State suspends gun carry permit for James Yeager

[Oh Shoot]

39-17-1352 Outlines the causes for HCP suspension. If I were a betting man I would bet they got him on that he poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the general public....

 

From the news story:

 

'James Yeager, 42, had his permit suspended based on a "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public," the department said in a statement.'

 

You win the best, but lose points for research. :) :)

 

- OS

Edited January 11, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[ProjectDexter]

so not only do they feel like they can override the 2nd amendment, but they think they use evidence protected by the first amendment to do it. Yea this is a laughing matter for sure.

[Guest bkelm18]

[quote name="Oh Shoot" post="881982" timestamp="1357946454"]From the news story:   'James Yeager, 42, had his permit suspended based on a "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public," the department said in a statement.'   You win the best, but lose points for research. :) :)   - OS[/quote] Didn't bother to read it. :p [quote name="ProjectDexter" post="881985" timestamp="1357946501"]so not only do they feel like they can override the 2nd amendment, but they think they use evidence protected by the first amendment to do it. Yea this is a laughing matter for sure.[/quote] Welcome to the real world. The state of Tennessee governs your right to carry a firearm. If they feel you are a risk to the public, they will revoke it. Simple as that. You spout off on an Internet video that you're going to kill people, that might raise a few questions.

[Chucktshoes]

I'm sorry, I just have a big problem with yanking a permit over speech. Kwik at least had a track record of irresponsible and provocative action under his belt. Yeager only made nonspecific threats that do not rise to the level of being prosecutable. This is a bad, bad thing. Where does TNDOS draw the line and how do any of us know where that line is?

[JayC]

You don't think threatening to start killing people over new firearms laws has anything to do with it? 

 

If he committed a crime, charge him and his permit would be revoked automatically as part of the criminal charges....  Otherwise it's protected speech (which I think it clearly is), and to revoke his permit based on protected speech is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

[Guest bkelm18]

If he committed a crime, charge him and his permit would be revoked automatically as part of the criminal charges.... Otherwise it's protected speech (which I think it clearly is), and to revoke his permit based on protected speech is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

What is a violation of the first amendment? The revocation of his permit that he has no right to have?

Come on people. Actions have consequences. Crying about rights doesn't mean a damn thing when the state does not recognize them to begin with. Edited January 11, 2013 by bkelm18

[Punisher84]

I'm sorry, I just have a big problem with yanking a permit over speech. Kwik at least had a track record of irresponsible and provocative action under his belt. Yeager only made nonspecific threats that do not rise to the level of being prosecutable. This is a bad, bad thing. Where does TNDOS draw the line and how do any of us know where that line is?

I would say somewhere before posting a video and declaring that you are "going to start killing people". What do you think would happen if you walked into a public place and screamed that? This isn't conspiracy, this isn't an overreach by DOS, this is responding to a threat that was made.

[ProjectDexter]

Welcome to the real world. The state of Tennessee governs your right to carry a firearm. If they feel you are a risk to the public, they will revoke it. Simple as that. You spout off on an Internet video that you're going to kill people, that might raise a few questions.

DHS has nothing to do with the state of Tennessee. I'm sure that's ok with you too.

[JayC]

I agree, we need to pressure our legislators to remove TDOS ability to revoke permits 'because they feel like it'.  And whoever issued this revocation needs to be sitting in the employment line come Monday morning.

 

What happened to TN being a shall issue state?  If somebody can some something clearly protected by the first amendment and some pencil pusher at TDOS can for life?

 

What happens to this person when Yeager is found to have his rights violated?  Do they loose their job for violating his civil rights under the color of law?  Do they get arrested? Do they loose they job?  Are they open to a civil lawsuit?  Of course not, they have no skin in the game if they make a mistake!

 

I'm sorry, I just have a big problem with yanking a permit over speech. Kwik at least had a track record of irresponsible and provocative action under his belt. Yeager only made nonspecific threats that do not rise to the level of being prosecutable. This is a bad, bad thing. Where does TNDOS draw the line and how do any of us know where that line is?

[mikegideon]

Same one that zapped Kwik's:

 

"39-17-1352.  Suspension or revocation of license.

  (a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:
....
   (3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;"

 

"sufficient evidence" is of course, up to TNDOS.

 

- OS

 

Yep. I think it's called the dumbass law. He would be fine if he had just edited the video before he put it out. I agree that he can probably get it back if he plays it right.

[JayC]

What is a violation of the first amendment? The revocation of his permit that he has no right to have?

Come on people. Actions have consequences. Crying about rights doesn't mean a damn thing when the state does not recognize them to begin with.

 

Revoke his permit for protected speech...  If his speech in the video was a criminal act charge him (and in the process he will loose his permit while the criminal charges get sorted out)....  If the speech is not a criminal act then it's protected, and to use that protected speech as the reason to revoke his permit is a CLEAR violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Oh Shoot]

Didn't bother to read it. :P ...

