Voldemort closes up shop

[JayC]

1. No judge found him to be a likely danger to the public... it's was an attorney at TDOS who made that determination.

 

2. and even if a judge had determined he was a likely danger to the public, that isn't the same as being adjudicated metally deficent.  So it wouldn't be a disqualifying event to own firearms, or to get an FFL.

 

I'd love to get rid of the background checks altogether...  they're make work (ie welfare) for government employees and do virtually nothing to protect us while drastically increasing the cost of firearms.

 

This case is a lot bigger than Voldemort's tactical crazy fest...  It could well set case law that would set back firearm rights in this state decades...  

 

The department was in the wrong the second they found the ATF paperwork on the silencer and entered into evidence...  And they were probably wrong on the search without a warrant for lack of PC to search a locked container...  

 

Either way, as much as we all dislike Voldemort, we need to hope he wins this case or we're going to have some very bad case law to deal with for the next 20 years.

 

Total
Having a court ruling that you are a likely danger to the public is a specific documented disqualifying event.

If it’s not then let’s let both the Feds and the state know that they need to shut down background checks all together because they obviously (according to you) don’t have the authority to keep firearms out of the hands of nut cases.

Maybe you will lose some of what you perceive as gun rights if you plan on dressing up as Timmy Tactical, strapping AK across your chest and walking through a park where families are trying to enjoy the day with their children without some nut case putting everyone in danger. Or open carrying your AR downtown thinking cops should be afraid to stop an obvious nutcase. Yes, if you think either of those things are okay then your rights are at risk. That will lead to concealed means concealed. I don’t open carry, but I don’t particularly want to see it banned; but being a nut case will lead to that.

 

[JayC]

I think the bigger question is, does the search get tossed or not...

 

You're probably right being on a form 3 is going to cause him more heartburn that if it had been in his name...  I don't see why he was even carrying the silencer to begin with...  he would have had a much better case for an civil rights violation if he had just been carrying a plain old AR.

 

But we're talking about Voldemort here, so who knows what goes through his silly head to dream up these types of ideas.

 

Honestly I think the fact that it was on a form 3 is going to come back to bite him in the rear.  He is going to have to prove that carrying the silencer around downtown Nashville was incident to carrying on his business.  Had it been been registered to him individually and not his SOT then the proof of legal ownership alone would have been an affirmative defense.

 

39-17-1302.  Prohibited weapons.

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

     (5) A firearm silencer;

  ( B) It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the person's conduct:

     (6) Was licensed by the state of Tennessee as a manufacturer, importer or dealer in weapons; provided, that the manufacture, import, purchase, possession, sale or disposition of weapons is authorized and incident to carrying on the business for which licensed and is for scientific or research purposes or sale or disposition to an organization designated in subdivision ( B)(1);

   (7) Involved acquisition or possession of a sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun or firearm silencer that is validly registered to the person under federal law in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records. A person who acquires or possesses a firearm registered as required by this subdivision ( B)(7) shall retain proof of registration; or
   
    (2) An offense under subdivisions (a)(2)-(5) is a Class E felony.

[DaveS]

 

 

 And they were probably wrong on the search without a warrant for lack of PC to search a locked container...  

 

 

What locked container? Are you referring to that black shrink wrap he had on his weapon with a cable lock hanging on it? I do not see that as a "locked container". I may be wrong, but I don't see it. A "guitar style hard case with lock", yes.

 

Dave

[DMark]

woohoo, voldemort thread.  These are my 5th most favorite TGO threads. 

 

Just for those curious my order goes

 

1. anti Obama/obamacare threads (they are always full of pictures and memes which keeps it simple for me)

2. pro gay-anti gay-can we please stop talking about gays threads (come on, you all know you love them)

3. AR vs AK threads (haven't seen one of those in a while, maybe i should start one)

4. Glock vs 1911 vs whatever threads

 

 

most of the threads are pretty decent, but those 5 have a tendency to result in some hilarious posts.  Honestly, i just commented to make it easier to follow.

