Yet Another Wrong Headed Lawsuit

Ok, so the court is claiming that a park is a "sensitive place" because there are large numbers of people and children there. Following the guidance of the ninth (go figure).

That could apply to lots of places. However they are only addressing the temporary seizure and not a complete forfeiture. But the door is squeaking open.
 
Embody has joined, posted and been banned by many forums. I could direct you to the relevant threads at CalGuns.net, but we have had our own thread with this individual, here at TFL. To get an idea, see this thread and take particular note of the OP.
Click to expand...
Oh.

HIM!
 
This kook lives very close to me and has been the bane of legitimate gun rights efforts for a while now. He is a kook but he is not unintelligent and that makes him more dangerous. The park he carried that AK in is in the middle of a suburban area and really picked a good place to cause a stir. When the city I lived in voted to not allow guns in city parks (opting out of a TN statute) his antics did not help our cause at all.
 
MTT TL, if you were to look at the link to the docket, that I supplied in my OP, then if you were to scroll down to document #43 and click on the number, that would give you the PDF of the Judge's decision.

Just like the deposition is document #16.1.

The point being that every time I link to an Internet Archive docket, all the relevant documents are down-loadable by the general public.

Over at MDShooters, Krucam copied my OP and started a similar thread there: http://mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=71000 (the Thread was deleted last night and Kwikrnu was banned)

I find it interesting that Mr. Embody registered there just to hop on the thread. Of great interest, is this post, which was made after he denigrated everything that the SAF and Alan Gura are doing:

Kwikrnu said:
What is funny is that calguns has now contradicted themselves in Haynie. Anti gun groups, other than the SAF, will use SAF's brief too. I've sent copies to the Brady org, LCAV, ceasefire, and the coalition to stop gun violence. I also sent it to the defendant in Haynie.
Click to expand...

It's all about him.
 
Last edited:
Oh.

HIM!
Click to expand...

Now that I have re-read that I recall the poster. He seems to have some kind of mental defect; he certainly does not care about the chaos he is causing for millions of people that have more common sense and better manners than he does. I guess he is hoping for a pay day from the court system by suing some working LEO and a cash flush city.

I wonder what his reaction will be when he does not get it? Will he fly into a murderous rage as people are known to do occasionally when they lose judgments in court? I hope not. People like that who become fixated on stuff can be quite dangerous when they find out they are not getting what they wanted.
 
I wonder what his reaction will be when he does not get it? Will he fly into a murderous rage as people are known to do occasionally when they lose judgments in court? I hope not. People like that who become fixated on stuff can be quite dangerous when they find out they are not getting what they wanted.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why I agree with detaining him in the first place. It isn't normal behavior to do what he has been. How many times has a case come up where someone's actions have been bizarre, not illegal, and then when something tragic happens, it is said that something should have been done to prevent it? He has a pattern and is on record saying he wants to provoke a response from the police. He is in possession of firearms. Legally. Bad combination. Responsible gun owners have and should continue to distance themselves from him and his opinions. Whether I agree with his right to carry, the manner in which he chooses to do it, precludes me from supporting his actions.
 
Al Norris said:
It's all about him.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. He has no interest in the harm that he can do to others.
http://forum.pafoa.org/1415181-post-159.html
kwikrnu said:
I don't care about your rights and your name isn't attached to my suit. I'm not a pro-gun group and never promised to defend your right to carry in court. When your right to carry in Tennessee is infringed feel free to file your suit.
Click to expand...

I believe in the principal of standing up for your rights when wronged, but his method is purely self centered.

Does this also mean if our rights are infringed due to his actions, we can sue him? :rolleyes:
 
With all the heightened sense of fear/awareness in the public at large, due to school shootings, incidences like the Gifford's mass shooting and terrorists in general; The whole idea that one could walk around in a public place, with an AK-47 pistol strapped to your chest, not alarm people and be scrutinized by the police seems even more ridiculous.

kadar said:
Does this also mean if our rights are infringed due to his actions, we can sue him? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think the best that we can hope for, is that the judiciary and perhaps the various legislatures, don't penalize all of us for the acts of an individual. Although there are plenty of past instances of exactly that happening.
 
As Al mentioned, I borrowed his well-written summary leading up to the SAF & Gura Amicus to CA6 to post on mdshooters.com.

No more than an hour after posting, Mr Embody (kwikrnu) created an account on mdshooters and began is indignent act. Unbelievable is all I can say after the experience.

I woke up this morning to find the thread "nuked" and Mr Embody's account nuked as well.

