PDA

View Full Version : SAF/CGF file Amicus in 6th Circuit Embody/parks carry case


safewaysecurity
12-05-2011, 4:09 PM
http://hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/Embody-SAF-CGF-Amicus-2011-12-05.pdf

I believe I understand the goal of filing such an amicus in order to get the court to recognize the right outside the home and recognize the man's AK pistol as a weapon in common use but I can't say I like some of the nti-gun language in the brief. It seems to use hyperbolic language like the brady's saying a man dressed in camo with a "banana" magazine ect. Basically saying it's ok to infringe on someones right to bear arms because they look scary. I think the orange tip making the firearm look like a toy is a reasonable point to make but the rest didn't sit right with me.

Gray Peterson
12-05-2011, 4:18 PM
This is about limiting the damage of Embody in the 6th circuit....

safewaysecurity
12-05-2011, 4:24 PM
This is about limiting the damage of Embody in the 6th circuit....

I figured as much. I'm just saying I don't like much of the language used.

wash
12-05-2011, 4:25 PM
He was just repeating the language in the case, not adding anything new.

If Embody had not acted like a fool, Alan could have been working on more important things.

stix213
12-05-2011, 4:31 PM
I like this strategy. Give the courts a way to rule against Embody (given his conduct, could any court rule in favor of him?), while giving a way to rule in favor of the 2A.

wildhawker
12-05-2011, 5:01 PM
Embody and Nichols are friends. Nuff said.

dantodd
12-05-2011, 5:09 PM
Embody and Nichols are friends. Nuff said.

I wouldn't give a nickels for either of them. :D

hoffmang
12-05-2011, 5:25 PM
This is about limiting the damage of Embody in the 6th circuit....

This.

Kwkrnu isn't.

Someone should dredge up his crazy thread here...

-Gene

SilverBulletZ06
12-05-2011, 5:29 PM
Sucks having to try to keep the 2A supported with stuff like this. While I have no problems with the concept of being the target of a wrongful arrest to pursue and pressure the acting LE and legislature to accept and understand 2A laws (would fall under 1A IMHO), painting the barrel orange was contradictory.

bussda
12-05-2011, 5:32 PM
This.

Kwkrnu isn't.

Someone should dredge up his crazy thread here...

-Gene

You mean this http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458448&highlight=embody ?

hoffmang
12-05-2011, 5:40 PM
Sucks having to try to keep the 2A supported with stuff like this. While I have no problems with the concept of being the target of a wrongful arrest to pursue and pressure the acting LE and legislature to accept and understand 2A laws (would fall under 1A IMHO), painting the barrel orange was contradictory.

Notice that they ended up not even arresting him...

Here is the decision below: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864.43.1.pdf

And here are the other briefs:
Appellant http://hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/Embody-Appellant-Brief-2011-10-20.pdf

Appellee http://hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/Appellee-Brief-2011-11-28.pdf

Mr. Embody's deposition (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864.16.1.pdf) (large PDF) is particularly sad. Docket here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864.docket.html

-Gene

SilverBulletZ06
12-05-2011, 5:57 PM
Gene, I do not agree with "temporary detainment" even if it doesn't end in arrest. We wouldn't pull someone over and detain a person with a Ferrari because they "may" street race.

taperxz
12-05-2011, 6:06 PM
Embody and Nichols are friends. Nuff said.

Friends in the real sense or.... Facebook friends:p

There is a difference. Or, Maybe not to these folks who probably only have FB friends.

stix213
12-05-2011, 7:11 PM
This.

Kwkrnu isn't.

Someone should dredge up his crazy thread here...

-Gene

You're probably talking about this one:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=458448

This one is also interesting once I started calling him on his "fight for the sake of fighting" strategy around comment # 34:

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=400741

I like how Kestryll closes the thread :p

2009_gunner
12-05-2011, 7:34 PM
Gene, I do not agree with "temporary detainment" even if it doesn't end in arrest. We wouldn't pull someone over and detain a person with a Ferrari because they "may" street race.

Embody was revving his Ferrari to 8000rpm while sitting in an intersection next to a cop car... Not the usual method of driving... and not the usual method of carry.

stix213
12-05-2011, 7:50 PM
Embody was revving his Ferrari to 8000rpm while sitting in an intersection next to a cop car... Not the usual method of driving... and not the usual method of carry.

But... but... it was legal!!!!!!111!!! :rolleyes:

Devilinbp
12-05-2011, 8:35 PM
Embody was revving his Ferrari to 8000rpm while sitting in an intersection next to a cop car... Not the usual method of driving... and not the usual method of carry.

Using this as a comparison....the cops still can only observe to see if a crime is actually committed at some point. Besides...who wouldn't rev their engine if they owned a Ferrari. :)

Bolillo
12-05-2011, 10:06 PM
Mr. Embody's deposition (http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864/gov.uscourts.tnmd.46864.16.1.pdf) (large PDF) is particularly sad.


"Sad" doesn't even come close to what that train wreck of a depo is. I needed a shower after reading it.

h/t to Gura for seeing the teeny, tiny bit of 2A support that might be made out of that sow's ear.

Funtimes
12-06-2011, 12:57 PM
I think that partnering dangerous and unusual with conduct is a bit much. If I carried my long gun on a single point sling, where it is strapped diagonally in front of me, where my hands generally rest up underneath the mag well... is that going to be dangerous or unusual conduct? In fact, overall, the only time my rifle would be on my shoulder (which it can't anyways, as it would be over the shoulder and on the back) would be if I was dragging a friend to safety.

The military here still do African carry of shotguns, but all M-16's have appropriate 2-3 point slings and the gun is snugged up to the front chest. Some of the submarines have the blackhawk three point with a quick release on it. This slung over the front of the chest is a ready position, and, in my opinion it's how rifles are meant to be carried!

SilverBulletZ06
12-06-2011, 1:09 PM
Using this as a comparison....the cops still can only observe to see if a crime is actually committed at some point. Besides...who wouldn't rev their engine if they owned a Ferrari. :)

DING DING DING.

One cannot say what a person thinks is considered "normal". So long as a law is not broken, there would be no reason to detain, arrest, or otherwise do more then say "have a nice day, keep it safe". As moronic as the situation was, and how much I personally disagree with the method in which he had conducted himself, we must still keep it within the legal standards society has put forth.

smn
12-06-2011, 6:55 PM
The object of any gun is to go BANG when the trigger is pulled. Not every gun is pretty, just like not every woman is a glamor model, Betty Crocker, etc.... Not every car is fast, light, maneuverable, or carries 4 tons of dirt... not every dog is a lap dog. But a gun that works as intended should have constitutional protection. Cosmetics don't change the functionality much.

If 1A-protected speech had font or size requirements we'd be stuck with some very boring or difficult to read text, depending on VA-style freedoms or CA-style restrictions. Guns should have no cosmetic qualifications for protection.

Good behavior, on the other hand, is expected of each of us. Police conduct vice stings. Those who go for the bait are adjudicated accordingly. 2A "baiting" is a hard call because gun carriage is a protected activity.

CCWFacts
12-06-2011, 7:09 PM
This is about limiting the damage of Embody in the 6th circuit....

I'm not surprised. Painting a gun with an orange tip is nuts and I doubt it's 2A protected. I'm glad that CGF is doing this.

It also shows that CGF is sane and does clearly understands that not all gun-related conduct is 2A protected.

Embody should find some better use of his time.

hoffmang
12-06-2011, 7:40 PM
I think that partnering dangerous and unusual with conduct is a bit much. If I carried my long gun on a single point sling, where it is strapped diagonally in front of me, where my hands generally rest up underneath the mag well... is that going to be dangerous or unusual conduct?

In a park where hunting has been (legitimately) banned since the 1920's and you're otherwise allowed to carry a handgun openly or concealed? Yeah, it's affray and not conduct protected by the Second Amendment. And Embody is dumb enough to even put his state of mind as attempting to cause affray into the record and on the internet!

The fact that he was carrying a what looked like a rifle in a place where rifles are basically prohibited by the "no hunting" preserve nature of the park does mean that law enforcement had reasonable suspicion - especially when he was attempting to deceive about the nature of the firearm with the orange tip...

How much fail could Embody pack into one moment? An epic amount.

-Gene

dantodd
12-06-2011, 7:47 PM
How much fail could Embody pack into one moment? An epic amount.


On the bright side he wasn't wearing fatigues with GOA patches and he wasn't carrying inert grenades. Otherwise he had all teases covered.

Funtimes
12-06-2011, 8:26 PM
Aside of Embody's fail (which appears to be an epic amount) the brief just says that basically no one would carry a rifle in the way he was, which was in front.

