State suspends gun carry permit for James Yeager

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

This wasnt a smart way to convey a point and he isnt doing  the gun community any favors by getting on Youtube and acting like a starkraving mad lunatic..

 

He is a tool and a loudmouth.......

[Worriedman]

This wasnt a smart way to convey a point and he isnt doing  the gun community any favors by getting on Youtube and acting like a starkraving mad lunatic..

 

He is a tool and a loudmouth.......

Agreed.

[Oh Shoot]

... What happens next, does he have a court date?

 

Probably not just yet. Things don't happen in a flash, and it's the weekend.

 

From 39-17-1352:

 

"...the permit holder has thirty (30) days from the date appearing on the notice of suspension or revocation to request a hearing on the suspension or revocation."

 

"The applicant shall have a right to petition the general sessions court of the applicant's county of residence for judicial review of departmental denial, suspension or revocation of a permit. At the review by the general sessions court, the department shall be represented by the district attorney general."

 

Doesn't seem to say anything about an appeal beyond that, so dunno if normal court procedures allow it or what.

 

- OS

[tntnixon]

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.

True story about myself: In September of 2001, I was so horrified by the tragedy of the Twin Towers going down that I vowed revenge and supported any and all legislation and actions that would potentially prevent any recurrence of the same. I called and emailed my representatives to support The Patriot Act and creation of Department of Homeland Security even though I knew the potential constitutional issues that existed (hell, I'm not an Islamic radical bent on the destruction of the United States, what do I have to worry about). Fast forward 8 years and I read Janet Napolitano's Terrorism Report. She might as well have named me personally (as well as the majority of the members of this forum) as an enemy of the state with what she described as the biggest terrorist threats. I realized right then that when I am willing to deprive others of their rights, I might as well give mine up too.

We delude ourselves into thinking that we are unique. We try to separate ourselves from others in ideas and ideals without realizing that, generally speaking, we are an awful lot alike. If I am willing to allow the government to take away your rights for speaking in a way that is different from the way I would speak, at some point there will be nobody left to speak up for me. I disagree with nearly everything that Yeager said, but I'll be damned if I'll support a government that says he can't say it because at some point someone is going to find fault with my own speech.

Edited January 12, 2013 by tntnixon

[tntnixon]

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?

If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), you are a former LEO. As such, you do remember what the law is as to what is a real threat and what is not? At no time does Yeager say I'm going to kill X person on X street at X time and I'm going to do it no matter what the circumstances are. If he did that, I would support 100% any actions made by law enforcement because that is a real threat. Mr. Yeager described a set of circumstances, that has not occurred, in which he would take some rather distasteful actions. There is no law enforcement officer that I know of that would arrest a man for making such a vague threat and the DOS knows it. They also know that no court would uphold their actions, but they took them anyways. So now Mr. Yeager has to pay money to an attorney  to prove himself worthy of the privilege of holding a handgun carry permit when the people who had it removed knew they were wrong but are trying to prove a point and in the process suppress the ideas that he holds dear.

Please tell me that you truly don't believe for one moment that removing this man's handgun carry permit makes the State of Tennessee a safer place to live, because that is the only standard the state has to pull a permit.

Edited January 12, 2013 by tntnixon

[JayC]

Because current case law from SCOTUS going back nearly 50 years gives a wild berth of what is or is not considered protected speech.  I've cite cases and provided links in previous posts that go much further than Yeager did, and were considered protected speech by SCOTUS, including a test case involving the NAACP from 1966 where their leader made threats to 'break the necks' of anybody crossing the picket line.  

 

That is a much more direct threat than anything Yeager has said on the referenced video.

 

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?

 

 

[DaveTN]

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. 

 

He didn't say that. How much deciphering in there time for? Too late you are dead.

 

I think most Police Officers are smart enough to know that their Chief doesn’t have squat to say about the state laws on the justification of deadly force. Chicago Police shootings are reviewed by an independent citizen’s board as well as the States Attorney’s office. Illinois has less than six months to come up with a plan other than banning all carry. He’s saying anything he can to make a point.

