Leonard Embody (Kwikrnu): Permit revoked

[RobertNashville]

While our desire for that transparency is understandable and it could be argued, beneficial to us; to me it's a matter of privacy - I don't believe the public has a need to know the details of what the state knows about Mr. Embody that is more important than his privacy, at least, not as long as it's between him and the state. Of course, if this reaches the courts then it's another matter.

To me, this is very similar to the reasonable desire of most HCP holders that our names/addresses not be published in newspapers, etc...the public simply doesn't have a need to know that information; at least not one that trumps our desire to keep such information at least somewhat private.

[Dan Lee]

[TacticaLogic]

From what I've been able to gather, Embody has had a previous run in with police in regard to a domestic violence situation that was evidently not prosecuted. If there has been a recurrance of such an issue, the permit could be pulled, but the information regarding the cause for such action might be withheld from public access pending the outcome of a trial.

I know we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... But I do know that such an incident would cause the permit to be suspended at least. As I've said in earlier post... We won't really know the entire situation until the gavel drops and court is called to order.

Mike

[StandingTall]

I have an interesting, almost side-bar, question. It applies to the Embody Anomaly as a whole. I know there isn't a state law on this, but isn't there a federal law prohibiting the modification of a firearm to make it appear in any way like a toy? We had a discussion about this in inservice last week while the DA was there. The DA and a couple of officers believe there is a federal law that states this, but no one had time to research it.

Unfortunately this particular DA also said that the court decision to overturn the "Guns in Restauraunts" law was meaningless and the law would still be considered to be in effect. That is the topic of another discussion though.

So for the purpose of this thread... Is there a federal law prohibiting the modification of a firearm in order to make it appear to be a toy? If so, why has no one charged him with that? All of the other stuff would be pointless (including his lawsuit) if he were arrested, tried, and convicted on a federal level.

[TacticaLogic]

Standing Tall, I thought the same thing when I first heard about the orange muzzle... I've had officers bring that question up in classes, when we were discussing legal issues during breaks... No one had the answer.

Try as I might, I've not been able to locate such a federal law. Of course, I don't have some of the resources others do, but I was unable to locate anything. One would think that, with as much regulation as exists in regard to everything else firearms related, someone would have already come up with a law prohibiting the "disguising of actual firearms for deceptive purposes" or some such... It would be a "double edged sword" though... It would open up a whole other can of worms, such as would a book cut out to hold a weapon fall under that prohibition as an unlawful weapon, or a purse with a built in holster, etc. I think to say such things would be prohibited would be silly, but there are many laws on the books that prove there are no bounds for silliness when it comes to federal law. Ex: Possesion of a shotgun with a barrel measuring 18.00 inches from the muzzle to the breachface = not NFA, while an identical shotgun with a barrel measuring 17.99 inches from the muzzle to the breachface = NFA weapon. Amazing how 1/100th of an inch can cost you up to 10 years in prison and/or $10,000... IF YOU DIDN'T PAY A SILLY TAX!!! (That's the reason mine is 18.25 inches! Safety Margin!)

Regards,
Mike

[StandingTall]

I'm going to try and dig through the federal laws when I get back to work on Tuesday and see what I can dig up. That is, of course, if we're not slammed. The weather is warming up after all.

[tnxdshooter]

[Dan Lee]

With all do respect, Pursuing this "Orange Tip" thing, & especially by hypocritically leaning on the idea of the Federal Government to deal with Embody is glaringly flawed, I'm sorry..

Aren't they the ones we DON'T want meddling in our second amendment rights? The camel's nose is already in the tent, so now do you really want his stinky butt in there too?

This could have been dealt with by the age of principle of ostracizing individuals that refuse to abide by commonly accepted social standards..

Or, just let him test his theory about cops not shooting him, & natural selection will take care of things..

We don't need the federal government dealing with this crap... They already waste enough time, money, & resources getting involved with things they have no Constitutional authority to even look at, let alone touch.. (Like HealthCare for instance.)

[TacticaLogic]

Dan,

We are not pursuing anything concerning a federal regulation other than just investigating whether or not such a statute exists... We are not promoting it. If it does exist, we are just curious as to why someone hasn't already nailed him for it. If there exists a federal law that says it is illegal to paint a muzzle orange for the purpose of deceiving a law enforcement officer, then he has indeed broken it. I don't like federal intrusion in my life any more than you do... But sometimes a tool, any tool, is better than none at all.