I'm just pointing out that almost everyone I know, who would even carry a rifle, would do so specifically in that manner -- including myself. When I am on the range or carrying a rifle its slung across my chest (mostly by design of the single point sling).

hoffmang
12-06-2011, 8:40 PM
Aside of Embody's fail (which appears to be an epic amount) the brief just says that basically no one would carry a rifle in the way he was, which was in front.

In a nature preserve with an orange tip.

You can't leave the rest of his fail out of it.

Things likely protected under the 2A (because this is about the 2A, not TN law):

Carrying a rifle without an orange tip in front on a sling in a park where hunting was allowed.

-Gene

hoffmang
12-06-2011, 8:41 PM
On the bright side he wasn't wearing fatigues with GOA patches and he wasn't carrying inert grenades. Otherwise he had all teases covered.

You missed the camo jacket.

-Gene

Funtimes
12-06-2011, 8:42 PM
Alright I guess I am still missing how the manner in which I carry a firearm declares me to be dangerous and unusual?

That is how I read that brief. And by that thinking, this is just off the cuff crazy right here.

http://cdn.magpul.com/images/uploads/38_375_popup.jpg

Am I reading the brief wrong? Or is AG saying exactly what I think he is saying: Frontal carry in a 'patrol' style manner is dangerous and unusual?

I think he (Embody) was a complete idiot; I also think we need rules against making legal guns into 'toy' guns, as this retard did. So I am guessing that AG is saying, that the totality of his carrying (fake gun, in a park etc.) can be 'dangerous and unusual' and not just the manner in which you carry.

wash
12-06-2011, 8:47 PM
The lesson here is never try to get arrested and have some common sense, not how to choose a sling.

hoffmang
12-06-2011, 9:13 PM
Alright I guess I am still missing how the manner in which I carry a firearm declares me to be dangerous and unusual?

If you carry a rifle in a front sling with an orange tip in a mall you will be detained and your mode of carry will not be protected by the 2A.

Similarly, If you carry what looks like a rifle in a front sling with an orange tip in a place where hunting is prohibited you will be detained and your mode of carry will not be protected by the 2A.

-Gene

bwiese
12-06-2011, 10:05 PM
Isn't it a shame we have to clean up after a**hats like Embody, when there are so many other things we could be doing?

Dreaded Claymore
12-06-2011, 10:35 PM
If you carry a rifle in a front sling with an orange tip in a mall you will be detained and your mode of carry will not be protected by the 2A.

Similarly, If you carry what looks like a rifle in a front sling with an orange tip in a place where hunting is prohibited you will be detained and your mode of carry will not be protected by the 2A.

And conversely, if Embody loses all the way up to the Supreme Court, it might conceivably then be necessary to bring a case arguing that carrying a rifle without an orange tip in a front sling during hunting season in a place where hunting is permitted is protected by the 2A.

Gods forbid it ever comes to that. Maybe Gene's magazine importation workaround will involve exporting Leonard Embody from the United States.

Munk
12-06-2011, 11:23 PM
Short Version of his story from the depo:
By his own admission and by his posts, he got an AK-style pistol in order to get more attention, painted the tip orange because "cops think twice about shooting a guy with an orange tip", then OCed in a place where he could OC a handgun only, by using a sling across his chest most of the time. Walks awhile, talks to one ranger, and another prones his *** out with his shotgun. He then makes himself wait by insisting on a supervisor; they tell him it'll be a while, he's cool with waiting. At some point the normal police (non-park rangers) arrive. One puts him in the cruiser, then lets him out after some talking with the other cops.They offer to cite him (for what, is unclear), but he says no (you can refuse a citation?) and asks to be taken downtown (not sure if this was an alternative or his own request). Eventually, cops do nothing, ranger hands him back his gun and sends him on his way. Elapsed time, 2-3 hours; mostly self-inflicted by the supervisor wait.

He later mentions that he painted the rest of the gun to match the orange tip he did. (this reeks of "Oh S... the tip might make me look like a bad guy... I know, it's Step 1 of a larger paintjob")

I like how the one attorney is unclear on the distinction between an AK-47 and an AK-47-styled pistol, and how his own attorney keeps trying to tell her to read the manual because his client isn't an expert. (RTFM, hah)

safewaysecurity
12-06-2011, 11:32 PM
So carrying a rifle in the wilderness for self protection is not protected under the Second Amendment? You can come into contact with dangerous animals that are pretty big in the wild. And they can sometimes charge at you from over 200 yds away. I think a rifle or shotgun would be nice for self defense in those instances. People during the time of the founding and after the passage of the 14th amendment would carry their rifles with them when they went out into the wilderness. They would usually carry a handgun and a rifle. I can understand saying trying to make your gun look like a toy is not protected by the Second Amendment but saying that carrying a long gun in the wilderness for self defense in not protected by the Second Amendment sounds outrageous to me.

gunsmith
12-07-2011, 12:00 AM
So carrying a rifle in the wilderness for self protection is not protected under the Second Amendment? You can come into contact with dangerous animals that are pretty big in the wild. And they can sometimes charge at you from over 200 yds away. I think a rifle or shotgun would be nice for self defense in those instances. People during the time of the founding and after the passage of the 14th amendment would carry their rifles with them when they went out into the wilderness. They would usually carry a handgun and a rifle. I can understand saying trying to make your gun look like a toy is not protected by the Second Amendment but saying that carrying a long gun in the wilderness for self defense in not protected by the Second Amendment sounds outrageous to me.

rest assure that embody isn't qualified to handle latrine cleaning duty for the founding fathers.

Your points are valid,BUUUUUUT!!!!

embody seeks to insure that your right of self defense in the wilderness is eliminated. He was not in the wilderness he was in a crowded park, dressed like a Jared Loughner wannabe carrying a Draco painted weird. He likes being a freaking weirdo, he likes upsetting people, he likes being a jerk, he likes ruining the hard work of others.

Quite simply he is exactly like Jared Loughner, a deeply disturbed creep with a gun.
Unfortunately he has not been diagnosed & entered into the system.

stix213
12-07-2011, 12:05 AM
I think some people in this thread are missing the point that this isn't a court case where we want to hash out the limits of rifle carry in a park. Hopefully that doesn't even get discussed.

This is a case where our side is saying people have a right to carry (though not defining the limit) but retards who purposely, by their own admission, set out to cause a public and police incident while disguising their firearm as a child's toy, are not engaged in the 2A protected conduct of genuine self defense. So find against Embody while leaving the 2A alone, and get rid of this case.

safewaysecurity
12-07-2011, 12:08 AM
rest assure that embody isn't qualified to handle latrine cleaning duty for the founding fathers.

Your points are valid,BUUUUUUT!!!!

embody seeks to insure that your right of self defense in the wilderness is eliminated. He was not in the wilderness he was in a crowded park, dressed like a Jared Loughner wannabe carrying a Draco painted weird. He likes being a freaking weirdo, he likes upsetting people, he likes being a jerk, he likes ruining the hard work of others.

Quite simply he is exactly like Jared Loughner, a deeply disturbed creep with a gun.
Unfortunately he has not been diagnosed & entered into the system.

I agree that the guy is just an attention whore and was looking for police confrontation so he could bring a suit against them. But that doesn't mean that the general right to carry a long gun in public for self defense is not protected by the Second Amendment. You think carrying a long gun in a public park in a rural Southern state is unusual? How about carrying a Long Gun on a public subway in New York city? That used to be legal and our current Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia used to do that as a kid and was not harassed or detained by police.

safewaysecurity
12-07-2011, 12:10 AM
I think some people in this thread are missing the point that this isn't a court case where we want to hash out the limits of rifle carry in a park. Hopefully that doesn't even get discussed.

This is a case where our side is saying people have a right to carry (though not defining the limit) but retards who purposely, by their own admission, set out to cause a public and police incident while disguising their firearm as a child's toy, are not engaged in the 2A protected conduct of genuine self defense. So find against Embody while leaving the 2A alone, and get rid of this case.

Our "side" is saying that having "banana" magazines and dressing in camo is unusual... sounds like a Brady argument to me and doesn't sound right at all.

stix213
12-07-2011, 12:12 AM
Our "side" is saying that having "banana" magazines and dressing in camo is unusual... sounds like a Brady argument to me and doesn't sound right at all.

Our side is saying that having "banana" magazines, dressing in camo, while carrying a slung Drako pistol disguised as a child's toy, in a busy park is unusual. The entire package, and I agree. Don't leave out the part where he disguises his AK as a kid's toy, while sneaking around the park purposely acting as suspicious as he possibly can.

Don't get so hung up on the words chosen. It benefits our side to make the guy seem as crazy as possible in this specific case, and that he does not represent gun owners as a group.

