Embody v. Ward
Threats to gun rights: bad lawsuit edition
You’ll recall that Leonard decided to grab an AK pistol with the barrel painted orange so that it resembled a toy and go on a traipse through a park. Not a good move from a PR perspective and not one designed to win hearts and minds. He sued after being detained by the police. The SAF stepped in what looks to be an attempt to stop Embody’s history of helping make bad gun laws. They filed a brief that, and I’m no lawyer, seems to say that yes, you can carry a gun and yes, you can own an AK. But running around the park with a gun disguised as a toy trying to be intentionally provocative is not exactly something protected by the second amendment:
Plaintiff naturally, and quite unnecessarily, terrified other park visitors in a manner plainly inconsistent with the traditional right to bear arms for self-defense. Unfortunately, he compounded the problem by filing a meritless lawsuit that generated an opinion jeopardizing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, responsible people.
The SAF brief is here.
December 15th, 2011 at 1:01 pm
To clarify, I meant to say, “that is the problem here where I live.”
And please forgive the extraneous “you” in the previous post.
December 15th, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Kwikrnu:
You are a fucking nincompoop.
Yes, dressing like a mall ninja and carrying an AK pistol is legal.
But like that idiot who insisted on hauling his shotgun into libraries in Ohio, it will only result in the state legislature banning your behavior, to the detriment of all of us who would like to be able to OC without interference.
The best possible result would be for the BATFE to prosecute your dumb ass for disguising an AK as a toy without filing a Form 1 for an AOW, so this state matter can be quietly dropped.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Arnie: He was looking for a confrontation. He wasn’t just walking around with a holstered sidearm.
He got the confrontation he was looking for, and now expects us to support and praise him for endangering OC rights.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
So that’s a “yes”, then?
December 15th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
I didn’t know mall ninjas wore camouflage jackets and blue jeans.
As I have stated before paint does not make an AOW. It never has and never will.
I have since open carried in other states including GA.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B4xDZlk5vthcNjU3M2ViNmYtMTg1MS00ZTIyLWFjNmUtYmM4ZTRkZmJjYTQ3
I will continue to open carry, most likely wearing a ballistic vest, chest rig with multiple mags, an ar pistol with an attached silencer.
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/kwikrnu/iiiaresizedwithsilencer.jpg
December 15th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
It is amazing (sad) the standards that people set on other people.
“OC is ok, but carrying a gun into a coffee shop is not.”
“OC has its place, but it is not OK if you do it for political reasons.”
…
December 15th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
In an ideal world, OC of an M240 should garner no more than a raised eyebrow or a sidelong glance (in jealousy from those only able to afford a lowly M3 or other item) but this is not an ideal world.
OC of an AR pistol with a silencer. Words fail me… In an ideal world with people aware of such items, sure why not. In our world…we’re looking to likely have some major gun control next year whether or not we have people actively not just pushing the envelope, but looking to “exercise rights” by scaring the sheep.
Sheep will bleat and bleating usually forces (ahem) and encourages the political class to “do something”.
Sure, go ahead and “OC” an AR pistol (where does one find a holster long enough to hold the attached silencer anyways) but don’t be surprised if there’s a push to at minimum, require it be holstered, or at worst, maybe a push to end the whole “OC” experiment once and for all in your world.
Worst of all, maybe imagine that if you “visibly print” an otherwise concealed pistol (as in my place, Ohioland, that’s not exactly legal as of now) you get arrested for it.
In Ohio, we can OC. It’s legal, but one sheep calling the law and you’re “inducing panic” and you better plan on a conversation with the authorities about it.
Is that right? Of course not, but all it takes is one “scared sheep” bleating about the “crazy weirdo down at the park with the machine gun” and you may have some trouble.
