Chucktshoes

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184209" timestamp="1409271106"]No, I continue to focus on that incident. Terrorizing the general public is an act that should bring on a legal public beating. So, i'm real disappointed they didn't beat the #### out of him with his own gun. He had his day in court, one that would have never happened if he didn't beg for it.[/quote] Then charge him for "terrorizing the public" not a bogus weapons charge. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="dcloudy777" post="1184219" timestamp="1409271473"]Lenny's possession of the suppressor was against TN state law. His proper registration under NFA would have been a defense against prosecution (and likely against arrest) but he declined to show any evidence that he had it.[/quote] Check the judge's ruling again, he specifically covered that. State law says he had to retain the paperwork, he was under no obligation to show it to the officers. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="Sam1" post="1184204" timestamp="1409270857"]Personal responsibility. 1st amendment says you can say what you want, cun t b!tch whore and slut are common words, so would you ever use them to speak about your wife, mother or daughter? No reason to get in a big debate over this, because you believe in the literal translation word for word and without regard to the intent.[/quote] You dodged my question, but that's ok. Regardless, I would say that the idea that men should be free from selective and malicious prosecution by the state is absolutely in line with not just the word, but the intent of the Founder's documents. Even a cursory skimming of their writings bears that truth out. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1184200" timestamp="1409270286"]When the Police see someone that has had their permit revoked for "material likelihood that he is a risk to the public" carrying a rifle downtown they need to stop him. His behavior may not be criminal but it is not normal. I think a civil jury would see it that way if it goes that far.[/quote] They need to articulate why they are detaining him and when they determine that he has violated no laws, he should be left alone (not "allowed") to go on his way. He wasn't and that's the problem. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="Sam1" post="1184197" timestamp="1409269886"]You know it's also legal to wear a ninja suit with a backpack, creep around the building and stare in the windows of the federal courthouse in Nashville at 2:30am. And just as I would agree that the ninja suit guy should be dealt with, Voldemort antagonizing the cops should be as well.[/quote] Liberty for me, but not thee? If it is legal, then how exactly do you suggest it "should be dealt with"? Using the government to "deal with" folks you don't like is a bad, bad road to go down. Remember, the government isn't very fond of us gun owners as a general rule. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184188" timestamp="1409268435"]We will just have to disagree on this one. What has it cost so far to police all his antics? The government didn't go after him. He went after them. I think it was perfectly fine to bitch slap him, since he is, in fact, a bitch.[/quote] I think the real disconnect is that while you continue to focus on Lenny, my focus is on what the government did. Take Lenny out of the picture and imagine that the government maliciously prosecuted another person for being what they felt was a pain in the ass. Does that change things for you at all? The "who" is immaterial for me, it is the "what" of government action I take issue with. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[quote name="dcloudy777" post="1184182" timestamp="1409267496"]And you, being a TGO member so presumably a "gun person" are probably 10 times more sympathetic to Lenny's cause than the average jury member.[/quote] I would say that the general mood around this place says the exact opposite is true. Gun folks are much less sympathetic towards him because they feel he is personally harmful to them.

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184180" timestamp="1409267381"]And, I think it's worth a few bucks to shut that douchebag down. So far, it's working pretty well.[/quote] Even if it was 100% free, using the police and courts against someone [b]who broke no laws[/b] simply for being a douchebag who does things you don't like is unconscionable. I get it, I think he is a piece dogshit too, it is still wrong to use the government as a weapon against him. Even though I don't believe in what he is doing and won't stand with him, I will stand against what the government did here every single time. If they can maliciously prosecute him, what's to stop them from maliciously prosecuting anyone else? It disappoints me that you would let personal animus cause you to chuck things like the rule of law over the port.

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184163" timestamp="1409263615"]Those lawyers are on the payroll. They cost by the budget year, not by the hour. I assume they use their staff attorneys for BS lawsuits, if he can sue them at all.[/quote] And that makes the hours they wasted on this case any less valuable? Were they not paid for that time? Salary or hourly, time is still money.

[quote name="dcloudy777" post="1184172" timestamp="1409266424"]Lenny ain't gonna get a dime. All he had to do was pop the "case" open, show the cops his NFA paperwork and that the rifle was unloaded, and go home, and he would have been fine.[/quote] He could have, but he didn't [b]have[/b] to. That's the basis of the wrongdoing by the officers, and they were in the wrong. Make no mistake about it.

