State suspends gun carry permit for James Yeager

[DaveTN]

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.

That’s why I don’t think he was arrested. But I’m surprised he hasn’t had a visit from the Secret Service. The President isn’t going to go out collecting guns; so I don’t think it was a threat against him. I assume that he was threatening anyone that would come to take his guns, as in confiscation. However, he was speculating on someone committing an act that at this point in time is illegal.

This may not be over, and I assume that is why his attorney is trying to clarify what he meant. Don’t think that because the DA hasn’t acted in a couple of days that he will never act. He could be waiting on a Grand Jury; we would have no idea if that was the case.

[tntnixon]

HERE LIES THE SECOND AMENDMENT

  DECEMBER 15, 1791-JANUARY 2013

A VICTIM OF SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS
 CAUSED BY GUN OWNERS WHO DID

    NOT REALIZE THAT THEY WERE

    HURTING THEMSELVES BY NOT

           STICKING TOGETHER.

MAY SHE REST IN PEACE AND GOD

                 SAVE US ALL.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

Takes a little leap to connect the dot to the President. Lucky? Be careful what you say, from now on. Imaginative!

[Punisher84]

HERE LIES THE SECOND AMENDMENT

  DECEMBER 15, 1791-JANUARY 2013

A VICTIM OF SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS
 CAUSED BY GUN OWNERS WHO DID

    NOT REALIZE THAT THEY WERE

    HURTING THEMSELVES BY NOT

           STICKING TOGETHER.

MAY SHE REST IN PEACE AND GOD

                 SAVE US ALL.

Is it dead because we are debating an individual's actions or because we won't pack a sack lunch and go fight the great civil war of 2013 with muppet beard?

[Guest seawolf138]

Takes a little leap to connect the dot to the President. Lucky? Be careful what you say, from now on. Imaginative!

What leap? Seems like a pretty obvious step from Executive Order to president doesn't it?  Or is there someone else that can issue one that I wasn't aware of?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The act wasn't mentioned, was it? Not what he said. My post wasn't an attack. It was saying don't read too much into what

he said. He has a long distinguished history of flapping his mouth like that. If you want to don your BS detector, check out

his youtube channel. There are a few I actually like, but most are like someone else said: rhoid rages. Sadly, it seems to

fit in with a lot of the other stuff he says.

 

I typically steer away from his personality type, but whatever he was saying, until there is a specific name mentioned, there

should be no federal government involvement. He won't go after anyone.

[Glock30]

Takes a little leap to connect the dot to the President. Lucky? Be careful what you say, from now on. Imaginative!

I will agree that perceiving a threat to the President is a bit fuzzy. But can you REALLY argue that he was rather clear that he'd shoot whomever set foot through his door to go gun grabbing? Here's a hint, it wouldn't be anyone from the pawn shop nearby...

After seeing the original video, how can one really believe he was not outside the boundaries of free speech?

[TMF]

[quote name="Punisher84" post="882859" timestamp="1358020308"]Is it dead because we are debating an individual's actions or because we won't pack a sack lunch and go fight the great civil war of 2013 with muppet beard?[/quote] "Muppet beard"..... Dear God that was funny.

[TMF]

[quote name="tntnixon" post="882837" timestamp="1358018641"][size=24]HERE LIES THE SECOND AMENDMENT[/size] [size=24]  DECEMBER 15, 1791-JANUARY 2013[/size] A VICTIM OF SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS  CAUSED BY GUN OWNERS WHO DID     NOT REALIZE THAT THEY WERE     HURTING THEMSELVES BY NOT            STICKING TOGETHER. MAY SHE REST IN PEACE AND GOD                  SAVE US ALL.[/quote] So if a lunatic shoots off at the mouth and says he's going to kill people if a legislation is passed, I have to stand by that individual simply because he supports the 2nd Amendment? Are you f***ing serious right now?

[Guest seawolf138]

The act wasn't mentioned, was it? Not what he said. My post wasn't an attack. It was saying don't read too much into what

he said. He has a long distinguished history of flapping his mouth like that. If you want to don your BS detector, check out

his youtube channel. There are a few I actually like, but most are like someone else said: rhoid rages. Sadly, it seems to

fit in with a lot of the other stuff he says.