OleCuss
12-07-2011, 4:32 AM
I consider what this guy was doing as another form of brandishing. It may not meet the legal definition, but when you are trying to be provocative with a firearm and scare the fecal matter out of the people around you. . .

It's a whole other matter if you simply have a firearm with you while you're at a park.

Put it this way? If I were to see most people with a firearm at a park, dressed appropriately for that park and season, with the firearm nicely slung - I'd evaluate the situation and then probably feel more secure. I have a lot of familiarity with people carrying around M4's, M60's, M249's, M240's, etc. But based on my understanding of this guy's behavior I suspect I would have called the cops myself - although it's more likely I'd have gone over to him and asked him just why he was behaving that way and then laughed at his further antics.

dantodd
12-07-2011, 7:20 AM
It would probably be against the law to stand in a crowded theatre and scream "Fi-R, Fi-R, Fi-R" even if you try to claim that ot shpuld be protected necause you weren't actually screaming "Fire." Especially so when admit in a deposition that you screamed Fie-R with the express intention of making people think you screaming Fire.

fiddletown
12-07-2011, 8:38 AM
I agree that the guy is just an attention whore and was looking for police confrontation so he could bring a suit against them. But that doesn't mean that the general right to carry a long gun in public for self defense is not protected by the Second Amendment. You think carrying a long gun in a public park in a rural Southern state is unusual? ...The problem is that is exactly where we would be if the 6th Circuit affirms here. The challenge here is to distinguish the carrying of arms for self defense from Embody's provocative and clownish behavior.

Given the record in this case, especially Embody's own statements in his deposition, defending his antics is a lost cause. But the District Court in ruling against Embody stated specifically (Embody v. Ward, No. 3:10cv-00126, Unites States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, 20 July 2011, at pg 11):...Given that Plaintiff was in personal possession of a loaded weapon in a public park, the Court concludes that the temporary seizure of Plaintiff's weapon did not violate the Second Amendment...It would not serve our interests to allow that to stand.

Fyathyrio
12-07-2011, 9:11 AM
Just a reminder about this clown, he also liked to wander the streets of Belle Meade, TN with a Navy Revolver carried in his hand simply because he could due to some obscure twist in the local laws. This action caused his LTC to be revoked. Isn't there some legal way to just say this guy is an idiot and not have binding precedent on the rest of us?

Stonewalker
12-07-2011, 10:40 AM
I've got to agree with Funtimes and SafewaySecurity; limiting RKBA by criminalizing rifle carry in a preserve is distasteful to me and seems anti freedom, ideologically speaking. Alternatively, however, I think I understand that Mr. Embody has forced us to carefully tread upon pragmatic strategy in this instance. Simply put, we don't have the luxury of being dogmatic until we are out of the woods with Mr. Embody. Starving men don't think about the principles of hunting and gathering, they use their fading strength to get food or they die.

Correct me if I'm wrong...

safewaysecurity
12-07-2011, 10:59 AM
I agree with Stonewalker. It would be best if this case just went away. I'm just hoping CGF is not adopting as a matter of policy that wearing camo and walking around a park with a long gun with a standard cap mag absent making the gun look like a toy is not indeed protected under the Second Amendment.

chris12
12-07-2011, 11:21 AM
Strategically carrying like that and filing this lawsuit is obviously very dumb, but freedom means giving people the opportunity to do dumb things, like protest funerals or paint their guns any color scheme they want.

Most people here were against SB 798 (bright colors for imitation firearms), how is that any different from a gun with an orange tip?

wildhawker
12-07-2011, 11:36 AM
I agree with Stonewalker. It would be best if this case just went away. I'm just hoping CGF is not adopting as a matter of policy that wearing camo and walking around a park with a long gun with a standard cap mag absent making the gun look like a toy is not indeed protected under the Second Amendment.

CGF is simply taking the position that it must try and preserve the new field of 2A conlaw for quality cases managed by the best civil rights litigators and organizations that will set the correct sort of precedent, while minimizing the harm and maximizing the value that a case such as Embody's can present.

-Brandon

hoffmang
12-07-2011, 10:31 PM
I agree with Stonewalker. It would be best if this case just went away. I'm just hoping CGF is not adopting as a matter of policy that wearing camo and walking around a park with a long gun with a standard cap mag absent making the gun look like a toy is not indeed protected under the Second Amendment.

I think you skipped the part where we said that carrying an AK pistol or rifle in a park where hunting is allowed or where it's not an urban wildlife preserve, is protected 2A activity.

Hunting has been banned on this land since the 1920's. Further, open or concealed carry of a loaded handgun is completely allowed in that preserve and Mr. Embody has on two occasions before so openly carried a revolver with nothing more than a license check.

So no, his detainment in this case with all it's color (and the part about the cops being respectful - even by Embody's own admission) isn't a violation of the 2A.

The standards on public carry are going to be less rigorous than on private keep. It's going to be hard to claim a right to carry a loaded long gun in an urban environment where you can otherwise carry a loaded handgun.

And no one needs to worry that we'd happily bring a claim that you have every right to carry a loaded AK rifle out in the field - but not on land legitimately banned from hunting.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
12-08-2011, 12:26 AM
I think you skipped the part where we said that carrying an AK pistol or rifle in a park where hunting is allowed or where it's not an urban wildlife preserve, is protected 2A activity.

Hunting has been banned on this land since the 1920's. Further, open or concealed carry of a loaded handgun is completely allowed in that preserve and Mr. Embody has on two occasions before so openly carried a revolver with nothing more than a license check.

So no, his detainment in this case with all it's color (and the part about the cops being respectful - even by Embody's own admission) isn't a violation of the 2A.

The standards on public carry are going to be less rigorous than on private keep. It's going to be hard to claim a right to carry a loaded long gun in an urban environment where you can otherwise carry a loaded handgun.

And no one needs to worry that we'd happily bring a claim that you have every right to carry a loaded AK rifle out in the field - but not on land legitimately banned from hunting.

-Gene

So are you saying there is no right to carry a long gun anywhere discharge of a firearm outside of self defense is not protected under 2A? Especially on land where hunting is banned? What if you carry the rifle for not for hunting purposes but for self defense? What if hunting IS allowed but you don't have a hunting license? How is it really hard to claim right to carry a long gun when you can carry a hand gun? By then the state doesn't really have the "public safety" excuse because they already allow handguns and the threat is basically the same. There only excuse to ban it would be disdain for armed citizens carrying openly. I know Gura is arguing that states can permit concealed carry and ban open carry but I don't understand the real reasoning behind that. If you can conceal carry but where a shirt saying "Hey I am carrying a concealed weapon" isn't that basically the same thing? I know I'm going kind of off topic here but some of the arguments I see being made don't make much sense especially when 2A organizations are trying to get courts to treat the 2A like 1A.

wash
12-08-2011, 8:17 AM
Do you want to be smart or dumb and stubborn?

Embody could have (and had) open carried a traditional handgun there without incident.

Wether you like it or not, the question of what type of carry our right to bear arms protects is open. Bad cases like this along with well thought out civil suits are how the courts will determine the scope of that right.

Bad cases mean that a judge might restrict our rights in a way that we can not fix.

So the next time you think about walking through the park with an AK pistol or an AR15 rifle, think again until the carry cases have fleshed out our right to carry.

Don't be the reason why my rights get screwed up.

In Embody's case he had a suitable alternative, he could have picked a revolver to carry.

In California we are not allowed loaded carry without a difficult to impossible to obtain permit and in January we won't be allowed to carry handguns openly without permit.

We have it much worse than Embody which is what makes his actions even worse, he will gain nothing but we stand a lot to lose.

This case will not gain anything for anyone but it forces us to use Mr. Gura's talents doing damage control.

We want him playing offense.

When it comes to a choice, like asking yourself "Should I put on my hunting camo and run around the park with an airsoft AK?", choose no.

Don't do it because there is nothing to gain and there are better places to run around with your airsoft.

fiddletown
12-08-2011, 8:22 AM
So are you saying there is no right to carry a long gun anywhere discharge of a firearm outside of self defense is not protected under 2A? Especially on land where hunting is banned? What if you carry the rifle for not for hunting purposes but for self defense? What if hunting IS allowed but you don't have a hunting license? ....[1] The thing is that the scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is just in the process of getting worked out by the courts. The challenge for gun rights advocates is, of course, to minimize the scope and extent of permissible regulation.

[2] Gun rights advocates have to do this in the real world, within the framework of existing laws and court decisions and using available procedures. They must also work with the existing facts.

[3] Embody has created an undesirable situation with his litigation. Given the District Court's ruling on the Second Amendment issues, the 6th Circuit could well come down with a ruling allowing States to more severely restrict the carrying of arms for self defense in parks. Do you think that would be a good result?

hoffmang
12-08-2011, 10:51 PM
Especially on land where hunting is banned? What if you carry the rifle for not for hunting purposes but for self defense?