Neither am I. How much payroll was wasted on prosecuting this case instead of actual crimes? I would venture that this case has already cost the citizens of Nasvhille thousands, if not tens of thousands, of dollars. That's not including the costs to defend against the eventual lawsuit that we all know will be brought.

Yep. Imagine how much time, effort and money would have been saved by the city if the officers on the scene would have had the sense to say that.

I would agree with you 100% on the bolded portion. Yet it is precisely because of that Metro needs to be sanctioned harshly. The reason is that they knew who he was and their actions were different because of that. It is a clear cut case of a selective and malicious application of the law against someone who was a disfavored person. Is he a douchebag and a giant pain in the ass? Abso-friggin-lutely. That does not grant the police the right to treat him any differently than anyone else or to maliciously pursue charges against him for a crime he did not commit. The cops & the DA don't get to prosecute someone to "teach them a lesson" as this case so clearly appears to be.  I don't live in Nashville and I am pissed at Metro because the assholes are making me have to defend that douchenozzle. Do you know how ####ing much that annoys the #### out of me?When dealing with a dickhead, don't act in such a manner as to put the dickhead in the right.

You know, this makes the ex going to a different parish make a little more sense. The first go around, she very well could have run into "You're saying Will did what? I just don't believe it. I've known him for years." After all, we are talking about a celebrity with a lot of local LE contacts.

As much as I dislike the asshat, I think odds are good he may have finally found the payday he has been after.

The post got disappeared.

That definitely thickens the plot quite a bit.   I saw the post before he disappeared it. It was in the form of poetry, but he straight up stated that Will abused Stephanie when she was younger as well.

“Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.” Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I'm curious, don't folks have to have a sponsoring agency to maintain their POST certifications?

Actually, I think it isn't wood. I believe it probably is a colored polymer furniture set to designate a shotgun that is to only be loaded with less lethal rounds (sandbags, blocks) probably orange but the lights are making it appear pink.

[quote name="gregintenn" post="1178099" timestamp="1407716795"]I missed them.[/quote] Me too. I hate it when I miss a good fireworks show.

[quote name="Dolomite_supafly" post="1175804" timestamp="1407245371"]How funny would it be to place against some high end rigs. BTW, there is nothing wrong with Highpoints as far as reliability goes. They are a blowback, not locked breech, gun so they are going to be safe with any ammo you shoot out of them. And because they are blowback they are so much more reliable. I dare anyone to find someone who has actually owned a highpoint that says theirs wasn't reliable. Yes they are ugly as sin and cheap as hell but they are reliable.[/quote] The reliability issues don't stem from the blowback design, but from the magazine construction. My first handgun was a Hi-Point. It was not reliable at first. Then I purchased new magazines for it. At one time there was (and still may be) a thread devoted to the tweaking of the magazine feed lips to increase reliability as they had a tendency to spread over time when left loaded. The metal used to make the magazines is a bit thin & weak. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Though I have always been a customer of RangeUSA, I know the local market will be much poorer without them.

[quote name="Dustbuster" post="1172430" timestamp="1406434034"]Now hopefully they'll pass a concealed howitzer law, and flamethrower permit law. Perfect for that filthy nasty disgusting town....dc, ptooie Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.[/quote] Your post does make me wonder if DC has a local flamethrower law. Federally (& in TN) they are unregulated and I have been thinking about building one. It would be amusing to see if they overlooked that particular device in DC as well.

[quote name="ab28" post="1167091" timestamp="1404951518"]Yeah I hate at will firing states, because you are a slave to greedy corporations. I was fired a couple of times over the years over crap someone accused me of, and at will opens the door to all kinds of discriminatory firings, or being fired simply because they don't like you. I wish the at will thing would just die, you should have a good concrete reason for being fired at a job. Corporations only care about money and would grind their employees into dust to save a few pennies. Look at Wal Mart, many of their employees are on food stamps and welfare while they made billions in profit. With that said, I worked at a gas station, and carried when I worked there. My right to self defense trumps an employer's property rights. If I would have gotten fired for using it, I would have just found another job, at least I would be alive to. [/quote] I have the opposite view. I would much rather work in an at will state.