JayC

Dave,   Again you start in with no basis in what current case law says...  People make statements about wishing people dead, or wanting to kill people all the time and it's protected by the first amendment...  While walking into a store and yelling I'm going to kill everybody here is clearly a criminal threat and not protected speech...  but go out to a public park, hold a KKK/Black Panther rally and say "kill all the XXXXX", is protected speech. (Which is why neither of those groups are arrested when making such statements)   I made an attempt to CITE a court case where such speech was held to be protected, can you cite a case where somebody was convicted for a non-direct threat such as the one Yeager made?   So don't bother arguing with me about protected vs unprotected speech unless you can back it up with SCOTUS rulings please.      

I would disagree with Beck's game plan...  They'd be happy to put another million gun owners through the system, convict them as felon's, let them stay on house arrest, remove their ability to own any firearms, or vote ever again.   If the future was only a fight over the 2nd amendment, maybe...  but this is just one major issue out of many more to come between people who want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit without hurting other people, and progressives that want to control everything we do down to the food we're allowed to eat.   An argument can be made that a 'rebellion' or 'insurgency' has better odds of resulting in a greater restoration of liberty than a 'peaceful' we will not comply.   Anyway you cut it, even if we resolve the gun issue (which we won't), we still have a likely sovereign debt crisis on the near term horizon, and the continued loading of debt on the next 3 generations to pay for the healthcare, retirement and spending of the current generations.      

It doesn't appear to rise to the level of 'fighting words' or 'incitement' under current case law.   I'd suggest you read up on a case NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware 1966 - where a member of the NAACP stated: Uncle Toms' who broke the boycott would 'have their necks broken' by their own people.   Clearly that level of speech is much more of a threat than the speech Yeager made...  Here you have a person making a direct threat to a certain group of people that would be attacked if they crossed a picket line.  SCOTUS ruled in favor of the NAACP in this case....     Clear headed and responsible doesn't meet the legal definition for TDOS to revoke a permit, using otherwise protected speech as what appears to be the sole cause for revoking the permit appears to be unlawful under current case law.   What happens if it's later determined this was an unlawful action by TDOS?  Too much power in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucrat.   BTW this is exactly the type of tyranny that our founding fathers were warning us about IMHO...  No matter if you think Yeager is a grade A jerk (or worse), an unaccountable pencil pusher at TDOS should not have the ability to revoke a permit without a criminal charge, or a judge holding an open hearing (not an ex parte hearing) to confirm the evidence TDOS has rises to the level of a material threat to the public.   We need to demand from our legislators to place some level of check and balance to this process before a permit is revoked, and take it out of the hands of elected officials or bureaucrats.  

  The only problem with this thought process is how do you remove illogical fear?  First time ?I flew ojn a plane (as a little kid) I was scared to death, now the flying doesn't bother me at all (just the TSA molesters).   If people get use to seeing others armed, and nothing bad happens...  it removes the fear...     How else do you convince somebody guns aren't a threat when they have no experience seeing good law abiding citizens armed?   I'm not sure I'd advocate what these two did...  but how else do you remove the fear if you don't open carry and expose the general population to safe armed gun owners who pose not threat to them?

  Yes, blinded by that thing called current case law ;)   He makes a video with some heated language in it, from my layperson understanding it does not rise to the level of criminal activity under state law.  So unless the speech is illegal, then by it's very nature it's protected speech, right?   SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that governments can not cause a 'chilling effect' on protected speech by using it as the reason to deny a person a right or privilege.  That seems to be exactly what TDOS did in this case does it not?   Again, my big issue here is with a bad law that grants too much authority within TDOS to revoke permits before due process of law.  In every other case where a permit can be denied or revoked, an independent judge and/or jury must hear the evidence, and make a ruling...  The is the only example where an un-elected bureaucrat can say "you're permit is revoked because I said so".   So, lets play what if...  lets say Yeager gets a judge to rule this action unlawful, what happens to said bureaucrat?  Do they go to jail?  Do they loose their job?  Nope, they have nothing to loose by making this call...  No skin in the game...  The law is too easy to be abused, and needs to be changed.  At the very least there needs to be criminal penalties (at least a felony conviction with 5 years in prison) for a TDOS employee who revokes a permit then is later found not to have met the material threat threshold.  I know, very radical wanting there to be prison time for somebody who breaks the law :)   For the record, I don't agree with Yeager's speech in the video, I just don't think TDOS should have the ability to revoke permits over protected speech, and IMHO it appears to have been politically motivated more so than a real threat to the public at large.   It's a huge negative effect on all permit holders...  What happens if you make a video with legally protected speech that somebody at TDOS doesn't like?  They can just revoke your permit on a whim?  Because that appears to have just happened...  at least with Kwik (which I'm sure you remember I also complained about) he was walking around protesting with loaded firearms...  Here you have a guy talking to a video camera.   BTW, I'm not a Yeager fanboy, I had a chance to go to one of his classes a couple of years ago (for free) and turned it down because I think he's a grade a jerk...  I just have a problem giving TDOS so much power.

