judgement is probably pretty low, but there is a chance...  All of that money wasted and he never gets in front of a jury let alone collects a single penny.   I'm one of those Nashville taxpayers that is footing the bill on this little adventure...  Is it really all that crazy of me to want my local police department to not cut corners and follow all the rules when dealing with a douchebag who is trying to get them to overreact and break the rules so he can cost me money?   As I've said, they should have never made contact with him the minute they realized who he was (and my impression is that the Commander in the 2nd encounter knew exactly who he was dealing with), they should have had a couple of officers follow him at a distance, and wait for him to clearly break the law, or get bored that he wasn't causing the police to overreact and go home.  Why?  Because the end result would have been a lot less of MY tax money going to feed this douchebag's ego and lawsuit fishing program.    

Was this search illegal?  Only a judge can say for sure...     Lets quote a FLETC (Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers) manual on searches of locked containers:     The search in question was not an inventory search, nor an arrestee's search (because Leonard had not been placed under arrest until after the search had begun).   That doesn't mean the search is automatically illegal, but it's questionable at best because it breaks standard law enforcement procedures.   More importantly, there is a critical logical flaw in the incident that the police are going to have to overcome...    You have 10-15 officers who confront Leonard and let him go with no search, then 10-15 minutes later after giving an interview with a local reporter (who clearly wasn't too scared to go up to a man carrying a firearm and strike up a conversation with him), he is stopped a second time by a second group of officers some of which were involved in the first encounter....   So one of these situations had to occur for the second encounter to have been lawful...     1. The first group of officers had probable cause to believe that Leonard was a threat to the public and was walking around downtown with a loaded firearm, and then proceeded to let him go and endanger the public for another 10-15 minutes.   2. Something happened to create probable cause after the first encounter that allowed the second encounter to happen and a search conducted with no warrant based on this NEW probable cause.   So which is it? You have a group of officers including supervisors who let a man they believed to be breaking the law to roam around downtown for 10-15 minutes?  OR Leonard did something after the first encounter that legitimately created new probable cause that he was committing a crime.   It's got to be 1 or 2, which is it?  

Nobody is saying they couldn't perform a terry stop and have a conversation with him....  You have to separate the stop to ask him some questions and see what is going on, and the search of the rifle case.   I haven't seen anybody argue that legally they couldn't walk up to the guy and ask him what is going on...  so stop bringing that fact up, we all agree stopping him was perfectly within current case law (I'm happy to have a separate discussion on how terry v ohio is horrible case law and should be overturned, but that topic is for another time and place).   The issue some of us have is with the search of a locked case that was no longer within arms reach of Leonard, and the arrest because Leonard claimed they had the paperwork in their possession before he was arrested.   Just because something is not normal doesn't give police the ability to even stop you, let alone probable cause to search you, let alone search a locked case that is no longer in your possession without a warrant.   And, you also overlook that there were 2 different police encounters within a 10 to 15 minute span...  In the first encounter 10+ officers let Leonard go, he was wearing the exact same kevlar vest, and carrying the exact same gun case...  And then the second encounter that we've all seen the video tape of...  between those two encounters he did an interview with a TV reporter...   So I agree the context of the situation matters.  So lets talk about the context of this situation...  maybe a man wearing body armor and a gun case isn't normal, but once you stop that person have a conversation and LET THEM GO... and you see the exact same person 15 minutes later doing walking in the same general area how do you suddenly get probable cause that he is now committing a crime?   So which is it, the first group of 10-15 officers all got it wrong, and should be disciplined for letting a possible madman walk around downtown Nashville?  Or the second group (which included a number of the first group) got it wrong for seeing the exact same person released 10 minutes ago (who you've just watched have an interview with a local TV reporter) is suddenly a person about the go on a shooting spree?   One group of officers got it completely wrong...  which one is it?    

The issue is what specific probable cause do you have to think the rifle is loaded?   Unlike with an HCP everybody who can legally own a firearm can carry it around unloaded, so an officer would need probable cause that this one rifle was loaded.   The 'locked' container is another problem for the search as well, there was a lock on the outside of the case, you can see that from media screencaps, and it was cased in such a way as it was impossible to determine if the chamber was empty without destroying the lock.  I don't think the fact the case wasn't super sturdy factors into whether the owner attempted to protect the item(s) inside the case by locking it.   A perfect example, of this, if you had an old laptop backpack that had a rip in the side, and you tried to mend that backpack with tape, then proceeded to lock the bag to prevent something from opening the bag up...  does the fact that there is some tape negate the lock completely?  Or lets say you're using a cheap plastic handgun case, that is locked, and somebody comes by and pry's the corner up enough to see a handgun in the case, does that mean it wasn't locked?  Of course not...     Also, we now know exactly what the listed probable cause was from the officers police report, and it's complete bunk...  Can you blindly pick up a cased rifle and tell from the weight whether it was loaded or not?  Can anybody?  I'd love to hear what training the officer had that allowed him with any degree of certainty to pick up an unknow model firearm and tell from the weight alone if it was loaded or not.   And remember that simple PC does not equal a legal search, the police had full possession of the cased firearm, it was well out of reach of a suspect that was fully complying with all orders of the police officers in question...  What was the exigent circumstance that prevented them from getting a warrant before searching the case?  There was no risk to the public by the time they had the case.  Nothing was stopping them from sitting there for 30 more minutes waiting on a court order to open the case.  So anyway you cut it, the search was bad.   Then you come to the arrest, here is where Leonard made a critical mistake, by having that NFA item on the firearm it gave them an excuse to arrest him...  well except for the paperwork he claims was in the case with the firearm...  if that turns out to be true then how did they not become aware of the paperwork before he was booked?  I'm willing to bet we find out that the paperwork was documented right along side the firearm and the arrest becomes bad as well.   None of the douchebag actions that Leonard did that day excuse police officers of violating his rights and not following the constitution...  Arguing that they stepped over the line is not some show of support for Leonards actions, only a lack of support for overzealous actions on the part of the police officers who performed the search and arrest.  

