JayC

On what grounds are they going to yank his FFL?  Unless he's convicted of a felony I don't see how they revoke his FFL.  Unlike the TN HCP the FFL is completely objective there is no subjective part.    

PC on the search isn't their only problem now...  Leonard is claiming the paperwork for the silencer was in the case with the rifle..  if true that would mean the police had in their possession evidence that he was not guilty of a crime before arresting him.   So you're not just dealing with a possible 4th and 5th amendment violation but also a possible unlawful arrest...  It's silly as all get out, he could have just said the firearm is unloaded, but IMHO he was fishing for a lawsuit and it looks like they took the bait.    

I have no clue, somebody higher up in the thread mentioned a video, and I figured some of us would want to see it...  that is the only video Leonard has posted on his youtube channel since his arrest - and no I don't have his channel bookmarked :)   Although I'm now hoping to find a dealer other than Leonard to purchase a EXP556 from ;)  So the trip to his youtube channel wasn't a total waste ;)  

Is a locked briefcase with a seam patched with duct tape locked or unlocked?  My reading of SCOTUS case law on locked containers is the intent of the owner that matters...  not how easy it would have been to defeat the case or the lock.   I'd tend to say locked, because it took them 1 or 2 minutes to 'rip' the case open enough to see it had a silencer on it, and they never got it open enough to verify there was not a round chambered according to the police.  We'll have to see what a judge says when the civil case is brought and the city asks for summary judgment.   Because, if what Leonard says is true that they had the paperwork in their hands before arresting him, there is no way this goes to criminal court.    

Yeah I agree, why even mention a 1983 lawsuit...  It's my opinion that he was lawsuit fishing, and just got lucky that they appear to have taken his bait.  

There are a lot of good guns out there...  I personally carry a Keltec 380 as a BUG everyday...  and a Glock 19 as a primary...  but the reason they make so many guns is because everybody is different ;)  What is good for me, isn't going to be good for everybody else.   I'm just explaining my logic behind why the Glock 19 is the better choice than a 92fs for an everyday carry gun.  

WARNING: this link is to a video Leonard made, if you find it offensive that he might make $0.01 off of you viewing this video, don't click the link :)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScD986-UZE   In the comments he mentions that the paperwork for the silencer was in plain view locked inside the rifle case, if true that probably means the charges will be dropped, and the lawsuits will begin.   I don't see how the search was legal with this new information...  and I find it surprising that an officer would continue to question a detained suspect after them invoking their right to remain silent...  Isn't that police training 101, you have to stop asking them questions once they invoke?

Dave,   This is probably the most scariest statement you've made all day...  "It was probably an illegal search, but you won't find many cops who wouldn't have done the illegal search anyhow?!?"   And this doesn't concern you in the least?   They had a lot of choices available to them...  they had possession of the case, how long would it have taken to get a warrant, less than an hour? They could have followed Leonard around and made sure he wasn't committing any crimes?  Or better yet, realize after 20 minutes of him playing his LEO trap game, that he was trying to get them to violate the law and constitution and let him go before falling for it?   I've been there when law enforcement officers needed a warrant to search a house, it took longer to DRIVE to the courthouse to pick up the warrant than it did to fill it out and get a judge to sign it.... and here they're basically 4 or 5 blocks from the courthouse when all this goes down?  

IANAL, so this is my laypersons understanding...  and there may very well be case law that contradicts my understanding...     But we don't have trials in absentia in this country, so just because he didn't show up for a hearing that didn't even happen doesn't mean he can lose his other rights or privileges under the law.  To do that he has to be found guilty in a court where the entire proceeding fall under due process.  I'm not trying to claim that his HCP was revocation is somehow faulty (although I'm glad to argue that TDOS should not have the subjective ability to revoke a permit at another time)....    What I'm saying is, I don't think they can use the finding of a single lawyer working for TDOS as probable cause to perform a search.  Or even RAS for a terry stop...     I think it's unconstitutional to say "Leonard is performing this otherwise legal action, but because I know had his permit revoked for an unrelated reason I find probable cause to detain and search him".    I think if he can prove that at the time of the arrest they knew who he was, and specifically targeted him for arrest based solely or in part on the permit being revoked, that is going to cause them some legal issues with the arrest and any possible future civil case.   And all of that probably doesn't matter because I think the search was completely illegal anyhow... but if he can bring forward evidence that he was targeted because of who he was, that would probably lend some weight to a 1983 lawsuit IMHO.      