The Supreme Court has said it is incorrect to say you can have a long arm in the home for self defense and thus a government can ban handguns. I'm not sure that same rule applies in public. I do think that legitimate no hunting zones can bar you from carrying a long gun where they allow loaded handgun carry and there are not real self defense threats that require a long gun - yes. By the way - the converse of this is that CA F&G can ban lead rounds in your rifle in the Condor Zone but can't regulate the lead rounds in your self defense handgun under the same constitutional rule (though in this example it also has to do with state law and the legislature's otherwise constitutional choices.)

Heller said that the 2A, "was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Ask yourself how your view is not in conflict with that statement. If you are allowed a full ability to execute self defense with firearms and other arms, then regulating which types of firearms and the manner you carry them (in public) is likely to pass constitutional muster.

-Gene

Paladin
12-09-2011, 1:17 AM
The Supreme Court has said it is incorrect to say you can have a long arm in the home for self defense and thus a government can ban handguns. Is the converse also true: the SC will say it is incorrect to say you can have a handgun in public and thus a government can ban long arms (in public)?

The Supreme Court has said it is incorrect to say you can have a long arm in the home for self defense and thus a government can ban handguns. I'm not sure that same rule applies in public. Are you saying that you're "not sure" the SC will say it is incorrect to say you can have a long arm in public for self-defense and thus a government can ban handguns (in public)?

I do think that legitimate no hunting zones can bar you from carrying a long gun where they allow loaded handgun carry and there are not real self defense threats that require a long gun - yes. So, in an ironic twist, unlike the past, during "Rodney King riots" of the future, we'll have to wait for a (local? state? federal?) declaration of a state of emergency, before Korean shop owners will have a (automatic?) right to break out their long arms to defend their property. If that is true, declarations states of emergencies during disasters or other times will become as rare as hen's teeth!

Before a declaration of a state of emergency, could those shop owners only carry them to and from their shops unloaded? in locked containers? with ammo in separate container? locked?

What about a declaration of martial law?

Or a foreign invasion?

Or breaking out your trunk rifle to go against a mall shooter (self-defense on behalf of innocent 3rd party)? Mumbai-type shooting? (On the flip side: what about those planning to carry out a Mumbai-type shootings by using our rights against us?)

By the way - the converse of this is that CA F&G can ban lead rounds in your rifle in the Condor Zone but can't regulate the lead rounds in your self defense handgun under the same constitutional rule (though in this example it also has to do with state law and the legislature's otherwise constitutional choices.)Hmm.... .22LR and .22 mag handguns, AK and AR-type pistols, AMT AutoMag III, TC Contenders (for SD?!!!)....

Heller said that the 2A, "was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Ask yourself how your view is not in conflict with that statement. If you are allowed a full ability to execute self defense with firearms and other arms, then regulating which types of firearms and the manner you carry them (in public) is likely to pass constitutional muster.

-GeneFunny, but I always thought the "core right" of the 2nd A was a RKBA suitable for use by a "well regulated militia," and that the narrower, included RKBA for mere individual/family self-defense was so obvious and so unquestioned that the Framers didn't even think it required protection the in BoR.

Yes, I know not even the "Heller 5" held that.

How far we have fallen....

OleCuss
12-09-2011, 3:36 AM
We have fallen very far. That is why it is important that only good cases be brought - and that they be brought only by superb lawyers. Only then (barring miracles) will we get the proper recognition of our rights.

safewaysecurity
12-09-2011, 11:36 AM
The Supreme Court has said it is incorrect to say you can have a long arm in the home for self defense and thus a government can ban handguns. I'm not sure that same rule applies in public. I do think that legitimate no hunting zones can bar you from carrying a long gun where they allow loaded handgun carry and there are not real self defense threats that require a long gun - yes. By the way - the converse of this is that CA F&G can ban lead rounds in your rifle in the Condor Zone but can't regulate the lead rounds in your self defense handgun under the same constitutional rule (though in this example it also has to do with state law and the legislature's otherwise constitutional choices.)

Heller said that the 2A, "was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Ask yourself how your view is not in conflict with that statement. If you are allowed a full ability to execute self defense with firearms and other arms, then regulating which types of firearms and the manner you carry them (in public) is likely to pass constitutional muster.

-Gene

But if you are not using that rifle for hunting and keeping it ready only for self-defense then what's the problem. I can see how the lead ammo ban could work and be held up as constitutional even through a strong Second Amendment but carry of the long guns themselves for personal protection seems pretty ridiculous. What if all someone owns is a rifle and they do not like or can afford a handgun or are not old enough to purchase a handgun. Does that mean their right to self defense with a firearm ceases to exist because they don't own a handgun? There are many gun owners that only own rifles and shotguns at the moment *points to self*

fiddletown
12-09-2011, 12:00 PM
But if you are not using that rifle for hunting and keeping it ready only for self-defense then what's the problem. ...What if all someone owns is a rifle and they do not like or can afford a handgun or are not old enough to purchase a handgun. Does that mean their right to self defense with a firearm ceases to exist because they don't own a handgun? There are many gun owners that only own rifles and shotguns at the moment *points to self*But the bottom line still is, as Gene pointed out, the Court in Heller said that the Second Amendment did not describe a right, "...to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...." The courts have a long way to go to even begin to work out what sorts of regulation of the RKBA are constitutionally permissible.

Groups like the SAF and CGF are trying to foster and pursue litigation to both clarify and narrow the permissible scope of Second Amendment regulation. They are doing so in a thoughtful, systematic and sophisticated way to try to reach the best results for gun owners reasonably possible given the realities of the legal system.

But when a joker like Embody pops up, it becomes a pure exercise in damage control and mitigation.

SilverBulletZ06
12-09-2011, 12:02 PM
But if you are not using that rifle for hunting and keeping it ready only for self-defense then what's the problem. I can see how the lead ammo ban could work and be held up as constitutional even through a strong Second Amendment but carry of the long guns themselves for personal protection seems pretty ridiculous. What if all someone owns is a rifle and they do not like or can afford a handgun or are not old enough to purchase a handgun. Does that mean their right to self defense with a firearm ceases to exist because they don't own a handgun? There are many gun owners that only own rifles and shotguns at the moment *points to self*

Well the other question would be "What rights only start at 21" and "Does the government have the ability to quash Constitutional rights due to age". In the case regarding 18-20 pistol carry the government asserts that 18-20 year olds are still considered a minor, despite being old enough to drive, own property, and vote.

safewaysecurity
12-09-2011, 12:05 PM
But the bottom line still is, as Gene pointed out, the Court in Heller said that the Second Amendment did not describe a right, "...to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...." The courts have a long way to go to even begin to work out what sorts of regulation of the RKBA are constitutionally permissible.

Groups like the SAF and CGF are trying to foster and pursue litigation to both clarify and narrow the permissible scope of Second Amendment regulation. They are doing so in a thoughtful, systematic and sophisticated way to try to reach the best results for gun owners reasonably possible given the realities of the legal system.

But when a joker like Embody pops up, it becomes a pure exercise in damage control and mitigation.

It's lines like that which the anti-gunners rely on to keep bans on conceal carry in effect. Apparently the district judge in the San Diego area thinks that because we can carry unloaded firearms in the open that LTCs don't have to be issued. I don't believe that comports with the Second Amendment at all and to me suggesting that you cannot carry loaded long guns as has been the practice for about 90% of American history is pretty ridiculous to me.

RKV
12-09-2011, 12:32 PM
"In the case regarding 18-20 pistol carry the government asserts that 18-20 year olds are still considered a minor, despite being old enough to drive, own property, and vote. "

"311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. "

Further, under the Militia Act of 1792, pistols were an approved weapon [to be acquired personally] - so much for Founder's intent.

fiddletown
12-09-2011, 12:48 PM
But the bottom line still is, as Gene pointed out, the Court in Heller said that the Second Amendment did not describe a right, "...to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...." ...It's lines like that which the anti-gunners rely on to keep bans on conceal carry in effect. Apparently the district judge in the San Diego area thinks that because we can carry unloaded firearms in the open that LTCs don't have to be issued. ...True, but the Court in Heller still said that, and it's one of the things we have to work with.

But the Court in Heller (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2F07-290.pdf&ei=Km7iTpf-AqT8iQKZqJmrBg&usg=AFQjCNEjVZmGTw7IbtWP1JxJkETbP7wusg&sig2=GcNA0vnfza-yYhhS9YrabQ) also said things like

At pg 19:...Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment....

At pg 57:...It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon....

At pg 58:...We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional...