 

Dang....., You forgot the James Yeager threads!  :stir:  

[DaveTN]

2. and even if a judge had determined he was a likely danger to the public, that isn't the same as being adjudicated metally deficent.  So it wouldn't be a disqualifying event to own firearms, or to get an FFL.

That’s ridiculous at face value. So he’s a danger to the public, but he’s not a mentally deficient danger to the public; so he is okay.
 

I'd love to get rid of the background checks altogether... they're make work (ie welfare) for government employees and do virtually nothing to protect us while drastically increasing the cost of firearms.

Agreed, but they aren’t going to go away.
 

This case is a lot bigger than Voldemort's tactical crazy fest... It could well set case law that would set back firearm rights in this state decades...

Either way, as much as we all dislike Voldemort, we need to hope he wins this case or we're going to have some very bad case law to deal with for the next 20 years.

Please fill us in on what could possibly come from his case that will set us back decades???
 

The department was in the wrong the second they found the ATF paperwork on the silencer and entered into evidence...

He refused to show the paperwork; the Police are not required to hunt for it. His refusal will be a question for the court to decide.
 

And they were probably wrong on the search without a warrant for lack of PC to search a locked container...

The container was designed (by him) to make a Police Officer recognize what it was on plain view. I doubt the court would overlook that. I also thought they got a warrant?

He is facing felony charges. A conviction would end any medical career he hopes for and would end his ability to own firearms, not to mention the possibility of jail time. Unless he can get some competent attorney (that he can afford) to takes his case; I expect this to end in a plea bargain.

[JayC]

Well, I don't think he's a danger to the public...  I've said repeatedly that the provision they used to revoke his permit should be taken from TDOS because in every case we're aware of it has been blatantly abused.

 

How could this set us back decades?  Current case law in TN says that just the fact you have a firearm does not give the police RAS or PC for a search, that they must have some specific to that individual firearm that it's being possessed in a criminal manner.  So I see the search being upheld as constitutional as a huge setback for firearm rights in this state.  How does this impact normal people?  Lets say you're carrying a firearm in the back of your car while driving, or sitting inside your home against the doorjam...  Does that man just because an officer sees a firearm he automatically gains RAS for a search of that firearm?  Today the answer is no, a bad ruling in this case could change that.

 

Second, it's likely that state law requiring one to produce federal tax records to local law enforcement violates the supremacy clause...  Since federal law says that tax records can only be given to states with a valid court order.  ATF forms are included in that law today...  If the police can demand these tax documents on the street, where else and what else can they demand that you provide?  Can they come to your home and demand you produce federal ATF paperwork because they have reason to believe you have an NFA firearm?

 

Again it doesn't matter what the container looked like, the fact that he was carrying a firearm under current case law is not RAS/PC to detain or search the firearm unless they can articulate something specific about that firearm that makes them believe it's illegal.

 

He's facing felony charges, and my guess is they'll offer to drop the charges the day he agrees not the file suit against Nashville PD...  but it's costing the taxpayers a lot of extra money to keep doing this... from a pure cost perspective, it would be much cheaper to dismiss the charges and agree to pay him $10k for his trouble and be done with it...  but because the DA wants to make an example out of somebody who likely didn't break the law, Nashville residents are going to pay $75-100k in legal costs.

 

That’s ridiculous at face value. So he’s a danger to the public, but he’s not a mentally deficient danger to the public; so he is okay.
 
Please fill us in on what could possibly come from his case that will set us back decades???
 
He refused to show the paperwork; the Police are not required to hunt for it. His refusal will be a question for the court to decide.
 
The container was designed (by him) to make a Police Officer recognize what it was on plain view. I doubt the court would overlook that. I also thought they got a warrant?

He is facing felony charges. A conviction would end any medical career he hopes for and would end his ability to own firearms, not to mention the possibility of jail time. Unless he can get some competent attorney (that he can afford) to takes his case; I expect this to end in a plea bargain.

 

[c.a.willard]

Well, I don't think he's a danger to the public...  I've said repeatedly that the provision they used to revoke his permit should be taken from TDOS because in every case we're aware of it has been blatantly abused.

