Man Who Carried AK-47 Pistol In Park Loses Appeal

[MikePapa1]

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."

[E4 No More]

http://www.highplain...l_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."

Which is what the party counted upon occurring. From the other side, however, the police will do whatever they can to trick someone into breaking the law without being downright obvious, (RADAR traps are an example), so why is it ok for them to do so but not this party?

[Jonnin]

http://www.highplain...l_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."

that is the point indeed. They need to remove the AFT and its rules to determine what is and is not what type of gun, since really, its just how it looks. Maybe the media should decide, they seem to be able to tell full auto and assault weapons at a glance.

[MikePapa1]

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.

[MikePapa1]

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.

[E4 No More]

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.

It's not the stop that bothers me. That was certainly warranted, but the timeframe to determine lagality was certainly excessive.

[MikePapa1]

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.

[KahrMan]

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.

I totally agree. He wanted a confrontation and he got it. It's Leonards problem if he got all butt hurt.

[atlas3025]

So, in the end, was this all just an attempt by him to get rich by lawsuit? Was this even about gun rights, or just an attempted moneygrab?

[E4 No More]

I'm certainly not defending what the idiot did; I just worry about precedence being set to hold people for a long time to determine they did nothing wrong.

[E4 No More]

So, in the end, was this all just an attempt by him to get rich by lawsuit? Was this even about gun rights, or just an attempted moneygrab?

Money under the guise of gun rights.

[Moped]

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.

It's my opinion that the LEO's figured it out WAY TOO QUICK! Instead of 2 1/2 hours it should have taken 48 hours, but only for Leonard.

[nightrunner]

Im sorry but if the world isnt so far in the crapper that anarchy abounds and you are caught carrying an ar or ak pistol on your person, you should expect to be held for 24-48hours while they figure out if they can charge you or not. The average law abiding citizen doesnt walk around with an ar or ak pistol with good intentions.

[Jonnin]

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.

Some are, and indeed his gun is one of those. Mine is a 223 pistol but its not an AR upper, its kinda unique (kel tec plr). LE used to carry a PLR around but swapped to the AK for variety I guess.

The law is not a rational person. The law made a size limit for a sawed off shotgun, and people have happily sawed them off to the legal limit for decades. Everyone is OK with this. The law made a limit on the size of a "pistol" and a few gun makers produce weapons on the edge of this size. Here, this causes all sorts of problems, but it is exactly the same thing. If the legal size of a pistol is too big, then it should be changed, but until that time, the law is what it is and the officers should know the limit (they all seem to have memorized the shotgun rule and carry stick to measure it, why not for a pistol? These pistols have been around for decades!).

There is no consensus on what a "rifle round" is. Is a .22 long RIFLE a rifle round? What about a 30-30, which there are revolvers chambered for? What about 9mm, with all the popular carbines and so on? About all anyone can say is that a given round is most commonly used in whatever type of gun --- however I would guess .22 is even split between rifle and pistol.

I guess what I am going for is this. Take the jerk out of the scene and replace the pistol with a glock.

Ok so joe blow has a glock 17 open carried in a park while wearing camo or some other nutty outfit and is acting a little off.

Would you guys be ok if he were arrested at gunpoint after he had already had his permit checked, if he had not been doing anything to anyone, had not drawn the gun, etc? Would you be ok with the cops not knowing if his gun were legally a pistol or not? Maybe he had a 30 round glock mag and one of the LEOS mistook it for an uzi, would that be OK?

Edited September 1, 2012 by Jonnin

[VolunteerGuns]

Lennys a douche. Its all about the attention. Shortly after the Dark Knight theater shootings, he started this crap -

Free Movie Tickets With Each Assualt Weapon Purchase - "Because I Can"

Its all about shock value and attention.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Dolomite_supafly

[Dolomite_supafly]

Which is what the party counted upon occurring. From the other side, however, the police will do whatever they can to trick someone into breaking the law without being downright obvious, (RADAR traps are an example), so why is it ok for them to do so but not this party?

Officers do not do whatever they can to trick someone into breaking the law.

