• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Look Who Made The News Again

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
Saw that....

shaking-no-smiley-emoticon.gif
 

lil_freak_66

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2008
Messages
1,799
Location
Mason, Michigan
Like it or not, kwirknu has a huge civil case building up now

No legal reasonable suspicion to be searched, his property forcibly taken and probably damaged to check to see If the rifle was loaded, his suppressor, which was hidden from view by the case originally is what they charged him with, possession of a suppressor since he refused to turn over his tax documents for it over.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
I'm not so sure he has a case. While I don't like it, the way the law is written in TN it is illegal to posses a firearm, period. There are certain defenses to this charge, one is the weapon being unloaded, but of course there is only one way to know if the weapon is unloaded...check it. So if a LEO sees someone in possession of a firearm, he can assume the person is breaking the law until they defend themselves against the charge by showing they meet one of the defenses.

That being said, it seems he was charged with having a prohibited weapon, [my guess is the silencer. T.C.A. 39-17-1302(a)(5)] and not the carry of the actual rifle.

Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I'm not so sure he has a case. While I don't like it, the way the law is written in TN it is illegal to posses a firearm, period. There are certain defenses to this charge, one is the weapon being unloaded, but of course there is only one way to know if the weapon is unloaded...check it. So if a LEO sees someone in possession of a firearm, he can assume the person is breaking the law until they defend themselves against the charge by showing they meet one of the defenses.

Cite, please.
 

Nascar24Glock

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
252
Location
Johnson City, TN
Cite, please.

Ok.

TCA 39-17-1307

"(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4''), or a club."

TCA 39-17-1308

"(a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was:" [emphasis mine]
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
So TN isn't part of the United States and isn't covered by the US Constitution? Is that what your saying?

I'm saying that is what the law of TN is saying...

I personally believe it violates the US and TN constitutions.

Article 1, Sec 26 of TN Constitution say...

"That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear
arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law,
to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

I'm not sure how making the mere possession a crime and you having to defend yourself against the charge is a right, but Leonard has already lost a separate court case challenging the law based on this...
 
Last edited:

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA

Baked on Grease

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
629
Location
Sterling, Va.
I'm not so sure he has a case. While I don't like it, the way the law is written in TN it is illegal to posses a firearm, period. There are certain defenses to this charge, one is the weapon being unloaded, but of course there is only one way to know if the weapon is unloaded...check it. So if a LEO sees someone in possession of a firearm, he can assume the person is breaking the law until they defend themselves against the charge by showing they meet one of the defenses.

That being said, it seems he was charged with having a prohibited weapon, [my guess is the silencer. T.C.A. 39-17-1302(a)(5)] and not the carry of the actual rifle.

Guess we'll just have to see how it plays out.

It is also illegal to drive a car. One of the exceptions being properly licensed. So if the cops see someone driving he can assume they are breaking the law until they defend themselves agsinst the charge by showing they meet the defenses. Cops can pull over anyone on a whim right? Right?? I mean... it IS illegal to drive and it's your responsibility to prove you are doing it legally right?

Yes, I am being sarcastic and facetious. The point is that the standard set forth [partly by a recent case, US vs Black I believe] is that if something is illegal but there is a path to do it legally the cops must assume the person is doing that way unless and until the cop can get RAS that he is in fact breaking the law.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
It is also illegal to drive a car. One of the exceptions being properly licensed. So if the cops see someone driving he can assume they are breaking the law until they defend themselves agsinst the charge by showing they meet the defenses. Cops can pull over anyone on a whim right? Right?? I mean... it IS illegal to drive and it's your responsibility to prove you are doing it legally right?

Yes, I am being sarcastic and facetious. The point is that the standard set forth [partly by a recent case, US vs Black I believe] is that if something is illegal but there is a path to do it legally the cops must assume the person is doing that way unless and until the cop can get RAS that he is in fact breaking the law.

Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2

Actually No, it is not illegal to drive a car in TN, it is illegal to drive one without an license though. I know it doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it is a big one as far as the law goes.