... I don't believe that comports with the Second Amendment at all and to me suggesting that you cannot carry loaded long guns as has been the practice for about 90% of American history is pretty ridiculous to me.Fine, but we'll have to see what we can get courts to rule. It's what the courts believe that counts.

Well the other question would be "What rights only start at 21" and "Does the government have the ability to quash Constitutional rights due to age". In the case regarding 18-20 pistol carry the government asserts that 18-20 year olds are still considered a minor, despite being old enough to drive, own property, and vote.That's certainly another question. I believe there is some Second Amendment litigation on the issue in Texas, but I don't know where that stands.

One possible difficulty is that historically legislatures have been given a lot of leeway as far as defining the age or ages at which one becomes legally entitled to do certain things or make certain decisions. I'm old enough to remember when one didn't become an adult and have a right to vote until age 21.

safewaysecurity
12-09-2011, 1:32 PM
True, but the Court in Heller still said that, and it's one of the things we have to work with.

But the Court in Heller (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scotusblog.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2F07-290.pdf&ei=Km7iTpf-AqT8iQKZqJmrBg&usg=AFQjCNEjVZmGTw7IbtWP1JxJkETbP7wusg&sig2=GcNA0vnfza-yYhhS9YrabQ) also said things like


Fine, but we'll have to see what we can get courts to rule. It's what the courts believe that counts.

That's certainly another question. I believe there is some Second Amendment litigation on the issue in Texas, but I don't know where that stands.

One possible difficulty is that historically legislatures have been given a lot of leeway as far as defining the age or ages at which one becomes legally entitled to do certain things or make certain decisions. I'm old enough to remember when one didn't become an adult and have a right to vote until age 21.

Okay let me address the points you made one by one.

...Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment....

This has been interpreted by the San Diego court to mean that you have the right to load your unloaded gun when the need arises to defend yourself. But that it doesn't mean you can keep the gun loaded at all times. Clearly I disagree but you can see how the language is weak.

...It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon....

That's great. That's what the Heller case was really about and that's why I think Heller was a landmark ruling because it has set the foundation but there is A LOT of bad language in there that the court needs to address and clear up and that's what bothers me.

...We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional...

As many in CGF believe I also believe that requiring handguns to be unloaded is rendering the gun inoperable. Unfortunately the courts have not really agreed with that. They say that disassembling the firearm and putting a trigger lock on it is rendering it in operable but that keeping the gun unloaded but having ammunition in the magazine makes it readily accessible for immediate self defense or some kind of nonsense like that. The court should have said they can't require the guns to be unloaded or something.

As for the litigation in Texas that's Jennings v BATFE. It's in the hands of the Federal Appellate Courts right now and prospects look good even though the district court judge ruled against the plaintiff basically calling people under the age of 21 INFANTS and that the government could basically set any sort of arbitrary age and ban that age group from possession or purchase and it would be constitutional somehow even if the age for purchase and possession was 153. Society and government commonly recognizes adulthood at the age of 18 so denying a fundamental constitutional right shouldn't be upheld at all but it goes to show how weak Heller is when what should have been such an easy and slam dunk case lost at the district court level.

fiddletown
12-09-2011, 3:12 PM
...interpreted by the San Diego court to mean that you have the right to load your unloaded gun when the need arises to defend yourself. But that it doesn't mean you can keep the gun loaded at all times....First of course, that was the District Court and we still have the chance to deal with the question at the appellate level.

Second, we have, at least in part, the UOC crowd to thank for that anomalous view. The UOC advocates were around that time stepping up activity and justifying UOC as the only lawful way to carry a gun for self defense. They were even answering gunny criticism by making extravagant claims about how quickly they could load their guns and put them to use. If a bunch of supposedly knowledgeable gun rights advocates are going to state that carrying around an unloaded gun can serve their self defense needs, who is a District Court judge to argue with them. (It's called "hoist on your own petard.")

Third, this is a very good object lesson in the need to be careful about what you claim and to consider long term ramifications of positions you take. "I'm carrying my unloaded gun for self defense" might have sounded good at the time, but it was used against us by a couple of District Court judges.

And fourth, this helps illustrate what Gene means when he reminds us that "it's chess, not checkers." Chess masters think many moves ahead, and it's a game of great subtleties.

...As many in CGF believe I also believe that requiring handguns to be unloaded is rendering the gun inoperable. Unfortunately the courts have not really agreed with that. They say that disassembling the firearm and putting a trigger lock on it is rendering it in operable but that keeping the gun unloaded but having ammunition in the magazine makes it readily accessible for immediate self defense or some kind of nonsense like that. The court should have said they can't require the guns to be unloaded or something... Of course, and our brethren of UOC helped invite that judicial response. That will have to be dealt with in the appellate courts.

jwkincal
12-09-2011, 3:27 PM
That's "hoist," ...unless you're talking about some kind of party?

fiddletown
12-09-2011, 3:29 PM
That's "hoist," ...unless you're talking about some kind of party?Good catch, thanks. I fixed it.

safewaysecurity
12-09-2011, 4:06 PM
First of course, that was the District Court and we still have the chance to deal with the question at the appellate level.

Second, we have, at least in part, the UOC crowd to thank for that anomalous view. The UOC advocates were around that time stepping up activity and justifying UOC as the only lawful way to carry a gun for self defense. They were even answering gunny criticism by making extravagant claims about how quickly they could load their guns and put them to use. If a bunch of supposedly knowledgeable gun rights advocates are going to state that carrying around an unloaded gun can serve their self defense needs, who is a District Court judge to argue with them. (It's called "hoist on your own petard.")

Third, this is a very good object lesson in the need to be careful about what you claim and to consider long term ramifications of positions you take. "I'm carrying my unloaded gun for self defense" might have sounded good at the time, but it was used against us by a couple of District Court judges.

And fourth, this helps illustrate what Gene means when he reminds us that "it's chess, not checkers." Chess masters think many moves ahead, and it's a game of great subtleties.

Of course, and our brethren of UOC helped invite that judicial response. That will have to be dealt with in the appellate courts.

That's why I don't advocate for UOC as a matter of self defense. It's pretty stupid to UOC for reasons of self defense. if it is to be done it should be done as a matter of protest to show how dumb the laws are.

hoffmang
12-10-2011, 8:54 PM
So, in an ironic twist, unlike the past, during "Rodney King riots" of the future, we'll have to wait for a (local? state? federal?) declaration of a state of emergency, before Korean shop owners will have a (automatic?) right to break out their long arms to defend their property. If that is true, declarations states of emergencies during disasters or other times will become as rare as hen's teeth!

Sigh. I guess you're unfamiliar with SAF's case Batemen v. Perdue regarding just your hypothetical. People keep confusing times when the open loaded carry of a long arm is quite called for (and thus likely protected by the 2A) with a very specific set of facts where being temporarily detained for carrying a technically complicated weapon isn't really in the scope of the 2A when there were (proven as he'd done it twice before) ways to bear arms in self defense in that park.

Do you really think that the Supreme Court would invalidate a law that said no loaded long arms except for self defense in the City of San Francisco where there was a shall issue carry license for loaded handguns readily available?

I don't.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
12-10-2011, 9:02 PM
Do you really think that the Supreme Court would invalidate a law that said no loaded long arms except for self defense in the City of San Francisco where there was a shall issue carry license for loaded handguns readily available?

I don't.

-Gene

I'm not even sure the Supreme Court would invalidate the current laws in San Francisco let alone unlicensed loaded long gun carry.

fiddletown
12-10-2011, 9:37 PM
Sigh. I guess you're unfamiliar with SAF's case Batemen v. Perdue regarding just your hypothetical. People keep confusing times when the open loaded carry of a long arm is quite called for (and thus likely protected by the 2A) with a very specific set of facts where being temporarily detained for carrying a technically complicated weapon isn't really in the scope of the 2A when there were (proven as he'd done it twice before) ways to bear arms in self defense in that park....Gene, point of personal privilege. The quote in your post (66) attributed to me, is not mine. It was stated by Paladin. Please see post 53.

hoffmang
12-10-2011, 11:43 PM
Gene, point of personal privilege. The quote in your post (66) attributed to me, is not mine. It was stated by Paladin. Please see post 53.

Quite so! When I was editing his post down, somehow I ended up with one of your nested quotes. I was intending to reply to him and just didn't notice that those had gotten mangled. I have edited above to repair.

-Gene

wash
12-10-2011, 11:56 PM
I keep seeing people use arguments that are almost like a paraphrase of "what do you not understand about 'shall not be infringed'?"

Well what do you not understand about how useful that argument has been so far?

Being right doesn't help us like we think it should.

We have to concentrate on winning because sometimes being right isn't enough.

Embody is a loser.

We don't want him screwing up our rights.

