Tennessee Firearms Assoc. Inc.

Bulletin:

Nashville's WSMV Channel 4 News reports that the Tennessee State Department of Safety has revoked Embody's permit on the grounds that there is a "material likelihood that he is a risk to the public".

He plans to appeal the decision.

ETA:

You may recall he's the individual who was detained for carrying an orange-tipped Draco (AK47 pistol variant) in Radnor Lake, and later, for openly carrying a replica cap & ball revolver in his hand as he walked down Belle Meade Boulevard.

David

As much as I think this guy acts really inappropriate in the way of firearms carry etiquette , I'm not sure how they justified taking away his permit, or if I agree with it.. He didn't break any laws.. My guess is that they will have to give it back now.. Unfortunately it wreaks of "retaliation" by Tennessee law enforcement, & to me that is as equally dangerous & unacceptable as Embody's behavior..

If someone can figure out how they could justify this under the law, please set me straight, but right now I think they pulled out the Tarot Cards & a OUIJA board to make this decision...

I must agree with Dan. At this point, they just gave him amunition for another lawsuit. They have publicly defamed him, with no cause. After all, nothing he did so far has been illegal. Though I think he is a gloryhound, and I am not sure he is doing things the best way, he is very much expressing himself, which is quite legal. His method of carrying arms is also legal. This is pure retaliation, and in this fight, I wish him the utmost luck.

In the WSMV story, he states that he is just a private citizen that wasn't seeking publicity... I'll call "Bravo Sierra" on that one. He has been nothing but a publicity hound since we all first heard of him.

He then goes on to state that the only way to carry the cap and ball revolver is "in your hand". "Bravo Sierra" here, as well. Is he actually trying to get us to believe that no holster exists for a C&B? Really?

Anyone here that knows me knows how strongly I feel about individual rights. But I truly believe that this guy needs to be adjudicated as "mentaly unbalanced". Did he break any laws? No. Are his actions and statements rational? No. I feel certain that the DOS probably made sure they covered their backside before they took this action. At least I hope they did.

Mike

Mike,

My immediate reaction was a good hard laugh whenhe said he wasn't out for publicity. We agree there.

Regarding the carrying of the cap and ball revolver in his hand, the locality supposedly has ordanaces in place that are pre-preemption. He may have actually been truthful there. I have seen the laws he references, but I never actually hunted to see if they were legit. He has a decent point, we do in fact need to strengthen our state level pre-emption.

I think this all started when he tried to get a suppressor for the draco. The sheriff on the form crossed out the part about do you know this person to be of sound mind blah blah blah and then signed it and sent it to the atf. I am thinking the atf may have gotten involved and forced the DOS hand. Which if they did the ATF, TBI, and anyone involved with this fiasco are in a whole heap of trouble. Granted I think the guy is a publicity hound. There is an ordinance in bell meade that says if you carry a cap and ball revolver it must be in your hand. Granted the ordinance was enacted back in the 17-early 1800's but is still on the books today. Being a publicity hound is no grounds to revoke anyone's permit or anything of that nature. All they have done now is given leonard ammunition for his court battles. He is going to be a millionaire I think before this is all said and done. If this goes to federal court which I would say it will then the federal courts will overturn everything.

In looking at my previous post, let me add this:

kwikrnu: "Cops don't shoot at people with orange muzzles on their guns".

kwikrnu: "The orange muzzle means cops can't shoot at me".

Some others and I on this forum have discussed privately how it appears this guy "is seeking cofrontation". I personally believe he is seeking one that will get him a "Rodney King" style payout - if he lives through it.

Before anyone flames me for my statements, think about how upset all of us were with his actions because of how his actions set back our cause. I think most everyone here was in agreement that he was doing more harm than good. We didn't want him doing that...

Now, (and remember that I am probably a little more extreme than many here when it comes to personal rights [Dan Lee, excepted! Just kidding, Dan!] and will be glad to take up arms to defend them [and in fact do see that as what might be considered an unavoidable future at this point in time]), with the state's action, we can further distance ourselves from this guy, thus helping our cause. If he does go out and get himself shot at this point, he is no longer "one of us" and then provides us with more reason for law abiding folks to be able to protect ourselves through legal carry. Do I like having to have a permit to do so? No, and I believe that being required to do so is unconstitutional. Do I want the "crazies" out there running around with guns? No... Don't want that either. I think we all agree that some folks really shouldn't have guns... Some of us have even witnessed this on the range. But we aren't used to seeing the state actually do something about it, so it stirs in us emotions that we aren't sure how to express. We need to make sure we don't let our fear of an overstepping government jump in front of our common sense that this guy really might be "more than half a bubble off center".