The yardstick for his overstaying his welcome is measured in minutes apparently...
 
I noticed last night that the MDShooters thread got nuked. Can't say I'm surprised, but I'm a little sorry the thread's gone. Embody got banned pretty quickly, and that was no surprise.

The reality is that even with the good start we have with Heller and McDonald the courts will be sustaining as constitutional some gun control laws. Gun control will not completely go away, and it is fatuous to believe that there is any real possibility that it will.

Our challenge is that how much or how little gun control we are saddled with will depend. It will depend in part on how well we can win the hearts and minds of the fence sitters. It will depend on how well we can acquire and maintain political and economic power and how adroitly we wield it. It will depend on how skillfully we handle post Heller litigation.

The process of working out in the courts the permissible scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights described by the Second Amendment is just getting started. The challenge for gun rights advocates is, of course, to minimize the scope and extent of permissible regulation. Ill conceived and ill advised litigation, like the Leonard Embody saga, isn't helping.
 
My concern is with Mr Embody's actions, both those in the past, and the post he has made about his ideas for the future, is when is he going to stop? Is he going to keep going until something negative happens to the 2nd ammendment rights because of his actions, or til he winds up behind bars or worse?

His post from this and other forums leads me to believe that until he is stopped, he willing keep doing more and more, trying to get attention for hisself. His actions have the potential to make everyone interested in firearms as a hobby and sport look very bad.
 
His post from this and other forums leads me to believe that until he is stopped, he willing keep doing more and more, trying to get attention for hisself. His actions have the potential to make everyone interested in firearms as a hobby and sport look very bad.
Click to expand...

He could if he has followers of standing in the community. If only nut jobs are following him around than he will find it for anyone to take him seriously. The legal damage is much more worrying than an image problem. Most of the antis already believe that is how gun people are already.
 
Frank had just alerted me, a few minutes ago, that the decision of the 6th Circuit on Embody's case is in. Predictably, he lost.

It is a brief 6 pages and luckily does no damage. The Opinion and an article on it.

Thanks, Frank.
 
What is the offense of committing an affray?
Click to expand...

You would have to look up TN law to get the correct answer. But the way I recall it used is that if there is a fight and the state wants to throw the book at everyone, they call it an affray - as opposed to charging one person with whatever they call unlawfully hitting another. Kind of the junior high principal approach to fights.

However, I think it can also mean acting in a way that makes reasonable people nearby feel threatened with unlawful violence. I think that is what is meant here. If so, there was probably testimony that he did more than just walk around with the weapon as is his right.
 
From the 6th Circuit decision:
For his troubles, Embody has done something rare: He has taken a position on the Second and Fourth Amendment that unites the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and the Second Amendment Foundation. Both organizations think that the park ranger permissibly disarmed and detained Leonard Embody that day, notwithstanding his rights to possess the gun. So do we.
Click to expand...

and

Embody’s AK-47, carried openly and fully loaded through a state park, gave Ward ample reason for suspicion that Embody possessed an illegal firearm. The barrel was a half-inch shy of the legal limit, and, when coupled with the thirty-round ammunition clip, it reasonably could look more like a rifle than a handgun. All of this explains the reactions of visitors to the park, who became frightened at the sight of a man in camouflage carrying an AK-47 across his chest, including one couple who reported a man with an “assault rifle.” R.22-3 at 6. Making matters worse (or at least more suspicious), Embody had painted the barrel tip of the gun orange, typically an indication that the gun is a toy. An officer could fairly suspect that Embody had used the paint to disguise an illegal weapon. On this record, an officer could reasonably suspect something was amiss.
Click to expand...

Having worked hard to appear suspicious in an armed-and-loaded visit to the park, Embody cannot cry foul after park rangers, to say nothing of passers-by, took the bait.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Woody55 said:
...I think that is what is meant here. If so, there was probably testimony that he did more than just walk around with the weapon as is his right....
Click to expand...
I think that you really need to read the opinion instead of making assumptions which, in this case, are wrong.
 
I believe I described affray correctly.

However, the word does not appear in the 6th Circuit opinion. There was probably no need because Embody was not charged with a crime. I think it would be difficult for a state to expressly grant a right for someone to do something and then charge them with a crime because the doing of it scared someone - even if the fear was reasonable.

However, the issue was whether the police officer violated Embody's 4th Amendment rights by conducting an unreasonable search and seizure and his 2nd Amendment rights by interfering with his armed walk in the park. The answer was no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top