What can he possibly accomplish with his arrest?

The answer is nothing because the courts are not going to have a moment of clarity and hold up a guy that walked around a public park in camo carrying an AK pistol with a orange painted muzzle device and say "we had it all wrong, this is what the second amendment is all about".

That's not going to happen so we need to concentrate on cases that we can win and then win them.

If you want to be involved with fixing the gun laws in this country and fleshing out the extent of our second amendment rights, figure out what you want to fix and then formulate a plan for how you are going to accomplish that change. There are no shortcuts and you can't rely on "somebody else" to fix holes in your plan so make sure your plan is complete, will work and you have the resources to pull it off successfully before you go off and do something stupid. If there is any legal risk, ask a good lawyer if your plan will work. By good lawyer, I mean a winning civil rights attorney with experience in gun related law, not a condo lawyer, personal injury lawyer or someone who plays a lawyer on TV.

fiddletown
12-11-2011, 12:02 AM
Gene, thank you.

hoffmang
12-20-2011, 12:24 AM
For those of you following this on the interblegs, Mr. Embody was unamused that we injected some grown up arguments in his case. In his excellent strategic initiative, he sent the SAF/CGF amicus to LCAV and Brady. Brady then decided to file an Amicus brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-amicus-brief-2011-12-19.pdf) out of time (and therefor against the rules - motion here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-motion-2011-12-19.pdf)) in his case.

At least he and others who don't exactly understand what is positive for the RKBA gets to see what actual anti-gun positions look like.

Edited to add - I don't think Mr. "Kwikrnu" Embody was wise enough to not consent to the Amicus filing... Sad.

-Gene

safewaysecurity
12-20-2011, 12:40 AM
For those of you following this on the interblegs, Mr. Embody was unamused that we injected some grown up arguments in his case. In his excellent strategic initiative, he sent the SAF/CGF amicus to LCAV and Brady. Brady then decided to file an Amicus brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-amicus-brief-2011-12-19.pdf) out of time (and therefor against the rules - motion here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-motion-2011-12-19.pdf)) in his case.

At least he and others who don't exactly understand what is positive for the RKBA gets to see what actual anti-gun positions look like.

Edited to add - I don't think Mr. "Kwikrnu" Embody was wise enough to not consent to the Amicus filing... Sad.

-Gene

Wait... what? I don't get it. Is he trying to get the Brady's to argue why this case needs to not be dismissed?

Gray Peterson
12-20-2011, 12:48 AM
Wait... what? I don't get it. Is he trying to get the Brady's to argue why this case needs to not be dismissed?

Wow, if an anti-gun org tried to file an amicus out of time and tried to get MY consent for it, my response would be either very humorous or very profane.

"Sure, old chap, I definitely consent to you writing a brief, in violation of the rules, against my case....NOT".

safewaysecurity
12-20-2011, 12:59 AM
Wow, if an anti-gun org tried to file an amicus out of time and tried to get MY consent for it, my response would be either very humorous or very profane.

"Sure, old chap, I definitely consent to you writing a brief, in violation of the rules, against my case....NOT".

Lol does he not realize that the Brady's if they knew they would lose a case would try to get it dismissed and wouldn't go through the effort of promoting a challenge to the laws if they didn't absolutely know 100% that they would win? This man is insane.

htjyang
12-20-2011, 2:58 AM
For those of you following this on the interblegs, Mr. Embody was unamused that we injected some grown up arguments in his case. In his excellent strategic initiative, he sent the SAF/CGF amicus to LCAV and Brady. Brady then decided to file an Amicus brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-amicus-brief-2011-12-19.pdf) out of time (and therefor against the rules - motion here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-motion-2011-12-19.pdf)) in his case.

At least he and others who don't exactly understand what is positive for the RKBA gets to see what actual anti-gun positions look like.

Edited to add - I don't think Mr. "Kwikrnu" Embody was wise enough to not consent to the Amicus filing... Sad.

-Gene

If any proof was needed that he was working with the Bradyites, look no further. How else to explain this solicitation of an intervention from them? The danger now is that the 6th Circuit will take the case and adopt the Bradyites's argument wholesale and eliminate any public carry rights throughout their jurisdiction.

curtisfong
12-20-2011, 10:56 AM
If any proof was needed that he was working with the Bradyites, look no further. How else to explain this solicitation of an intervention from them? The danger now is that the 6th Circuit will take the case and adopt the Bradyites's argument wholesale and eliminate any public carry rights throughout their jurisdiction.

Is there a legal term of art for this kind of sandbagging?

Maestro Pistolero
12-20-2011, 12:10 PM
Is there a legal term of art for this kind of sandbagging?

Douchbaggery comes to mind.

OleCuss
12-20-2011, 12:21 PM
I don't think he is working with the Brady bunch. Well, I don't think he started out working with them.

If he had been working with them from the beginning he'd likely have not had to send them an invitation to file an amicus.

More likely he is an idiot with an inflated sense of his legal abilities. Heck, if he is in a manic phase he may have thought that he would solicit a Brady amicus so that he could kill their arguments in court and thus have a victory which would be all the sweeter.

Lack of wisdom, lack of intellectual horsepower, lack of perspective, lack of knowledge.

Whether or not he thinks he is on the side of the RKBA, he is not.

stix213
12-20-2011, 12:32 PM
If he wasn't working with the Brady's before, he certainly is now.

fiddletown
12-20-2011, 1:07 PM
Embody is certainly full of surprises. Just when one thought that he couldn't get any dumber......he tops himself.

wildhawker
12-20-2011, 1:11 PM
...he tops himself.

Hilariously accurate taken however it can be read...

-Brandon

Stonewalker
12-20-2011, 2:03 PM
For those of you following this on the interblegs, Mr. Embody was unamused that we injected some grown up arguments in his case. In his excellent strategic initiative, he sent the SAF/CGF amicus to LCAV and Brady. Brady then decided to file an Amicus brief (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-amicus-brief-2011-12-19.pdf) out of time (and therefor against the rules - motion here (http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/brady-embody-motion-2011-12-19.pdf)) in his case.

At least he and others who don't exactly understand what is positive for the RKBA gets to see what actual anti-gun positions look like.

Edited to add - I don't think Mr. "Kwikrnu" Embody was wise enough to not consent to the Amicus filing... Sad.

-Gene

Why turn on the TV when there is such comedy gold going on in the courtroom. You seriously can't make this stuff up. I would have loved to had been a fly on the wall when Brady got his notice.

Gray Peterson
12-20-2011, 2:45 PM
Hilariously accurate taken however it can be read...

-Brandon

:eek: :thumbsup:

Gray Peterson
12-20-2011, 2:46 PM
Douchbaggery comes to mind.

Yes it does.

kcbrown
12-20-2011, 3:14 PM
Embody is certainly full of surprises. Just when one thought that he couldn't get any dumber......he tops himself.

Never underestimate the depths of stupidity to which one can descend (he says, all the while looking at himself in the mirror :D )...

hoffmang
07-28-2012, 2:06 PM
Oral argument was very recently held in this case and a copy is now available.

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/embody/11-5963-Embody-v-Ward-Oral-Argument-2012-07-18.mp3

-Gene

dantodd
07-28-2012, 2:53 PM
Man Embody has a terrible case. Sadly it seems that the state's attorney accidentally said that the 4th amendment prevented the rangers from stopping someone else doing exactly the same thing as Embody.

It appears that Embody's attorney said the stop was reasonable but just too long at the very end which kills Embody's claim.

truthseeker
07-28-2012, 7:16 PM
Lawyer sounds like a Genius!!:rolleyes:

wash
07-28-2012, 8:49 PM
I think both sides really screwed up their arguments.

Embody's lawyer didn't make the argument that doing things that are legal does not constitute probable cause and the defense couldn't say that seeing something as unusual as Embody's behavior creates a reasonable suspicion to detain a person for officer (and public) safety and determine if the handgun is legal to carry in the wilderness preserve.

I am glad this isn't happening in California because I think we would be talking about legislation rather than oral arguments.

HowardW56
07-28-2012, 8:57 PM
Embody and Nichols are friends. Nuff said.


I'm not sure which of the two is more dillusional.

taperxz
07-28-2012, 9:02 PM
Go Team?

Funtimes
07-29-2012, 12:45 AM
So many jokes that could have been made about the men estimating the size of things under 12 inches.

Gray Peterson
07-29-2012, 3:26 AM
Lawyer sounds like a Genius!!:rolleyes:

What I wouldn't give for a "Real Men of Genius" bud light skit applicable to unskilled (for the subject) lawyers on youtube right now.

HowardW56
08-30-2012, 10:05 AM
NASHVILLE (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled a ranger did not violate the rights of a man who wore camouflage and carried an AK-47-style pistol with loaded 30-round clip in a Nashville park.

