State suspends gun carry permit for James Yeager

[Superman]

AFA the "I will kill anyone that tries to take my guns" that is said by people all the time. Hell I have heard Phil Valentine say that on the radio many times. I heard him say it a couple times last week. Why is it such a big deal now? Because Yeager said it, I dont get it.

[TMF]

[quote name="Superman" post="882687" timestamp="1358011320"]AFA the "I will kill anyone that tries to take my guns" that is said by people all the time. Hell I have heard Phil Valentine say that on the radio many times. I heard him say it a couple times last week. Why is it such a big deal now? Because Yeager said it, I dont get it.[/quote] That's not the only thing he said. When referring to the possibility of some executive order he said "if they move another inch, I'm gonna start killing people." I promise you, if I heard someone say that who was heavily armed, regardless of venue, I would feel as if lives were in danger and would be compelled to contact authorities.

[mikegideon]

I don’t consider him as representing me and only the most fanatical gun haters will see it that way. There is an element out there that sees this as an opportunity to overthrow our government. I am not part of that group and will protect my country at all costs.

As I have said before these clowns picture themselves wandering around gun in hand living the good life with no government intervention. They are totally clueless as to what would happen with secession or an attack on the government. They get mad and they can’t think straight. I think that is what happened to Yeager.

We have a set of checks and balances in place. We have three levels of government. Right now one (the Executive Branch) is out of control. We have a President that is more than willing to walk all over the Constitution and side step the other two branches any chance he gets. Our founding Fathers planned for exactly what is going on now.

I expect the President to try to do something illegal. I think his Vice President is so stupid he won’t know the difference. I don’t expect the Legislative Branch to take a hard line and step in to stop him; although hopefully I will be wrong and they will. I do however expect the Judicial Branch to stop him cold. It will take time for them to do that; I am willing to give them a reasonable amount of time to do that.

 

I expect the system to work. In your list of checks an balances, you left out the final check. Even though there are people trying to take us to that place (and I'm not talking radical gun nuts and fantasy boys), it has to go through a LOT of layers to get there. It won't.

 

Yes, the founders planned for this, and chose armed citizens as the final deterrent. Anybody that views a 2nd amendment remedy as an opportunity is out of their minds. It would be the worst of the worst. With that said, it is there.

[Sam1]

Ok enough of this case citing BS.

 

+1, I bet the lawyers are laughing their asses off at all of us in here  :rock:

[mikegideon]

AFA the "I will kill anyone that tries to take my guns" that is said by people all the time. Hell I have heard Phil Valentine say that on the radio many times. I heard him say it a couple times last week. Why is it such a big deal now? Because Yeager said it, I dont get it.

 

I used to bump into Phil in the hall on a regular basis. Nice guy. His eyes weren't bugging out, or anything like it :)

[Chucktshoes]

I think the alacrity with which many here have jumped up to throw Yeager under the bus has much more to do with the messenger than the message.

[DaveTN]

+1, I bet the lawyers are laughing their asses off at all of us in here  :rock:

I doubt they are laughing. They know as well as anyone that no matter what the laws says guilty people are let go and innocent people are sent to prison every day.

Nothing is set in stone; the elements of the offense and the facts of the case would be argued.

[JayC]

Find a single person ever convicted under this law...  Remember the Militia case up in MI/OH and how they attempted to charge them under this law? Those charges were dismissed...  Talking about something is protected speech unless it's a direct or specific threat.

 

 

A federal judge on Tuesday gutted the government's case against seven members of a U.S. militia, dismissing the most serious charges in an extraordinary defeat for federal authorities who insisted they had captured homegrown rural extremists poised for war.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/charges-dismissed-in-michigan-militia-case/#ixzz2HmmGlZqx

 

Read some of the transcripts from that case, and you'll see what Yeager said wasn't all that serious ;)

 

Ok enough of this case citing BS. How about The Smith Act of 1940?

