Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sxth Circuit Court of Appeals decides open carry case (Original Post) kwikrnu Aug 2012 OP
Police response, if actually as depicted in the court document, ewas reasonable. OneTenthofOnePercent Aug 2012 #1
I've wanted one of these for a while since it's covered under my CHP here in Va. ileus Aug 2012 #2
Correct... but the officers were simply investigating the legality. OneTenthofOnePercent Aug 2012 #9
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. glacierbay Aug 2012 #3
+1 n/t DWC Aug 2012 #5
This is like some kind of parody. Atypical Liberal Aug 2012 #4
I absolutely agree DWC Aug 2012 #6
Sigh.... PavePusher Nov 2012 #15
Guns! bongbong Aug 2012 #7
Who has said that? glacierbay Aug 2012 #10
LOL bongbong Aug 2012 #11
Then post a link? glacierbay Aug 2012 #12
No matter rrneck Aug 2012 #8
The court did NOT say "The bearing of a handgun in a park is not covered under the 2nd Amendment." TPaine7 Aug 2012 #13
petition for certiorari 12-516 kwikrnu Nov 2012 #14
Detaining someone for 2.5 hours while the "figure it out" jbgood1977 Nov 2012 #16
 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
1. Police response, if actually as depicted in the court document, ewas reasonable.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:24 PM
Aug 2012

I agree with the court decision. So Mr Embody/kwikrnu... how much does it cost to lose a court case like this?

Quite frankly, I'm not surprised that the police may have been confused that a Draco is a pistol and not a rifle. Sounds to me like all detainment was related to the determination of whether someone was in possession of a prohibited item. The striking similarity to the AK-47 Assult rifle is definitely there - and that's likely the reason why this particular firearm was chosen by kwikrnu for his little "demonstration" rather than a commonly recognizable pistol (to obfuscate and confuse while technically remaining legal).

For those who do not know... this is a Romanian Draco "Pistol":



From the court decision:

Embody’s appearance at the park prompted two encounters with park rangers.
In the first, Ranger Joshua Walsh approached Embody, asked for his permit and
questioned him about the gun. Embody produced a valid permit, but Walsh could not
tell whether the firearm qualified as a legal one under state law
. “Technically it’s a
handgun,” he told Embody, “but I don’t know why you need it out here,” and “I’m pretty
sure an AK-47 is not a handgun.”
R.22-3 at 3. Uncertain how to proceed, Walsh
allowed Embody to continue through the park—for the time being.

Walsh phoned a supervisor, Ranger Steve Ward, for further direction. Ward in
turn called Chief Ranger Shane Petty, who did not believe the AK-47 was a handgun
given the description of it
. Petty and Ward determined that Ward should undertake a
“felony take down” of Embody, disarm him and check the weapon. Id. at 9. They called
the Metropolitan Nashville Police Department for assistance.

Ward found Embody in a parking lot and ordered him to the ground at gun point.
Without arresting Embody, Ward removed the gun, patted him for other weapons and
detained him. When the Nashville police officers arrived, Ward explained his concern
that Embody’s weapon was illegal, and the officers conducted a weapons check to
determine the gun’s status.
Meanwhile, Embody requested the presence of a police
supervisor, even after the Nashville officers advised him it would delay his release.
Once the officers confirmed that the firearm fit the definition of a handgun under state
law, Ward returned the gun to Embody and released him.
The incident lasted about twoand-a-half hours.

...

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.”
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.

ileus

(15,396 posts)
2. I've wanted one of these for a while since it's covered under my CHP here in Va.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:37 PM
Aug 2012

It is a pistol....

People really need to get over fear of their fellow citizens engaged in legal activities.

 

OneTenthofOnePercent

(6,268 posts)
9. Correct... but the officers were simply investigating the legality.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:58 PM
Aug 2012

Their fear was that a citizen was egaged in ILLEGAL activity. Once it was known to be legal, he was released. The perpetrator purposelfully chose a firearm that could easily be mistaken for a rifle (possible even mistaken for an automatic)... I don't believe it's reasonable to fault the cops for investigating to make certain.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
3. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:40 PM
Aug 2012

The officers did exactly the right thing IMO, he would have been released sooner if he hadn't requested a supervisor.
The weapon was checked, found to be legal, given back to him and he was released with no charges. 2.5 hours isn't unreasonable considering he is the one who delayed his own release.