 

I had a typo on "bet".

[Oh Shoot]

DHS has nothing to do with the state of Tennessee....

 

Sure it does.

 

TNDOS is officially designated as  "Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security" for a reason.

 

Not the least of which is federal funding, which means federal influence.

 

- OS

[ProjectDexter]

Same one that zapped Kwik's:

 

"39-17-1352.  Suspension or revocation of license.

  (a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:
....
   (3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;"

 

"sufficient evidence" is of course, up to TNDOS.

 

- OS

 

The public does not include gov't officials, like a task force formed to retroactively confiscate guns, right?

[Punisher84]

The public does not include gov't officials, like a task force formed to retroactively confiscate guns, right?

But, let's be fair, Yeager said he was "going to start killing PEOPLE" He never specified what people.

[ProjectDexter]

Sure it does.

 

TNDOS is officially designated as  "Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security" for a reason.

 

Not the least of which is federal funding, which means federal influence.

 

- OS

 

They are the link between local, state, and federal departments.

[Punisher84]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50429293

 

Well great. It hit MSNBC. Thanks James, you loudmouth dick.

[Stegall Law Firm]

bkelm is right, this has nothing to do with First Amendment.  The government did not take the video down and they are not fining him for it.  He's free to repost the video and make more like it.  But the revocation I think is going too far.  I'm sure it will be appealed, but if it stands that will be troubling. 

[Oh Shoot]

They are the link between local, state, and federal departments.

 
You may define TNDOS however you like.
 
And while you're busy being a definitional Spartacus :) as in:
 

The public does not include gov't officials, like a task force formed to retroactively confiscate guns, right?

 

Public: "People in general considered as a whole"

 

I guess if he had said he'd only kill government robots, it couldn't have been considered a threat.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

bkelm is right, this has nothing to do with First Amendment.  The government did not take the video down and they are not fining him for it.  He's free to repost the video and make more like it.  But the revocation I think is going too far.  I'm sure it will be appealed, but if it stands that will be troubling. 

 

It was a suspension, not a revocation, right? 

[JayC]

bkelm is right, this has nothing to do with First Amendment.  The government did not take the video down and they are not fining him for it.  He's free to repost the video and make more like it.  But the revocation I think is going too far.  I'm sure it will be appealed, but if it stands that will be troubling. 

 

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?

[G27]

If he committed a crime, charge him and his permit would be revoked automatically as part of the criminal charges....  Otherwise it's protected speech (which I think it clearly is), and to revoke his permit based on protected speech is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

So if someone threatens to kill people, we don't do anything until he actually kills people, then act?

 

That makes sense to you?

[Seabeejason]

My stance is that the state done what was within their power.  A hand gun carry permit (like it or not) is a privilege, not a right.  The states do not have the right to completely deny your right to carry(Illinois is a good example), but they do have the right to regulate it (New York/NYC).  The Supreme Court has affirmed this in their court rulings regarding the Constitution.  

 

Having a drivers license is not a right, it can be revoked at any time when the state has good lawful reason. The HCP is no different.  Notice that they are not taking his guns from him.  That is a right protected by the Constitution.  

 

The First Amendment does protect your freedom of speech.  They are not prosecuting him for that.  They simply suspended his carry permit because he actually stated he will start killing people if the current administration moved on stringent gun control measures.  Who's to say what that "inch" really is to James?  Maybe to him it is simply another statement by the Obama Administration.  The state officials have to act accordingly.  Especially, when that person posts the video on the Internet for millions of people to see.  In the current climate, people are on edge.  It was not an intelligent move for him to do something like that.  All he accomplished was making gun owners look like loons.  Not good for the cause.  We are a VERY long way from any type of armed conflict, if at all.  Honestly, my hope is that we never get there.  It is the last thing we want to happen.  War is hell.  Also, does anyone really know what the outcome of a civil war would even be?  Would our Constitution still be the law of the land when the dust settles?  I prefer to win at the ballot box. I vote Republican.  Maybe all the Independents out there learned from this push by the left to ban guns and will vote Republican during the next election.  I think the Democrats showed their true colors during the last few weeks.  That is good for our side.

 

The state only suspended his HCP and I support that decision.  He will likely get it back after they think he has cooled down.  

[Oh Shoot]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50429293

 

Well great. It hit MSNBC. Thanks James, you loudmouth dick.

 

His original vid was featured on The Ed Show last night, and Yeager was aready scheduled to appear himself on tonight's show. Don't know if he still will.

 

But yep,  it's just more anti-gun grist for the progressive mill.

 

- OS

[ProjectDexter]

"The office of Homeland Security serves as a liaison between federal, state and local agencies, and private sector on matters relating to the security of our state and citizens."

 

First page of their website.