 

Title I. Subversive activities. The Smith Act set federal criminal penalties that included fines or imprisonment for as long as twenty years and denied all employment by the federal government for five years following a conviction for anyone who:

The Smith Act's prohibition of proselytizing on behalf of revolution repeated language found in previous statutes. It went beyond earlier legislation in outlawing action to "organize any society, group, or assembly" that works toward that end and then extended that prohibition to "membership" or "affiliation"—a term it did not define—with such a group.

 

He did specifically call for "all you patriots" to pack some sammiches and get ready to fight. He specifically stated intentions to start killing people based on his anger with the government. I think The Smith Act might be a fine place to start legal proceedings, at the very least as grounds for precedent.

 

 

[Punisher84]

Why would you want them to start there? Your avatar says “Come and take them”, is that letting them know you will voluntarily hand over your guns or should they start with you next because it means something quite different?

How the hell did you pick me out in this? Yeager is a liability. Call my avatar "posturing" or "sentiment" if you will. I don't follow people like Yeager or Alex Jones who are calling for revolution, civil war, and bloodshed. I'm not advocating violence, I'm advocating legislative and passive resistance. I've never made threats to murder people. I've been agreeing with you!

[Punisher84]

Find a single person ever convicted under this law...  Remember the Militia case up in MI/OH and how they attempted to charge them under this law? Those charges were dismissed...  Talking about something is protected speech unless it's a direct or specific threat.

 

 

 

Read some of the transcripts from that case, and you'll see what Yeager said wasn't all that serious ;)

Fair enough, Jay. I'll just tell you how I view it. If you walked into my workplace and said "If this happens, I'm going to start killing people" you'd be removed quickly and violently if necessary. Just because there isn't a precedent, it doesn't mean there won't be or shouldn't be. I'm fine that they yanked his permit and I'll be fine if they give it back. It's not an anti-Yeager thing for me. It's an anti-being a loudmouth fucktard that posts dumb crap on YouTube in the middle of a 2A national crapfest thing.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Punisher84

[DaveTN]

Members of the New Black Panthers publically put out a cash offer for anyone that would kill or deliver Zimmerman to them. That is clearly a crime. We know who they are, but as far as I know no one has been charged.

Crimes aren’t always charged, and the fact they aren’t charged doesn’t make them legal. If I got on here and offered $10K for a specific person to be killed I doubt it would take more than a few hours for the cops to be at my door arrest warrant in hand.

[tntnixon]

I was always under the impression, and the courts have generally ruled that if/then statements are not considered true threats. I'll give an example: "If anybody touches my daughter, I will kill them." Does this statement constitute a real threat to any individual or pose a true risk to the general public? I think not. Now if I say "I'm gonna kill Jim Jones tonight because he touched my daughter", that is a very different statement and the courts have ruled as such. This man's rant is far more similar to my first example than to my latter. I can't see any court agreeing that his statement is anything other than protected by 1A.

I haven't posted on here in quite some time because I realize that, for some reason, gun owners are cannibals and will sacrifice each other for any perceived protection of their own rights. I have generally witnessed this community trying to find fault with every post they see and even the most logical arguments will always find an assortment of detractors. Unfortunately, when we sacrifice other's rights, our own shall be next. We are in a very precarious time not that dissimilar to those our forefathers faced. We are very close to embarking upon a time when rights can and will be revoked by whim of bureaucrats and executive edict. These are not the actions of a representative republic. So I beg of each and every one of you to remember the statement of our founders "If we don't hang together, we'll hang separately." I encourage all to support this guy, even if you don't agree with his rant, because I can assure you that each and every one of you has made some statement, that if looked at by the right set of eyes, could deprive you of your rights or, as some have said, privileges. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Find a single person ever convicted under this law...  Remember the Militia case up in MI/OH and how they attempted to charge them under this law? Those charges were dismissed...  Talking about something is protected speech unless it's a direct or specific threat.

 

 

 

Read some of the transcripts from that case, and you'll see what Yeager said wasn't all that serious ;)

And if I recall correctly, the feds spent a fortune trying to prosecute that. Right?

[Sam1]

I doubt they are laughing. They know as well as anyone that no matter what the laws says guilty people are let go and innocent people are sent to prison every day.

Nothing is set in stone; the elements of the offense and the facts of the case would be argued.