 

I typically steer away from his personality type, but whatever he was saying, until there is a specific name mentioned, there

should be no federal government involvement. He won't go after anyone.

Didn't think you were attacking me, and I will happily admit that I have been known to overthink things on many occasion, but my point is that if I made that connection, I'm probably not the only one. It wasn't a directly connected thought, but he went from EO's into his "if they take one more step, I'm gonna start shooting people"  I would quote directly, but honestly, I don't think I can watch that video again without some alcohol, and I have to work tonight.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I feel your pain. I also don't want to look at him or his video any more. Your quote is close enough, but don't think too

much when considering the rant of someone like him. It isn't worth it.

 

I've only defended his right to speak, not his character, and I have maybe seen him once in a restaurant a long time ago.

Never had a conversation with him and don't ever think I will. Youtube and ego can make anyone look nuts. In his case,

I'll just stick to that as some kind of an explanation.

 

Save the liquor for savoring at a better time. :D

[RichardR]

Is it dead because we are debating an individual's actions or because we won't pack a sack lunch and go fight the great civil war of 2013 with muppet beard?

I think he was refering to how we (those of us on the "right" side of the political aisle) as a group, have no real loyalty to each other & will quickly abandon one of our own at the first hint of a scandal.

While on the "left" side of the political aisle, they all quickly circle the wagon & defend their members, regardless of what they may have done.

Unity (or lack thereof) is often the difference between those who's causes are won & those who's causes are lost.

At least that is what I believe he was attempting to point out.

[Punisher84]

I think he was refering to how we (those of us on the "right" side of the political aisle) as a group, have no real loyalty to each other & will quickly abandon one of our own at the first hint of a scandal.

While on the "left" side of the political aisle, they all quickly circle the wagon & defend their members, regardless of what they may have done.

Unity (or lack thereof) is often the difference between those who's causes are won & those who's causes are lost.

At least that is what I believe he was attempting to point out.

I got what he was most likely trying to infer, but this isn't a thread where we have half of the people saying "I think 10 round mags are ok" and the other half saying "We don't need to budge any more on silly gun control laws". This is a thread where you have people debating over whether one individual (who is not highly thought of 'round here for the most part) should have had his permit pulled over threats he made and whether or not those threats were protected speech. This is not going to create some great divide amongst gun owners that will cause the catastrophic fall of the 2nd Amendment into the hands of "ze germans" or whoever.

[tntnixon]

Is it dead because we are debating an individual's actions or because we won't pack a sack lunch and go fight the great civil war of 2013 with muppet beard?

First of all, you are already proving my point (was the muppet beard part really necessary in an adult conversation?). The truth is that I find it very problematic that 2A supporters won't even support a 1A issue from a fellow 2A supporter. It is not about agreement or disagreement with his words or thoughts, it is about a government agency that is intentionally trying to quiet an idea that they do not agree with. Taking this guy's handgun carry permit will not have any effect on the safety of the people of Tennessee, however, it will put fear into Tennesseans to not speak their minds or suffer government sponsored consequences. I always find it ironic how little people really understand the meaning of our Constitution or the reasons that each amendment was put into place. 2A was not enacted so we could engage in hunting or protection against would-be thieves or ruffians, but in order that we might protect ourselves against a government run-amok. 1A was not meant to allow us to say anything to anybody without consequence, however it was designed so that the government could not control our ideas or communication of the same even if very unpopular.

That being said, it is perfectly reasonable for any and all of you guys to think he is a douche and call him one. It is also perfectly reasonable to tell all your friends to avoid him at all cost and give his company no business. Actions (including one's speech) have consequences. What I find particularly troubling is that 2A supporters are encouraging and defending the government's punishing of an individual for their speech in order to distance themselves from that individual's ideas. I promise you that if I comb through every word you have said or post you have made, I will find something that someone can call objectionable enough to warrant the removal of your handgun carry permit. I, however, do not believe that any government entity should become part of the "thought police" or use our rights and privileges against us as a weapon should we cross any imaginary boundary.

I'm sure that each of us has an idea of a line of demarcation that we will not allow the government to cross with regards to our individual rights. Would you like to have rights or privileges revoked by merely stating what that line is or how you would handle having that line crossed? That is exactly what this man did, no more and no less. He made a hypothetical argument about a hypothetical situation that has yet to occur. Were his ideas radical and different than mine? Yes. Am i willing to call the government's actions in shutting them up justified? HELL NO.

