Its amazing what people come up with.
-
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.
-
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.
Kwikrnu lawsuit against State of Tennessee Unconstitutionality of TCA 39-17-1307
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
- Status
Its amazing what people come up with.
Missed the point of that argument Slow.
Kwik advised me, he does not believe it is his duty, civilly, criminally, or morally, to ensure the safety of others when actively going after a confrontation with the police.
My advise to him would have been; during preparation, discuss his plans with a few attorneys, specifically a Tort and Criminal attorney, before he acted. He did not, and believes, for some reason, he is as capable as an attorney, even though he has never gone to law school, never sat for a bar, never met the ethics code, and never had experience (until losing his last case) in Court.
The point is, as a person who owns and carries, I take into consideration the actions of others, and attempt to ensure my own actions do not endanger innocent bystanders. Kwik believes differently.
And I can guarantee you this: Had the confrontation gone worse, Kwik would have found himself on the wrong side of both criminal and civil courts. Particularly if another hiker had been harmed. I am thankful this did not occur, in spite of his lack of planning and forethought.
"Ever talked to a police officer whilst open carrying?"
Yes. And planned accordingly, making sure to be polite, respectful, not aggressive, not planning on forcing the attention, not taking a recording device, so I can get the confrontation on tape, not painting the tip of my firearm orange, not looking into buying body armor, etc.
Typically going to a brand new location, with a firearm easily confused for an illegal carry, with the aforementioned orange tip, and going with a tape recorder, sounds like a plan for confronting. Doing this without having a, "If I run into an overzealous and uninformed cop, I will do this specific plan to protect the innocent bystanders, as I will want their support, and them to be willing witnesses when I sue..." was poor.
The Officer asked about the firearm I had. Told him what it was (He was surprised to find it a 45 in that small of size, and I advised him to look at Kahr, as they are smaller.) I broached the subject of permit, asking if he needed to see mine, he laughed and said, no, as he knew I had one by me asking.
Oh, and what is my plan, if I get approached by some overzealous cop? Be polite, move to a position (as unthreateningly, as possible) where his shot wont hit someone behind me, warn the innocents of his action, and do as he asks, politely, as I believe lead consumption is bad for my health. After the threat is over, I would discuss his poor actions with his superior, and perhaps other venues, with the proper legal representation... if necessary.
But we are digressing and getting away from the topic. So, let us know what happens on the 7th of Jan, Kwik.
Kwik advised me, he does not believe it is his duty, civilly, criminally, or morally, to ensure the safety of others when actively going after a confrontation with the police.
My advise to him would have been; during preparation, discuss his plans with a few attorneys, specifically a Tort and Criminal attorney, before he acted. He did not, and believes, for some reason, he is as capable as an attorney, even though he has never gone to law school, never sat for a bar, never met the ethics code, and never had experience (until losing his last case) in Court.
The point is, as a person who owns and carries, I take into consideration the actions of others, and attempt to ensure my own actions do not endanger innocent bystanders. Kwik believes differently.
And I can guarantee you this: Had the confrontation gone worse, Kwik would have found himself on the wrong side of both criminal and civil courts. Particularly if another hiker had been harmed. I am thankful this did not occur, in spite of his lack of planning and forethought.
"Ever talked to a police officer whilst open carrying?"
Yes. And planned accordingly, making sure to be polite, respectful, not aggressive, not planning on forcing the attention, not taking a recording device, so I can get the confrontation on tape, not painting the tip of my firearm orange, not looking into buying body armor, etc.
Typically going to a brand new location, with a firearm easily confused for an illegal carry, with the aforementioned orange tip, and going with a tape recorder, sounds like a plan for confronting. Doing this without having a, "If I run into an overzealous and uninformed cop, I will do this specific plan to protect the innocent bystanders, as I will want their support, and them to be willing witnesses when I sue..." was poor.
The Officer asked about the firearm I had. Told him what it was (He was surprised to find it a 45 in that small of size, and I advised him to look at Kahr, as they are smaller.) I broached the subject of permit, asking if he needed to see mine, he laughed and said, no, as he knew I had one by me asking.