As far as the radar traps statement, don't speed and it should not matter if the officer is hidden or not. Don't run red lights and you won't get your picture taken for a ticket. Don't break the law and you will probably never have to explain anything to an officer because you will never be questioned. When someone is being questioned by an officer it is because there is a reason.

People break the law then blame anyone other than themselves for the consequences. That is one thing that has really bothered me recently, people do not want to take responsibility for their own actions. It is everybody else's fault except their own.

Dolomite

[MikePapa1]

The law is not a rational person. The law made a size limit for a sawed off shotgun, and people have happily sawed them off to the legal limit for decades. Everyone is OK with this. The law made a limit on the size of a "pistol" and a few gun makers produce weapons on the edge of this size. Here, this causes all sorts of problems, but it is exactly the same thing. If the legal size of a pistol is too big, then it should be changed, but until that time, the law is what it is and the officers should know the limit (they all seem to have memorized the shotgun rule and carry stick to measure it, why not for a pistol? These pistols have been around for decades!).

My point was that these "pistols" mimic rifles so if someone confuses one for a rifle it is very easy to understand.

There is no consensus on what a "rifle round" is. Is a .22 long RIFLE a rifle round? What about a 30-30, which there are revolvers chambered for? What about 9mm, with all the popular carbines and so on? About all anyone can say is that a given round is most commonly used in whatever type of gun --- however I would guess .22 is even split between rifle and pistol.

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.

I guess what I am going for is this. Take the jerk out of the scene and replace the pistol with a glock.

We wouldn't be having this discussion.

Ok so joe blow has a glock 17 open carried in a park while wearing camo or some other nutty outfit and is acting a little off.

Would you guys be ok if he were arrested at gunpoint after he had already had his permit checked, if he had not been doing anything to anyone, had not drawn the gun, etc? Would you be ok with the cops not knowing if his gun were legally a pistol or not? Maybe he had a 30 round glock mag and one of the LEOS mistook it for an uzi, would that be OK?

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.

[mikegideon]

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.

This

[Will Carry]

You guys know this Radnor Lake Rambo? I have been to Radnor Lake many times. It's a nice little city park. I think he was trolling for attention. Maybe he wasn't hugged enough as a kid.

[Jonnin]

I'm a tad offended, however, that he also thinks he should be able to get my tax money for his trouble.

Now that I can stand behind 100%. I hope the loss of legal fees this time around will put a damper on his future efforts.

[Steelharp]

I guess what I am going for is this. Take the jerk out of the scene and replace the pistol with a glock.

While I personally don't imbibe, I have several friends that would love to contact your supplier. They'd LOVE a hit of whatever you're taking.

[Steelharp]

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.

This +100.

[RobertNashville]

...As far as the radar traps statement, don't speed and it should not matter if the officer is hidden or not. Don't run red lights and you won't get your picture taken for a ticket.

Off the subject I know but since it's been brought it up...

I have no problem with someone being arrested for running a red light if they actually run a read light...I do have a problem with people getting a "ticket" which isn't really a ticket at all because some camera took a picture; especially when we have evidence that the companies running these red-light cameras have decreased the duration of the yellow light precisely so that they can increase the number of drivers they "catch".

I don't have a problem with someone being issued a ticket when they are driving at an unsafe speed for the the environment (road conditions, other drivers, etc.). I do have a problem with "speed traps" where tickets are issued with none of the above being taken into consideration...where speed limits are set artificially low for the purpose of generating more speeding and more tickets - people tend to drive the speed of surrounding traffic and naturally cruise at a speed their mind tells them is appropriate, even if they do so unconsciously. Some people will drive 95 in a 70 zone simply because they want to; most people will drive 80 or 85 in a 70 zone because they innately know that the speed they are driving is safe (the road is constructed to be safe at those speeds, pavement is dry, visibility is more than sufficient, etc).

What I'm saying is, I'm all for traffic law enforcement that is actually based on legitimate safety concerns. However, far too much traffic law enforcement is based on how much revenue is needed for the county, city, state, etc.

[Chucktshoes]

^ that x eleventy billion.

[Guest 270win]

It is not legal to carry a gun in Tennessee in public. The police could have technically arrested the guy and let the prosecutor drop the charge. A handgun carry permit is a defense to prosecution.