 

How could this set us back decades?  Current case law in TN says that just the fact you have a firearm does not give the police RAS or PC for a search, that they must have some specific to that individual firearm that it's being possessed in a criminal manner.  So I see the search being upheld as constitutional as a huge setback for firearm rights in this state.  How does this impact normal people?  Lets say you're carrying a firearm in the back of your car while driving, or sitting inside your home against the doorjam...  Does that man just because an officer sees a firearm he automatically gains RAS for a search of that firearm?  Today the answer is no, a bad ruling in this case could change that.

 

Second, it's likely that state law requiring one to produce federal tax records to local law enforcement violates the supremacy clause...  Since federal law says that tax records can only be given to states with a valid court order.  ATF forms are included in that law today...  If the police can demand these tax documents on the street, where else and what else can they demand that you provide?  Can they come to your home and demand you produce federal ATF paperwork because they have reason to believe you have an NFA firearm?

 

Again it doesn't matter what the container looked like, the fact that he was carrying a firearm under current case law is not RAS/PC to detain or search the firearm unless they can articulate something specific about that firearm that makes them believe it's illegal.

 

He's facing felony charges, and my guess is they'll offer to drop the charges the day he agrees not the file suit against Nashville PD...  but it's costing the taxpayers a lot of extra money to keep doing this... from a pure cost perspective, it would be much cheaper to dismiss the charges and agree to pay him $10k for his trouble and be done with it...  but because the DA wants to make an example out of somebody who likely didn't break the law, Nashville residents are going to pay $75-100k in legal costs.

 

They did articulate their RAS/PC.  The case made it appear as if the AR had an attached suppressor and an magazine inserted into the mag well.  The case was specifically designed to draw the attention of LE, he even said so on his website for a while until he was finally smart enough to take that down.  A suppressor is a prohibited weapon, though there are defenses to it, and you can not carry a loaded rifle.  The officers did a preliminary search to determine if the weapon was in fact loaded, in the process they confirmed the presence of what appeared to be a suppressor.  They confiscated the weapon as is and then obtained a warrant to break open the lock and inspect the contents further. 

 

Lenny's defense is that he is the registered owner, the reality is, his FFL with SOT is the owner and he is the proprietor for his FFL. Unless he can figure out a way to explain how carrying the supressor through downtown Nashville was incident to his carrying on of his business he is screwed. 

[ShamGlock]

Well, at least we got 3 pages in before this thread went exactly the same way that every thread about him on here has before. 

[Mark A]

Well, at least we got 3 pages in before this thread went exactly the same way that every thread about him on here has before.

I know, it was all fun and hilarity till people got all serious...

Mark

[Dustbuster]

One can debate rights all day long but if someone is pacing the front of my work/ kids school/ public building that reasonably appears to be doing something that is out of the norm that reasonably presents the color of risk where cause of injury is inevitable,I want to see that person validated as safe or high risk. Trolling for cops w a firearm is just stupid....someone's right? Yeah but utterly stupid.... What is there 'left to debate? The style of takedown?? If he pulled that crap in other cities his funeral may have passed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2 of course it ate my spelling.

[JayC]

Their search would seem to violate current case law http://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/williamsonguyopn_0.pdf on the subject....

 

While the carrying of a firearm under certain circumstances may constitute a crime, the caller did not offer any articulable facts indicating that the Defendant unlawfully possessed a gun, and the information at the scene did not demonstrate the unlawfulness of its possession until after the frisk.

 

In the above case officers found a pistol on the defendant during a frisk where they were looking for a man with gun call...  and the appeals court tossed the search out (as one of the reasons) that detaining him was not a valid terry stop because they lacked RAS for the stop and frisk...  

 

Since state law allows one to carry a firearm without the intent to go armed legally...  the police would have required some RAS that the firearm was being used illegally...  not that it *might* be loaded, or that Voldemort *might* be a prohibited person.  It's key to note that we don't have a law that allows the police to come up and check the status of a weapon just because...  according to TN v Williamson they must have some RAS that firearm you're carrying is somehow illegal.

 

In this case I don't see how the detainment meets the requirements above...  He was carrying a firearm, what specifically did he do that made them believe the firearm was loaded or otherwise illegal? 

 

If the detainment was unlawful, then everything that follows is out. 

