MikePapa1

OK, I'll answer your question.. Was a felony take down justified? I honestly don't know. Probably not. But the more operative question in my mind is, and the facts that helped form the basis of his lawsuit, was it unjustified? I have to say for me, it was not. Reasonable people might differ. On your AR pistol, I agree. If you need to carry it for protection, I'd say your rights at that point are the least of your concerns. I have a HCP. I carry everyday everywhere I legally can. I take that right and responsibility seriously. But if I see a guy walking toward me with an AK strapped across his chest, it's going to give me pause and frankly, I'd probably put my hand on the grip of my pistol. I do, occasionally wear a BDU blouse. That alone certainly isn't in any way suspicious. But if you look at the totality of the circumstances I believe the police acted both professionally and properly. As to signing the ticket, I'll just say what I tell my clients: Never argue with the police on the side of the road. If you get a ticket you think is unjustified the place to argue about it is in court. I'd have given this Plaintiff, exactly the same advice.

The law does need to be clarified. That being said anytime I see someone in camo walking through a park with an AK strapped to his chest, even I as a fervent advocate of the 2nd Amendment, am going to notice and be concerned. The Feds classify this as a pistol, fine it's a pistol. If it were a rifle, a full size AK, tell me the difference would be. I see none. If you are in a public park where hunting and shooting are illegal, what are you doing there with an AK? Personal protection? OK, the Police stopped him. While they were trying to determine whether the pistol was illegal (Now, how they were doing that is a mystery to me. How could they, by looking tell whether it was a full auto or a semi-auto?) he's demanding to have a supervisor come so he'd be detained longer. I'm curious, Jonnin, how you think the Plaintiff here did anything for "rights," because I just don't see it.

And who would get sued, if haviung stopped him, not determined its legality, releasing him and he shoots up a McDonalds. Cops have to live in the real world.

Again, the Court found most of the delay in his detention was caused by his DEMAND to see a supervisor. By the way, is a law enforcement officer required to recognize every single possible firearm on sight? My guess is they'd NEVER seen one before. Unless you are in to weird firearms, I'm not really sure why you would have. It might take more than a stick to determine whether the Draco is a pistol, a SBR or a submachine gun, particularly if you'd never seen one. He did this so he'd have a reason to sue the taxpayers to try to get money, so bad mouthing the police here, who appear to me to have been fully professional, is more than a bit misguided. He was in the woods in camo scaring people for the sole purpose of getting the attention he did. I have no sympathy whatever for him nor any complaints about his treatment.

Me, too.

Hence why walking about parks in camo with a pistol slung across your chest is a bad idea.

Well, when he appeared in Sumner County, he was right on the law but was obnoxious enough that he almost went to jail for contempt. He's not a friend to anyone who believes in the 2nd Amendment.

39-17-1319 handgun possession prohibited — Exceptions. 39-17-1319. handgun possession prohibited — Exceptions. (a) As used in this section and § 39-17-1320, unless the context otherwise requires:(1) “handgun†means a pistol, revolver, or other firearm of any description, loaded or unloaded, from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged, the length of the barrel of which, not including any revolving, detachable, or magazine breech, does not exceed twelve inches (12²);

No, the Feds do not, but Tennessee does.

Ron Paul could never be elected President. He is, in my view, the wrong face to put on the libertarian movement. His pursuit of a 3rd party run would be a disaster for libertarians, Republicans and the nation. Anyone advocating this should seriously rethink their views.

My point was that these "pistols" mimic rifles so if someone confuses one for a rifle it is very easy to understand. Simply because a round can be chambered in an unusual pistol does not make it a pistol round. .223 was designed as a rifle round. So was 7.62x39. They ARE rifle rounds. We wouldn't be having this discussion. With all due respect, since the police are also carrying Glocks, I think, again,we'd not be having this discussion. They would immediately know it was a pistol. If the police see anyone strangely dressed, acting a little off and open carrying any weapon, I, personally, would hope they make a stop to determine whether a crime has been or is being committed. You are free to disagree, but I have no problem with it. If someone, like the Plaintiff here, goes out of his way to attract attention while armed, I have no problem with him getting the attention. I'm a tad offended, however, that he also thinks he should be able to get my tax money for his trouble.

He INSISTED they call a supervisor. That caused the delay. I'm sorry but 2 1/2 hours to determine he's simply being an *ss is not, in my view, excessive.

With respect, Jonnin, these "pistols" were designed and marketed to take advantage of the ATF definition of pistol. Any rational person would see these as short barreled rifles. They fire rifle cartridges. They use the upper and lower receiver of a rifle. It's a quirk that the ATF defines them as pistols and allows the Plaintiff to make an *ss of himself and by extension, all of us who believe in responsible gun ownership. In this case, neither the rangers nor Metro police did anything wrong and the Plaintiff's attempt to make Tennessee taxpayers pay because he was an *ss offends me.

