Man Who Carried AK-47 Pistol In Park Loses Appeal

[Steelharp]

First time, guy checks permit and looks at gun, is not sure about pistolness of it but lets it go.

LEO Mistake # 1. Should have made sure then.

[TMF]

Okay, I missed that then. I'm familiar with the story but always understood that it was just a couple of cops that held him for a while. I didn't know the part about guns drawn, but then again I don't know the circumstances of the second incident. Perhaps LEO #2 got spooked and pulled and LEO #1 mirrored his actions. Wouldn't be out of the ordinary. I'm sure it is second nature for an officer to draw when he sees another officer do it. I don't feel bad for him one bit though. While I want my LEOs to be in check and respect people's rights, there is a margin for error when attempting to interpret a situation such as this.

[TMF]

Dbl tap

Edited September 7, 2012 by TMF

[Jonnin]

no they decided to do the guns out approach, then went and found him for the second time, as far as I can make sense of the pdf file. Nothing appears to have prompted the guns out, which is what I have been going on about for the last page or so.... apparently unclearly, sorry about that.

I do not feel bad for him either. I just hope that checking a HCP with guns drawn is not SOP. Again, while I respect the officers, going in guns first is how guys with a water hose nozzle get shot, or the other occasional similar story... the old though of going in expecting trouble and you find it, I guess...

Edited September 7, 2012 by Jonnin

[JayC]

And once again I'll pose this question, is it illegal to strap road flares to my chest and walk around?

Yes it is illegal under both state and federal law to construct and display a hoax bomb. (again there are exceptions to the law, but the act you describe is illegal).

Is it illegal to walk down the street with a broadsword?

It is illegal to go armed with a bladed weapon in TN, and they're not covered under the HCP exception.

Is it illegal to walk down the street in a full nude colored body suit?

Depends, on the situation, but current case law would suggest no it's completely legal, and not cause for a terry stop.

Is it illegal to walk through a park and approach kids with offers of free candy?

Sure it's legal, and wouldn't be cause to support a terry stop in and of itself.

I would say that all the things above are legal, but will attract attention of law enforcement and potentially get you detained. The law is not the problem. The police are not the problem. The problem is one useless turd making an issue where no issue exists.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whom is the problem... I think there is a bunch of blame to go around on this one... A turd who tried to get the police to over react, and then the police who fell for it, and over reacted... are equally at faulty.

We've recently seen a video of another police officer confronted with almost this exactly same situation... somebody openly carrying an mp5 style pistol... I think we would all agree that officer handled the situation by the book and didn't over react... while the officers in question in this case... at best over reacted.

[JayC]

Well, charge would be unlawful carry. In public. Class A 'meanor: up to $2500 and/or year in jail

- OS

I'm pretty sure at the time, it was $500, and the fine was raised after that point... but I could be wrong... and lets be honest... nobody is going to spend any time in jail over this... remember you have an intent issue within the law... if you intended to carry via the HCP and made a good faith effort to do so, very few DAs are going to take the time to send you to jail... most are going to plead this down to community service and loosing the weapon.

[MikePapa1]

Maybe not a Terry stop but certainly enough to earn you a consensual encounter.

[Oh Shoot]

I'm pretty sure at the time, it was $500, and the fine was raised after that point... but I could be wrong... and lets be honest... nobody is going to spend any time in jail over this... remember you have an intent issue within the law... if you intended to carry via the HCP and made a good faith effort to do so, very few DAs are going to take the time to send you to jail... most are going to plead this down to community service and loosing the weapon.

Unlawful possession/carry in public has as far as I know been a Class A 'meanor since enacted, like "forever". Fines/jail for the various levels of felonies and 'meanors have also been same since "forever" too.

And sure, most folks don't get the max for any level of misdemeanor, even DUI -- then again Lenny, being the type of man that Will Rogers never met, might well have!

It was just a comment on the actual charge that would logically be lodged if you carry something other than a "handgun" with a permit. Same as a knife over 4". Drops down to Class C 'meanor if not in "public", like in your car I suppose.

- OS

Edited September 7, 2012 by OhShoot

[RobertNashville]

I for one am very glad we don't still have long, laborious threads about he of whom we do not speak

[Oh Shoot]

I for one am very glad we don't still have long, laborious threads about he of whom we do not speak

Lenny has been a source for much thoughtful discussion about individual rights, TN law, and 2A issues and the like.

Mostly though, has been entertaining over time. Not boring is generally a plus, short of personal SHTF level.

- OS

Edited September 7, 2012 by OhShoot

[TMF]

Yes it is illegal under both state and federal law to construct and display a hoax bomb. (again there are exceptions to the law, but the act you describe is illegal).