Robert, due process requires a review by an independent judge...  there was no such review just a finding by a lawyer working for TDOS...  That does not equal due process as I understand the law...  Care to cite an example of an administrative process that doesn't allow you to present evidence, and isn't before a judge is considered due process under the law?   While he didn't take advantage of due process yet, I don't think it changes the fact that no judge has ruled he is a danger to society, only a lawyer working for the government, and I'm pretty sure that can't be used as the basis to further restrict unrelated rights and privileges.   I could be wrong...  I can't find a cite on topic, maybe you can?    

Locked containers are treated differently than cars according to SCOTUS, and they'd have to have a specific probable cause that the firearm in question was loaded...  Just thinking the gun might be load because it is a gun is not probable cause...  and since according to Leonard he immediately took the fifth amendment on being approached so there wouldn't be any statements that could be used as PC for the search...     As a general rule they can not open locked containers based on probable cause unless there is an underlying exigent circumstance...  for example thinking a kidnap victim is being stored in a huge duffel bag.  I don't see any exigent circumstance that would apply here once they had possession of the case.   Also once they took possession of the case, the threat that Leonard might use it even if it was loaded was gone, so the exigent circumstance goes away.  

I would argue under the law that when carried legally they both are the same...  but that point is mute, the police stopping and asking Leonard questions is perfectly fine, but opening a locked container without a warrant, how do you justify that?   As for whether police officer would or wouldn't react the same to protest signs as the did with Leonard, I'd argue there is plenty of proof that they have in the past, but I don't want to sidetrack this discussion with those videos ;)  

IANAL, but I'm not sure they can use an administrative action as a reason to constrain his other rights and privileges under TN state law, because it was done without due process.   Now, I'll readily admit that the only reason Leonard didn't have due process was because he choose not to...  but it doesn't change the fact that no independent judge reviewed the case and found him to be a danger to society.   If you use that revocation to target him on the basis that he is somehow a greater danger to society than your average person, then I think that opens the department up to some legal liability.   But again IANAL so who knows...  I just think the officer saying he knew who Leonard was and that his permit was revoked for a specific reason is not to the advantage of the department in a civil or criminal case.  

Ok, first I dismiss your flawed example...  Your example is nothing like what happened.   A more apt example would be a man carrying an anti-union sign walking back and forth in front of the local union hall, then blaming him because the union thugs took the bait and beat him senseless.  That because he dared do something perfectly legal it's somehow his fault for the over reaction and illegal actions by the other party?  Now one can make the argument that the attack could have easily been foreseen, and that a prudent and smart man would avoid such activities...  but it's not the mans fault that the union thugs over reacted and beat him up.   More importantly do we really want people working for us as police officers who can so easily be baited into violating the law and the constitution?  Or do we want rational thinking officers who realize he's attempting to bait them into a trap, and instead go out of their way to avoid  while still protecting the public.   Officers could have more easily followed him around and watched him until he broke the law, which would have cost the taxpayers a lot less money than we're going to spend on this incident (even without a possible lawsuit).     

