Ranger didn't violate kwik's 2nd Amendment rights seizing his AK.

[DaveTN]

As a general rule, I like to have such things well defined - ambiguity in the law has a way of biting you in the ass when it's least convenient - when things aren't defined they tend to be up to the opinion of district attorneys, police officers, etc., etc.; I'd rather have it in black and white.

Not me.

I saw Officers’ discretion taken away on DUI and Domestic Violence. Common sense tells me when I’m doing dumb azz chit. Don’t you have that?

[MphsTiger1981]

Not me.

I saw Officers’ discretion taken away on DUI and Domestic Violence. Common sense tells me when I’m doing dumb azz chit. Don’t you have that?

Common sense is quickly becoming more and more like porn. I don't know how to describe it, I just know it when I see it.

[Guest RevScottie]

Not me. I saw Officers’ discretion taken away on DUI and Domestic Violence. Common sense tells me when I’m doing dumb azz chit. Don’t you have that?

That officers discretion thing is OK as long as as his discretion favors you but often that is not the case especially with an officer who may not be familiar with gun laws. No officer should have the power to falsely charge you with something such as happened in Sumner County just because he does not understand the law.

[DaveTN]

That officers discretion thing is OK as long as as his discretion favors you but often that is not the case especially with an officer who may not be familiar with gun laws. No officer should have the power to falsely charge you with something such as happened in Sumner County just because he does not understand the law.

A Police Officer doesn’t have the power or the authority to charge you with anything. That is the job of the DA’s office. A Police Officer can arrest you for anything he thinks there is cause to arrest you for; doesn’t mean the DA will charge you, and it also doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good arrest. No one that has ever worked in it has claimed it is a justice system; life isn’t fair, and court isn’t held on the street.

I disagreed with the policy that if one family member laid hands on another we hauled them off to jail. I still disagree with it.

I didn’t think it was right when our discretion on DUI was taken away. If a driver shows signs of drinking they either blow or they were arrested. But that policy is pretty much standard throughout the country now and at least people know it’s not okay to drink and drive; whether they are over the limit to not.

Domestic Violence or DUI are charges that have lifelong consequences. I didn’t think my hands should be tied in making fair decisions.

[RobertNashville]

Not me.

I saw Officers’ discretion taken away on DUI and Domestic Violence. Common sense tells me when I’m doing dumb azz chit. Don’t you have that?

Just a month ago I was in a meeting with a 30+ year veteran of Nashville Metro; he's an avid gun enthusiast and much of his talk that evening concerned how younger officers, not raised with an understanding of firearms or people's rights were of the mindset that only LEOs should have firearms. Another Sgt of Metro and a fellow who just left the force after 15 or so years echoed the same thoughts to me just last week so NO...I'm not impressed with nor do I want to leave things up to an officer's discretion, at least not when it comes to things that can cause me to lose an expensive firearm or wind up a resident in one of Tennessee's fine prisons.

[DaveTN]

Just a month ago I was in a meeting with a 30+ year veteran of Nashville Metro; he's an avid gun enthusiast and much of his talk that evening concerned how younger officers, not raised with an understanding of firearms or people's rights were of the mindset that only LEOs should have firearms. Another Sgt of Metro and a fellow who just left the force after 15 or so years echoed the same thoughts to me just last week so NO...I'm not impressed with nor do I want to leave things up to an officer's discretion, at least not when it comes to things that can cause me to lose an expensive firearm or wind up a resident in one of Tennessee's fine prisons.

Please tell me what firearm law you think you could possibly violate and end up in prison?

By “discretion” I am saying that just because something is illegal doesn’t necessarily require the Officer to make an arrest. On misdemeanor cases if we didn’t want to make an arrest; we didn’t have to. Our discretion was taken away on Domestic Violence and if I came to your house and your wife says you pushed her; you were going to jail on a domestic violence charge. Even if your wife didn’t want to press charges. Do you think that’s a good thing? Do you think cops are so stupid they can’t tell a real assault from a family squabble?

So if you unknowingly walk past a legal posting you think the cop should be bound to issue you a $500 citation and seize your gun as evidence? That’s what will happen when you do away with discretion.

I respect Police Officers and military personnel; they have earned that respect unless they do something to not deserve it. I don’t see them as the enemy and I know how to conduct myself during a stop to make it uneventful. If a Police Officer disrespects me I know exactly how to deal with that and get results.

[Jonnin]

Since different rules apply depending on the weapon's classification then yes I would like to know. If it is a pistol it is legal to have it loaded with a round chambered with it stored behind the seat in my truck, if not it is illegal. If it's purchase is treated as a pistol it should legally be considered one as well.

EXACTLY. On top of this, apart from the costmetics, there is no real difference between this and a 9mm glock with a 30 round carbine mag stuffed into it, except the glock is easier to conceal until the person opens up on a crowd! The 223 has slightly more range but that is splitting hairs. Apart from its size and the ability to attach plastic dodads that make it look like a military firearm, there is no real difference at all. Would the cops freak out if LE had been carrying the .22 LR version of the same gun (PLR-22)?! Its LESS powerful than the glock I mention but looks the same! I think the issue here is that we have a pistol that is a bit large and scary looking to john-q-sheeple and therefore the cops have to react to that, but they have no legal right to do so beyond checking the HCP and then saying "have a nice day". Again, LE is right, but his attitude provokes the officers and creates issues where none should exist.