It is illegal to go armed with a bladed weapon in TN, and they're not covered under the HCP exception.

Depends, on the situation, but current case law would suggest no it's completely legal, and not cause for a terry stop.

Sure it's legal, and wouldn't be cause to support a terry stop in and of itself.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whom is the problem... I think there is a bunch of blame to go around on this one... A turd who tried to get the police to over react, and then the police who fell for it, and over reacted... are equally at faulty.

We've recently seen a video of another police officer confronted with almost this exactly same situation... somebody openly carrying an mp5 style pistol... I think we would all agree that officer handled the situation by the book and didn't over react... while the officers in question in this case... at best over reacted.

You missed my point completely. I'll sum it up with this:

I live in a world where carrying an AK around in public is an abnormal event, and is consistent with other events which resulted in mass shootings. This is why people call police and why police react the way they do. You may disagree with this, but it doesn't change reality, and it won't. The reason it won't is because this will never be a normal thing, someone just walking around a park with an AK. This is because only attention whore douchebags participate in that behavior. So, because of this, only .0000000001% of the population is affected by police and citizens reacting in this manner. This is reality. I live there and will continue to live there. If you don't like it, then don't carry around a short barreled rifle and try to pretend that it's normal.

[Steelharp]

You missed my point completely. I'll sum it up with this:

I live in a world where carrying an AK around in public is an abnormal event, and is consistent with other events which resulted in mass shootings. This is why people call police and why police react the way they do. You may disagree with this, but it doesn't change reality, and it won't. The reason it won't is because this will never be a normal thing, someone just walking around a park with an AK. This is because only attention whore douchebags participate in that behavior. So, because of this, only .0000000001% of the population is affected by police and citizens reacting in this manner. This is reality. I live there and will continue to live there. If you don't like it, then don't carry around a short barreled rifle and try to pretend that it's normal.

This.

[JayC]

You missed my point completely. I'll sum it up with this:

I live in a world where carrying an AK around in public is an abnormal event, and is consistent with other events which resulted in mass shootings. This is why people call police and why police react the way they do. You may disagree with this, but it doesn't change reality, and it won't. The reason it won't is because this will never be a normal thing, someone just walking around a park with an AK. This is because only attention whore douchebags participate in that behavior. So, because of this, only .0000000001% of the population is affected by police and citizens reacting in this manner. This is reality. I live there and will continue to live there. If you don't like it, then don't carry around a short barreled rifle and try to pretend that it's normal.

I don't disagree that his action would have caused concern... I don't disagree that police officers should go out and have a consensual chat with a person carrying what appears to be an AK... I also don't have a problem with them doing a permit check to make sure the guy isn't a nut job... If after the first encounter they still had questions, fine go have another chat....

My issue is after what appears to have been a fairly normal encounter (going by the statements from the first ranger), they suddenly felt the need to point a shotgun at this guy (do a felon stop)... is he an attention whore? sure... does it appear he was fishing for a lawsuit? I'd say yes... but he didn't do anything illegal, and didn't pose a threat to the officer or anybody else...

Knowing what the officers knew at the end of the first encounter... they had a valid HCP permit holder, who did not act hostile towards them, who claimed to be carrying a pistol (even though it didn't look like a pistol)... somehow they went from those set of facts to, we must point a shotgun at this guy, and have him lay down on the ground, so we can ask him more questions about the firearm.

How exactly do we get from the first encounter, to the 2nd? I just don't see the REASONABLE suspicion that he was about to go on a shooting rampage given the set of facts they knew at the time.

While Radnor Lake isn't miles and miles from civilization it's also not downtown Nashville.... There weren't crowds of people there... none of the tell tale signs of a mass shooting about to happen... Context is everything...

Here is the real fact... these 'attention whores' as you like to call them... go around doing stuff as 'lawsuit bait' for a reason... it works... for some reason police officers can't seem to deal with odd and strange very well, and over react... And this case is a perfect example of over reaction.

As a perfect example:

http://www.policeone.com/Patrol-Video/articles/5930343-Video-Cops-expert-open-carry-response-goes-viral/

Here you have almost the exact same situation as Radnor Lake... attention whore carrying what appears to be a sub machine gun - check.... In a much more public location than Radnor Lake - check... This is the first encounter from this officer... take a look at how he handled the situation... then compare it to how the situation at Radnor Lake was handled...

The link, a good example of how to handle attention whores who aren't breaking the law... Radnor Lake, a perfect example in over reaction.

[nightrunner]

The difference is the Radnor Lake guy has a history of doing this same thing repeatedly and planning other incidents. I wouldnt doubt that after the first officer called it in they decided to make an example of him so to speak.