Mike

Wasn't aware of such an ordinance regarding C&B revolvers... That was not mentioned in the article, and should have been. I stand corrected.

This does go back before the attempted suppressor purchase, however. I feel certain that the DoS went backand gathered everything they could on the guy, including his threats against a member of another forum (I believe it was the Ford Lightning forum where he told they other guy he would meet him and 'settle the issue' face to face - and it was very obvious that he didn't mean diplomatically). The guy has made all kinds of threats toward other on other forums, and even got the boot from a (get this) "Golden Retriever" forum because of his statements there.

He just loves to file lawsuits, and has been successful in some - "Embody v. Crown Ford" being an example.

His statements about the orange muzzle created concern for many of us... While legal, why? What was his motive? His response was "Because I can". But that isn't a real explanation. He didn't or wouldn't admit to his real motives. If the guy had any rational explanation (besides seeking opportunities for lawsuits, which he would never admit to for it would reveal his true colors) for his actions, he propably wouldn't be in the position in which he currently finds himself. He just wants to keep saying "because I can".

Read all the logic on TGO. They are pretty much agreeing with what I am saying mike. You are unfortunately in the minority here brother. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing as we are all entitled to our opinions. I will do a search for the embody vs crown ford. Sounds like it might be an interesting read.

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/newsw ... ked-4.html

After researching the Embody Vs. Crown Ford it appears that lawsuit was justified. He had taken his truck in to the dealer to have some work on it. While there someone stole his 2500-3500 dollar sound system out of the truck. Apparently, it had the stink of an inside job. He basically said that the dealer told him tough crap. Well he filed a lawsuit against them in civil court for the amount of the sound system. Eight days later he got a call from their insurance companies lawyer saying they wanted to settle the claim without going to court. So, apparently he got a pay out in that.

Regarding his (sure to come) lawsuit against the DoS... I'm not so sure he has a guaranteed win. Remember, the state looks at the carry permit differently than we do. We see it as a right. They see it as more of a revocable priviledge. (I am not saying they are correct, but am just explaining their position.) If they feel someone is a danger, and think they have the evidence to back it up, they will take action. They do the same thing to people with their driver's licenses... If an elderly person is continually having accidents, the state can require a re-test. If the person fails the re-test, they lose their license. The state evidently feels that Embody has not demonstrated an ability to responsibly carry a handgun without creating cause for concern, and has taken action. The question now is: did they have enough evidence to do so? I'm betting they did. The case has had too much publicity for them to just make an arbitrary decision. They have to have known a history on the guy, otherwise they would have had no grounds whatsoever on which to take any action.

I think it's too soon to say that he will win his case. We don't know what evidence the state has... They might have discovered something about him of which we are unaware. They have greater resources than do we. Perhaps something showed up on his DD-214 that they didn't know about when he first applied for his HCP... Who knows what they have? But I can't help but believe that they have something substantial.

Could this be a "slippery slope"? Absolutely so, if there is no justification presented. It is that against which we have to guard. But to say they should take no action at all in order to save money is to say that all police cars should be
parked in order to save money. Some jobs just have to be done in order to preserve order and maintain the laws found acceptable by the people. If there is no justiication for the state to revoke Embody's HCP, then the people that made the decision to do so should be fired. As I've said before, I feel the guy is a danger because of his obvious anger issues and his irrational behavior - but that is just my opinion. The state will need more than opinion to justify their action... They know that just as well as we do. It will all come out in court, I'm sure.

Mike

BTW: regarding being in the minority... As the old saying goes "In order to conduct the orchestra, you have to turn your back on the crowd".

Mike I agree with both the posts. I believe that he should get his permit back if he passes a phsychological exam and only then should he get it back. However, the state had better damn well hope they have all their ducks in a row on this one because if they do not and there is a loop hole of any kind you can bet your bottom dollar ole Embody will find it and exploit it just like he did the Belle Meade ordinance. Honestly, with the way the state lies about stuff I cant see as how they would have their ducks in a row. Case in point. The question on the application that says have you been arrested in the last five years or whatever. I answered no to that because I had not. However, initially I was denied my permit over a bogus charge that I had on me from over ten years ago that had been dismissed over ten years ago. So, I had to be hassled and chase down paper work that I never even knew existed and it took about two weeks of my time. I even called the TBI and got the denial over turned because I faxed this lady named holly my expungement paperwork. She updated it that day and I contacted the DOS faxed them the information and they issued my permit that same day. The point I am trying to make here is that the state does and can screw up and they can and did screw up on me. I feel they need to totally eliminate the "have you been arrested in the last 5-7 years deal on the form" and instead say "have you ever been arrested period" If so when, and do you have the paperwork to show it was expunged? If so then please provide said paperwork before proceeding.