Quite frankly, when it comes to idiots like this one, I just want him off the street before his actions cause Tennessee HCP holders any further trouble. Every action he has taken may be 100% legal... But his actions have also done tremendous damage to our cause of 2nd Amendment rights as a whole. We don't win the "fence-sitters" over to our side by beating them over the head with what is legal. We win them over by showing them that we are just like they are, only we are better informed and we take responsibility for our own protection. People generally tend to want to copy/imitate well-informed, responsible individuals - unless they are otherwise acting like a horse's rear. I believe that to be the case with Embody... He knows what the laws are... And he has not technically broken any law of which I am aware. BUT HE IS OTHERWISE ACTING LIKE A HORSE'S REAR. Is it against the law to act like a horse's rear? No... Does it make people want to join our group? No... (Dan, we've spoken privately before... We both know of people that have been extremely adversarial. Then those same people want to invite 'everyone' to an event... How likely are people to go attend the event, considering who it is doing the inviting? See what I mean?)

My analogy is this: It's 1968, and my LRRP team and I are 12 miles inside the border of Laos, watching Viet Cong "mules" ferrying arms and other supplies down the Ho Chi Minh Trail. My team and I have been weathered in for days, can't get a Huey pick-up, and after 3 ambushes on NVA patrols my team and I are out of 5.56 NATO ammo for our Colt Commando M-177's. (THIS IS JUST AN ANALOGY, SO UNDERSTAND THAT ANY C.O. WORTH A D@#M WOULD NEVER LET THIS COME TO PASS UNDER REAL WORLD CONDITIONS AS THEY EXISTED IN 1968!!) The only ammo left is for the M-79 being carried by the man second from the tail, and some 12 ga 00 buck for the shotgun being carried by another team member. We have no ammo for our issued Commandos, but we do have several captured weapons that belonged to the last NVA unit we ambushed. We are watching a group of Viet Cong pushing bicycles loaded to the hilt with AK-47s and RPGs that we know are going to be used against our U.S. personnel. Do we use the captured AK-47s, the M-79, and the shotgun to wipe them out and destroy those weapons? Or do we let them pass, since they are spread out so far as to make the M-79 and the shotgun by themselves ineffective (in regards to pulling off a flawless abush) just because we don't want to use those Chi-com weapons? Nah... We check the barrels for obstructions, the magazines for ammo, and use the AKs to cut them to shreds. Who knows how many American lives we might have just saved by using those Chi-com AKs? The Viet Cong are the enemy... The NVA is the enemy... Each are doing harm to U.S. personnel. For the VC, it is more a "personal choice", based upon the fact that they wish to rid their country of what they see as a U.S. puppet government. For the NVA, it is more of a "following orders" scenario. I won't hesitate to use one group's weapons against the other. Even enemy weapons can be useful if it helps prevent damage to your people and your cause... It doesn't mean you have to like the enemy. It doesn't mean you aren't going to continue fighting them for all you're worth. Not at all... You just use the tools at hand to better your situation and preserve that for which you are fighting.

To draw the parallels: For Embody, it is a "personal choice" (read this as 'self-serving, get myself a good lawsuit') situation in which he currently finds himself. For the feds it would be purely a "following orders" situation should a law exist that "prohibits painting a muzzle orange for the purpose of decieving a law enforcement officer." I don't have to like either one of them in order to use one against the other...

Respectfully, and with deepest regards,
Mike

[tnxdshooter]

I say kill the nvas with the bikes, take their weapons and use em.

[Dan Lee]

This whole end justifies the means thing is quite frightening to me.. ( Incremental-ism really.) It's how the Dumbacrats got us slowly into the position where they could illegally & unconstitutionally pass health care, & it's also eventually how they, along with Neo-Conservatives, will eventually pass an assault weapons ban (which I will also ignore).. They will again claim that the "End justifies the Means.." I don't like Embody's actions at all, but I know that the rule of law & our Constitution(s) must be applied for the sake of true justice & fairness, & here I find people trying to do the very thing that the Democrats did to pass this bogus health care bill, & that is to, make a deal with the devil to get the results they want.. The whole act of singling out people out just for protesting is very much a Pandora's Box, & it has given me a different & uneasy feeling about this community to be honest with you.. Makes me wonder what people here would try to dig up on me, or frame me with if they don't like me being so outspoken?

The United States once gave guns & training to the Mujahideen to fight off the Russians, & now those very same guns, & trainings are being turned on our own soldiers in Afghanistan.. That's just genius..

