TexasCHLforum.com

Park ranger wins Nashville federal gun case
http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011 ... l-gun-case" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ranger Steve Ward did not violate Second Amendment rights when he seized a loaded AK-47 pistol from Leonard S. Embody of Brentwood at Radnor Lake State Park in Nashville.

Embody had claimed he had a permit for the weapon, which was a legal handgun.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/2011 ... z1SwlGOs5I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"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," the judge wrote.

What?

Good for the park ranger.

With guys like this fighting for our cause.....oh never mind

...I've been following the jerk for over a year...and he is a troublemaker...BUT how does "carrying a loaded weapon in a public park" in and of itself constitute a threat to public safety??? If open carry of a legal weapon is legal there, and he was not threatening anyone...??? I can see the officer taking it until he determined no laws were being broken...after that...why could he seize it??? Did he seize and keep it, or just temporarily disarm the guy? Common sense says the guy was wrong...but does the LAW say he was wrong? I'm reminded of the old poem about "They came for the Jews, and I said nothing...because I wasn't a Jew..."

...the case needs to be decided on the written law...not personalities...

speedsix wrote:...Did he seize and keep it, or just temporarily disarm the guy?...

Did not the judge answer your question in the article quoted, speedsix?

"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," the judge wrote.

Maybe this guy is not a nut. Maybe he is another Heller or McDonald. Stay tuned.

Elmo

For all those who are vilifying this guy, imagine if this was in Texas, and someone decided that a hunter walking around with his rifle across his back was a threat and disarmed him. Also, the state revoking his permit when he didn't commit any kind of crime is blatantly wrong. Then again, I don't know Tennessee law.

temp seized maybe like in TX disarming a CHLer. However, one has to expect to get back his piece promptly.

Beiruty wrote:temp seized maybe like in TX disarming a CHLer. However, one has to expect to get back his piece promptly.

Not exactly. You can be temporarily disarmed, but that's only after having committed some sort of crime and the officer asking for identification, and thus finding out that you're armed in the first place. If you haven't done anything, and you're concealed, there is zero chance of being disarmed. Unless some officer is just asking EVERYONE for ID, which would be harassment. Also if you want to know more about the particulars of this case and they are very interesting, here is the memorandum of the court. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 4/43/0.pdf

After they determined that the weapon was legal, it was given back to Embody. I can't say I blame the park rangers for not being able to recognize a draco. I do think that they could have been a bit more courteous with him. If he hadn't threatened anyone and was complying with questioning up until the point where they decided to disarm him, they could have simply asked for the weapon. Disarming him at gun point I can potentially understand, but making him get down in the dirt was a bit extreme.

This man broke no laws, and fully cooperated with LEO. How any of you can say he hurts our cause is beyond me. I do think the civil suit was unneeded though.

KingofChaos wrote:

Beiruty wrote:temp seized maybe like in TX disarming a CHLer. However, one has to expect to get back his piece promptly.

Not exactly. You can be temporarily disarmed, but that's only after having committed some sort of crime and the officer asking for identification, and thus finding out that you're armed in the first place. If you haven't done anything, and you're concealed, there is zero chance of being disarmed. Unless some officer is just asking EVERYONE for ID, which would be harassment. Also if you want to know more about the particulars of this case and they are very interesting, here is the memorandum of the court. http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 4/43/0.pdf

After they determined that the weapon was legal, it was given back to Embody. I can't say I blame the park rangers for not being able to recognize a draco. I do think that they could have been a bit more courteous with him. If he hadn't threatened anyone and was complying with questioning up until the point where they decided to disarm him, they could have simply asked for the weapon. Disarming him at gun point I can potentially understand, but making him get down in the dirt was a bit extreme.

This man broke no laws, and fully cooperated with LEO. How any of you can say he hurts our cause is beyond me. I do think the civil suit was unneeded though.

The stop was reasonable, looks like the guy was disarmed, never arrested or charged with any violation. He got back this pistol Ak47 promptly.

Most likely, as in OC states, or even in TX, if you are carrying long rifle. If some panicked and called in man with assault rifle, similar disarming may happen.

@Beiruty I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not

KingofChaos wrote:@Beiruty I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not

Sorry,I may have not read all of your post. I agree with you.

The real question in all of this is, why did he paint the tip of it orange?

KingofChaos wrote:@Beiruty I can't tell if you're agreeing with me or not

"...Not exactly. You can be temporarily disarmed, but that's only after having committed some sort of crime and the officer asking for identification, and thus finding out that you're armed in the first place. If you haven't done anything, and you're concealed, there is zero chance of being disarmed..."


...this part of your post is totally in error...an officer can ask you for identification for a great many reasons...and at that point in Tx, you are required to show him your CHL...if, because of any number of reasons, he feels he needs to temporarily disarm you...he has the right to do so...you need not have done ANYTHING wrong...now your statement may or may not be true in Tn, but it's not at all true in Texas...read and learn Govt Code 411.207...it's clearly spelled out there...

In TX, the LEO has the right to ask for ID, CHL and potential disarm in CHLer in any "lawful contact". My understanding, if the LEO while conducting his work, not randomly stopping and asking for ID anyone he sees on the street.

§ 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A peace
officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's
official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer
reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the
license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer
shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging
the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the
license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or
another individual and if the license holder has not violated any
provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that
results in the arrest of the license holder.

Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 10.01(a), eff. Sept. 1,
1997.