If he has to take a psych exam, and the courts uphold that, then it could be demanded of every single one of us.

Keep in mind folks, if they say he can have his permit revoked for such a nebulous reason as they provided, and that is it (like it or not, being an idiot/blowhard with libertarian views is legal), Tennessee will in essence become a may-issue state.

I am not too fond of this publicity hound, but if he loses now, we all lose with him.

It appears that his intent is to "cook" up situations which allow for him to litigate for personal gain.

Years of efforts by those of us who look to the liberty of our progeny could possibly be dismantled by this self serving individual who has only his pocket book in mind.

He is no friend of the cause of Second Amendment, Liberty or expanding our ability to provide for our own defense.

My $.02 worth, simply exercising my personal freedom of expression abilities, not the view of TFA.

James, I agree with you... If he has to take a psych eval, we are all going to be put through the mill. I guess if it comes down to that, I'll end up an outlaw. I also agree that it isn't against the law to be an idiot in Tennessee... I would hope that the DoS knows that as well. Part of what I have tried to convey in posts above is that (even though some of the bureaucrats can come across as idiots sometimes) hopefully someone at the DoS had enough common sense to recognize the name, and to make sure that they had "dotted the I's and crossed the T's" before they took such action. The guy has had too much publicity proving that he is out to test the limits of law... If the DoS messed up and did this "willy-nilly" then those responsible should be fired.

I believe in this case, that the state has come up with something they feel justifies their actions. I don't know what that might be, but I think they must have something. From the WSMV report: "There was a material likelihood that I was a risk to the public," Embody said of the letter. "Material likelihood"... I don't know what that means as far as what the state "has" on Embody. I am not sure how they define "material likelihood".

My whole point (that I have probably not been very clear on in previous posts to this thread) is that we do not really know that much about the reasoning that the DoS has behind their actions. It is because of that that I have not jumped all over the DoS and their actions. Nor will I side with Embody just because the DoS has revoked his permit. There are too many unknowns at this point concerning the entire situation. I don't believe there is enough information to say that this is "retaliatory action" on the part of any agency. I don't believe we know enough to say that Embody's actions were all within the law - we only know about the actions that have made the news, and those actions were (regardless of the lack of common sense) legal. If the only reason the DoS can give is because of his little walks in the park or his stroll through Belle Meade, then they are wrong and have violated his right to permitted carry.

On the other hand, if they have legally obtained evidence that shows Embody is a risk to the public (for example: some actual proof of a threat of violence or retaliation against some party) then they have a duty to revoke his permit. If he has (just as they teach in HCP class) the ability, intent, and proximity to cause harm, and has made threats of any illegal action, they need to revoke his HCP. The old phrase "What did they know, and when did they know it?" would come into play if he did something bad with a handgun and still held a permit. Every news agency in the state would be ripping the DoS a new one because they hadn't revoked the permit of the shooter when there had been so much publicity about him. The last thing we would want to happen is for him to "go off" and cause injury to innocent bystanders - especially if he still held a HCP. What is it I have seen on this forum so many times when someone gets arrested for a gun crime? Someone always says something like "Please don't let them be a permit holder..."

While I am as "anti-government intrusion" as they come, government does (or at least, is supposed to) serve a purpose. I have gone on many an "anti-big government/anti-bureaucrat" rant in my time. I am, according to several surveys I have taken, a "Constitutionalist, Gun-toting, Libertarian". However someone wants to classify me, I do believe that the Constitution is second only to the Bible, that God intended for me to defend and provide for my family and myself, and that I (not the government) am responsible for my own well being. "So where does government fit in, Mike?" you might ask. I believe the government's job is to perform the tasks that can't or shouldn't be undertaken by private industry. (Things like keeping insane people from running amok, raising a standing army, and working to insure that drugs manufactured by private industry don't produce harmful side effects like growing a third ear out of the top of your head. In many instances, I am still not opposed to the government sub-contracting these tasks either, so long as there is proper oversight.) So please folks, don't take me as an apologist for any bureaucracy abuses.

In this case, I have seen enough of Embody's antics to cause me to reserve judgement until more information is available... That is the reason I said "We need to make sure we don't let our fear of an overstepping government jump in front of our common sense that this guy really might be 'more than half a bubble off center'."

Mike