Now some in this community appear to be looking for ways to help the Federal Government nail someone YOU don't like.. The very same Federal Government that you complain about whenever they interfere with your state's gun, & other rights.. It seems to me like you are trying to have it both ways. Well you can't.. You either have to enact laws in your state to prevent the painting of the tip of a gun (which would be a compromise between the first amendment of US Constitution & Article I, Section 26 of the TN constitution), or you have to just let Embody have his freedom to protest as he wishes, until he crosses a legal line under our state's laws.. You can't selectively run to the Federal government every time someone does something you don't like, & expect that they are going to help you just that one time, but stay out of it the rest of the time.. They are like the Devil..They don't do favors, they make deals in which you're expected to pay them back.. So I wouldn't even give them the idea of getting involved, because I'm sure they'd love to regulate one more facet of our lives.. Why not lobby with our own State Legislators to make painting a gun tip orange illegal? We don't allow people to have blue beacon lights on the roof of their cars, so why not have the state do the same with orange tipped guns? If it makes sense, then lets do it as a state, but lets not use some federal law to accomplish a local vendetta against someone we find to be distasteful in their behavior.. I'm sorry if people don't want to hear this, & I mean nobody any disrespect, but I believe that what I'm saying is right & true.. If you believe I am wrong, you are free to ignore me.. It's still a free country, (for now).

I don't know who to trust anymore to stand by principles... I do know though that I can't trust anyone who won't be consistent in their principles.. My principles on this are: SAY NO TO FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT ON LOCAL MATTERS.

[tnxdshooter]

Great post dan

[RobertNashville]

[Dan Lee]

[RobertNashville]

[fl0at]

[TacticaLogic]

Dan,

No one wants to convict anyone of a crime they haven't yet committed... My point was that if a federal law exists that has been broken by Embody, a prosecution and conviction of that violation would take him "off the battlefield" so to speak, thus allowing us to concentrate on the true fight at hand, which is to regain ALL of our firearms rights as they were intended to be by our founding fathers. As it stands right now, Embody is providing more ammunition to the enemy (via his actions) than he is to us - so he impedes our progress and helps the enemy.

To go back to the "battlefield" type analogy, if I have a trooper that has gone "section VIII" on me and is about to stand up and announce my hidden position to a superior force, I would remove him (by whatever means required) from the equation for the security of the rest of my team. I would not let one lunatic sacrifice the rest of the team. Would I sacrifice one for the cause of freedom and the rights of the others? Absolutely. Would I use whatever means to do so? If it took that to insure the rights and safety of the rest, yes. That one trooper's rights end where they start to interfere with the rights of the other soldiers' rights to life and self defense.

The term "loose cannon" came from the old days of wooden "Man-o-War" ships, when the deck cannons were literally tied down to the deck with ropes, with slack only allowing enough movement for recoil. A cannon that had broken loose from its bindings could roll over and kill as many crewmen as a well-placed cannon shot fired by the enemy. Thus, a "loose cannon" was a bad thing that could do as much harm as it could good. Embody is a loose cannon, doing harm to our cause. Would I use an existing federal law to get someone (that is hurting our cause) tied down? Yes, I would. Reality is not always pretty... It is not always a "black and white" situation - sometimes there are gray areas that require the use of (what might seem at the time) some unsavory methods.

Embody is no friend to our cause... I think that is obvious to all. The question is do we seek to protect him at all cost, to the detriment of ourselves? Or, do we let him receive that which he has so desparately sought out (a confrontation with law enforcement, with hopes for his own personal monetary gain) and try to distance ourselves from him? I would choose the later... I truthfully could not care less by what method he disappears from the spotlight (he could move to Vermont and perhaps be happier there), but the sooner we can get him out of the spotlight, the better. Be it federal law, alien abduction, a suddenly opening mineshaft under his feet, or a lightening bolt that suddenly makes him hoplophobic, I really don't care - I just want him out of the spotlight. Actions such as his are causing municipalities across the state to re-examine their existing laws... We don't need to have that type of action being stirred.

If my 5 year old son were to be kidnapped by a guy that took him across the state line to Alabama, am I to be condemned for using the FBI to find him? They are a federal agency, after all. Am I to never fly on a commercial airliner? The pilot is licensed by the FAA, another federal agency. We can take our anti-big government ideology (and I am extremely anti-big government) too far, if we are not careful. Sometimes the federal government can be useful... More often not useful, than useful... But I've always believed in keeping all the tools available, for you never know when you might need that odd one you keep propped up in the corner. It might be ugly, and you may not even really like it, but you might have to use it to fix a problem. Once the problem is fixed, you might throw the old tool out and replace it with a new one - but that old one served its purpose until you got the one you wanted.

Regards,
Mike

[tnxdshooter]

Sounds as though mr embody is the sacrificial lamb.

[TacticaLogic]

[TacticaLogic]

A lamb was innocent and was placed upon the alter as a gift. In this case there is no "lamb."

Embody is not pure of intentions (looking for the big monetary payout) and is not helping our cause. His removal from the debate is not a sacrifice, but is merely the removal of a hindrance. As I said - I just want him out of the spotlight. I'm not looking to sacrifice anyone... But were there to be a law (no matter what level) that would remove him from the pro-2nd Amendment debate, I wouldn't shed any tears.

Mike