Here in Tennessee a couple of years ago a shop owner, after being robbed at gun point, ran outside and opened fired on the car the robbers were leaving in. Two cops walking out of a restaurant saw it and yelled at him to stop. We can only assume he didn’t hear them, and they killed him. They had no way of knowing he was the victim, he was in a parking lot shooting at people. He lost focus of his situational awareness and it cost him his life.

That’s the point he was making, and I’m making the point that, yes, that is going to happen. But it doesn’t justify what he is suggesting.

Whether you are in Chicago or Nashville having a gun in your hand at the scene of a shooting is probably the most danger a person will ever be in in their life. Training deals with what to do in that situation; for cops and citizens alike.

 

As someone once said “Friendly fire isn’t very friendly”.

[JayC]

I'm guessing that little tidbit right there is the reason he'll get his permit back next week..  The DA in Benton County is going to drop this quicker than we can all blink.

 

Anybody want to take bets on the DA in Benton County agreeing to restore his permit the instance the case is filed in general sessions court?  

 

I just can't see a DA in rural TN wanting to take this case to court and argue against Yeager, and probably secure his (the DA's) defeat in the next election.

 

Probably not just yet. Things don't happen in a flash, and it's the weekend.

 

From 39-17-1352:

 

"...the permit holder has thirty (30) days from the date appearing on the notice of suspension or revocation to request a hearing on the suspension or revocation."

 

"The applicant shall have a right to petition the general sessions court of the applicant's county of residence for judicial review of departmental denial, suspension or revocation of a permit. At the review by the general sessions court, the department shall be represented by the district attorney general."

 

Doesn't seem to say anything about an appeal beyond that, so dunno if normal court procedures allow it or what.

 

- OS

Edited January 12, 2013 by JayC

[DaveTN]

If I remember correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), you are a former LEO. As such, you do remember what the law is as to what is a real threat and what is not? At no time does Yeager say I'm going to kill X person on X street at X time and I'm going to do it no matter what the circumstances are. If he did that, I would support 100% any actions made by law enforcement because that is a real threat. Mr. Yeager described a set of circumstances, that has not occurred, in which he would take some rather distasteful actions. There is no law enforcement officer that I know of that would arrest a man for making such a vague threat and the DOS knows it. They also know that no court would uphold their actions, but they took them anyways. So now Mr. Yeager has to pay money to an attorney  to prove himself worthy of the privilege of holding a handgun carry permit when the people who had it removed knew they were wrong but are trying to prove a point and in the process suppress the ideas that he holds dear.

Please tell me that you truly don't believe for one moment that removing this man's handgun carry permit makes the State of Tennessee a safer place to live, because that is the only standard the state has to pull a permit.

 

I am a former cop, but in another state. I have tried to educate myself on Tennessee law, but that is simply from reading it. I know that the letter of the law can be different from the application.

 

I went on many “threats’ calls. In some arrests were made in many they were not. If you read my posts you know that I said in my opinion his statements did not rise to a criminal level. However, that may yet to be seen.  My opinion means nothing more than anyone else here, we are arm chair quarterbacking, guessing, and have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. This I know without a doubt to be fact; if Yeager went on a shooting rampage many here that are defending him would be blaming the Police for not acting. I think his victims would have very good civil case against the state for failure to act. I don’t know that they would win, but I’m pretty sure the case would be filed.

 

I know very little of the authority the DOS has to revoke an HCP. That why in my post you are quoting I asked the question “What happens next, does he have a court date?”  I would assume he does, he should. I think that given the current climate on gun control if he was to have a jury trial based on that video, he would have a tough time convincing them not to take his HCP. If a cop made that video would he lose his job? …… absolutely. The public would not stand for someone like that being a cop and they would use the excuse that he has no business carrying a gun. That is something very different than a criminal act though.

