Oh, why not...Yes, slow, I guess I am. I log into OCDO everyday. I browse multiple sub-forums several times a day. They are a great source for information and opinions.
Yet your active involvement stopped after Leonard was banned.
Just as I claimed it would.
Interesting.
I truly am for and advocate responsible open carry when and where appropriate.
Define "responsible".
For concealed carry snobs, it is not having your pistol on the shiny side of fabric.
For "gun collectors", it is not walking around in public with an AK derivative.
Define: "When Appropriate"
Define: "Where Appropriate"
Your sentence literally is the overwhelming problem with the movement as a cohesive whole. If we are to move forward with true Constitutional Carry, then a united front is necessary.
If we are to reach a united front, then the recognition, on a personal level, that what we deem to be "reasonable" applies only to ourselves, and our own self regulation, and should not be used to impose our will upon others.
What is good and right for me may not be appropriate for others who open carry.
That's fantastic, so long as you do not use your own personal limitations as a standard to impose upon the rights of others.
A key point people cannot seem to grasp that is factually, and inherently unavoidable and true.
There are many personal decisions involved with carrying a firearm for self defense.
There are indeed. So long as your choice of sidearm, holster, and attire, is not set as the governing standard for your other countrymen.
I've made mine, but understand others will make different ones.
Of course.
Okay, don't know what that means.Well, that forum is a members only forum, so I can't discuss what is posted there.
You don't have to. Software and DB's are such fickle things.
I will say you and Leonard have been topics.
The comments from a particular member who posted here, in which he addresses the sexuality of both Leonard and myself, is quite amusing.
Although I, nor Leonard, are homosexual, I think that particular officer may be homophobic.
You seem to be proud of my comment about you.
Glaringly proud.
It proved my initial comments about you, and it proves the duplicity of your character.
You wear the "I'm a nice guy" hat here.
You wear a different one elsewhere.
I have been open, completely straightforward, and honest. You just don't like what I have to say.
RussP.
-It took you 4 flipping pages of argument to concede that you never even watched the video of Leonard interacting in Bell Meade.
-It took you another 3 pages to concede that the officer pointed the firearm at oncoming traffic and the Bell Meade Country Club, for a full minute.
-THEN you tried to absolve his dangerous activity, before finally, after pages upon pages, you eventually conceded what he did was wrong. (But you still blamed Leonard for it. LOL)
All of this
after you chide Leonard for the incident, and comment on "how it was handled".
I guess for you, "honesty" is in the eye of the beholder?
Oh, there is no disagreement that Leonard's behavior gave rise to several situations which have, or will have, an impact on firearm laws in Tennessee and, probably, other States.
So what "
has" been affected by Leonards "behavior"?
The only thing that has actually happened so far, is the removal of a Jim Crow law that was not preempted.
As far as your questions, I do not remember saying I do not support the lawful carry of an AK derivative pistol. Doing so is protected by the Constitution and Tennessee law in Leonard's case.
In earlier arguments, you had specifically mentioned the AK pistol as "excessive".
Carry of firearms in parks - that is allowed by Tennessee law. The allowed part is what needs changing.
Holy Christ on a rubber crutch.
We agree on something.
I certainly do support redress of grievances for a suspended permit. The appeal process is part of the law. Leonard is the one who waved his right to appeal. I believe that was unwise.
Leonards permit was taken without lawful purpose.
Not a single agency could substantiate why it was revoked other than to state he presented a "Material risk of likely harm to the public".
Why should he have to appeal?
Where is his due process,
before revocation of a right?
Could Leonard not have substantial proof now that the DHS may infer powers unto itself that are outside of those they are authorized to have?
With what authority, and under what specific law did they remove his permit?
Oh wait, let's not ask these questions, because it is Leonard we are talking about, and because you don't like that he [insert reason here], regardless it's legality and its Constitutionality, we should slap him around and pray his rights get violated.
Why not wait for the outcome, slow?
Please note that I stated, "...were he...".
Please note I did not create a thread entitled "Leonard won his case!", when it hasn't even gone to court yet.
That would be almost as absurd as creating a thread titled, "
kwikrnu lost his lawsuit against State of TN Unconstitutionality of HCP law", when the case never went to court, and therefore could not have been "lost" in the first place.
slow, what are you talking about? The only attorney Leonard has posted about is for the Radnor Lake case. He predicts there his attorney, former military and former LEO, is going to wipe the floor with the Rangers and officers from Metro PD. I look forward to reading about that.
I fail to see why basic common sense cannot be applied here, lol.
RussP, he has the consult of an attorney for another case. Might he have said Attorneys ear regardless his
pro serepresentation?
Just sayin...
I believe someone with a Constitutional law background, real, successful courtroom experience would be an advantage in his challenge case.
I believe if people could be less shortsighted about their own personal insecurities, and wade beyond the waters of their selfishness, they would be offering to set up a fund for Leonard, that others may pitch into, to help him procure whomever he wants.
I wonder if the distaste of being shat upon by those who profess to call him brother, has finally soiled his appetite for supporting all of us.
I mean, again, just sayin...
Just last night he said he would not get an attorney for the challenge and will represent represent himself because he can.
Well, he did get the denial overturned on his own.
He did predict specifically, that the Bell Meade city council would have to bury the entire law, and he was right. It happened exactly, and precisely as he predicted.
Might he be more capable than you believe?
Did you talk to him this morning?
Nope.
Could be...
Is.
Chest thumping and giddiness? Let me go back to that post... Okay, I'm back...I just can't find all that in those words.
The words are in the title alone. You couldn't wait to post how he "lost a case", when said "case" was never there to "lose".
Maybe I'll let you go on this one because you "worded it wrong". :lol:
Now, let's get back on topic.
This entire conversation has been specifically on topic.
kingfish said:
He will more than likely lose because he canceled his appeal (that is mandated by statute) for the suspension of his permit (no one knows why).
The appeal is mandated by statute when the permit is revoked lawfully.
No one shall stand trial without due process.