My father may be part sheep, but he did always tell me to pick my battles. Won’t claim to be good at it, but I don’t OC on a general basis. Last time I did was at the rifle range, but that’s another story.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:49 pm
And, if you do that, I will view you as a potential active shooter, and respond accordingly. And I say that as someone with firmly-established open carry “creds”.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
So to you, open carry = potential active shooter. lol
What does that mean? Will you shoot me? Will you hold me? Will you draw you gun and point it at me? Will you call the cops? Will you run away? Will you start crying and piss your panties?
Open carry is lawful in the KY state capitol, without a permit.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
No, no one is saying that “open carry = potential active shooter”. What we are saying is that dressing up like a clown with a deceptively painted gun is going to get you treated like a clown. Rightfully so.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
That is not what I said, Leonard, and you know it.
I would kindly ask you to stop misrepresenting my very plain-to-read words, and likewise stop playing the idiot… unless, of course, it is not an act, as I am starting to suspect.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:06 pm
Why don’t you explain why you would consider a law abiding open carrier to be a potential active shooter.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
I didn’t say I was going to paint my gun, it is black with an attached registered silencer. I will be wearing a button down shirt with a tie. 🙂
December 15th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I do not. Because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.
Yup, I was right – it is not an act.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
I will view him/her as a potential active shooter, and respond accordingly.
In other words… You will not do damn thing…
December 15th, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Either you are going to shoot or you are not… I say NOT!
December 15th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Thanks kwikrnu,
You have once and for all exposed Alan Gura and the Second Amendment Foundation as frauds. They are just hustlers trying to chase Second Amendment ambulances to line their own pockets and do the King’s bidding. Three cheers for KIng George III , His Loyalist friends of Alan Benedict Arnold Gura and his band of Merry men at the SAF . Certainly Arnold knew of Simpson v. State, but he did not disclose it. That’s not honest lawyering and I hope the Court sees the perfidy.
December 15th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
Again with the assumptions – you know scant little about me, and effectively nothing about how I would respond in any given situation.
Again with the arm-chair mall-ninja-ing – are you so insecure that you have to prove how badass you are on the intertubes?
And again with missing the point – the only options are not exclusively “shoot” or “do not shoot”, and it concerns me greatly that as someone who carries a firearm (as I assume you do, given your position in this farcical debate) that you would see the world only in those terms.
In conclusion my original estimation was accurate – you are scant more than an idiot troll, and my playtime with you is over. Y’all go right on ahead slapping each other on the back while you provide ammunition to those who would deprive us of our rights and help set up horrible case law that will haunt open carriers here in TN for years to come. Appreciate it, guys!
December 15th, 2011 at 11:49 pm
The only thing I know about you is that you would treat an open carrier as a potential active shooter.
You sound like a nut job. Why would you shoot someone who has not broken any law and is in fact exercising a fundamental civil right?
You and your kind are the reason I bought a ballistic vest. You are dangerous.
December 16th, 2011 at 12:48 am
Again with the arm-chair mall-ninja-ing – are you so insecure that you have to prove how badass you are on the intertubes?
I advocate no bloodshed you advocate that bloodshed is on the table. Who is the badass wannabe?
You talk about handling armored targets, armed with rifles. I do not. Who is the badass wannabe?
I advocate the right of a law abiding citizen to be armed in public. You advocate reacting as if the law abiding citizen is an active threat. Who is the badass wannabe….
Compared to you I sound like a pacifist bleeding heart.
you know scant little about me
That is why we have to go by your words for better or worse… Much worse in this case.
“shoot” or “do not shoot”
When you treat law abiding citizens as potential shooters it comes down to whether you shoot or you do not. There are no other possible outcomes.
As for trolling I could say the same of you…
December 16th, 2011 at 4:16 am
Mr. Embody
On numerous times I have seen you lie, insult and act an ass. Please stop shitting on the second amendment for your personal amusement.
December 16th, 2011 at 7:45 am
If we assume that Leonard Embody is a ‘troll’ or some kind of Brady ‘plant’, can I offer a thought?