[JayC]

I never said he wasn't a nut job or that his actions weren't stupid so please don't insinuate that I was but Leonard was never the point of my comment anyway; I don't really give a s**t about Mr. Leonard; my point...my concern is that a firearm that is, apparently, legal to carry was confiscated from a HCP holder and this judge apparently said that was okay. I find that troubling.

The firearm really wasn't confiscated... It was secured while he was being detained, and was returned to him as he was released from the scene. Which is in line with current (bad) state law.

[bigwakes]

One thing that disturbs me in this thread are the responses that are based on how the weapon "looks". Is a Draco pistol more dangerous than a Pmr-30 because it looks more evil? When the news media refers to a semi auto rifle as an assault weapon almost everyone on here complains about categorizing a weapon based on it's looks, even coining the phrase "evil black rifle" because of it. Maybe it's just Kwik's antics or some peoples belief that you should never open carry that has brought these responses but the fact of the case is the officer and judge both misinterpreted the law because what Kwik did was 100% allowed under the laws of the state of TN. Mark my words this type of crap ruling will now be used to prosecute some other law abiding citizen who isn't out to make a point and we should all be outraged by it.

There are several places in the firearm law that speak of "intent". Intent to go armed for instance. It's obvious to any sane person that Leonard had an "intent" to prove a point and did so by scaring some people in a park. I wish he would have spent some time in jail!

[Guest Eddiebauer86]

I believe when they said that leonards gun was "seized" they ment during his detention. Also, someone mentioned here that leonard spent several hours "in custody". I dont think he was ever in custody, detained absolutely, but not in custody. Im also quite sure that the rangers held onto his gun while they were investigating.

No one ever seems to mention the reason that the detention took so long is because they were making phone calls and having to check around to ensure that his AK wasnt SBR. That was a big question for everyone, including myself. Also, everyone here knows how leonard acts, so it would be VERY fair to assume that leonard was not very verbally cooperative, and im sure he spent at least an hour (or more) arguing his case with the officers, and trying to teach them some law.

Generally, when you cooperate fully with officers, they can get the job done pretty quick. Had he been carrying a regular pistol in the open, it probably would have been a quick check and on your way. He wanted to get into the fine print, so that takes some time.

Im glad the federal judge made a good call. The only thing the judge was determining was if the police officer violated leonards rights.. which he didnt.

Edited July 25, 2011 by Eddiebauer86

[RobertNashville]

Please tell me what firearm law you think you could possibly violate and end up in prison?

I don't know of any but as I think you said earlier, an officer can arrest someone for pretty much any reason they dream up. Getting arrested can be a very expensive proposition for the person arrested even if the reasons were totally bogus.

By “discretion†I am saying that just because something is illegal doesn’t necessarily require the Officer to make an arrest. On misdemeanor cases if we didn’t want to make an arrest; we didn’t have to. Our discretion was taken away on Domestic Violence and if I came to your house and your wife says you pushed her; you were going to jail on a domestic violence charge. Even if your wife didn’t want to press charges. Do you think that’s a good thing? Do you think cops are so stupid they can’t tell a real assault from a family squabble?

So if you unknowingly walk past a legal posting you think the cop should be bound to issue you a $500 citation and seize your gun as evidence? That’s what will happen when you do away with discretion.

I respect Police Officers and military personnel; they have earned that respect unless they do something to not deserve it. I don’t see them as the enemy and I know how to conduct myself during a stop to make it uneventful. If a Police Officer disrespects me I know exactly how to deal with that and get results.

Wasn't an officer's "discretion" about DUIs taken away because cops were letting people people under the influence continue driving and people got killed? Wasn't an officer's "discretion" taken away because they would go to a scene, think it was just a "family squabble" and then someone would wind up dead later because the squabble turned into something a lot worse?

Officer's discretion is a great thing if they know how to use it properly but it seems to me that almost every part of modern society has been slouching toward mediocrity and I suspect that's affected law enforcement agencies too - I'm not sure I want such officers holding a lot of discretionary powers.

[ttocswob]

Related thread at Calguns - looks like he met the banhammer over there, too!

[Guest db99wj]

Let's not forget he painted the tip orange in order to make it look like a toy.

I still think that should be a violation, yes I know it is not illegal to paint a gun, but here we go with intent again.

[Guest RevScottie]

I don't know of any

They were considering charging him with violating TN code concerning prohibited weapons because they were mistakenly considering it a short barreled rifle. This would have been a Class E Felony (unless the individual has a tax stamp for said weapon) with a penalty of 1-6 years in prison so yes it is pretty important to know how the weapon in your possession is classed.

[Oh Shoot]

They were considering charging him with violating TN code concerning prohibited weapons because they were mistakenly considering it a short barreled rifle. This would have been a Class E Felony (unless the individual has a tax stamp for said weapon) with a penalty of 1-6 years in prison so yes it is pretty important to know how the weapon in your possession is classed.