It WAS OK for him. They detained him, determined that he'd broken no laws and he was released. This case arose because the Plaintiff was seeking damages because his "rights" were violated. I'm sorry but if you do everything you can to look like a criminal or a nutcase, you're hardly in a position to complain about it. I'm as Second Amendment as anyone but this is simply stupid. Courts should not reward people for being stupid, particularly when they act stupidly intentionally.

http://www.highplainstactical.com/i//1_Romanian_AK_Draco_Pistol_25-1676-1.jpg I'm sorry but if I'd seen this, particularly with a sling as described, my first thought would not have been "Oh, yeah, THAT's a pistol."

I don't think we're talking about him. Rather, I thought were were discussing breaking legal ground.

Hmmmm. Anyone who has had the honor of meeting Leonard can attest that he's, well, intentionally confrontational. Anyone who looks at the Draco and can readily determine that it is, in fact, a pistol is a better man than I. It looks like a short barreled rifle to me. When the statutory definition says designed to be fired with one hand, the Draco hardly jumps to mind.

For those than enjoy these sorts of things, here's the opinion: http://www.ca6.uscou...12a0293p-06.pdf It's short. Only 6 pages. Here's one of my personal favorite passages: For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we. Who says Judge have no sense of humor?

Congressman Paul does seem to have a hard core group of supporters who believe he is a Messiah. Even if I agreed with him I think I'd be put off by the cult of personality that surrounds him and believes him to be a Savior.

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/19418614/man-who-carried-ak-47-pistol-in-park-loses-appeal?Call=Email&Format=HTML Hmmmmm. Who'd have thunk that?

I'm voting against the Vols.

I tend toward the libertarian bent, but I do not support Ron Paul and never have. I respect his courage of his convictions but on many things he's, quite simply, wrong. Those of you who support him, and continue to support him despite his electoral defeat, I'm curious: Do you really think the United States is better off with another Obama presidency or a Romney one?

I understand your position, Daniel, and I certainly am not asking you to "honor" symbols of the Confederacy. What I am asking for is acknowledgment that there are those who do and that if we truly honor "diversity" and "tolerance" that they have as much right to their views and to honor their heritage as anyone else. The attempt to remove the Confederate Battle Flag from public view, to have it viewed in the same light as say the Swastika, is an attempt to silence and stifle genuine expression of cultural heritage. We should all be concerned about the attempt to stigmatize those who believe that their Confederate heritage is important and wish to celebrate it. These attempts are both wrong and, in my view, very short sighted. Reason people, regardless of their heritage, should oppose them. For those of you who see the Battle Flag as a symbol of racism, let me tell you a brief tale. Here in Gallatin, we had a man who after the war became a pastor and founded churches all over Sumner County. He was originally from Kentucky and had served in the 6th Kentucky Cavalry. His name was Peter Vertrees. Peter was of mixed race. I had the honor of knowing two of his three daughters, the last of which died a few years ago. No one was prouder of his Confederate service than Rev. Vertrees. He was a member of the Donnelson Bivouac of the Untied Confederate Veterans. In his old age he received a Confederate Pension from the State of Tennessee. He taught his daughters that his time in the Confederate Army made him into the man he became. He founded the church I attend, First Baptist on Winchester Street here in Gallatin. His story is told here: http://www.amazon.com/Papa-Was-Gray-Mary-Schaller/dp/1577470680

Welcome to a fellow transplanted Hoosier.

Daniel, I was born and raised in Indiana. Most of my family, on both sides, have lived there since the War of 1812. You might notice my avatar, however, is a Confederate flag. It is a First Confederate National, 11 star, after the admission to the Confederacy of Tennessee, but belonging to the 4th Texas Infantry, Hood's Texas Brigade, Army of Northern Virginia. It is the flag of one of my ancestors who went to Texas in the 1830's to fight Indians and settle a new republic before its admission to the union. He started the war as a Captain of Co. I, the Navarro Rifles. He fought throughout the war, surrendering with General Lee at Appomattox. At that time he commanded the regiment as a Lieutenant Colonel. After the war, he returned to Texas, practiced law and became the first Judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. His portrait hangs in the Texas Capitol in Austin. His name was Clinton Mckamy Winkler. I say all this to show that locale does not determine heritage. By the way, while East Tennessee was largely proUnion, there were Confederate units raised there. Tennessee is an interesting state. It sent almost as many troops to the North as to the South. It has a rich heritage and all Tennesseans should embrace that whole heritage, including the Confederate Battle Flag. If it is suppressed, we all lose a bit of our real history for a sanitized, revised version of it to fit the whims of political expediency. I'm proud of both my Confederate and Union ancestors. They both fought as Americans for causes in which they believed, serving them with honor. Anytime we try to remove their symbols, to suit some vision of protecting the sensitive feelings of the ignorant, we diminish their honor and dishonor ourselves.