Oh, and what is my plan, if I get approached by some overzealous cop? Be polite, move to a position (as unthreateningly, as possible) where his shot wont hit someone behind me, warn the innocents of his action, and do as he asks, politely, as I believe lead consumption is bad for my health. After the threat is over, I would discuss his poor actions with his superior, and perhaps other venues, with the proper legal representation... if necessary.
But we are digressing and getting away from the topic. So, let us know what happens on the 7th of Jan, Kwik.
Last edited:
kwikrnu
Banned
I didn't confront the cops, they confronted me. You should get out more often. The mayor said in a press release they knew I would walk in their city with a gun. They knew the law. Yet, they still harrassed me and caused a scene. I simply obeyed the law and exercised my right to carry a firearm for the purpose of self-defense.
kwikrnu
Banned
I'm not the one pointing loaded guns, the cops are the ones putting people in danger.
Procarryguy
Banned
This struck me as an interesting read. You Kwik supporters feel he is fighting for his individual rights because it's for him, not a collective. But here it would seem he feels that if he can't have something then nobody should.
Here is a quote from Kwik:
"I'm not the one preventing me from purchasing a silencer. It is the anti-gun law enforcement, local atf that doesn't know the law, and a gun dealer who is unable to read. If I as a law abiding person am prohibited from obtaining a title II weapon it is my opinion that no one should be able to own one and I will work to that end."
You can follow the thread at Silencer Talk here:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=54311&start=2425
So I guess that it's all about individual rights when it benefits him but he feels if he can't have something due to him drawing negative attention to himself then everyone should all be punished as a collective huh?
He doesn't seem like he's pro-gun or pro-2nd A when he talks about doing what he can to prevent people from owning NFA items all because he's having a hard time getting one.
Here is a quote from Kwik:
"I'm not the one preventing me from purchasing a silencer. It is the anti-gun law enforcement, local atf that doesn't know the law, and a gun dealer who is unable to read. If I as a law abiding person am prohibited from obtaining a title II weapon it is my opinion that no one should be able to own one and I will work to that end."
You can follow the thread at Silencer Talk here:
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=54311&start=2425
So I guess that it's all about individual rights when it benefits him but he feels if he can't have something due to him drawing negative attention to himself then everyone should all be punished as a collective huh?
He doesn't seem like he's pro-gun or pro-2nd A when he talks about doing what he can to prevent people from owning NFA items all because he's having a hard time getting one.
Last edited:
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
Hrmm, it seems that you're ad-libing for him.
Your statement is inconsistent with what he has actually said.
Do you believe it is YOUR duty to be liable for the well being of others?
He has already stated it is not his intent to be confrontational with the police.
I would say it has been proven that it is incumbent upon law enforcement to know the laws in which they are meant to enforce, and that it has been their activities that have led to the contacting of Leonard.
His individual right to address the court as he sees fit is not ours to judge.
Were any of us truly concerned about firearm rights in Tennessee, perhaps there would be more backing of his activities to show the true stance of the populace.
If you wish to tell me that the true stance of the citizenry is all for:
-Limiting the type of firearms to be carried.
-Limiting the attire one may wear while carrying.
-Limiting carry in national or state parks.
-Limiting the color of firearms.
Then I'm going to have to dismiss you as based in the same irrational fears as the anti campaigns.
What specifically, about kwiks carry was dangerous? I want actual physical movements etc, that you deem to be dangerous.
One cannot be responsible for the interaction of law enforcement while conducting ones self in a totally lawful manner.
Here is the biggest, most flamboyant hole in your argument hvymtl -
You believe it is "proper" to only stand for those activities which may be considered "considerate" to others applicable rights. I can tell by your last comment that you do not truly get the concept of "individual rights".
Leonard doesn't have to make you or me happy. That is NOT what individual rights are about.
Your justification is based in the same fear of reprisal by government, that most cowards have learned that we "have no choice but to live with".
That if the carrying out of a legal and safe activity should lead to officers improperly engaging a suspect, creating an unsafe situation, that somehow the law abiding individual should be held responsible for "instigating" the confrontation.
Hey I have an idea,..maybe they could relate it to "officer safety"!!
Detail how another hiker would have been harmed.
I want to see this swiss-cheese of an argument.