Sounds like LE handled the incident professionally, no harm, no foul.

 

Atypical Liberal

(5,412 posts)
4. This is like some kind of parody.
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:43 PM
Aug 2012

First of all, I agree that the police were right to detain this person until they could determine the legality of the weapon.

Secondly, this is a prime reason for not allowing open carry. It is not reasonable to expect the general public to ignore someone openly carrying a firearm, particularly one that looks like the one in question. They are going to, quite reasonably, just call the police and let them deal with it.

This does a couple bad things. Firstly, it unnecessarily scares the public, and casts firearms and firearm owners in a negative light. Secondly, it wastes police resources as they have no choice but to investigate reports of people carrying firearms, out of the fear that the one they ignore could be the next mass shooter.

Thirdly, this situation demonstrates the silliness of trying to prohibit or describe firearms by appearance.

Fourthly, it highlights the absurdity of making toy guns with orange tips or other garish colors in an attempt to make them not look like guns. The same thing can be done to real guns to make them look like toys.


 

DWC

(911 posts)
6. I absolutely agree
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 01:54 PM
Aug 2012

Common sense is THE missing ingredient for the extremists on both sides of the issue.

Semper Fi,

 

PavePusher

(15,374 posts)
15. Sigh....
Fri Nov 2, 2012, 12:53 PM
Nov 2012

"It is not reasonable to expect the general public to ignore someone openly (insert favorite Constitutional Right here)."

Au contraire, mon ami. What is truely unreasonable is the failure of the education system and society at large to prepare people for observing others exercising a Constitutional Right without cmaoflauge.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
7. Guns!
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:43 PM
Aug 2012

Guns make America safer according to the gun-relgioinists.

Just ignore the numerous massacres carried out by law-abiding gun nuts.

 

glacierbay

(2,477 posts)
10. Who has said that?
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:59 PM
Aug 2012

In your own words. Prove it.
The last mass shooting was carried out by the NYPD.

 

bongbong

(5,436 posts)
11. LOL
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 03:22 PM
Aug 2012

You must have been sleeping a long, long time, since after all the recent massacres by law-abiding gun-nuts there were lots of LTTE and blog posts by reich-wingers about how if other people had guns, they could've shot the shooter.



rrneck

(17,671 posts)
8. No matter
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 02:46 PM
Aug 2012

how well written or enforced a law is, there will always be some clown trying to game the system for a quick buck at the taxpayers expense. What a fucking waste.

 

TPaine7

(4,286 posts)
13. The court did NOT say "The bearing of a handgun in a park is not covered under the 2nd Amendment."
Thu Aug 30, 2012, 05:53 PM
Aug 2012
To the extent Embody means to argue that the Second Amendment prevents Tennessee
from prohibiting certain firearms in state parks (and thus prohibited Ward from detaining
Embody on suspicion of possessing an illegal firearm), qualified immunity is the answer. See
Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). No court has held that the Second
Amendment encompasses a right to bear arms within state parks. See District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to bear arms in the home); United States v.
Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (upholding regulation prohibiting firearms in
national parks). Such a right may or may not exist, but the critical point for our purposes is that
it has not been established—clearly or otherwise at this point.
That suffices to resolve this
claim under the Court’s qualified-immunity precedents. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S.
223, 236 (2009).


In fact, the court explicitly said that the right may exist. The point is that the right hasn't been established clearly and thus the police have qualified immunity.

Edited to add: Welcome to DU.

kwikrnu

(52 posts)
14. petition for certiorari 12-516
Fri Nov 2, 2012, 06:51 AM
Nov 2012

Petition was made for certiorari to the us supreme court in this case 12-516

 

jbgood1977

(91 posts)
16. Detaining someone for 2.5 hours while the "figure it out"
Fri Nov 2, 2012, 01:49 PM
Nov 2012

is NOT a reasonable amount of time. Courts have previously held this time to be 30 minutes. IMO 30 minutes is more than sufficient time. Any more than 30 minutes and you are into wrongful imprisonment IMO.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Sxth Circuit Court of App...