I'm a pretty hard core libertarian (as many of you already know), and I'm not completely onboard with the open borders plan that some call for...  but it's so far down the list on things I'm really worried about...  and almost everything higher than open borders Rand Paul is right inline with my thinking....     I'm not sure you're ever going to find a politician that will agree 100% with you, I'm happy if we're in agreement on my top 5 concerns ;)

Mike Lee?  Jason Chaffetz?  Allen West?  Justin Amash?  Jimmy Duncan of TN?  Raul Labrador of ID?  None of these are on your list?   I think any one of them would be head and shoulders above Christy let alone Hillary as President ;)    

We'll have to wait until the evidence list is posted to know for sure...  but so far everything that Leonard has said has proven to be correct, he is claiming that the paperwork was in the case with the firearm.   And frankly I'm not sure the state can demand to see the paperwork on NFA items legally...  I remember reading somewhere that NFA stamps are considered tax records, and federal law prevents the states from having access to federal tax records without a court order.  But, I might be wrong on that.  

Ok lets pretend for a second they had PC to open the case without a warrant via exigent circumstance...  how do you justify the arrest of having a silencer when the police had in the possession at the time of arrest the paperwork on said silencer?      

My point was PC alone does not mean an officer has a exigent circumstance under the law to search without a warrant.  Current case law seems to indicate that PC of something generally illegal does not provide exigent circumstance for a warrantless search for a locked container.  If they thought kidnap victim or a bomb was locked in the case sure, but not sure that a firearm that may or may not be loaded is going to qualify in this case.    

Mike,   That is just plain silly, how can you threaten somebody with a rifle slung on your back?  Just because you have an over reaction to something somebody does doesn't mean you were threatened.    

God help you if you ever look in my truck on an average day, you'd think I was on the first leg of a shooting spree too then ;)  Nobody is sugesting you can't be concerned, we're just suggesting the police not arrest somebody if they aren't breaking any law.   And in this case nobody is suggesting Leonard broke a single law.  

TMF, I haven't seen anybody argue that the police officer didn't have enough RAS for a terry stop...  Nor has anybody suggested that asking questions, or chatting with him to try and get a feel if he really does plan on shooting somebody...   I've only questioned the search without a warrant as questionable and at least one prior officer on this forum has agreed the search may get kicked.  And questioned the arrest on ground Leonard claims they had a copy of the NFA paperwork on the silencer at the time of the arrest.   I suspect the department is going to have further problems with this arrest if a civil lawsuit is filed, since they stopped (using 10-15 officers reportedly) him 10 to 15 minutes before and let him go, and then approached him again and detained him a second time.  At the second stop, it appears the Commander knows who Leonard is based on some of the comments I heard on the part 2 video.     I believe they're going to have a hard time explaining what changed between the first terry stop, and the second terry stop that not only gave them new RAS to stop him, but suddenly gave them PC to force open a locked container which they didn't have 15 minutes beforehand?   Also, does this open the department up to a harassment claim since maybe they targeted him a second time just because of his previous 'legal' protests with law enforcement?   I'm assuming you watched the video posted, do you really believe that the Commander thought he was dealing with a person about to become an active shooter, or somebody that was just doing stuff to piss the police off when they arrested him?   People have suggested if he had just told the police the weapon wasn't loaded, opened the case up and allowed the to inspect his firearm to verify that, and shown them the NFA paperwork he wouldn't have been arrested...  There is a real problem with that line of thinking.    

I agree completely...  doing so would save everybody a lot of time and money.  Anyway you cut it, this incident is going to cost the taxpayers a lot more money than just assigning an officer to follow him around the other day.    

Building a vest using road flares to look like a suicide vest would be building a hoax device and is illegal under both TN and federal law.  So in this example stupid and illegal, and still different.   The more apt example would be walking around downtown with a clear plastic bag of road flares on your back but not setup in any configuration, no wires or anything else that would make it outwardly appear to be a bomb.   I don't think anybody here is in anyway shape or form suggesting we like what Leonard is doing, or support his actions...  only that he was successful in creating a pretty darn good lawsuit trap and the police stepped right into it.   And natural rights are natural rights, and should be protected from government overreach, even in cases of lawsuit fishing against the government.  Period, no exceptions.    

Robert,   They might very well have had probable cause for a warrant, but they didn't get a warrant...  And per SCOTUS rulings there are very few allowed exigent circumstances to search a locked container without a warrant.   Remember that probable cause is NOT an automatic warrant waiver in all cases...  For example probable cause can be used as exigent circumstance to search your vehicle without a warrant, but the exact same probable cause would not provide an exigent circumstance to search your home without a warrant.   Locked containers are special under current case law don't blame me, blame SCOTUS.