 

Not over the issue itself, just at all of us

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Members of the New Black Panthers publically put out a cash offer for anyone that would kill or deliver Zimmerman to them. That is clearly a crime. We know who they are, but as far as I know no one has been charged.

Crimes aren’t always charged, and the fact they aren’t charged doesn’t make them legal. If I got on here and offered $10K for a specific person to be killed I doubt it would take more than a few hours for the cops to be at my door arrest warrant in hand.

Equal justice under the law. Trouble with this in this thread is that that isn't the issue with Yeager, is it? His "threat" is an apple with your oranges. And the Justice Department was racially discriminating against a class of people with your first example.

Edited January 12, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[Worriedman]

That's not the only thing he said. When referring to the possibility of some executive order he said "if they move another inch, I'm gonna start killing people." I promise you, if I heard someone say that who was heavily armed, regardless of venue, I would feel as if lives were in danger and would be compelled to contact authorities.

Uh, didn't a Chicago Police Chief say his forces would be shooting people, regardless of their legality, just the other day?

[Guest carter]

(( Gulmer Pyle wave )) over here guyz...i found it... hahaha

[JayC]

I think private businesses can and should be free to remove people from their property if they say things which the owners disagree with....  No disagreement there...

 

There is precedent, in that speech even speech that promotes the overthrow of the United States government is protected speech...  I'd be happy to give you lots of examples, bet lets look at the other side of the aisle for some of the most clear cut examples...  Communist Party USA, La Raza, the christian identity movement...  All advocate for the removal of our current government in one form or another...  all of which I personally find disgusting...

 

Yet none have been convicted under sedition laws, because judges have time and time again thrown cases out of court because the speech is protected speech.

 

I don't care for what they say, but I do believe in their right to say it.

 

I don't think unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats at TDOS should have the ability to revoke/suspend permits "because we say so"...  I'm even more concerned because Yeagers permit being revoked APPEARS to be politically motivated...  Which is the exact reason we have freedom of speech protections listed in the constitution, to prevent the government from retaliating against us for speaking out again the government.

 

If Yeagers words violated the law, charge him, I may disagree with those charges but then we have a system that has some form of checks and balances before he's punished by the government...  but here we have a law that appears to have been used twice to silence critics of the government.  

 

And again, if like you said he'll probably get his permit back, because he doesn't really pose a material threat to the public, then what happens to the employee at TDOS that revoked his permit, do they loose their job?  Are they sent to prison for violating Yeagers constitutional rights?  No, they go home with a full paycheck the next day, and that is the real problem.

 

Fair enough, Jay. I'll just tell you how I view it. If you walked into my workplace and said "If this happens, I'm going to start killing people" you'd be removed quickly and violently if necessary. Just because there isn't a precedent, it doesn't mean there won't be or shouldn't be. I'm fine that they yanked his permit and I'll be fine if they give it back. It's not an anti-Yeager thing for me. It's an anti-being a loudmouth fucktard that posts dumb crap on YouTube in the middle of a 2A national crapfest thing.

 

 

[K191145]

How the hell did you pick me out in this? Yeager is a liability. Call my avatar "posturing" or "sentiment" if you will. I don't follow people like Yeager or Alex Jones who are calling for revolution, civil war, and bloodshed. I'm not advocating violence, I'm advocating legislative and passive resistance. I've never made threats to murder people. I've been agreeing with you!

 

I also will not advocate civil war or bloodshed, what Yeager said in a fit of fury was beyond stupid straight to the moronic, did he not know that making a statement that he will "start killing people" no matter what he said before that would cause alot of negative reaction from both sides of his argument? We have all said stupid things in the past, not necessarily here on TGO but somewhere in a fit of anger but to make a video of it, then take the time to post it on YouTube is beyond stupid. I would think it would be enough time between making the video and posting it for a fairly "smart" person to realize what he/she said was pretty radical and would cause alot of negative attention.