What looks worse than someone lawfully open carrying in a park? How about the people who we are supposed to respect the opinion of threatening to shoot someone (or ‘respond accordingly’, whatever that means) when that person is not breaking the law and is not an imminent threat to anyone’s life?
I understand people don’t like Leonard’s actions, lawsuits or internet attitude. He certainly doesn’t do himself favors in this respect even if one views his open carrying as righteous.
All I am recommending is that this negative back and forth looks much for ‘the cause’ than Leonard’s open carrying or his lawsuit.
Sometimes we are our own worst enemies.
December 16th, 2011 at 11:37 am
To Kristopher: your opinion may be correct that Mr. Embody was “looking for a confrontation,” but an opinion is not proof, and I hesitate to derisively condemn a man’s actions based on my suspicions of his motives.
His rhetoric here is becoming a bit more aggressive, not surprising after all the nasty name-calling from us who purport to support his rights (if not his methods), and certainly not as belligerent in tone as most of those who disagree with him.
May I suggest that he may simply be an admittedly ardent follower of the principle that he who fails to exercise his rights (even in their extreme) will inevitably lose them? And perhaps we could gently ask him to use more discretion without trying to squelch the liberty-loving fire within him?
May I also remind everyone that after the extreme protest in Boston that led to a massacre, loyalists and even some patriots rued the actions of the protesters (victims) because it led to further restrictions on freedoms and increased taxes on sugar, stamps, and eventually tea, which led to the famous “Party” in Boston. Do we, like Tory loyalists condemn the victim for vehemently “confronting” the tyrant, or do we like Sam Adams celebrate the affair for exposing the true motives of the despotic authorities who take down innocent people who stand up for their inalienable rights, even though knowing it means alienating a large segment of the population (loyalists) and bringing on further, even more unconstitutional restrictions? In the end, the increased restriction of colonial rights turned the opinions of enough Massachussans (?) to foment a revolution that gave us then the free-est country in human history.
Although I am no fan of John Brown, many attribute the abolition of slavery to have begun with his clearly illegal and over-the-top activities, far more disconcerting than Mr. Embody’s. Yet as violent and repulsive as his methods were, he ultimately brought about the events leading to emancipation. There were better says to do it for sure – more legal and peaceable like Mr. Embody’s, but how many of you criticize the ultimate result?
So, I ask, is Mr. Embody really a nut case as averred here, or is he more a Samuel Adams or a less extreme John Brown? Just asking.
Respectfully, Arnie
December 16th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
“Responding accordingly” means different things to different people apparently. For some in this thread it is a binary shoot no shoot decision. I don’t agree with that.
For me it includes other options. If I am not on a shooting range, and I saw someone with any sort of AR or AK and they didn’t have a badge visible or “POLICE” stitched on their vest I am going to assess their demeanor if possible to do so safely, and if not I would notify law enforcement.
To think that the only way to respond to threats in life is either to shoot or not is a very disturbing proposition.
December 16th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
Dan. The final decision you make is always whether to shoot or not.. If you choose to tackle you chose not to shoot. If you chose to stab you chose not to shoot. If you walk away you chose not to shoot. If you fire you chose to shoot. Whether or not you shoot you still make a conscious decision to do one or the other. There can be all sorts of complex factors like backstops, penetration, cover and camoflage but you still make the choice one way or the other. Think of it like this. The only person who has does not have the choice of whether to shoot or not is an unarmed person. They can tackle or walk away without having to make that choice to shoot or not because they are not equipped to shoot.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Arnie: He was looking for trouble. He found it.
December 16th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
John Smith. I think the difference in our viewpoints is how we define not shooting. I throw a lot of different actions in that category (call cops, run away, run to cover, etc…) whereas you don’t seem to go there in your analysis. I don’t see a disagreement beyond that.
December 16th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
To Kristopher:
Very well, sir, I concede your point.
But may I submit that the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party also went looking for trouble 238 years ago this very day, and they, too, found it; and brought upon us a revolution — and they won our freedom!