  Please don't take my comment as an attack, just trying to encourage people to read both the federal and state constitutions ever now and again :)   Don't even get me started on the ammo tax (since ammo is an arm) :)

  I think you're missing the point, there are 2 separate arguments here...   First, that while the law does allow TDOS to revoke permits, it's a BAD law and needs to be changed or removed, because it can too easily be abused (case in point Yeager)...   Second, what evidence do they have that he is a material threat?  Is it just his protected speech?  If that is the case, it would seem to be an unlawful action on the part of TDOS, violating Yeagers 1st Amendment protected rights.   If his actions are criminal then TDOS should have arrested Yeager and requested a DA file charges, but my guess is they didn't go that route because any judge in this state would laugh them out of court as they dismissed the case (ie the video was protected speech).  If that is the case, then using that same protected speech against him is an unlawful act a chilling effect on his exercise of his first amendment rights.   Either way, the law is BAD and should be changed to remove the material threat, or at the very least require a two party hearing where both the permit holder and TDOS must lay out their case before a general sessions judge before a permit can be revoked...  ie due process before hand not after.   Finally, who ever in TDOS approved this action needs to be fired by the Governor before they show up to work on Monday, because it's clear Yeager did not pose a material risk to the public, he made no specific threats in that video.     BTW, ask yourself how many members of the black panthers and kkk have made similair or far worse statements and TDOS has not revoked their permits?  (Because SCOTUS has ruled those statements (ie threats) are protected speech) Why the special handling in this case?

  Not a good idea?  I completely agree...   But unlike yelling fire in a crowded theater, what he said does not appear to be criminal...  and therefore the speech is protected under the 1st amendment...  Using that speech to revoke his permit would appear to be unlawful under current federal case law.   If his conduct was criminal, charge him with a crime.  But, don't pull this stunt of revoking his permit (for life) with no due process of law before revoking it, just because he said something a bureaucrat at TDOS didn't like, or worse some politician didn't like and they put pressure on TDOS to revoke his permit.

  And that is somehow better?  You're permit can be revoked because some elected official doesn't like something you said?

I'm not supporting what he said, only his right to say it without some pencil pusher who doesn't have to answer for his actions revoking his permit.   I'm sure if we looked, we both could find members of the KKK and black panthers who made similar comments (ie protected speech) who has not had their permits revoked.   If Yeager committed a crime, arrest him, and charge him...  TDOS is a law enforcement department, they know where he's at...   But they know the speech is protected by the first amendment, and every judge in this state would have dismissed the charges on the spot...  So they do an end run by using this 'loophole' to suspend his permit, which doesn't make it anymore right or lawful.   Again, if his permit is restored, what happens to the un-elected bureaucrat that suspended his permit?  Do they loose their job? Get arrested for violating his rights under the color of law?  No, they have nothing to loose....   And that is the problem right there.      

  Have you ever read the state Constitution?       You'll note the legislature is only allowed to regulate the WEARING of firearms, last time I checked, purchasing is not wearing.  It's a big money grab for the state, they could let us use the federal system for free... but no they want their $10 on every sale plus sales tax.   So that is why I feel TICS is unconstitutional.

  I agree as the law is worded today, some un-elected bureaucrat at TDOS can wake up tomorrow and revoke your permit because he doesn't like the way you tie your shoes.  I have a major problem with this law (if you recall I got a ton of flak for being against TDOS when they used it on Kwik)....   But, if all they have is protected speech (ie non-criminal speech) then they're in the wrong, and likely have acted in an unlawful manner...     We should have this law changed so an independent third party (ie a TN General Sessions Judge) should have to have a hearing and rule on these issues before a permit can be revoked.   The government is prohibited from using protected speech against a person, otherwise it has a chilling effect on protected speech...  I believe that Lamont vs Postmaster General 1965 is the SCOTUS case law on point.   IANAL but, my understanding is that you can't use somebodies protected speech as the reason to deny them a privilege (or right), least that discourage they're first amendment rights.  But if you're aware of case law that contradicts that, please provide a cite.

