Official kwikrnu tennessee constitutional challenge thread

I filed a lawsuit against the state in June. This is my first case representing myself in a court of record, Chancery Court. I imagine I'll make all kinds of mistakes, but I'm going to have fun doing this.

I filed the lawsuit in Chancery Court of Williamson County at Franklin on May 25, 2010. I copied most of the petition from other suits I have read. Tennessee law criminalizes all carry of firearms, tca 39-17-1307. The defense is a handgun carry permit tca 39-17-1308, but my permit is suspended and the hearing is now scheduled for December 3, 2010. I have standing due to the suspension. In the suit I ask that TCA 39-17-1307 be null and void along with some other things. In 1871 and 1928 the TN Supreme Court found that prohibition of weapons is illegal. In June of this year the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment is incorporated and that it is an individual right to bear arms.

Mistake one I made was not to file in Davidson County. The State can only be sued in Davidson County. We have petitioned to have the case moved. Hopefully the Chancellor will do so. I expect the State to come up with a response to my challenge 15 days after the venue is changed.

I'll keep y'all updated on the progress.

Case # 38412 which will probably change with the venue.

Did you drop all the other parts to your suit against the State?

Williamson County Chancery court judge signed off. It is moved to Davidosn County Chancery Court. Hopefully I'll hear a response to my complaint within 15 days. My complaint has not changed.

Davidson County Chancery Court case no. 10-1227-IV
After an agreed motion the Chancellor ordered it transfered from Williamson County to Davidson County on 7-25-2010.
It was filed on the 29th in Davidson County Chancery Court. The AG asked for an additional 15 days to answer the complaint after it was transfered. I assume I'll be hearing from The AG within 15 working days from the date the order was signed. Ben Whitehouse is the assistant general working on it.

Kwik, I think the complainers are jealous because they don't dare stand up.
We need more people like you all around this country.
If you want to be free you have to do something. It takes more than complaining.

Butch00 said:

Kwik, I think the complainers are jealous because they don't dare stand up.

Click to expand...

(click) Hysterical Laugh

kwik is it possible to make a decent profit on civil rights violations. Have you won any cases.

VFORVENDETTA said:

kwik is it possible to make a decent profit on civil rights violations. Have you won any cases.

Click to expand...

In a free open carry State I would imagine it would be easy money. I only have two civil rights law suits in progress. This one where the State is violating my civil rights to bear arms and the one against a ranger who violated my forth amendment right against search and seizure.

The Tennessean picked it up. Their reporter called while I was out. I returned the call early in the day at about 2:00pm and she did not return my call and ran the story.

Link

Also the City Paper

Link

Know news

Link


I admit I enjoy reading the comments of the mostly ignorant.

Now that the media picked up your story, will you carry on the constitutional challenge even if they, the State, offer you your permit back and a little cash in exchange for dropping the challenge?

Lets try the other question worded a little differently, "Do you believe Belle Meade police will cite an HCP holder for carrying a holstered handgun while walking in the median of Belle Meade Blvd?" That is a yes/no question.

Click to expand...

Ah, RussP telling you how you may answer a question he poses.

I wonder why he would state it in such a manner?


Dear Russell the forum stalker,

It is illegal to carry a handgun in any manner not specifically proscribed by law in the city of Bell Meade.

It would be dereliction of duty for an officer to observe a citizen walking down the median with a holstered handgun, and not enforce the law, in the city of Bell Meade.

Casual discretion of the manner you seem to believe is acceptable, is unfortunately for you, not acceptable. The law, is the law, is the law.


You seem to abide by law enforcement vagueness, and allow for huge amounts of discretion when performing a "duty". This likely has enormous ties to your son being a police officer. In fact, in denying this in the past, you only solidify the idea that it is truly so. The worlds only "father of a police officer" who truly acts without bias towards their sons role as a police officer.

Certainly you believe it is acceptable for a gentleman out for a nightly stroll, to be stopped and harassed by law enforcement for performing a completely legal act.

You believe in this so much that you have made it your mission to harass and pursue Mr. Embody across multiple forums.


Does your keyboard have any letters not worn off the keys from your tireless and meaningless pursuit?

Just curious.... :monkey

slowfiveoh said:

It would be dereliction of duty for an officer to observe a citizen walking down the median with a holstered handgun, and not enforce the law, in the city of Bell Meade.

Casual discretion of the manner you seem to believe is acceptable, is unfortunately for you, not acceptable. The law, is the law, is the law.

Click to expand...

But that only applies to the laws one likes and thinks are constitutional right? That is what you boss says, that he can break laws he disagrees with.

You know, like carrying in the Brentwood Library. But your boss can break that one because he doesn't like that law. All others he does like should stand though.

A cop cannot uphold the Constitution and do his job.
I believe perjury of oath is a felony, so there are a lot of felons in law enforcement.

Butch00 said:

A cop cannot uphold the Constitution and do his job.
I believe perjury of oath is a felony, so there are a lot of felons in law enforcement.

Click to expand...

I hold that a vast majority of LEOs are good people trying to do their job to the best of their ability. Generally castigating them as a group is not only not accurate but in direct violation of the tenents of OCDO.

I'm only talking about the ones that violate their oath.

Kingfish said:

But that only applies to the laws one likes and thinks are constitutional right? That is what you boss says, that he can break laws he disagrees with.

You know, like carrying in the Brentwood Library. But your boss can break that one because he doesn't like that law. All others he does like should stand though.