You "planned accordingly". Therefore you assembled an idea of how to interact with a LEO while armed.
Sounds to me like you "planned a confrontation with LEO".
Leonard was polite to the ranger when stopped.
Leonard was not aggressive with the ranger when stopped.
Leonard complied with all orders on all counts.
Leonard carried the AK slung, and likely safety-on since its the worlds simplest safety to throw.
Leonard carried the Navy pistol in whole compliance with Bell Meade PD, and never once pointed it anywhere. (Hey did you see the video where the cop pointed it at the country club for over a minute?)
Leonard carried a tape recorder like most open carriers do. (In fact, why would you not if you are so worried about police response?)
You are very confused as to the reality of RAS or PC.
You are attempted to illicit compliance by injecting fear into the argument, using the basis of the "almighty government" as your arguments foundation.
I find your comment about the tape recorder very laughable. 99% of OC'ers carry one, and it is really the fools who do not.
He stated the intent for the orange tip, and guess what? Despite your egregious commentary, it WORKED AS HE PLANNED. The ranger, instead of potentially drawing down on him immediately, asked him in plain english, "Airsoft?".
This gave the opportunity for Leonard to reply politely with, "No sir its real".
Go listen to the audio.
Ok so here are the facts based on your commentary:
--Don't go to a new location, only go to ones you have visited and confirmed are "ok" with open carry. Furthermore, going to a "new location" is dangerous.
--Don't paint your firearm. It immediately means you have criminal intent.
--Carrying a voice recorder (Present in many cases involving OC'ers, and seen as a indispensable tool to 99% of OC'ers.) somehow adds to the criminal element.
Oh yes because its a group thing, right?
This has to be the most **** poor argument I have seen yet.
When St. John was ripped out of the movie theater I am quite sure there were people present who would have testified that he was "dangerous" merely because he had a firearm present.
HOWEVER, the base violation of his rights was assessed, irregardless irrational public fears, and it was deemed that his rights were indeed violated, and specified that the presence of a firearm does NOT constitute probable cause or RAS.
What you are also dismissing is that the police WERE absolutely overzealous in this case.
Leonard after being wholly compliant and peaceful with the ranger who stopped him, was immediately JUMPED for no good reason in the parking lot.
Listen to the audio like a rational human being and then tell me if you think Leonard was being dangerous.
If a painted tip on a firearm and a dude in a bit of camo in a park makes you scared and worried, I'd hate to see what kind of fantasy world you live in.
Maybe you could have vacated your bowels if you were one of the hikers that Leonard "cruelly and malevolently" said, "Mornin! It's a cold one!", in his most polite tone.
Shame they even are allowed to ask in Tennessee on the basis of its presence alone, for a permit.
I am happy he did not harangue you over the carry of a firearm on the basis of him finding it to be "small and cute".
This entire scenario is a misnomer of reality.
-Being "polite", will not matter to an overzealous cop.
-"Moving to a position where his shot won't hit me" is a fantasy thought when an "overzealous cop" confronts you. You will be told where and how to move. Doing so without direction might get you shot irregardless of your intent. Of course, based on your logic, this would make his shot YOUR fault, thereby making you liable for any and all damages to occur from his firearm, including manslaughter.
-Don't forget that you don't want a tape recorder while he abuses you. Wouldn't want tit to look like you are instigating him while obtaining proof of your rights and basic humanity being violated.
With no tape recorded material of the incident.
Let me know how that works out for you as the "thin blue line" paints a picture at the whim of their brush strokes about the incident. Without a tape recorder, you cannot inject ANY lack of credibility on their behalf.
Is it your opinion (**** ****** *** **** ****** ****** ****** **** *** ****** ** ****) that the obtaining of a silencer should be outlawed by law abiding citizens?
If "No", then why would you deny Leonards possession of such, when he has been shown to be "law abiding"?
If "Yes", then proceed to hang yourself with your shoelaces.
Last edited:
Procarryguy
Banned
Is it your opinion COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack that the obtaining of a silencer should be outlawed by law abiding citizens?
If "No", then why would you deny Leonards possession of such, when he has been shown to be "law abiding"?
If "Yes", then proceed to hang yourself with your shoelaces.
COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack
The point being, it's all about him and his "individual" rights which he claims to be defending but when it comes to him claiming not being able to get a suppressor then he promises to do his best to try and get those rights taken away from everyone else. Everyone else being the "collective".
COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack
The fact of the matter is, he could get a suppressor if he wanted. He could easily form a trust but he would rather create drama for himself and try and play the victim in the hopes of creating a lawsuit for personal gain. If people took the time to read the thread at Silencer talk they could tell what he is after and how he is no friend to the gun community.
COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack
jimd_21
Regular Member
I thought the point of OC was to;
1st; Protection
2nd; Education
As for the education part, i believe (as do many others) appearance is key to people taking you seriously and listening to the information you have to share. Being polite in words and professional in appearance gives the OC'er more credibility in the knowledge he shares. As for me, every time i OC, i wear nice jeans and a tucked button down polo shirt, nice hat and polished boots. My firearm carried in a serpa cqc on the hip and fits snug to the body. I try to avoid any attention positive or negative, just my personality.
As for the protection part......i believe anything between a 9 and a 45 is adequate. Stainless or blue.
1st; Protection
2nd; Education
As for the education part, i believe (as do many others) appearance is key to people taking you seriously and listening to the information you have to share. Being polite in words and professional in appearance gives the OC'er more credibility in the knowledge he shares. As for me, every time i OC, i wear nice jeans and a tucked button down polo shirt, nice hat and polished boots. My firearm carried in a serpa cqc on the hip and fits snug to the body. I try to avoid any attention positive or negative, just my personality.
As for the protection part......i believe anything between a 9 and a 45 is adequate. Stainless or blue.
Kingfish
Regular Member
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack
The point being, as he stipulates, he is law abiding. Therefore, if he, as a law abiding citizen cannot get one, then it would stand to reason that no law abiding citizen should have one.
Read all of the forums in which he has been posting.
Your argument is that "so long as he complies with all the societal requirements of his peers and law enforcement, irregardless of law, then he can have one.".
The point being, as he stipulates, he is law abiding. Therefore, if he, as a law abiding citizen cannot get one, then it would stand to reason that no law abiding citizen should have one.
Read all of the forums in which he has been posting.
Your argument is that "so long as he complies with all the societal requirements of his peers and law enforcement, irregardless of law, then he can have one.".
Last edited:
Gentlemen. Do not drop to the name calling level. Doing so will end the discussion, as the moderators have stated the instant any Kwik based threads drop to that level, they will be locked.
This said. Slow, I was summarizing from a different series of threads.
In addition, I may know a little more than I am letting on about Tort Law, and Legal Responsibility according to both Criminal and Civil Law... Point is, Kwik was quick to point the finger at others for the responsibility, even though it was his actions which were the primary cause of the events. Shows a limited view of what he could be held accountable for in both civil and criminal courts... perhaps to his future detriment.
Further, his seeming lack of planning in preparing for possible confrontations, lack of taking into consideration his legal liability if others were harmed, and failure to ensure the safety of others show he, for some reason, does not believe witnesses would be any legal aid to his cause...
As for the Cops, I have had zero issues, so far, and due to other aspects, the thin blue line concept can be easily countered... Again, I have not actively gone after a confrontation, as Kwik did, even though he now seems to deny he was intending one. Even though his actions speak towards a different intent.
As for individual rights vs collective. The Bill of Rights were added to protect the rights of the individual. However, there is an additional level to this. Kwik's actions may limit MY rights, and YOUR rights, too. This is a legitimate concern.
I hope I am never around Kwik or you, Slow, if you believe you have to use your firearm, as an innocent bystander, I could find myself in the line of fire...
But, hey, the arguing between us Slow, is of no use, you are set in your view, as I am set in mine.
This said. Slow, I was summarizing from a different series of threads.
In addition, I may know a little more than I am letting on about Tort Law, and Legal Responsibility according to both Criminal and Civil Law... Point is, Kwik was quick to point the finger at others for the responsibility, even though it was his actions which were the primary cause of the events. Shows a limited view of what he could be held accountable for in both civil and criminal courts... perhaps to his future detriment.