(And their activity WAS illegal!)
Respectfully, Arnie
December 16th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
No, you made that up, because THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID.
Repeating a lie (like you are here in this thread) does not make it true, Leonard. It does make it libel, though.
This.
December 16th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
I lawfully/peacefully carried an ak pistol while I walked in park and you stated you would treat me as a potential active shooter. People like you are sick and need help, seek it soon before you murder someone.
December 16th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
Leonard, you are the “Embody”ment of a manipulative button pusher. You constantly play the “I’m not touching you” game and somehow take great joy in aggrivating the piss out of people for absolutely NO PRODUCTIVE REASON what-so-ever. To use an analogy, you are the guy at a party who looks up some girl’s dress, and when you get caught you say “What’d I do?”. While I agree that your choice of how to OC is legal, and should be viewed as such, I also have enough common sence to know that everyone is not ready for that yet. Some are just now becoming comfortable with “normal” OC. It’s about helping the uninformed and uneducated become comfortable a little bit at a time. Baby steps to complete comfort for the masses. Right or wrong, that is concrete, real world, common sence. To behave as you do by constantly pushing the fear button of the uninformed, you will not benefit anyone but you. So why don’t you stop playing stupid and quit acting like you don’t know the trouble and discomfort you are inciting on a regular basis. Let’s not pretend anymore that you don’t realize the negative impact of your actions. I ask this of you because you, and your intent, are far more transparent than you would like to think. You simply are not that clever. You are very intelligent and I am optimistic enough to believe that your heart is in the right place, though my better judgement disagrees. Why don’t you spend that talent and energy on making our Rights under the 2nd Amendment the way they should be (unregulated)instead of providing points of contention for those who would subvert our rights. Or is that the one part of your master plan that isn’t so transparent? You either have little dreams of being the guy who champions the 2nd Amendment or you have little dreams of being the one who destroys it. Either way your current designs will fail to accomplish either. Why don’t you try to be productive for a change? Right now you are just a village idiot with a two-village-jurisdiction.
Respectfully,
Disavowed With Honor
December 16th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
… And Leonard still lies, and engages in pointless ad hominem attacks to boot.
I stated that if you met ALL of the following conditions:
1. Openly carried an AR pistol.
2. Had a suppressor on it.
3. Were wearing a fully-magazine-loaded tactical vest.
4. Were wearing a bullet proof vest.
… I would treat you as a potential active shooter and respond according.
Nowhere did I say “shoot”, nowhere did I say “murder”, and nowhere did I say I would do it for all open carriers. You made assumptions. You colored the situation with your own warped perspective on the world. YOU (and your pathetically ignorant little buddies) were the ones who misinterpreted and misrepresented my words to mean something which they may or may not mean, and which, if I had meant that, I would have said.
That you assume “respond appropriately” means “shoot-to-kill” speaks volumes about you… and absolutely nothing about me.
You, Leonard, are the one who needs serious psychological help – you have massive indications of a persecution complex, along with a hugely overinflated sense of self-worth, and the underlying desire to be a martyr for some great, specious cause. Unfortunately, I fear that if you go through with your KY Capitol plan, you will get exactly that which you desire, which, in turn, will set back open carry in KY and TN massively, all through your own greed and idiotic desire to push other people’s buttons to absolutely no end and for no actual purpose.
And, for the love of God, on your way to your self-inflicted blood-filled future, would you please invest in an ESL course, because it is obviously not your first langugae.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
I found what linoge meant by respond appropriately….
http://www.nlconcepts.com/products/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=87_91&products_id=229
I had no idea.. I would not have been as hard on him.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
I’m gonna go out on a limb here and make a guess. Based on this fellas response here, I’m thinking he just may have been looking for trouble.
Does that sound right?
I agree that you, me and most anyone should be able to carry whatever the hell we want, but the negative feedback from this is just gonna make the legislators get a case of, “Do Something” fever.
And that’s never good.