Mike, how does it matter what Leonard is about...  Did he force the police to do something that may have been illegal and unconstitutional?  No.  The simple truth is police officers and other 'public servants' need to be held to a higher standard because of the authority we give them to write and enforce the laws.   I personally feel we need to charge and bring to trial every unconstitutional action by public employees, and that we should enforce the maximum penalty whenever they're found guilty.  I know that is a crazy notion to hold people accountable for their unlawful actions no matter how "well intended" they may have been.   I don't see anyway Leonard gets convicted, I seriously doubt they'll even allow this case to be brought to trial.   And while I don't like the guy (yes I've met him in person as well), I hope he makes a pretty penny off of any illegal or unconstitutional actions by the police that day...   I realize I'm a crazy libertarian, but is it really wrong to expect the government to honor their written social contract with us all while robbing me of my money to pay for them?  Somedays I get so frustrated by all the gun loving sheeple on the Internet ;)   Mike, do me a favor and watch this video, it tells you why libertarians are so dangerous:)    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg   

Unloaded long gun carry is perfectly legal in TN if you can legally own the firearm...  and there is no law that says he must display documentation to a police officer on an NFA item when requested.   It will be interesting to find out if Metro PD was monitoring his website, and therefore was aware he had an FFL/SOT before this incident, since a copy of both is posted on his website.    

Dave,   This case was made from kydex, not thin plastic...  it would have made a hard case on the outside...  And it clearly was sturdy enough that they couldn't gain access to the firearm to check if it had a round chambered even after tearing the kydex apart.   Either way he had a clearly attempt to protect what was inside, and my understanding is, all that matters is Leonard attempted to 'protect' the item by locking it, not the quality of the material or lock.  If I take a cheap sack and place a lock on it, it's viewed in the eyes of the court the same as the most expensive briefcase with a lock.   More over, they had custody of the locked case, I can't see any reasonable exigent circumstance where the police have physically in their custody a locked case, and they have some reason to open it without a warrant.  I think they have a real problem with the search, and the arrest came from that search.   Also, the HCP revocation is like radiation in this case, I think they may open themselves up to greater liability trying to say because a permit was revoked without due process (remember it never went before a judge - because Leonard was an idiot), that somehow they can treat him differently under the law than somebody without a permit.   The bigger problem they're going to have is how he handled this encounter...  unlike in past cases where he got into sidewalk lawyering with the officers, the instant they stopped him he invoked the 5th amendment right to remain silent...  at least in the incidents before the officer could claim he was acting mentally unstable or 'not making sense', here they don't have anything other than a man carrying a locked firearm case walking around.   And I've repeatedly said the terry stop was good, stopping him and trying to have a conversation with him is perfectly legal.  A search of his person for officer safety is perfectly legal as well...  but I'm pretty sure that terry stops don't extend to locked cases.  And it's opening that locked case without a warrant that seems to make this encounter unconstitutional.    

Dave, I'll give you the RAS for the terry stop, clearly they had enough to detain him and chat....  I'm not sure about the PC to access a locked container to check the firearm...  how do you form specific probable cause that a firearm locked in a hard case (even one as crazy as the case he was carrying) was somehow in violation of the law?   I just don't see how they can make that leap...  My understanding is locked case means search warrant, I can't see any exigent circumstance that covers a locked case.   As for the officer in the video, he's wrong... A judge never ruled on the revocation of his permit, that was a bureaucrat at TDOS, and because Leonard failed to have a hearing on the matter it never went before an independent third party.   Again, my guess is they have a huge PC issue with opening a locked case without a warrant, I just don't see how they come up with it...  Also it doesn't work in the favor of the police that they knew exactly who they were dealing with when they opened the case, because his history is that he follows the law exactly, which would seem to downplay the risk the firearm was somehow loaded.      