 

As far as Yeager having to pay an attorney, I can’t feel sorry for him; he had to have known that was a possibility, he may have even wanted this. He can ask for donations to his legal defense. He will be a heck of a lot more popular than Zimmerman and look at all the money he raised. This could be very profitable.

[DaveTN]

I'm guessing that little tidbit right there is the reason he'll get his permit back next week..  The DA in Benton County is going to drop this quicker than we can all blink.

 

Anybody want to take bets on the DA in Benton County agreeing to restore his permit the instance the case is filed in general sessions court?  

 

I just can't see a DA in rural TN wanting to take this case to court and argue against Yeager, and probably secure his (the DA's) defeat in the next election.

I think you are right that politics may play a role in this, but I doubt a “Rural DA” will be calling the shots. With the media attention this has I’m sure the “State Attorney General” is calling the shots and if need be will send in "the big guns" (pun intended). I think most “rural” voters that have seen the video are as appalled as most here. I doubt this will be impacting any elections.

[battleop]

The point I was trying to make...  If the video is protected speech under the first amendment, and the state used that protected speech to revoke his permit, that would appear to me as a layperson to be a clear violation of his first amendment rights.

 

It would be no different than refusing him a drivers license, or permit to rent a room at the local community center because of what he said in the video...  

 

Their press release references the video, which appears on the face of it to be protected speech, unless they have some evidence of his material threat outside of the video, how is that not a clear violation of his first amendment rights?

 

I am sure it's not protected in the same way that you can't yell "FIRE!" in a theater.  You can't expet to not hear from someone when you make death threats on Youtube.

 

His CCW is SUSPENDED not REVOKED which means he could get it back with a hearing.

[RobertNashville]

After 11 pages of posts, what seems pretty clear to me is that those who always bash Yeager still bash him; but I guess that's to be expected.

I don't and am not defending what he said or the way he said it; I think it was at best very foolish and will ultimately harm the firearms community. However, I think it more than a little dangerous that the State of Tennessee can suspend or revoke his HCP because of what he said or that he said it on video.

A few pages ago I asked how suspending his HCP on the basis of him being a danger to the public (which if I understand correctly, was the basis for the suspension), makes the public safer? I think everyone here knows that the only answer is, it doesn't...it doesn't make anyone safer any more than declaring a school a "gun free zone" means children in that school will never have to worry about some evil/crazy person from coming into their school and opening fire.

Maybe I'm just becoming a little overly sensitive to the rights I see eroding away but it troubles me that this state or any other state can take action like this based solely on what someone said in a video without any underlying physical act or obvious criminality involved...lets' hope they never invent "Pre Crime" (Minority Report) because if they ever do there are probably a few here on TGO who would have their HCP lifted along with James Yeager.

At the very least, this situation shows me that we have a serious problem with the HCP process in Tennessee...unless there is an obvious and immediate physical threat, the state, in my opinion, should not be able to take this kind of action against an individual without due process.

[Sam1]

I'm guessing that little tidbit right there is the reason he'll get his permit back next week..  The DA in Benton County is going to drop this quicker than we can all blink.

 

Anybody want to take bets on the DA in Benton County agreeing to restore his permit the instance the case is filed in general sessions court?  

 

I just can't see a DA in rural TN wanting to take this case to court and argue against Yeager, and probably secure his (the DA's) defeat in the next election.

 

I'd take you up on a gentleman's agreement for a double cheeseburger. A few things why I think he's screwed:

 

- He said he was gonna to start killing people in video 1

- He said people better be prepared to go all the way and stop being sissies (in short) in video 2

- He said (after his HCP was pulled) that he would shoot anyone that comes to take his guns in video 3

- Right now guns are a hot topic and he has become the poster child for idiot gun owners on a national level

 

Because of those things combined, I really think they're going to make an example out of him if nothing else, to prove on paper that any pro 2a officials (whoever is involved in the situation) do not support or tolerate this type of idiocy.

 

Could be completely wrong on this, but I'm almost even willing to up the wager to a double cheeseburger with bacon :)

Edited January 13, 2013 by Sam1

[mikegideon]

After 11 pages of posts, what seems pretty clear to me is that those who always bash Yeager still bash him; but I guess that's to be expected.