 

They did articulate their RAS/PC.  The case made it appear as if the AR had an attached suppressor and an magazine inserted into the mag well.  The case was specifically designed to draw the attention of LE, he even said so on his website for a while until he was finally smart enough to take that down.  A suppressor is a prohibited weapon, though there are defenses to it, and you can not carry a loaded rifle.  The officers did a preliminary search to determine if the weapon was in fact loaded, in the process they confirmed the presence of what appeared to be a suppressor.  They confiscated the weapon as is and then obtained a warrant to break open the lock and inspect the contents further. 

 

Lenny's defense is that he is the registered owner, the reality is, his FFL with SOT is the owner and he is the proprietor for his FFL. Unless he can figure out a way to explain how carrying the supressor through downtown Nashville was incident to his carrying on of his business he is screwed. 

[c.a.willard]

Their search would seem to violate current case law http://tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/williamsonguyopn_0.pdf on the subject....

 

 

In the above case officers found a pistol on the defendant during a frisk where they were looking for a man with gun call...  and the appeals court tossed the search out (as one of the reasons) that detaining him was not a valid terry stop because they lacked RAS for the stop and frisk...  

 

Since state law allows one to carry a firearm without the intent to go armed legally...  the police would have required some RAS that the firearm was being used illegally...  not that it *might* be loaded, or that Voldemort *might* be a prohibited person.  It's key to note that we don't have a law that allows the police to come up and check the status of a weapon just because...  according to TN v Williamson they must have some RAS that firearm you're carrying is somehow illegal.

 

In this case I don't see how the detainment meets the requirements above...  He was carrying a firearm, what specifically did he do that made them believe the firearm was loaded or otherwise illegal? 

 

If the detainment was unlawful, then everything that follows is out. 

the case makes it appear that the rifle had a suppressor attached (prohibited weapon) and an inserted magazine (loaded rifle is a crime).  Notice i didn't say might i said appear.  To a reasonable person it would appear that Voldemort was committing a crime. He intentionally made it look like he met the intent to go armed portion.  Regardless the suppressor in itself would have been enough for the stop.

[DaveS]

the case makes it appear that the rifle had a suppressor attached (prohibited weapon) and an inserted magazine (loaded rifle is a crime).  Notice i didn't say might i said appear.  To a reasonable person it would appear that Voldemort was committing a crime. He intentionally made it look like he met the intent to go armed portion.  Regardless the suppressor in itself would have been enough for the stop.

And he also made it "Look Like" a long arm in a LOCKED CASE. Sorry, it don't fit the bill !!!

 

Dave

[JayC]

I think the video evidence is going to hurt them on the suppressor claim since they don't bring up the suppressor until after Voldemort had been detained for 30+ minutes, and they've already broken into the case and see it...  I agree it's going to be a toss up in court, but I don't think it's a slam dunk.

 

As for the fact the case could have held a magazine, I think TN v Williamson is on point...  Just because the weapon might be loaded doesn't give them RAS to detain or search...  They need specific information that the weapon is loaded, not that it could be...  Again I think the video evidence is going to hurt their claims since they constantly try to use hypothetical what if's to justify their search while they're doing it, instead of stating some specific reason for the search...  remember the officers talked a lot on camera and audio tape.

 

I also think it's going to hurt their case, they detained him, then let him go without searching...  and then detained him a second time and did search him...  what changed during those 15 minutes?  I think you could have a field day asking every officer involved in the first stop why they let somebody go if they thought he had a loaded rifle.  I'm also wondering what the radio traffic tapes will show, and 911 calls will show.

 

Again, I'm not defending his actions, I think he's an idiot just like everybody else... but TN v Williamson is good case law, and I'd hate to see it ruined just because a DA wants to cause issues for Voldemort.

 

the case makes it appear that the rifle had a suppressor attached (prohibited weapon) and an inserted magazine (loaded rifle is a crime).  Notice i didn't say might i said appear.  To a reasonable person it would appear that Voldemort was committing a crime. He intentionally made it look like he met the intent to go armed portion.  Regardless the suppressor in itself would have been enough for the stop.