Brentwood resident Leonard Embody sued Ranger Steve Ward for detaining him at the Radnor Lake State Natural area while Ward determined whether the gun was legal and whether Embody had a permit for it.


Complete Article (http://www.jacksonsun.com/viewart/20120830/NEWS01/308300024/Man-who-carried-AK-47-pistol-Tennessee-park-loses-appeal)

Gray Peterson
08-30-2012, 10:14 AM
NASHVILLE (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled a ranger did not violate the rights of a man who wore camouflage and carried an AK-47-style pistol with loaded 30-round clip in a Nashville park.

Brentwood resident Leonard Embody sued Ranger Steve Ward for detaining him at the Radnor Lake State Natural area while Ward determined whether the gun was legal and whether Embody had a permit for it.


Complete Article (http://www.jacksonsun.com/viewart/20120830/NEWS01/308300024/Man-who-carried-AK-47-pistol-Tennessee-park-loses-appeal)

Play stupid games.

Win stupid prizes.

HowardW56
08-30-2012, 10:16 AM
I don't see any harm in the Sixth Circuit Opinion....

But there are notable comments in the opinion...

“having worked hard to appear suspicious” Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers took the bait."

and

"For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we."


From the Opinion:

Embody’s Second Amendment claim fares no better. Noting that state law authorized him to carry this gun in the park, he argues that temporarily disarming him necessarily was a
“per se Second Amendment violation.” Br. 10. But § 1983 claims are designed to vindicate federal law, not state law. He offers no explanation why the officers’ alleged failure to comply with state law itself violates the United States Constitution in general or the Second Amendment in particular. The “[m]ere violation of a state statute does not infringe the federal Constitution.” Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 11 (1944).




To the extent Embody means to argue that the Second Amendment prevents Tennessee from prohibiting certain firearms in state parks (and thus prohibited Ward from detaining Embody on suspicion of possessing an illegal firearm), qualified immunity is the answer. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). No court has held that the Second Amendment encompasses a right to bear arms within state parks. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to bear arms in the home); United States v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (upholding regulation prohibiting firearms in national parks). Such a right may or may not exist, but the critical point for our purposes is that it has not been established—clearly or otherwise at this point. That suffices to resolve this claim under the Court’s qualified-immunity precedents. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 236 (2009).





For these reasons, we affirm.

HowardW56
08-30-2012, 10:19 AM
Play stupid games.

Win stupid prizes.

IANAL, but the opinion doesn't appear to do any harm....

HowardW56
08-30-2012, 10:21 AM
Link to OPINION (http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0293p-06.pdf)

Kharn
08-30-2012, 10:59 AM
The only harm in this ruling is to Embody's pride.

fiddletown
08-30-2012, 11:12 AM
We do seem to have avoided a possibly bad result. Of course, given the circumstances, there was pretty much no way that Embody could have avoided a bad result for himself.

Dreaded Claymore
08-30-2012, 11:33 AM
I'm relieved that this has turned out the way it has. I was terribly afraid that this would be used as an opportunity to apply unreasonable limits on the right to keep and bear arms.

Before today, I had been listening to some of Gura's oral argument recordings, and I heard him talk about the crime of "affray," defined by Blackstone as going about with dangerous and unusual weapons in a manner that brings terror to the people. I had been trying to imagine an example of this, other than perhaps just aggressively brandishing a weapon while shouting (for example) KKK slogans.

But today, it occurs to me today that the perfect example of the crime of affray is regularly provided by Leonard Embody.

stix213
08-30-2012, 1:19 PM
What I'm afraid of is what Embody will try next. He'll probably walk into a Toys"R"Us as the Joker carrying an AR-15.

efillc
08-30-2012, 2:30 PM
What I'm afraid of is what Embody will try next. He'll probably walk into a Toys"R"Us as the Joker carrying an AR-15.
IMO that's less likely since he's now an FFL. Attracting LE attention isn't such a hot idea.

HowardW56
08-30-2012, 3:02 PM
What I'm afraid of is what Embody will try next. He'll probably walk into a Toys"R"Us as the Joker carrying an AR-15.


Not Funny!

stix213
08-30-2012, 4:19 PM
IMO that's less likely since he's now an FFL. Attracting LE attention isn't such a hot idea.

Somehow I doubt he has that level of common sense. The guy was walking around the bushes at a park with children, dressed in camo, with his loaded Draco AK pistol with the tip painted orange, trying to get into a confrontation with police. I doubt his FFL will stop him, and somehow he'll lose that just like his CCW.

Not Funny!

Wasn't trying to be. I think this guy can seriously try something like that given his past.

Table Rock Arms
08-30-2012, 6:17 PM
IMO that's less likely since he's now an FFL. Attracting LE attention isn't such a hot idea.

He claims now that he is in the process of using his FFL/SOT to obtain items (suppressors, SBR's) that his sheriff would not sign off on before. Then he will be carrying them outside his local courthouse while wearing a Kevlar vest to attract more attention.

stix213
08-31-2012, 2:53 AM
He claims now that he is in the process of using his FFL/SOT to obtain items (suppressors, SBR's) that his sheriff would not sign off on before. Then he will be carrying them outside his local courthouse while wearing a Kevlar vest to attract more attention.

OMG I hope that is a joke

Table Rock Arms
08-31-2012, 3:11 AM
OMG I hope that is a joke

Wish it was, but you can't even make something like that up. He is on another forum that I am on and that is what he is claiming.

Funtimes
08-31-2012, 11:29 AM
OMG I hope that is a joke

He said this as well on the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

OleCuss
08-31-2012, 11:50 AM
Makes you kind of wonder if the guy needs to have a mental competency evaluation?

hoffmang
08-31-2012, 8:05 PM
I worry Mr. Embody will provoke a confrontation that will be hazardous to his health.

-Gene

solanoslough
01-30-2014, 8:23 AM
Wait... what? I don't get it. Is he trying to get the Brady's to argue why this case needs to not be dismissed?

I asked him why he did that and he said he wanted it on record that the SAF agrees with the Brady Campaign on gun control. He said that both groups are for gun control and anti-gun rights.

In his new writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court he has done the same. He wrote on another forum that he has notified all of the anti-gun groups and emailed lawyers who have previously wrote amicus briefs against major gun rights cases.

solanoslough
01-30-2014, 8:26 AM
He claims now that he is in the process of using his FFL/SOT to obtain items (suppressors, SBR's) that his sheriff would not sign off on before. Then he will be carrying them outside his local courthouse while wearing a Kevlar vest to attract more attention.

Looks like he completed his plan. He was arrested and is out on bond from a July 2013 incident where he open carried an AR rifle with a silencer in Nashville.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScD986-UZE

sholling
01-30-2014, 9:19 AM
I asked him why he did that and he said he wanted it on record that the SAF agrees with the Brady Campaign on gun control. He said that both groups are for gun control and anti-gun rights.

In his new writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court he has done the same. He wrote on another forum that he has notified all of the anti-gun groups and emailed lawyers who have previously wrote amicus briefs against major gun rights cases.
Embody may be a bit of a nut, but that aside I suspect that the 'Powers That Be' within the gun rights industry and their hand picked "Right People" will once again file amicus briefs in support of the government's case - which means that his theory isn't entirely baseless. There seems to be way too much acceptance of the idea that possession and carry should be subject to first asking permission from our rulers - as long as it doesn't cost too much or take too long to get. :rolleyes:

gun toting monkeyboy
01-30-2014, 11:43 AM
The problem is that the guy is a nutball, and he is going to end up screwing things up for all of the other cases that people have been working on for years, simply because he is an idiotic douche. IIRC, he came on here tooting his own horn a few years back, about how he open carried several different real firearms, all painted to look like toys. He was flamed and barbequed 7 ways to Sunday for his stupidity. I believe the majority opinion was that his asinine stupidity would end up getting a kid killed someday.

-Mb

sholling
01-31-2014, 12:03 AM
The problem is that the guy is a nutball, and he is going to end up screwing things up for all of the other cases that people have been working on for years, simply because he is an idiotic douche. IIRC, he came on here tooting his own horn a few years back, about how he open carried several different real firearms, all painted to look like toys. He was flamed and barbequed 7 ways to Sunday for his stupidity. I believe the majority opinion was that his asinine stupidity would end up getting a kid killed someday.

