JayC

The way 39-17-1302b7 is worded I'm not even sure under state law he has to retain paperwork for a silencer.       I don't think a 'firearm silencer' is a firearm under TN state law, so if I'm reading this correctly, it would need to be validly registered, but since it is not a 'firearm' it's not required that he retain proof of registration.  Now I'm sure that under federal law he must have that proof, but from the plain text reading of the law it doesn't appear proof of registration of 'firearm silencers' is required under state law.   Then again what exactly does retain mean, I doubt it means you must have it on your person at all times, nor does it mean you must produce it whenever requested by a police officer.  I can't find *any* case law on 39-17-1302b7 can anybody else?   And we're not even sure it was a NFA can that was attached to the firearm.    

He got arrested, so unlike all the times in the past where he was just detained, this time he has a possible 1983 lawsuit.  It seems he was handing out flyers when he was stopped, so he won't have to go the whole 2nd amendment angle this time.   It's very unlikely he broke the law, because either 1> the item in question was a flash hider not a silencer on the firearm, or 2> it was a silencer which Leonard has a FFL and SOT license for, which means he legally can own NFA suppressors.  Either way he's going to have an affirmative defense to the charges, if a DA will try and take it to court.   I'm shocked he made bail, I can only imagine the conditions of his bail are such that he couldn't continue to sell firearms as an FFL...  but then again that might be part of the 'trap' he's set for the police department so he can show real damages are part of the arrest.   I suspect he's going to challenge the PC on opening the locked case containing the firearm without a warrant, I just don't see how they can get to PC to open the locked case.  I can see the RAS for the terry stop, but once they noticed the case was locked, and he didn't consent to the search, I just don't see how they have PC at that exact minute to justify breaking into a locked container.  I think they'd need specific probable cause that the rifle he was carrying was loaded, or in someway was not being legally transported, and I just don't see them successfully making that argument in court.   As I said it seems to be a well crafted 1983 lawsuit trap...  just imagine what this guy could do if he's put that attention to detail, and logical thinking to use doing something constructive?  It's such a waste to go around trying to entice the police to do something wrong...  much easier and safer ways to make money.  

I'm curious what this 'silencer' really is...  Was he really carrying around an NFA item, or is it some kind of flash suppressor.  I suspect it isn't an NFA item but with Leonard you can't really tell.   He does seem to have come up with the perfect PC trap for law enforcement here, and clearly he took a lot of time coming up with this plan.  If it turns out he wasn't carrying a NFA item, he probably just hit the jackpot for a 1983 lawsuit, since they made the mistake of arresting him this time.   They would have been on much better ground to charge him under 39-17-1307, claiming the case made the weapon "concealed" and therefore didn't meet the standard of 39-17-1308a1, although that would have been thrown out since they got calls he was carrying a firearm ;)

Complete agreement, DA/SA pistols such as the 92fs IMHO should never be considered for daily carry...  Again the issues can be overcome with a lot of training, but the fact is very few people are getting that much range time.  A good carry firearm should have the same trigger pull on every shot.    

None of that matters for your average self defense situation....  The fact is the Glock 19 can be picked up and used with minimal training (or none) on the weapons platform, and will work everytime as intended.  That can not be said about the 92f or the 1911.  Both of which are great guns, just not good carry guns.   Experienced shooters that practice often can mostly overcome the external safeties on the 1911 and 92f, but the truth is very few HCP holders are practicing enough to do that.   Obviously if the OP was shooting often enough he'd already have a favored platform and wouldn't be asking for opinions on which pistol to get for concealed carry :)    I carried a 1911 for the better part of a decade everyday, they are great guns and I'll never sell the ones I own...  but I'll never carry another one in my life on a day to day basis...  I don't get to the range often enough to be sure under severe stress that I would remember to disable the external safety every time...  and if you ever need to disable the safety, you need the firearm to work right 100% of the time.     A Glock 19 is going to answer that call a LOT better than most other medium caliber semi-auto compact carry pistols on the market today. That is not to say there aren't other good choices, but giving the OP the simple truth, he'd be hard pressed to pick a better day to day carry weapon IMHO.    