Click to expand...

Not my boss, but that's a cute correlation there santa claus. Hrmm if you can convince people that Leonard is bad, then attach me to what you project as your view of him, well then hey!

Take you all night to think up that angle?

The goal here is the normalization of the carry of firearms, no matter how pretty dress it up.

If Leonard went into a library and it was against the law to carry there, i would still state that it was against the law for carrying there, and I further would say that any officer who knew so, and did not perform his duties in said instance, would be out of line.

Let me say it again.

The law, is the law, is the law.

I would side with Leonard on the base concept of being able to carry a firearm anywhere he wants so long as it is public land (aka City Library). I believe very much in property rights.

There are reasons it is dangerous to tie political agenda to law enforcements role, or their performance of said role. There are also reasons it is dangerous to allow officers such ominous discretion.

It's ok for a police officer to wink his eye and turn his back to his buddy transporting cocaine, but unacceptable to have the same officer arrest or otherwise detain a law abiding member of society who is breaking NO laws.

This is the hidden shadow of borderline criminal activity you allow law enforcement to engage in when you give them such wide berths on what to, or not to enforce.

Ever stop and think about these concepts, or is, "Leonard carried a gun into a library" your ultimate non-response?



I find it utterly refreshing that you guys are still trying to incriminate Leonard 9+ months down the road. Yet here he is, as "dangerous" as you all and certain state agencies would like to make him out to be, doing nothing dangerous and still in possession of a ton of firearms.

The paperwork and sequence of events is all leaning heavily in favor of Leonard too.

Can you guys feel it choking you yet? The stagnant cloud of hatred and vitriol?

slowfiveoh said:

Not my boss, but that's a cute correlation there santa claus. Hrmm if you can convince people that Leonard is bad, then attach me to what you project as your view of him, well then hey!

Take you all night to think up that angle?

The goal here is the normalization of the carry of firearms, no matter how pretty dress it up.

If Leonard went into a library and it was against the law to carry there, i would still state that it was against the law for carrying there, and I further would say that any officer who knew so, and did not perform his duties in said instance, would be out of line.

Let me say it again.

The law, is the law, is the law.

I would side with Leonard on the base concept of being able to carry a firearm anywhere he wants so long as it is public land (aka City Library). I believe very much in property rights.

There are reasons it is dangerous to tie political agenda to law enforcements role, or their performance of said role. There are also reasons it is dangerous to allow officers such ominous discretion.

It's ok for a police officer to wink his eye and turn his back to his buddy transporting cocaine, but unacceptable to have the same officer arrest or otherwise detain a law abiding member of society who is breaking NO laws.

This is the hidden shadow of borderline criminal activity you allow law enforcement to engage in when you give them such wide berths on what to, or not to enforce.

Ever stop and think about these concepts, or is, "Leonard carried a gun into a library" your ultimate non-response?



I find it utterly refreshing that you guys are still trying to incriminate Leonard 9+ months down the road. Yet here he is, as "dangerous" as you all and certain state agencies would like to make him out to be, doing nothing dangerous and still in possession of a ton of firearms.

The paperwork and sequence of events is all leaning heavily in favor of Leonard too.

Can you guys feel it choking you yet? The stagnant cloud of hatred and vitriol?

Click to expand...

So, it's ok for you to stereotype LEO's but, how dare someone do the same even after Kwik's ever so strange actions. Again, Slow (btw where have you been?) the argument isn't if what he was doing wasn't legal. It's his constant cry for attention, how he seeks out confrontation with LEO's and his quick finger to sue. It is extremely hard for me to believe you DON'T see his actions more than a reason to sue someone.

Paperwork and sequence? What are you referring to? Is it all the information which he and he only posts about himself? The same paperwork he then tells everyone is private? You ignore the obvious; the fact that everything that's been posted here can be found online, through his years of “mistreatment”. He has tried to edit posts as he begins new arguments (some of those he can't where he is banned, which in turn gets him caught up), he has deleted old pictures; the list goes on and on. This whole argument was in reference to Kwik’s credibility, his honesty. He is a liar. Period. Therefore it is very hard for me to believe he is doing any of this for the greater good of gun rights. He still has NOT said what his intentions are in all of his actions. He states he is a private person and wants to be left alone. Really? You can't defend that so don't try. He screams and cries “defamation!!”, yet he is the most defaming person on this board, especially towards those who risk their necks. Now he has forced (as he was told) information of him to be open record. Remarkably he then takes this information and posts it on a public forum... Makes perfect sense... Now, an ALLEGED incident has some weight to it. He doesn't confirm or deny the information. He even references that releasing expunged information is a misdemeanor on more than one occasion. What for and why, if there is no such expunged documents on his record? Seen this before? Yep... the post on tncivilcity he still won’t answer if he authored. He won’t answer questions, yet demands his own be answered (check out the article on the Tennessean he so kindly provided and tells a poster to answer his question prior to changing the subject). Feel free to stand by someone who has the mark of a liar all you want. However, when the truth comes out as the "dust settles", I will gladly accept your apology.


No, my airway is clear and I am breathing just fine. Thanks for the concern.

Radnor Lake Rambo

kwikrnu said:

The Tennessean picked it up. Their reporter called while I was out. I returned the call early in the day at about 2:00pm and she did not return my call and ran the story.

Link

Also the City Paper

Link

Know news

Link


I admit I enjoy reading the comments of the mostly ignorant.

Click to expand...

hahahahahahah