Leonard Embody (Kwikrnu): Permit revoked

[tnxdshooter]

[C. Richard Archie]

[lilredhunter]

[tnxdshooter]

[ProguninTN]

[lilredhunter]

Everyone in this thread have made some great comments. Also there are varied opines here as well. I have to agree with everyone on one point. The "Orange tip" is not just done that way without Embody having something sinister in mind. He could commit a crime and then LEO glance at the weapon ,see the orange and maybe hesitate to fire. He could then open fire on them. I still say he was up to something. I mean other than seeking publicity.

[fl0at]

[tnxdshooter]

[price g]

I disagree with every decision this clown has made,however, I do realize the value of his efforts.

[RobertNashville]

[tnxdshooter]

[price g]

He is the bait while we watch the trap.I see value.

[tnxdshooter]

[Dan Lee]

All I'm going to say is that I sincerely hope they have more evidence that he's a "Public Threat" than what they have show us thus far.. If we start letting people at the DOS make arbitrary decisions based on what "might" happen, or the dislike of certain individuals, then we are as a society going back to the days of the Salem/Danvers Ma. witch hunts.

I am with anyone here that opposes his methods, that I promise you. However, the laws we have in place are there to protect us from harm & injustices alike. The right to self protection is not adjudicated by any Government or people, it is issued to each person by God himself. Making Embody protect himself with a sharp stick is in my opinion unjust, & overkill on the part of the state, unless they know something we don't, & aren't telling us.. If he made a verbal threat to someone that involved the use of a firearm, then fine.. If he committed perjury on his application, then fine.. If all he's done is stupid & ill advised demonstrations, then he's within his 1st. amendment rights.

I guess I'd like to know exactly how they came to that decision, & what's to stop them from applying this reasoning to someone that the DOJ doesn't like? I.E. someone that gets in a fist fight at a bar with a TN State Trooper who maybe started the fight? Or, maybe someone that broke the heart of a DOS employee's daughter & called her a foul name?

It seems to me that they should have at least made the case for a mental evaluation with a competent judge first? I'm not saying that I know all the answers here about what was right or wrong to do, because I don't have all the info on this guy I'm sure, but did you know that the Government has refused to give out information in 2009, twice as many times as they did in 2008, when a Freedom of Information request has been made? In fiscal year 2009, 17 major governmental agencies refused to release information, claiming legal exemptions, 466,872 times, an increase of nearly 50 percent from the previous year!
See here: http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/201 ... nsparency/

You'll have to forgive me if I'm no longer willing to take the Government at it's word.. Lately it's been about as good as stagnant mud..

[Menzoberranzan]

I found this tidbit. It is a letter from the Belle Meade Police Department to the DoS recommending that Mr. Embody have his permit revoked and their reasons.

[macville]

Okay, what exactly is an "unsafe manner", "unsafe location", and "unsafe condition"? That's about as vague as you can get.

Matthew

[SomeGuy]

macville,

He carried exactly as the city of Belle Meade requires, openly in the hand. They have a law that is before pre-emption that requires that.

[Dan Lee]

54.78% of the people in Belle Meade, TN are registered as Democrats. Just sayin'... We know what THEIR leader & his Attorney General pick thinks of guns.. I think this letter is as vague as Obama's justifications for Health Care reform.. It's exactly what I was afraid it would be.. Police Dept. Retaliation.. I predict that they will be giving his permit back..


P.S... Do you know how many Cops have had accidental discharges, but are still allowed to carry a gun? They went too far taking away his permit, if this is all they have..

[RobertNashville]

Does anyone really expect such a letter to spell out in detail all the justification/evidence the writer feels he has for such a request?

i don't think so...I would suggest that it's more appropriate for the requester to make the request and let the DoS make the determination on whatever evidence is submitted or which it gathers on its own.

In other words, I would not read too much into the "vagueness" of the letter itself - what matters is the amount of evidence they (DoS) has and bases its decision on; something that we aren't really privy to unless/until it becomes part of the public record in a court action.

[Dan Lee]

Robert, you may be right about there being more evidence, but shouldn't ALL evidence be available to the public as a matter of transparency? If I'm not mistaken, this incident doesn't involve matters of National Security, so shouldn't ALL the evidence be before the public?