I don't and am not defending what he said or the way he said it; I think it was at best very foolish and will ultimately harm the firearms community. However, I think it more than a little dangerous that the State of Tennessee can suspend or revoke his HCP because of what he said or that he said it on video.

A few pages ago I asked how suspending his HCP on the basis of him being a danger to the public (which if I understand correctly, was the basis for the suspension), makes the public safer? I think everyone here knows that the only answer is, it doesn't...it doesn't make anyone safer any more than declaring a school a "gun free zone" means children in that school will never have to worry about some evil/crazy person from coming into their school and opening fire.

Maybe I'm just becoming a little overly sensitive to the rights I see eroding away but it troubles me that this state or any other state can take action like this based solely on what someone said in a video without any underlying physical act or obvious criminality involved...lets' hope they never invent "Pre Crime" (Minority Report) because if they ever do there are probably a few here on TGO who would have their HCP lifted along with James Yeager.

At the very least, this situation shows me that we have a serious problem with the HCP process in Tennessee...unless there is an obvious and immediate physical threat, the state, in my opinion, should not be able to take this kind of action against an individual without due process.

 

They did it to get his attention. It worked. I would bet my own money that his lawyer will get him thru this in a hurry. In my feeble opinion, the state needs a way to shut down a carry permit quickly. If he gets his permit back, what's the harm. No other action would have been as gentle.

 

We don't know the internal mechanisms, or really anything else about this deal. I'm personally glad they didn't go get him.

[Sam1]

Even though they didn't go get him right now, you can be assured they are rummaging through every digital record that exists from and to him. My guess is that they will find more damaging information in what he thought were private emails and messages than what was said in the video.

[mikegideon]

Even though they didn't go get him right now, you can be assured they are rummaging through every digital record that exists from and to him. My guess is that they will find more damaging information in what he thought were private emails and messages than what was said in the video.

 

I doubt it. I expect this to go away.

[Oh Shoot]

I doubt it. I expect this to go away.

 

Probably. GOP super-majority here -- this ain't Cuomo and NYS, where he'd probably get life or something.

 

Oh, I forgot, this wasn't political at all, only about rights.  Right.

 

- OS

Edited January 13, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[vontar]

I found it odd that they notified him via email.

 

 

We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/341154#ixzz2HpQFpIF4

 

 

Jayc, as far as SCOTUS is concerned a few pages back I linked about 3 examples.  It all came down to a verbal threat may not be a "True Threat."  They drew a line on that.

[TMF]

All this talk about rights to free speech being violated and whatnot, can someone please point out how any of his rights were violated? None of us, including Yanker, has any right to carry a firearm in the state of Tennessee. Don't like it? Well, me neither, but that is reality, and therefore his right to due process was not violated. He'll probably get his permit back since he was juuuust smart enough to get a lawyer and listen to him (this is after he said "f**k you in a YouTube video at everyone who advised him to retract his earlier statement and shut his mouth; I guess he didn't say the same thing to his lawyer).

[mikegideon]

"Shut up, James. If your 15 minutes turns into 30, we're gonna have to come down there and beat your ass". No SCOTUS. No Constitution. No Big speeches in court.

 

To quote Will Hayden, "This shit is simple".

Edited January 13, 2013 by mikegideon

[JayC]

All this talk about rights to free speech being violated and whatnot, can someone please point out how any of his rights were violated? None of us, including Yanker, has any right to carry a firearm in the state of Tennessee. Don't like it? Well, me neither, but that is reality, and therefore his right to due process was not violated. He'll probably get his permit back since he was juuuust smart enough to get a lawyer and listen to him (this is after he said "f**k you in a YouTube video at everyone who advised him to retract his earlier statement and shut his mouth; I guess he didn't say the same thing to his lawyer).

 

The issue is the state is prohibited from taking any action that would have a 'chilling effect' on his first amendment rights....