In other words, there is no law in TN that says, "It is illegal to drive any means on conveyance on a public road in this state." and a separate law that says "It is a defense to (whatever the previous law might be) if a person has a Drivers license issued by this state.

I understand what you are saying and don't 100% disagree, I am mainly going by what I have read and observed in the past as to what has happened in this state before.
 
Last edited:

templar223

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2008
Messages
46
Location
Champaign, IL
Like it or not, kwirknu has a huge civil case building up now

No legal reasonable suspicion to be searched, his property forcibly taken and probably damaged to check to see If the rifle was loaded, his suppressor, which was hidden from view by the case originally is what they charged him with, possession of a suppressor since he refused to turn over his tax documents for it over.



It all comes down to the Reasonable Person Doctrine.

Embody was epic fail in this stunt, as he is with EVERYTHING he does.

I'm cheering for the day he missteps and loses his firearm rights. That day can't happen soon enough.
 

Nascar24Glock

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Messages
252
Location
Johnson City, TN
Actually No, it is not illegal to drive a car in TN, it is illegal to drive one without an license though. I know it doesn't sound like much of a difference, but it is a big one as far as the law goes.

In other words, there is no law in TN that says, "It is illegal to drive any means on conveyance on a public road in this state." and a separate law that says "It is a defense to (whatever the previous law might be) if a person has a Drivers license issued by this state.

I understand what you are saying and don't 100% disagree, I am mainly going by what I have read and observed in the past as to what has happened in this state before.

Indeed. For that matter, the law goes even further than that. Having a gun in your own home is also one of the defenses, not the exceptions. So, let's say you voluntarily let an officer into your home; and he sees a gun there. He could in theory arrest you on the spot; and the prosecutor could in theory take it to trial and force you to bring in your house deed to show to the jury. If he didn't want to go that far, he could threaten to arrest you if you don't produce some sort of proof that you live there (say, a house deed or a driver's license with that address on it).

Bottom line, Tennessee's law on weapons is very poorly written and open to abuse if a rogue sheriff and prosecutor ever decide to utilize it.
 

Fallguy

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
715
Location
McKenzie Tennessee, USA
<snip>

Bottom line, Tennessee's law on weapons is very poorly written and open to abuse if a rogue sheriff and prosecutor ever decide to utilize it.

Totally. Which is why I agree with Leonard's goal (I think which is to change the law and/or have it ruled unconstitutional), just not always his methods.
 

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
Ok.

TCA 39-17-1307

"(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4''), or a club."

TCA 39-17-1308

"(a) It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was:" [emphasis mine]

Nothing here mentions a LOADED firearm. The law you have cited only mentions that it is illegal to go armed with a firearm. It says nothing about a loaded or unloaded firearm. Did you leave some of the statute off?

Also, the defense section doesn't mention any of the defenses.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
It all comes down to the Reasonable Person Doctrine.

Embody was epic fail in this stunt, as he is with EVERYTHING he does.

I'm cheering for the day he missteps and loses his firearm rights. That day can't happen soon enough.

??? Why would you actively desire someone lose their self-defense rights?

I don't care for his tactics, either. But, I'm smart enough to recognize that he's in the right, harming no one, merely carrying self-defense items that have no business being prohibited or regulated. Nobody deserves to lose their rights over that.
 
Last edited:

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
I don't care for his tactics, either. But, I'm smart enough to recognize that he's in the right, harming no one, merely carrying self-defense items that have no business being prohibited or regulated. Nobody deserves to lose their rights over that.

Exactly.

Embody is definitely lawsuit-fishing (good for him, if they'll bite), but I think his other goal is to make precisely this point. People have become so used to this childish, spiteful tendency of banning actions we merely don't like, or disenfranchising those who engage in those activities.

Let me be clear: there is nothing aggressive about what Embody has done. Therefore, to deprive him of his rights would be aggressive. Therefore, a poster has opined that a non-aggressive person should be aggressively stripped of their right to keep and bear arms. And in this forum of all places! For shame.
 
Last edited:
Top