  So if he had said, "I wish God would strike all TDOS employees dead", they could suspend or revoke his drivers license?  No.  That would be a clear violation of the first amendment.  A HCP permit is no different...   TDOS needs a information that proves a material threat to the public...  They should not be able to use constitutionally protected speech as the sole basis for suspending or revoking a permit.   And frankly, I don't think I want the power to suspend or revoke anybody's permit for life in the hands of an unelected bureaucrat at TDOS...  This is the same department that runs the (unconstitutional) TICS program that has such a high false positive rate it's almost a joke.  Do you really want them to be able to revoke a permit because they think a guy needs to cool down?    

  Making a direct threat is a crime, charge him with that crime if he committed it...   But, I don't see any direct or specific threats in the video...  By far I'm not an expert on first amendment law, but...  I believe I can show an example:   1. "I think we should kill all the no good politicians if they pass that law"    2. "I'm going to kill President Scooby-Doo"   My understanding is that 1 is protected speech and not a criminal act, and 2 is not protected speech and is a criminal act.   If he committed a crime, charge him and revoke his permit as part of the process...  if he didn't commit a crime (which I believe is the case), then it's protected speech and TDOS is in the wrong to suspend or revoke his permit over it.

  The point I was trying to make...  If the video is protected speech under the first amendment, and the state used that protected speech to revoke his permit, that would appear to me as a layperson to be a clear violation of his first amendment rights.   It would be no different than refusing him a drivers license, or permit to rent a room at the local community center because of what he said in the video...     Their press release references the video, which appears on the face of it to be protected speech, unless they have some evidence of his material threat outside of the video, how is that not a clear violation of his first amendment rights?

  Revoke his permit for protected speech...  If his speech in the video was a criminal act charge him (and in the process he will loose his permit while the criminal charges get sorted out)....  If the speech is not a criminal act then it's protected, and to use that protected speech as the reason to revoke his permit is a CLEAR violation of the 1st Amendment.

I agree, we need to pressure our legislators to remove TDOS ability to revoke permits 'because they feel like it'.  And whoever issued this revocation needs to be sitting in the employment line come Monday morning.   What happened to TN being a shall issue state?  If somebody can some something clearly protected by the first amendment and some pencil pusher at TDOS can for life?   What happens to this person when Yeager is found to have his rights violated?  Do they loose their job for violating his civil rights under the color of law?  Do they get arrested? Do they loose they job?  Are they open to a civil lawsuit?  Of course not, they have no skin in the game if they make a mistake!  

  If he committed a crime, charge him and his permit would be revoked automatically as part of the criminal charges....  Otherwise it's protected speech (which I think it clearly is), and to revoke his permit based on protected speech is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

While I didn't think the video he released was a good idea...  I suspect he'll get his permit back in short order...  I think he's going to have a very good claim that the speech in the video is protected by the first amendment, and as such it's a violation of his first amendment rights to use that speech as a reason to revoke his permit.   And whoever the idiot bureaucrat was at TDOS that approved this needs to be in the unemployment line before the EOB today.    And again we should be calling our legislators and demanding they remove TDOS ability to revoke permits without a criminal arrest/conviction...  We don't need a bureaucrat with this type of power.

    I agree with that, and it would seem we do have that in state law today...   But, if a police officer or any other public servant violates state law we should be throwing them under the jail....  Why doesn't the law at least include a mandatory prison sentence for violating it?  If you or I violate the law we're put in jail, if the police violate the law nothing happens?

  While we do have that law, it has no criminal penalties for violation...  So if a police officer illegally confiscates your firearm the police officer will not face any charges.   The best thing we can do is add stiff criminal penalties to these laws, to include a felony with a minimum 5 year sentence for any government official that violates the law.

I would say that a reserve deputy program would be better to create groups of teachers, parents, hcp permit holders, and prior military to help guard schools as volunteers.  I've outlined before that it would be a low cost solution to provide 1 armed person per 250 students.      

The shot heard around the world wasn't about taking rifles away, the British were coming for the canons, and powder for those canons.   It was very common up through the 19th century for privately organized and funded militia companies to be formed and maintain artillery for the common good of the state.  Some of these 'private militias' are still around today.  I think there is a big on up in NY state.          

  Nobody has the right to search your car today...  If an employer asks, you can always tell them no.

  While it can take decades, most laws are fought to SCOTUS within a 4 or 5 year time frame...  Laws that are extremely unpopular tend to get there even quicker (for example the healthcare law).   Just think if every Senator and Congresscritter who voted for Obamacare was sitting inside a federal prison for the next 10 years right now?   While not perfect, it would prohibit them from ever getting reelected or collecting a penny from the government.