Leonard Embody. Again.

JimDandy said:
Frank Ettin said:
Except it seems that, based on this story, Embody could not show any evidence that he legally possessed the suppressor:
Click to expand...

The question was more about the generics of Tom's opinion that it's a defense for court to have a registration. That such an opinion opens up abuse and harassment from police forces that do not approve of a legal ownership.
Click to expand...
It won't, and can't, be any other way.

Possession of a suppressor (or other NFA item) is prima facie (on its face) illegal. It becomes legal only under certain circumstances (e. g., the possessor has the necessary NFA paperwork). The evidence of whether the circumstances exist making possession legal is within the control of the possessor. Therefore, the possession can not be established as legal unless/until the possessor produces the evidence of legality (e. g., identifies himself and produces his NFA paperwork).
 
Then what is the recourse if the local Police Chief has such strong political opinions on the subject that he will harass someone enough to arrest them the second they pick up their confiscated NFA property from the property clerk creating an endless loop of arrest and trial until the person finally abandons the property?
 
JimDandy said:
Then what is the recourse if the local Police Chief has such strong political opinions on the subject that he will harass someone enough to arrest them the second they pick up their confiscated NFA property from the property clerk creating an endless loop of arrest and trial until the person finally abandons the property?
Click to expand...
the same set of political and legal remedies available to attempt to redress any sort of abuse of governmental power.
 
It's a "vacuum formed" kydex case for a rifle. He's asking $500 for one.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something. Kydex is a rigid material. How does one of these cases make it easier to remove the firearm than, say, a soft case, which takes about a half second to open?
 
the same set of political and legal remedies available to attempt to redress any sort of abuse of governmental power.
Click to expand...

And you don't think that should include being able to provide the permit prior to arrest, making any arrest completely lacking in just cause and due process? Your logic can be extended to any number of things. Concealed carry. Driving.
 
JimDandy said:
And you don't think that should include being able to provide the permit prior to arrest,...
Click to expand...
The point is that Embody didn't, nor would he identify himself or cooperate in any way. Had he produced the proper paperwork and properly identified himself, he most likely would not have been arrested.

Apparently you took this:
Tom Servo said:
...It is an affirmative defense if the owner can prove the items are legally registered, but that's a defense made in court,...
Click to expand...
entirely out of context.
 
Your logic can be extended to any number of things
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. The problem is the way in which the law is worded.

Basically X is illegal unless the defendant can prove Y. That sets the burden of proof on the defendant. Some states' carry laws are worded like that. In those states, concealed carry is a crime, but it shall be a defense if the person has a permit exempting them from prosecution.

That's different than a law that just reads "concealed carry is permitted if the citizen has a permit issued by the state."
 
csmsss
Quote:
It's a "vacuum formed" kydex case for a rifle. He's asking $500 for one.
Click to expand...
I must be missing something. Kydex is a rigid material. How does one of these cases make it easier to remove the firearm than, say, a soft case, which takes about a half second to open?
Click to expand...
Embody is fishing for lawsuits to file.
He didn't build that case to carry the gun, he built it that way to attract attention from the public and law enforcement.

He built that homemade kydex case so that it would look exactly like an AR from a distance. While it meets the Tennessee requirement that the firearm must be in a locked case, it was his intention to attract as much attention as possible.

IMHO he's a nut and does gun owners and the Second Amendment no favors.
 
FrankEttin said:
Apparently you took this:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...It is an affirmative defense if the owner can prove the items are legally registered, but that's a defense made in court,...
Click to expand...
entirely out of context.
Click to expand...

I did at that. Because that was the only thing that interested me. There wasn't much to say about some idiot doing dumb things as the general opinion of the board has borne out, but the opinion on the law itself was what I was interested in.
 
This is the person that went into the Costco on Charlotte Pike openly carrying a .44 magnum handgun. He was confronted and escorted out of the building.

Prior to that, Costco had a 'no firearms' policy enforced by a small sign on the front. After emboy showed his rear end, the sign is very large and management is not willing to look the other way if someone's CC gets printed under a jacket.

This fool is dangerous and should not be allowed to own a firearm or computer. He has been kicked off all the local gun boards after making threats and anti-Semitic slurs.

The Tennessean will not even publish his letters any longer and he has been kicked off their opinion commentary forums. That's about as low as one can get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I thought a person was required to keep the NFA paperwork on their persons when with the item in public. It isn't clear to me whether he provided the paper work and it's validity is in question or he did not have the paperwork. If it is the latter I can't feel bad for him. If they denied the validity then he should bring suit. Even if the case is thrown out by a judge who reviews the paperwork, he will be out some time and probably attorney costs.

Searching a locked case b/c of the shape? Really. You guys think that should be legal? What if it were just a normal plano rifle case?

Pro-gun groups won't really win until gun owners accept the place of political protest and civil disobedience in the US legal system.
 
Last edited:
johnwilliamson062 said:
...It isn't clear to me whether he provided the paper work and it's validity is in question or he did not have the paperwork. If it is the latter I can't feel bad for him....
Click to expand...
According to the article he refused to supply the paperwork.

johnwilliamson062 said:
...Pro-gun groups won't really win until gun owners accept the place of political protest and civil disobedience in the US legal system.
Click to expand...
Maybe or maybe not, but if we are going use political protest and/or civil disobedience, we need to understand those mechanism and act in ways well calculated to actually produce positive results. Poorly conceived and/or executed acts of protest or civil disobedience won't get us anywhere and will actually jeopardize our interests.
 
This fool is dangerous
Click to expand...

Methinks you are spot on. Embody hates the police. IMO: There is a good chance he will have a violent confrontation with the police. Would like to see a workup on this guy by profilers/shrinks.

Embody could care less about your gun rights; it's all about Embody. He has repeatedly said as much on several gun boards.
 
Embody acted as his own lawyer during the preliminary hearing, which lasted more than an hour.
Click to expand...
Well, there's his first problem.

However, the judge was mistaken in not allowing Embody to produce proof that the silencer was legally owned. They appear to be doing things a little...differently in Tennessee.
 
He's foolish, and he's dangerous. I think there's a pretty good chance that he'll wind up in a shootout with the police.

With that said, I'm not sure that the judge was mistaken in denying him the opportunity to present his proof of registration of the silencer. This is merely my shooting-from-the-hip reaction, but I seem to recall that ownership of an unregistered silencer is an offense and that registration is an affirmative defense. If this latest hearing was merely to determine if there was enough evidence to send it to a grand jury, then it's not really the time or place to allow Embody to present his whole case, . . . particularly if he's trying to present evidence that was not presented to the officers on scene.
 
If I understand correctly, this hearing was to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to send the case to the grand jury. I am hearing that evidence can not be introduced in the preliminary hearing until after the case proceeds to the grand jury.
 
I don't do federal criminal work, and in Arkansas, we use a "felony information" rather than grand jury indictments, so grand juries are a little unfamiliar to me. With that said, they're not full-blown trials (as I understand it). It's just a question of "is there enough information to move forward with charging the defendan with crimes X, Y and Z?"
 
It looks like the hearing was on Embody's motion to suppress the evidence as illegally seized. In that case Embody's offer of evidence that he legally possessed the suppressor would have been out of order.

The issue for the court was solely whether the police officers, based on what they saw and other information they actually had at the time, were justifed in their actions. Since Embody refused to provide at the time evidence that he legally possessed the suppressor, it was not information the police officers had at the time and therefore would have no bearing on the issue brought to the court on the motion to suppress.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top