-Mb
Embody wouldn't be a problem if the "Right People" had beat him to the courthouse with good unlicensed open carry cases. Unfortunately the "Right People" chose not beat him to the courthouse and have instead chosen to ignore or actively oppose unlicensed open carry cases, and seemingly the concept of unlicensed open carry as a right. That decision has conveniently left open a vacuum that the Embodys of the world will fill if the "Right People" do not.

mrrabbit
01-31-2014, 6:18 AM
Embody wouldn't be a problem if the "Right People" had beat him to the courthouse with good unlicensed open carry cases. Unfortunately the "Right People" chose not beat him to the courthouse and have instead chosen to ignore or actively oppose unlicensed open carry cases, and seemingly the concept of unlicensed open carry as a right. That decision has conveniently left open a vacuum that the Embodys of the world will fill if the "Right People" do not.

Excellent point.

If there's a vacuum...fill it. Cause if you don't, someone else will.

Complaining about it when that happens just makes you a sore loser, cheese grater and a whiner.

=8-)

fizux
01-31-2014, 7:09 AM
Excellent point.

If there's a vacuum...fill it. Cause if you don't, someone else will.

Complaining about it when that happens just makes you a sore loser, cheese grater and a whiner.

=8-)
I think the strategy from several different national pro-2A groups is based upon the classic rhetorical question of how to eat an elephant -- one bite at a time.
The first case at SCOTUS (since 1939) did not attempt to define all 2A rights all at once. It sought to establish caselaw that affirmed the 2A as an individual right, and "keep." It is always more palatable to take acceptable/reasonable positions with good facts and plaintiffs rather than appealing US v. Crackhead or US v. Bankrobber.

Heller laid the groundwork for McDonald. The next steps toward "bear" are logically to try to affirm the right to carry outside the home (period, full stop). Trying to establish too much stuff all at once leads to the answer "NO" and it screws everybody. Embody is trying to link together (1) carry outside the home; (2) open; (3) affray / confrontational adam henry; (4) deceptive orange tip; (5) suppressor; and (6) the right to not attract any attention from the popo when doing all of the above.
If he turns out to be wrong about any of the above, he sucks the legit rights down the drain with all the others.

For all the infighting between different groups, almost everyone on here agrees that being a douché is not going to be as sympathetic as stand up law-abiding folks that are trying to fit within the Overton Window.

taperxz
01-31-2014, 8:44 AM
While i don't like Embodys approach at all, remember too that CGF had a similar character they wanted to use to expand our rights. Plog-Horowitz was a model citizen that CGF was to help.

http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2013/fbi-seeks-publics-help-regarding-an-investigation-into-a-man-impersonating-a-federal-agent

fizux
01-31-2014, 9:09 AM
While i don't like Embodys approach at all, remember too that CGF had a similar character they wanted to use to expand our rights. Plog-Horowitz was a model citizen that CGF was to help.

http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2013/fbi-seeks-publics-help-regarding-an-investigation-into-a-man-impersonating-a-federal-agent
So, you want CGF/SAF/NRA/NSSF, or any other pro-2A organization to implant a mind control chip in their plaintiffs to prevent them from screwing up later? I figured they are doing just fine with multiple similarly-situated plaintiffs that would allow the case to move forward even if one plaintiff has to be dismissed (mooted, screws up, passes away, moves, etc.).

Due to the sequence of events, it is pretty clear that CGF didn't pick him *because* he effed up. Embody basically effed up in order to manufacture a case.

But yeah, what a tool.

taperxz
01-31-2014, 10:11 AM
So, you want CGF/SAF/NRA/NSSF, or any other pro-2A organization to implant a mind control chip in their plaintiffs to prevent them from screwing up later? I figured they are doing just fine with multiple similarly-situated plaintiffs that would allow the case to move forward even if one plaintiff has to be dismissed (mooted, screws up, passes away, moves, etc.).

Due to the sequence of events, it is pretty clear that CGF didn't pick him *because* he effed up. Embody basically effed up in order to manufacture a case.

But yeah, what a tool.

What i am saying is that all plaintiffs seem to have a skeleton in their closet with these cases. Plog-Horowitz was found to be doing much of this prior to the CGF vetting BTW.

I also think the courts would love to take on a case that was about the right and not about the rush of rich 2A rights orgs. to win.

Why you ask? (just in case) As sensitive as the 2A is politically, a decision on the 2A would be better served if a justice didn't have to seem aligned with a large 2A advocacy group. (tin foil hatting) But it makes you wonder after the way Roberts ruled on health care and his concern for politicizing cases they see.

This is not to say Embody isn't kinda out there :facepalm: but in essence, he is doing this all based on the writings of the constitution and not the political nuances of what we are fighting for.

solanoslough
01-31-2014, 10:23 AM
I know Embody was arrested and charged last year because he had a silencer. Has he been convicted of anything? If he was not allowed to have guns or on probation it would have been mentioned in the court order. Tennessee suspended his permit because he carried it in a way that they did not like. They didn't arrest him or charge him because he didn't break the law.

I don't agree with the perfect plaintiff theory. There are plenty of court majorities who agreed with kidnapers, murders, and thieves after police violated their constitutional rights.

sholling
01-31-2014, 10:39 AM
I think the strategy from several different national pro-2A groups is based upon the classic rhetorical question of how to eat an elephant -- one bite at a time.
That strategy (establishing recognition of our individual rights while allowing access to the right to remain subject to a permission slip and almost unattainable for the average DC resident) may or may not have been correct in Heller, it's over and done and given 6-18 months of hoop jumping (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/jul/12/miller-new-guide-getting-gun-dc/) and enough money a DC resident can possess a handgun within their home.

The problem is that 6 years later the judicial revolt against the 2nd Amendment continues and though regularly slapped down by Progressive judges our "Right People" refuse to try different approaches. They seem to have embraced 'shall-issue licensed concealed carry or bust' as their sole approach to restoring our right to bear arms. That leaves a legal vacuum to challenge the government's power to require a permission slip to exercise enumerated rights, and a vacuum in the area of open carry challenges and only a fool would expect those vacuums to go unfilled. I suspect a prejudice against the concept of unlicensed rights and open carry that cause our "Right People" continue to leave a vacuum for the Embody's of this world, but if they aren't going to fill the vacuum with their own serious (not just filler) cases then they need to get the heck out of the way of others. Rather than a strategy of drawing out litigation for a century or more, the obvious answer is for Powers That Be in the 2nd Amendment rights industry to select a serious team of additional smart highly qualified "Right People" and perfect clients to challenge oppression on multiple fronts. In other words start a couple of unlicensed open carry cases of their own, and separately challenge the concept of having to ask permission to possess in the home.

Al Norris
01-31-2014, 10:52 AM
On top of what fizux just wrote, Embody himself has said (in many different gun forums - and paraphrased) he isn't doing this for advancement of the RKBA. It is all centered on himself and his personal view of the 2A.

He doesn't give a hoot about how his case(s) affect anyone or anything else. Full Stop.

This is not about the NRA or the SAF the "Right People," or even the Brady's. It's all about him and him alone.

Sorry taperxz, Plog-Horowitz isn't even in the same category.

FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
01-31-2014, 11:30 AM
Plog-Horowitz. :laugh:

The sentencing reports are a hoot. Among other things he created a "www.donkilmer.com" website then billed his parents pretending to be Don Kilmer. He just got 41 months in federal prison lol.

OleCuss
01-31-2014, 11:57 AM
Plog-Horowitz. :laugh:

The sentencing reports are a hoot. Among other things he created a "www.donkilmer.com" website then billed his parents pretending to be Don Kilmer. He just got 41 months in federal prison lol.

Wow! That's just amazing. . . I wonder if his family will still give him the time of day?

Thank you for the entertainment.

bruss01
01-31-2014, 12:18 PM
By painting the tip orange he is seeking to conceal from a casual observer that he is, in fact, openly carrying a pistol. Open carry was originally differentiated from concealed carry as being openly honest about the fact that one was armed, vs being secretive and potentially "up to no good". One way of looking at the issue is that by painting the tip orange, Embody was concealing his pistol (concealing the fact that he had a pistol on him by disguising it as a toy). I'm not sure how that analysis would impact the case, it's just something that occured to me.

taperxz
01-31-2014, 4:15 PM
On top of what fizux just wrote, Embody himself has said (in many different gun forums - and paraphrased) he isn't doing this for advancement of the RKBA. It is all centered on himself and his personal view of the 2A.

He doesn't give a hoot about how his case(s) affect anyone or anything else. Full Stop.

This is not about the NRA or the SAF the "Right People," or even the Brady's. It's all about him and him alone.

Sorry taperxz, Plog-Horowitz isn't even in the same category.

Plog-Horowitz. :laugh:

The sentencing reports are a hoot. Among other things he created a "www.donkilmer.com" website then billed his parents pretending to be Don Kilmer. He just got 41 months in federal prison lol.

You are absolutely right Plog-Horowitz and Embody are not in the same category. Which one is NOT in jail?

To put things into context, The CGF is not in the same category as the NRA either.