[ProjectDexter]

I'm at the point where I'm not going to give up my guns or magazines, maybe that puts me in the same boat as some of these other people called "crazy". I know certain LEO around here aren't going to go door to door collecting them either, that would be a suicide mission.

There are people still living with dirt floors and don't go grocery shopping, right here in middle TN, I lived in Ohio for 5 years an worked extensively with the Amish community. They don't need the govt. They don't need electricity, they don't need the grocery stores, they don't need the banks. I laugh at people, especially people who work for the govt, that say YOU NEED THE GOVT.

[Sam1]

The truth is that I find it very problematic that 2A supporters won't even support a 1A issue from a fellow 2A supporter. 

 

Personally I do not agree, nor approve of any 1a speech that is a literal threat from Yeager, from those racist black panthers, or those racist kkk members on the front steps of a courthouse or from a teenager in his parents' basement.

 

Stupidity is not a valid excuse from any of them.

[101]

[quote name="tntnixon" post="882927" timestamp="1358025565"]First of all.....[/quote] Very well said.

[mikegideon]

I think James pulled an incredibly boneheaded move. I wasn't a bit surprised when the state reached out and spanked him. There's a reason HE edited that first video. I'm betting he gets his permit back. His Youtube stuff is just Youtube stuff.

 

I also wouldn't hesitate to train with the guy if he had what I needed. The whole thing is BS. It's just BS that he brought on himself.

[Punisher84]

First of all, you are already proving my point (was the muppet beard part really necessary in an adult conversation?). The truth is that I find it very problematic that 2A supporters won't even support a 1A issue from a fellow 2A supporter. It is not about agreement or disagreement with his words or thoughts, it is about a government agency that is intentionally trying to quiet an idea that they do not agree with. Taking this guy's handgun carry permit will not have any effect on the safety of the people of Tennessee, however, it will put fear into Tennesseans to not speak their minds or suffer government sponsored consequences. I always find it ironic how little people really understand the meaning of our Constitution or the reasons that each amendment was put into place. 2A was not enacted so we could engage in hunting or protection against would-be thieves or ruffians, but in order that we might protect ourselves against a government run-amok. 1A was not meant to allow us to say anything to anybody without consequence, however it was designed so that the government could not control our ideas or communication of the same even if very unpopular.

That being said, it is perfectly reasonable for any and all of you guys to think he is a douche and call him one. It is also perfectly reasonable to tell all your friends to avoid him at all cost and give his company no business. Actions (including one's speech) have consequences. What I find particularly troubling is that 2A supporters are encouraging and defending the government's punishing of an individual for their speech in order to distance themselves from that individual's ideas. I promise you that if I comb through every word you have said or post you have made, I will find something that someone can call objectionable enough to warrant the removal of your handgun carry permit. I, however, do not believe that any government entity should become part of the "thought police" or use our rights and privileges against us as a weapon should we cross any imaginary boundary.

I'm sure that each of us has an idea of a line of demarcation that we will not allow the government to cross with regards to our individual rights. Would you like to have rights or privileges revoked by merely stating what that line is or how you would handle having that line crossed? That is exactly what this man did, no more and no less. He made a hypothetical argument about a hypothetical situation that has yet to occur. Were his ideas radical and different than mine? Yes. Am i willing to call the government's actions in shutting them up justified? HELL NO.

No it wasn't necessary for me to call him "muppet beard", but it made me laugh so I did it anyway. I'm sorry that wasn't very adult of me to have a sense of humor was it? I see what you're saying and you make valid points in alot of ways, but I'm sorry I simply disagree with what Yeager did. I don't fault them for pulling his permit and I wouldn't fault them if they charged him with some form of making a terroristic threat.

 

You can use the straw man about those of us here making our lines in the sand and them pulling our permits, but I think that's a crap argument. Cpl. Josh Boston got on TV and said "I will not register my guns". Anything happened to him? Nope, because he didn't threaten to start murdering people. Lines in the sand for passive resistance and a distaste for the current political climate are one thing, but getting on YouTube and saying "I AM GOING TO START KILLING PEOPLE" and "I WILL FIRE THE FIRST SHOT" are not helpful to the majority gun owners who aren't looney tunes and who are trying to get this resolved, not start a firefight. So you go right ahead and stand by him and his 1st amendment rights. I will not, if that makes me your enemy or an enemy of the cause or something than that's cool. I don't want to be lumped in with fringe idealists.

