SAF/Cal Guns Seek to Intervene in OC Case, to derail it

[Kirk Freeman]

SAF and Cal Guns seek to derail open carry lawsuit in Tennessee.

Bad facts make bad law.

SayUncle » Embody v. Ward

 

[DRob]

OC case?

This isn't an OC case, or shouldn't be. It's a dangerous retard on the loose with a gun. Standby for copy-cats.

 

[88GT]

I'm not sure what it is, but I thought painting a real firearm muzzle orange was a violation of law? Is it not? Maybe only in some states?

 

[eldirector]

I'm not sure what it is, but I thought painting a real firearm muzzle orange was a violation of law? Is it not? Maybe only in some states?

The Feds require certain toys to have "orange" tips.
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

No mention of real firearms.

I don't think Indiana has any rules on this at all.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What I find astounding is that no one has shown up to decry SAF and Alan Gura yet. I mean, can you IMAGINE the posturing and "outrage" if the NRA filed this interference with your right to open carry?

 

[88GT]

The Feds require certain toys to have "orange" tips.
Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:

No mention of real firearms.

I don't think Indiana has any rules on this at all.

Well that's bass ackward, given the premise of orange tips for toys and all.

 

[KG1]

Well that's bass ackward, given the premise of orange tips for toys and all.

Well that's bass ackward, given the premise of orange tips for toys and all.

We get your point.

 

[88GT]

We get your point.

Must've been the iPad.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Still waiting for the cries of outrage against the SAF for interfering with a Constitutional right.

I'll wait here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk_-XWpUFmU

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's another review on how the NRA is attempting to take away your right to open carry. It's just like the NRA to support more gun control!

Oh . . . wait a minute . . . this is the Second Amendment Foundation, never mind.

To the Terror of the People | Shall Not Be Questioned

 

[T.Lex]

Still waiting for the cries of outrage against the SAF for interfering with a Constitutional right.

I'll wait here.

Ok, I'll join you.

That amici comes very near to saying OC is bad. So close, that "appeasement" comes to mind.

It should seem equally obvious that not every portion of every park would be an appropriate place to possess a handgun, let alone an AK-47, for self-defense.

I never thought Alan Gura would channel Neville Chamberlain....

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, it is a fine line Gura has to walk thanks to this less than optimal litigation.

However, I do find great joy pointing this out after having to read the Angel and Red State inspired anti-NRA hate threads.

Just imagine if other gun groups were treated as the NRA.

SAF=>Strictly Against Firearms.

 

[T.Lex]

What fine line?

He actually had the right (and correct) theme in the brief, but he may as well have dropped it into a footnote, from the very same passage that I quoted earlier.

Nonetheless, barring extenuating circumstances, park-goers who object to law-abiding, responsible Americans carrying handguns for self-defense in an ordinary manner should accommodate themselves to the traditional right to bear arms enjoyed by their neighbors. The Constitution sets out certain rights for protection precisely because their exercise may prove offensive to some who would suppress them.

If the gun was legal, and by all appearances it was, it doesn't matter what color or what accessories it had on it, it was legal. Doesn't matter how people "feel" about it.

To borrow one of your own rhetorical flourishes it doesn't matter how outraged the patrons of that park may have been that a black man was present, he had every right to be there.

THAT should have been part of the amicus brief.

BTW, anybody know what ethnicity Embody is?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

What fine line?

He actually had the right (and correct) theme in the brief, but he may as well have dropped it into a footnote, from the very same passage that I quoted earlier.

If the gun was legal, and by all appearances it was, it doesn't matter what color or what accessories it had on it, it was legal. Doesn't matter how people "feel" about it.

To borrow one of your own rhetorical flourishes it doesn't matter how outraged the patrons of that park may have been that a black man was present, he had every right to be there.

THAT should have been part of the amicus brief.

BTW, anybody know what ethnicity Embody is?

I would guess redneck, but that's just me.