Ok, I'll bite...   First, can we agree that the vast majority of permit holders go to a target range less than once a year?  Can we also agree that they probably fire less than 100 rounds a year on average while practicing?  That target practice does little to help offset stress and adrenaline in a real self defense shooting?  Can we agree with these three things, when looking at your average HCP permit holder?   I contend with that level of training/practice it's nearly impossible to lock in the needed muscle memory to ensure that under stress they would remember to always disable an external safety - or for that matter know how to deal properly with the safety being accidently re-enabled during the course of a self defense shooting.     Also, you have to consider incidents where somebody else may need to operate your firearm in an emergency (a wife or family member for example), who has no training on the weapon in question (but may or may not have training of a different weapons platform)...  While you may have the needed muscle memory to disable the safety, in all likelihood they do not.   So, if you take two different average permit holders and place them in a self defense shooting...  one carrying a 92fs and another carrying a Glock 19, all things equal it's more likely that the Glock 19 goes bang.  If in the middle of that shooting a wife has to pickup and use that firearm with no training, it's even more likely to go bang for her.   IMHO all things considered, firearms with have external safeties, and firearms that do not have the same trigger pull everytime increase complexity and chances for cousin Murphy to come for a visit at the worse possible time.  For most shooters the goal is to do everything possible to keep cousin Murphy away.   So for your average HCP holder, they should pick a simple and reliable firearm to carry day to day, that has no external safeties, and has the same trigger pull every time the trigger is pulled...  There are other firearms that meet those requirements, but of the two choices the OP gave, the Glock 19 is hand downs the winner.   While it can be argued that with enough of the right practice and training you can overcome both of these limitations, the fact is the vast majority of permit holders aren't spending enough time at the range and taking active shooter classes to meet even the bare minimum standard to accomplish that task.   With all of that said, we're all big boys and girls here and you can buy whatever you want, but I personally think the risk of complications when the firearm is needed the most removes the 92fs and 1911's as a daily carry firearm for average permit holder.       

We're not even sure at this point is was a NFA item or not that he had...  for all we know it was a strange looking muzzle break/flash hider.  Seeing as he is a FFL with a SOT, if it was an NFA he likely has the paperwork to prove it was his.   I can't see this going very far, only way I can see this lasting more than a few days is if the DA makes it a condition of dismissing the charges that he agree not to file a lawsuit against the police department.  

Ok, fair enough, which part of my statement?  That one can train the limitations of a pistol with different pulls between the first and second shot?  Or that pistols that have such a limitation by design aren't suitable as daily carry firearms?  

I guess technically they could make that argument :) but seeing as he was handing out flyers on the 2nd amendment when arrested, I'm not sure his lawyers would go that route ;)   He has a much simpler argument under 39-17-1302b7 all he has to do is show proof that the silencer (if it really was a silencer) was legally registered and the case will be dismissed...     It does raise the question of why he had the silencer on there to begin with...  if he had just been carrying the firearm, I think they would have been forced to let him go.    

I'm by far not super familiar with civil law...  but I'm not sure his previous lawsuits would even be admissible in a civil trial, it's likely they couldn't even bring in the fact his permit was revoked because he never had due process involving his permit.   I'm guessing but his damages might very well be high if through bail requirements he was forced to close down his FFL firearms business.  He clearly has been held overnight, and has out of pocket expenses...  Plus the emotional distress of being locked up for not committing a crime ;)    Also, this case has a serious PC problem on the search...  I just don't see how you turn this search into a legal one... he may very well have a very good 4th amendment and 1st amendment 1983 case, but IANAL just a lay person.    

Umm, interstate transport isn't a factor here, because Leonard lives inside TN, he wasn't traveling between states.  Also, 39-17-1308 isn't applicable because it doesn't appear as if was charged under 39-17-1307, but was charged under 39-17-1302a5.   The only applicable law on defenses is 39-17-1302b and c.  They didn't charge him for the firearm, but rather a 'silencer' which was attached to the firearm.  We don't know if it really was a silencer, it could have been a muzzle break or flash hider...  We also don't know if it was an NFA silencer if Leonard legally owned it or not...  but the defense in question will likely revolve around 39-17-1302b7 quoted above.    

Yeah the level of sophistication of this one appears very well thought out, much more thought out than his previous attempts, I'm curious if he's getting legal advice from somebody on how to pull this off....   I'm with you, I don't agree with his methods, but you can still look at something ugly and admire the effort it took to put it together :)