 

Anyway, there is a big difference between stating on a video that you're going to "start killing people", and stating Molon Labe. When I say it my intentions are, and I have said this before here that I have no intentions of "voluntarily" turning in any firearm I own or registering any firearm I own if some "illegal" federal law passes outlawing my firearm or requring registration of any firearm I own. Now anyone can interpret that to their own opinion but i'm making no threat to anyone. However I will not back down from my opinions for fear that it might offend some people or seem a little radical to some, that would be appeasment to people who you can't change their radical minds no matter how civil you talk to them.

[JayC]

And if I recall correctly, the feds spent a fortune trying to prosecute that. Right?

 

Yes they did, and got very little in the way of convictions, a couple of minor gun convictions on technicalities, on 2 people out of the entire group they charged.  The government ruined the lives of 6+ innocent people, and nothing happens to the government bureaucrats who knowingly created this 'circus' by planting a government agent in the group to stir up trouble...  Trouble that didn't even rise to the level of a crime.

 

I never agreed with the Hutaree's world view, but they weren't a threat to anyone until the government dropped in an agent provocateur, and even then all they could do was sit around having teenage fantasies about shooting blue helmets ;) 

[Punisher84]

And again, if like you said he'll probably get his permit back, because he doesn't really pose a material threat to the public, then what happens to the employee at TDOS that revoked his permit, do they loose their job?  Are they sent to prison for violating Yeagers constitutional rights?  No, they go home with a full paycheck the next day, and that is the real problem.

You keep talking about this lone permit puller like they have the power of God at their command to zap our permits with a Bond villain laugh and punch of a key. I seriously doubt this was some 9-5 TDOS worker that made this decision. It came from high up, now what you want to do about that I don't know. I'm sure JY and his attorney will address it forthwith, but please, I'm begging you stop saying the same thing over and over about someone LOSING their job.

[JayC]

You keep talking about this lone permit puller like they have the power of God at their command to zap our permits with a Bond villain laugh and punch of a key. I seriously doubt this was some 9-5 TDOS worker that made this decision. It came from high up, now what you want to do about that I don't know. I'm sure JY and his attorney will address it forthwith, but please, I'm begging you stop saying the same thing over and over about someone LOSING their job.

 

Well, I'm trying to be hopefully that it was some lone permit puller at TDOS, that would be the BEST case.  If you're right and somebody placed political pressure on TDOS to pull Yeagers permit that would be much more of a concern than a lone idiot doing it of their own accord.  That would be a possible conspiracy now wouldn't it :)

 

And yes I advocate that public servants who overstep their authority granted under law should be held to a higher standard.  

[tntnixon]

And yes I advocate that public servants who overstep their authority granted under law should be held to a higher standard.  

All too often the attitude of public servants is "If I'm wrong, the courts will sort it out". Unfortunately, all wrongs are not righted by the courts.

[DaveTN]

Uh, didn't a Chicago Police Chief say his forces would be shooting people, regardless of their legality, just the other day?

 
 No, he made no threats. He was predicting that untrained citizens may point a gun at cops and get shot. It happens. I’m sure it has happened here. We have had many discussions on what to do when the cops show up or even what other HCP holders may do if they aren’t sure of what they are seeing. Cops have shot other cops, and civilians will get shot by other civilians. It doesn’t justify disarming everyone except cops and criminals.
 

 â€œYou put more guns on the street expect more shootings,” McCarthy said. “I don’t care if they’re licensed legal firearms, people who are not highly trained… putting guns in their hands is a recipe for disaster. So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that. I’m telling you right up front.”

[Guest seawolf138]

Alright, I've stayed out of this for 9 pages, but now I'm gonna offer up an opinion that several of you are not going to like.  I don't know Yeager from Adam, had never even heard of him before I joined TGO, and I don't have an opinion about the man because I've never met him, but revoking his permit over that video...if that's all that happens he got off lucky.  IMHO, this wasn't a general threat, he was talking about EO's, and then said if they take one step further he's going to shoot people.  Maybe I'm way off mark here, but to me that seems like a direct threat against the president, call me crazy, call me whatever you'd like, not going to bother me, but at the end of the day even an indirect threat against pres is going to be investigated thoroughly. I think Dolomite is right, they're probably working on search warrants right now, and he's nowhere near the bottom of the hole he dug himself yet.