The real question should be was his intent to exercise his rights or to commit a crime (i.e. intmidation). The fact that you are scared of guns doesn't negate another's right to bear them anymoreso than if you removed guns and inserted dogs or fire or clowns.

 

[88GT]

I would guess redneck, but that's just me.

The real question should be was his intent to exercise his rights or to commit a crime (i.e. intmidation). The fact that you are scared of guns doesn't negate another's right to bear them anymoreso than if you removed guns and inserted dogs or fire or clowns.

Based on the info I've read, it seems his intention was to provoke a police response resulting in "unlawful" arrest to force OC rights issues to a head.

 

[T.Lex]

I wonder where he would've gotten an idea like that?

I mean, that NEVER works!

^---- purpliness implied

 

[kwiknu]

Anyone who thinks that the SAF has been for the open/unlicensed carry of firearms they should now realize that is not the case.

Simpson v State Tenn 1833 answered the question about affray and english law. I wonder why Gura used English law when we have case law here in the USA?

"At the May term of the circuit court for the county of White, anindictment was found against the plaintiff in error, in substance as follows:The grand jurors for the state, etc., upon their oath, present that WilliamSimpson, laborer, on the first dayof April, in the year of our Lord, 1833, with force and arms, at the county ofWhite, aforesaid, being arrayed in a warlike manner, then and there in acertain public street and highway situate, unlawfully, and to the great terrorand disturbance of divers good citizens of the said state, then and therebeing, an affray did make, in contempt of the laws of the land, to the evilexample of all others in the like case offending, and against the peace anddignity of the state."
"
But suppose it to beassumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with themthis English statute, or portion of the common law, our constitutionhas completely abrogated it; it says, "that the freemen of this state havea right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Article 11,sec. 26. It is submitted, that this clause of our constitution fully meets andopposes the passage or clause in Hawkins, of "a man's arming himself withdangerous and unusual weapons," as being an independent ground of affray,so as of itself to constitute the offence cognizable by indictment. By thisclause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all thefree citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without anyqualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that itwould be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgment aconstitutional privilege which is so declared; neither, after so solemn aninstrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to imputeto the acts thus licensed such a necessarily consequent operation as terror tothe people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it theabsence of such a view.
On the authorities, therefore, I am of opinion thatthis record of an indictment against the plaintiff in error does not containthe charge of an affray, or any other specific offence cognizable at common lawby indictment, and that there is nothing either in our Constitution or acts ofAssembly in repugnancy to this conclusion, but, on the contrary, stronglycorroborative thereof."



Yes, I open carry. I'm not ashamed and do not hide my firearm under my clothes. With all of the death threats and threats by cops I went out and bought a ballistic vest to protect myself when I carry. I own firearms, have several handgun permits/licenses, a FFL, and own NFA weapons.

Here is the audio of the ranger who first confronted me in the state park, which is 5 minutes from my house. It wasn't until 20-30 minutes later that a shotgun was pointed at my face and I detained almost 3 hours. The rangers have said in depositions they were not threatened. They have said they do not agree with the state law that allows carry of firearms in state parks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyR-cxfFAcs

 

[Lex Concord]

Welcome aboard, Mr. Embody

 

[kwiknu]

Thanks.


Embody V Ward 6thCircuit CA 11-5963

Appeal brief

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMTg1MTY4Y2EtZjU0YS00NGFkLWIyOTUtYjI4MmY0ZTVmMWRj

Ward reply

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcM2JmZmI4YjItYzljNS00YzczLThmYzUtOGMyNmM2ZjkwOTE4

Embody reply

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcMTg0NjcyMWItZmJkNC00OTU5LThmMjItZjE2MWY4MWFiYzJl

SAF /GURA / Calguns amicus curiae

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcODdkNmEzZWMtYTFkYi00ZWZmLTg3ZDYtZTY4OWQ0Yzk2NzZm

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Anyone who thinks that the SAF has been for the open/unlicensed carry of firearms they should now realize that is not the case.

Strictly Against Firearms.

And here I thought it was only the NRA that promoted gun control.