 

None of us have a right to a drivers license, but if the state denied or revoked a drivers license based purely on content of protected speech, that would be a clear violation of Yeager's first amendment rights.  (note it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment).

 

If the only reason Yeager's permit was pulled was because of the video, and IF that speech was protected speech, then any negative action by the state because of that speech would violate his first amendment rights.  Since the speech in the video doesn't appear to rise to a level of criminal behavior under TN law, then the speech is by it's very nature protected.

 

A perfect example of this would be the KKK, and their desire to 'adopt a highway'...  Sponsoring a highway is not a 'right', yet it is a violation of the first amendment (and others) to prohibit them from 'adopting a highway' because the state (or employees of the state) disagree with their protected speech.  Before you say, oh that isn't a violation, 8th circuit ruled it was, and SCOTUS let the ruling stand.

 

So, do you see the logic behind the potential violation?  

[mikegideon]

The issue is the state is prohibited from taking any action that would have a 'chilling effect' on his first amendment rights....

 

None of us have a right to a drivers license, but if the state denied or revoked a drivers license based purely on content of protected speech, that would be a clear violation of Yeager's first amendment rights.  (note it has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment).

 

If the only reason Yeager's permit was pulled was because of the video, and IF that speech was protected speech, then any negative action by the state because of that speech would violate his first amendment rights.  Since the speech in the video doesn't appear to rise to a level of criminal behavior under TN law, then the speech is by it's very nature protected.

 

A perfect example of this would be the KKK, and their desire to 'adopt a highway'...  Sponsoring a highway is not a 'right', yet it is a violation of the first amendment (and others) to prohibit them from 'adopting a highway' because the state (or employees of the state) disagree with their protected speech.  Before you say, oh that isn't a violation, 8th circuit ruled it was, and SCOTUS let the ruling stand.

 

So, do you see the logic behind the potential violation?  

 

...and if he ignores everything you're saying here, he'll probably get his permit back in no time. They didn't put him in stocks. They suspended a privilege. You can vigorously argue anything if you get somebody to listen. In this case, you're yelling at a tree.

[TMF]

So, do you see the logic behind the potential violation?

Yes, I do see the logic there. But it is not as if there isn't a precedent set for suspending or revoking carry permits without criminal charges. Leonard comes to mind. And the process for revoking or suspending a driver's license is much different than a carry permit. Whether we like it or not, they can do what they did with Yanker and Leonard if they feel as if they are a danger to society. Working within those boundaries they did nothing wrong.

Although you may think that when someone says "if the administration moves one more inch, I'm gonna start killing people", they are no danger to society, you are a part of a very small fraction of society. Most people would agree that a person who says such things is a danger. So now the court will decide if he is a danger or not. Since he stopped short of committing a crime, his lawyer should make a good case for getting his permit back and chalk the video up to his tough guy act which he markets himself with.

Point is, DOS didnt pull his permit because they didn't like what he said. They pulled it because what he said was interpreted to be a threat to society. They were within their left and right limits to do so. If someone on this board would have said "if the administration moves one more inch, I'm gonna start killing people" I'm willing to bet DOS would look into pulling their permit as well. Yanker is not special in this regard. Edited January 13, 2013 by TMF

[mikegideon]

These folks don't work in a vacuum. He was a city cop. Only takes one phone call to find out if he's just a blowhard. Voldemort is a whole different deal. The only similarity... we don't see SCOTUS swooping in and getting his permit restored either.

[Oh Shoot]

Point is, DOS didnt pull his permit because they didn't like what he said. They pulled it because what he said was interpreted to be a threat to society. ..

 

Nah, they said they pulled it for that. They pulled it to quell more anti-gun bad press from it, as the legislature will have it's own firearms PR battles to weather during all this.

 

If ya'll can get off the Spartacus-esque "rights and freedom" issue for a bit, you'll see that this is a good thing.

 

Seems obvious to me that the TN political conservative majority, such as it is, is trying to help us keep our frigging guns.

 

- OS