[RichardR]

So if a lunatic shoots off at the mouth and says he's going to kill people if a legislation is passed, I have to stand by that individual simply because he supports the 2nd Amendment? Are you f***ing serious right now?

TMF,

I really don't want to defend Yeager but ...the act of tyranny Yeager described as to the context of which his "shoot people" comment was subject, is the whole purpose behind why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

Yes Yeager probably should have used better judgement prior to stepping in front of his video camera & letting loose with his little rant, but this issue is way bigger than he is.

These days the Bill of Rights is little more than a punch-line in a really bad joke, the simple fact that this Administration admits it is even considering bypassing Congress by issuing an EO to limit any of our Constitutionally protected Rights should have angered every single free-thinking American.

That's my .02 on this topic anyway, just do me a favor & spend it wisely.

[c.a.willard]

I dont agree with anyone threatening to kill someone as protected speach but it is important to look at the different types of protected speach.  The NBPP for the most part is protected because it is deemed political speach Yeager's video was posted with links directly to his for profit company.  This makes it more likely to be viewed as commercial speach.  Commercial speach is significantly less protected under the first amendment and there is plenty of case law to support it.  In my personal opinion several members of the NBPP should have been arrested for the things they have said.  Im not sure yeagers speah warants his arrest or violates any laws.  It does however deomonstrate that he is a public threat.  That is all that is needed for the state to yank his permit.  There is also a major difference between saying i am prepared to take someone life if i have to and saying i'll be glad to fire the first shots.

[Oh Shoot]

I really don't want to defend Yeager but ...the act of tyranny Yeager described as to the context of which his "shoot people" comment was subject, is the whole purpose behind why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.

Yes Yeager probably should have used better judgement prior to stepping in front of his video camera & letting loose with his little rant, but this issue is way bigger than he is.

These days the Bill of Rights is little more than a punch-line in a really bad joke, the simple fact that this Administration admits it is even considering bypassing Congress by issuing an EO to limit any of our Constitutionally protected Rights should have angered every single free-thinking American.

 

All correct.

 

But the reality is that we are actually fighting for the heart and minds of the American people here, just as in an election. The people put pressure on their reps, the reps will respond to whatever they perceive will get them reelected.

 

"You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar".  The hard left and hard right are already unshakable, the "flies" are those in the middle.

 

Every time mainstream America sees a perceived scary nut job making press, deadly Bushwhackers and killer clips take a hit in the public perception. That translates to polls and letters, and influence on the final say.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

 
 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.
 

 

 

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.”

Sounds like a threat to me. If he considers it OK to fire on a citizen at the notice of a weapon without deciphering the actual situation, I see that as a problem.

 

At least he does not seem too tore up about the possibilities.  Not sure I see a lot of difference in this assertion and Yeager's, neither seem to concerned about what is correct or proper, simply their own personal opinion resulting in what I consider to be chin music in bad taste.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Yeager is an ***hat, and did our side no service by his actions, but, he is not singular in letting his mouth run off... Didn't the President mention something about "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"  I am sure he had all the best of intentions for its use...

Edited January 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[Guest 6.8 AR]

"Didn't the President mention something about "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun"  I am sure he had all the best of intentions for its use..."

 

Forgot that one. Another good example of protected speech, too. Too bad his speech will never get challenged, isn't it?

[DaveTN]

Until Yeager is arrested Free Speech is alive and well. You can say anything you are ready to take responsibility for.

The question here is suspending or revoking an HCP. Anytime a threat of violence is made authorities have an obligation to investigate and determine if they need to act or not. When the Police are called they will respond…. Period. To do anything less is unacceptable. This applies whether it is a citizen calling in because they see you with a gun and think you may be a danger, see you without a gun and think you may be a danger, see you doing dumb azz stuff, or generally just think your actions are suspicious and want you checked out. We all get the details after the fact and decide whether or not the cops had any business stopping the person.

This investigation appears to me to have been started with no contact with you accused. Therefore I assume his permit was pulled until he can go to court to respond to the accusations and have a final determination made. Is that not what is happening? What happens next, does he have a court date?