Glock 19, no external safety to worry about under pressure.  Any firearm with an external safety is IMHO not a suitable for daily carry.

I disagree, contact them all right away and often until somebody gets fired.  Putting pressure on all politicians that can do something about it will result in something happening much faster than working your way up the chain.  Make the phone explode to everybody on that list all at once and they will be move motivated to move quickly and less likely to come up with a game plan to 'deal' with the annoying callers.      

If private business want to post, thats fine, I can choose to not do business with them...  The government is the one entity that I can not live my life without having to do business with them, and when they post it's a huge hassle.   So I'm curious if the lobbies of the sheriff's office is posted? I understand areas where prisoners are kept being no gun zones, but if the deputies can carry then law abiding citizens should as well.   If the county is still posting buildings and property, then all of this is lip service because they clearly don't respect law abiding citizens.  

I agree, I can't enjoy city parks here in Nashville, or go into a city community center because it's posted...  State, county, and city property should not be able to post except in the cases of courtrooms, and areas that regularly house prisoners.  Outside of those 2 exceptions we should remove the ability for any government entity to post in TN.  

Has the county removed all their 1359 signs from county buildings and property?  Otherwise it's just lip service.

Robert,   You're preaching to the choir on this one....  I don't spend money at businesses that post even if it's not a legal posting, period.  They've made it clear to me they don't care about my safety, and I shouldn't encourage them to stay in business.   I also don't buy into the business owners are smart they purposely post signs that aren't legal BS either...  I'm a business owner, and I meet with other business owners all the time and they don't know *anything* about firearm laws unless they're HCP holders and often they still don't know anything about firearm laws ;)  If a business has taken the time to post a no firearms allowed sign they think it legally prevents you from carrying on their property, and you're in complete denial to think otherwise.   The one exception to this is some of the well crafted that state "No firearms except in accordance with state law" or something to that effect...  that is a properly crafted sheeple sign :)   But none of that changes the fact that 1359 is rarely enforced and we spend way too much time worrying about it on the forums :)  Instead of the parking lots bill part 2 we should be focused on removing government property and land from 1359, because that is the one entity none of us can avoid doing "business" with and they don't have the right to prohibit law abiding citizens from carrying.    

I have a feeling somebody is about the lose their job in the Wilson County School system ;)

Oh there have been lots of volunteers, just no DA willing to risk a career ending move...  So far we're only aware of 2 people being charged with violating 1359 both of which were caught attempting to get into the secure area of an airport (TSA caught them with a weapon in the carry on).   I've not seen a single case documented where anybody has been convicted under 1359 anywhere in the state...  So, unless you're trying to board a plane or you're a complete idiot try to cause trouble, the chances of getting charged under 1359 doesn't appear to be very high.      

I'm going to make a completely different suggestion than anybody else...  it seems this guy is willing to let you take the kids and raise them...  I'd do everything in my power to not spook him...  I'd find a local family attorney to draw up a simple temporary guardianship agreement that clearly (in english) says he can revoke it at anytime.  The document should indicate the ability of the guardian to approve medical and educational decisions concerning the kids.   This should cost a couple of hundred dollars, and then just get him to sign it...  tell him it's needed to get the kids enrolled in school legally here.   I'd think the last thing you'd want to do right now is spook this guy into coming back and grabbing his kids and taking them back to MO...  I'd do everything in your power to keep it friendly and upbeat, and make it seem like the document is just another thing you need in TN to get the kids enrolled in school, and he can change his mind at anytime.

Should yes, catch them, next to impossible.  The fact is a knowledgeable 'hacker' can send email or surf the internet 100% anonymous and not even the FBI is going to catch them.   Even novice computer users can do the same thing with enough protection to keep you away from state and local police departments.   Anonymous is alive and well on the Internet, and pissing them off is not advisable :)    

I agree completely Dave, if the warrant is high enough risk, the SWAT team should be on site and ready to take over if the suspects start shooting or act in an openly hostile manner.  But to kick in doors in the middle of the night is just asking for trouble.  Sure, we might have a few more 'prohibition' cases not happen because some product gets flushed, but really how is a guy going to dispose of 16 pot plants while officers have the house surrounded in daylight knocking on his door?   Also, my understanding is one reason a lot of officers like nighttime raids, is overtime.  Don't forget to look for the money trail, and overtime for 'special duty' is a huge incentive to do these types of raids.    