Further, his seeming lack of planning in preparing for possible confrontations, lack of taking into consideration his legal liability if others were harmed, and failure to ensure the safety of others show he, for some reason, does not believe witnesses would be any legal aid to his cause...
As for the Cops, I have had zero issues, so far, and due to other aspects, the thin blue line concept can be easily countered... Again, I have not actively gone after a confrontation, as Kwik did, even though he now seems to deny he was intending one. Even though his actions speak towards a different intent.
As for individual rights vs collective. The Bill of Rights were added to protect the rights of the individual. However, there is an additional level to this. Kwik's actions may limit MY rights, and YOUR rights, too. This is a legitimate concern.
I hope I am never around Kwik or you, Slow, if you believe you have to use your firearm, as an innocent bystander, I could find myself in the line of fire...
But, hey, the arguing between us Slow, is of no use, you are set in your view, as I am set in mine.
Last edited:
kwikrnu
Banned
There are downsides to a trust. They can cost several hundred dollars and a trust must be kept. Any qualified individual should be able to purchase a a silencer. I called the sheriff's office and they said if I wasn't a criminal the sheriff would sign the forms. In Tennessee it was a requirement by tca 39-17-1361. The sheriff did not execute the document to atf standards and the atf did not approve the application for that reason. I sued the sheriff because under the law he was required to execute the document, but the judge said he could express his opinion and strike sections of the application if he wanted. I formed a trust which in some ways is more simple in that no fingerprint cards, photos, or background check is required. Now, the FFL dealer says he won't do the transfer and will not refund the $750 I paid for the silencer.
My point is that I have never been charged with any crime. I have never been arrested. I have a federal firearms license. Yet, I've been trying for 10 months to get a silencer and haven't been able to accomplish the task. If I can't then no one should. I feel the same about the carry permit. If I can't have one then no one should. There are many "pro-gun" people who think handguns and title II weapons should be regulated. I am not one of them. However, if I am prohibited why should anyone else be allowed to keep them?
kwikrnu
Banned
The point of open carry is that it is an exercise of a fundamental right which existed before the founding of this country. The right to carry is not dependent upon how one dresses or looks. The right has always existed and shall not be infringed.
kwikrnu
Banned
Legally carrying a gun makes me accountable for the illegal actions of police? You must know a whole lot about the law.
wrightme
Regular Member
There you go, since YOU can't do it, everyone else should also be infringed upon? This does indicate that it is "all about you."
Because it does not matter one whit if YOU can or not. It isn't 'all about you.'kwikrnu said:
wrightme
Regular Member
Sounds like you need a lawyer.
So does your state also allow a seller to breach a contract? I do assume that the $750.00 was for a product, and not a service, correct?
kwikrnu
Banned
Sounds like you need a lawyer.
He can't. i'm just gathering evidence right now regarding his position. I'll be purchasing the exact same item from a different dealer soon and will then file suit.
kwikrnu
Banned
Yes, if I can't no one should. It is all about me, I'm paying the legal fees. I've never said I was representing the civil rights movement or open carry or anything else.
jimd_21
Regular Member
Yes it is an exercise of a right.....but one now has to act in 2010, not 1880.
The point now is that the general public has been conditioned that firearms are wrong. They have been bombarded with main stream media's constant focus on the negativity of guns by shootings/killings by people of less than honest law abiding citizens. Example's would be gang members...dressed in the usual baggy clothes, and other identifying clothes....Biker Gangs...dressed in dirty jeans, leather, beards and long hair. Both groups have been linked to drugs, prostitution, extortion, homicide, and public disorder. The list can go on but i think i made my point.
It takes time and education and persistence on a positive side to make the change we are trying to accomplish. Being confrontational, exuberant, and totally disrespectful only hinders our progress.
As was pointed out on another thread, profiling is alive and well, not only within every policing agency from the local level to the government level including private security, every citizen of this country has been exposed to profiling and unknowingly educated in the art.
One goal should be to undo the profile that exists when one carries a firearm for personal protection on a daily basis. (One designed and perceived as a self defense weapon...Not a exaggerated and non-typical exercise of a right.)
Last edited:
kwikrnu
Banned
I don't agree.
- Status