You can't carry a loaded rifle of any type, so could be illegal possession of a weapon, even though one has stamp and HCP. Max penalty Class A 'meanor.

- OS

[Smith]

They were considering charging him with violating TN code concerning prohibited weapons because they were mistakenly considering it a short barreled rifle. This would have been a Class E Felony (unless the individual has a tax stamp for said weapon) with a penalty of 1-6 years in prison so yes it is pretty important to know how the weapon in your possession is classed.

There is no ambiguity on which weapons are classified as which. The ATF will tell you very succinctly. Any weapon sold on the legal market has a definitive classification. That being said there are a multitude of guns, some of which are very similar yet classified very differently. AK's being one of them. You can have AK pistols, SBR's, full-auto, rifle, etc. Some of the differences are readily noticeable, some are not. It is unreasonable to expect officers to know every weapon and it's classification by looks alone. The officer detained Leonard long enough to get a definitive answer to the weapon in question then let him go once it was determined. I would expect no less from our officers. The fact it took several hours is irrelevant.

[RobertNashville]

There is no ambiguity on which weapons are classified as which. The ATF will tell you very succinctly. Any weapon sold on the legal market has a definitive classification. That being said there are a multitude of guns, some of which are very similar yet classified very differently. AK's being one of them. You can have AK pistols, SBR's, full-auto, rifle, etc. Some of the differences are readily noticeable, some are not. It is unreasonable to expect officers to know every weapon and it's classification by looks alone. The officer detained Leonard long enough to get a definitive answer to the weapon in question then let him go once it was determined. I would expect no less from our officers. The fact it took several hours is irrelevant.

Does anyone know or remember if Leonard is suing because of the length of time he was detained?

[Guest HvyMtl]

quick glance thru, I did not see this linked. It is the Judge's decision:

Embody v. Ward :: Justia Dockets & Filings

A few points:

1) The Agents thought it was an illegal weapon, and had to get in touch with the BATFE, I believe it was on a Sunday, to figure out what it was.

2) They disarmed him and returned the firearm, after they figured out it was legal. They did not seize it. Poor media coverage...

3) When you request a Supervisor, and they tell you its going to be a few hours, well, that seems to be on you.

4) After reading the Judge's decision, if you paint the barrel of a real firearm orange, and carry it in public, expect an officer to question your actions...

Also, this was his Federal Lawsuit, NOT his State lawsuit. The State one is still to come...

Edited August 2, 2011 by HvyMtl

[Guest jth_3s]

It is scary how many people who call themselves 2A advovates support the ranger in this case. Regardless of what you think of kwik he was within the law. LE shouldn't be able to detain you based on mere suspicion, that is an extremely dangerous precedent. If LE truly believed in the law they would obey it by upholding and defending the Constitution which is clear, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[mikegideon]

[DaveTN]

No kidding… Good grief.

[Dad03]

From the article on Calguns...."Plaintiff’s AK-47 type weapon had been modified with an orange barrel tip to

resemble a toy." WTF is that about?

Sounds like he was playing a game to see how far he can push it. They called his bluff.

The officer was not violating his rights, he was protecting the others who also have the right to enjoy the park without feeling like they are in danger. If the officer had not done what he did and this guy opens fire then what?

It's just like anything else these days, to protect some you are going to offend others.

Like stated above there was no common sense used in this guys judgement to open carry an AK in a public park.I have the right to go swimming in shark infested waters....common sense tells me not to.

Edited August 20, 2011 by Dad03

[DaveTN]

The officer was not violating his rights, he was protecting the others who also have the right to enjoy the park without feeling like they are in danger.

Exactly.

If the officer had not done what he did and this guy opens fire then what?

Then everyone would have wanted to crucify the cop and would be asking what kind of an idiot cop allows a nutcase like that to go walking through Radnor Park with an AK strapped across his chest? The cops did the right thing; good for them.

[Makiaveli]

I have to fall on the side of the Ranger on this one. It wasn't like he was carrying a "normal" pistol and was detained for hours. He went looking for trouble DELIBERATELY and got it.

Just because you have the right to carry that kind of pistol with a orange barrel doesn't mean you should. I just hope the 2A survives all his type of help.

[DaveTN]

Just because you have the right to carry that kind of pistol with a orange barrel doesn't mean you should. I just hope the 2A survives all his type of help.

You don’t have a right to carry that type of pistol or any other; it’s against the law to carry a gun in Tennessee.

That’s already been decided in recent SCOTUS rulings. You have a right to own guns, but you do not have a right to bear them; that right will be controlled by the state. Only four states recognize that you have a right to bear arms; Tennessee is not one of them.

Due to the recent rulings the only thing standing between us and a true right to keep and bear arms is the Tennessee legislature.

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but as long as people think they have a right to bear arms under the United States Constitution; nothing will change. No matter how much you want that right or no matter what kind of inspiring speeches you have heard about the 2^nd amendment the truth remains that it is dead and unless your state acknowledges that right; you don’t have it.

And it’s because of nut cases like this that we will have a tough time becoming the fifth state.