The federal departments are much easier to handle than the local SWAT teams...  Just remove law enforcement powers under state law for the federal agencies.  Then turn around and limit the ability of the state and local police officers in providing them support unless the 'raid' meets the requirements under state law.   TN state law is a major enabler in the problem with the federal police powers...  we remove that authority and stop providing them local help and they'll be a small enough problem to not have any real impact on the situation.        

Wow, what idiots...  glad to know that "anything flammable" includes helium balloons ;)  I thought you had to be "educated" to run a school?  Guess not.

Run away from TDS while laying down cover fire :)  They have yet to find a internet or telephone connection they couldn't mess up for weeks at a time.  And then try and lie to your face about it not being their problem.

While filing a lawsuit is really the only thing that can be done...  We need to change the system and remove immunity from public servants who violate the law or the constitution, they need to face personal financial loss for their mistakes...  And going even further, we need to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law any criminal violations of the law made by public servants including police officers.   We need to take away from the local DA the authority to pick and choose which cases will be charged and won't be charged when involving public servants and place that authority in a citizen watchdog type group which is made up of citizens within the community that are NOT officers of the court, members of law enforcement, or politicians, allowing them to charge, seat grand juries and prosecute these cases independently of the local DA.   Finally, we need to remove law enforcement powers within the state from federal employees, they should be restricted to only being able to enforce federal laws on federal lands, not within the general population as our founding fathers intended.

Yeah the one good thing out of the new parking lot bill is that you can now legally park your vehicle on school grounds, as long as your firearm remains hidden from view you're good to go (with a carry permit of course).

First, the sidewalks aren't posted under state or federal law, which both laws require...  And I seriously doubt the Federal government owns the sidewalks in front of the court house.  Clearly the Feds don't own the entire block, so there are sidewalks they can't own :)   And the Feds may very well think they have a 'special security' zone, but unless you're on federal property they can't do jack about it, because federal law doesn't have anything to do with our right to carry in TN.  

You can walk around on the sidewalk all you want, just can't go inside a federal building carrying.  My guess is they won't be protesting on 'federal land' since there is less than 4 feet of grass around the building.   Now, how smart would it be to go opening carrying at such a rally?  probably not very smart...  but IMHO it would be perfectly legal as long as you stayed on the sidewalk.    

There is no law, what Memphis is doing is illegal under current state law, but nobody has taken them to court yet and forced them to stop doing it.    

Dave,   I've never suggested such an action is a 'good thing', nor that it will lead to something better, or even as good as what we have now...  Only that contrary to our normalcy bias, the risk of a successful insurgency is very well within reach of our current situation.  We're much more likely to end up with a Stalin, or Mao than we are another Washington.   I don't have a crystal ball, and the truth is nobody knows what things look like on the other side of this type of singularity event.  If history is any guide, the likely outcome of an insurgency would be a stalemate between the sides, and a political 'solution' to bring the conflict to a close, and we've seen just how well that has worked in other parts of the world.  But, again I don't know, and anything I might say is pure speculation.   Just because nobody can predict what would happen in the aftermath of such an insurgency/revolution, doesn't mean we can discount the possibility of an insurgency or revolution from within, nor the likely awful bloodshed that is likely to follow any such event.   Make no mistake, I hope to never see such a thing come to past, but it's a mistake to think we're somehow special and therefore immune from it happening, or that somehow our government or military is this unstoppable force that nothing including the will of the people can stop.  We've been shown time and time again our military is completely unable to win at 'nation building', every example except for 1 has turned into a complete train wreck over the last 75 years, and trying to do so at home would end up being a much worse failure than any before it.