TGO isnt the only group of people watching everything this guy does. That I am sure of.

[Jonnin]

The difference is the Radnor Lake guy has a history of doing this same thing repeatedly and planning other incidents. I wouldnt doubt that after the first officer called it in they decided to make an example of him so to speak.

TGO isnt the only group of people watching everything this guy does. That I am sure of.

That might very well be the best answer to that question so far, very good point. I know I don't have the patience to deal with people like this and would be sorely tempted to give him the aforementioned boot. Then again, that is why I went into the computer field, they don't sue if you smack them (yet).

[JayC]

The difference is the Radnor Lake guy has a history of doing this same thing repeatedly and planning other incidents. I wouldnt doubt that after the first officer called it in they decided to make an example of him so to speak.

TGO isnt the only group of people watching everything this guy does. That I am sure of.

First, I don't believe the rangers knew about him, this planned 'protest' or 'lawsuit bait'... I think it was only after this case that police officers were alerted to his actions and they started monitoring him... There was a BOLO sent out about him, which included website posts that seem to indicate he was considering a similar visit to the bicentennial mall (which is smack in downtown Nashville and about the size of a postage stamp compared to Radnor Lake).

Second, if he was spotted doing this back at Radnor, or some other state park, and the ranger knew it was him, they would loose all RAS for a terry stop or a permit check. Anything more than a consensual interaction would in itself be a violation of his rights.. Because they would have known he had a valid HCP, and was there doing this as a 'protest'/'lawsuit bait' and not a risk to the public at large. (Again speaking in the past before the Belle Meade incident and his permit being revoked).

Third, what you're suggesting is exactly what we don't want police officers doing... If there was any evidence that they 'decided to make an example' out of him, then I (and I hope everybody else) would not only be calling for the said officers to loose their jobs, but would be supporting his lawsuit as a valid violation of his civil rights. We want officers who investigate crimes and lock up the criminals... if they know somebody is acting within the law, and they still take action, that is the very definition of abuse and corruption.

The fact remains, these type of people are real life internet trolls... ignore them and they'll go away... feed them with over reaction and they become the stray cat you feed that will never leave... The fact is if 'the one who can't be named' had been a bit smarter he likely would have been successful in getting his permit back... luckily until we pass constitutional carry in this state, he has to go down to GA or up to KY to cause issues.

[Guest MilitiaMan]

I'm not a pants wetting liberal that is scared of guns, but if I see someone walking around with an AK strapped to their chest in a public park I'm calling the cops. That simple.

I agree.

[nightrunner]

The fact remains he needs a trip out to the woodshed to have some sense beat into him. Problem is nobody can agree on who is allowed to do it.

Just because you have one idiot doing stupid things to get a reaction doesnt mean that everybody else that acts normal will get the same response from law enforcement.

[TMF]

The fact remains he needs a trip out to the woodshed to have some sense beat into him. Problem is nobody can agree on who is allowed to do it.

Well, he's Kentucky's problem now. Perhaps I'm showing what a soulless person I am, but when I turn on the news someday and hear about some Kentucky cop burning him down I'm going to literally laugh out loud. I'll feel bad for the cop though.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Jonnin: "WHAT? Do a felony takedown of the guy for what reason?"

Hmm. I believe the officers were within the law to do a Felony stop.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1302

39-17-1302. Prohibited weapons.

(a) A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs or sells:

(3) A machine gun;

(4) A short-barrel rifle or shotgun;

(d)

(2) An offense under subdivisions (a)(2)-(5) is a Class E felony.

Hmm, this guy has what looks like a shortened rifle or assault rifle (if fully automatic, or 3 round burst = "machine gun") and is walking around in a public place (park.)

Yep. Just my opinion, and I am no licensed attorney. Nor did I sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

A great tool: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

Edited September 8, 2012 by HvyMtl

[Steelharp]

Well, he's Kentucky's problem now.

How so? His FFL business is in Brentwood.

[Guest HvyMtl]

I, also, had heard Kwik was moving to KY. I cannot confirm. I wonder if he does move to another state, and would attempt to get another permit.

Edited September 8, 2012 by HvyMtl

[TMF]

How so? His FFL business is in Brentwood.

Yeah but now that he doesn't have a permit and has no hopes of ever getting one, he was planning on playing his reindeer games in Kentucky.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Wouldnt having your permit revoked in one state, prevent you from getting another, in a different state?

[TMF]

Wouldnt having your permit revoked in one state, prevent you from getting another, in a different state?

Open carry without a permit is legal there. I don't know if one has to be a resident or not though. I'm sure he's figured that out since he was planning on OCing a suppressed AR pistol earlier this year.