Controversial gun activist arrested with 'silencer'

[GeorgeG.]

It also might just be him being a belligerent dickhead, when he could've taken the time to engage the officer in a civil discussion on the matter. The fact of the matter is he was trolling to be arrested and got arrested. They didn't come in his home and seize his NFA item, or anything else. He knowingly put himself in the situation to be arrested, and his wish was granted. Luckily, he STILL has legal recourse, so no, his rights aren't violated. If the state refused to recognize his rights in court, that would be one thing. An officer accusing him of something and arresting him for it is merely that: an accusation by arrest.

this is what I think. He was out there promoting the 2nd, I get that. But, when he was engaged with the officers, it seemed like his goal was to push the limit and be a dick. Had he had a conversation as stated above, he'd probably still be out there passing out his pamphlets.

So the image he portrayed, imo, is that of an 'out of control' gun owner. Seems to do more harm than good for gun owners. There's a right way and a wrong way to deliver a message.

[David]

He's the same guy that sued the state of Tennessee for violating his civil/constitutional rights for being detained and questioned for carrying a Draco pistol with a 30rnd mag and an orange painted muzzle slung across him while walking through a state park. He successfully lost his case in court and on appeal.

[Forever_frost]

It also might just be him being a belligerent dickhead, when he could've taken the time to engage the officer in a civil discussion on the matter. The fact of the matter is he was trolling to be arrested and got arrested. They didn't come in his home and seize his NFA item, or anything else. He knowingly put himself in the situation to be arrested, and his wish was granted. Luckily, he STILL has legal recourse, so no, his rights aren't violated. If the state refused to recognize his rights in court, that would be one thing. An officer accusing him of something and arresting him for it is merely that: an accusation by arrest.

But he has no obligation to engage the officer in discourse, as a matter of a fact, he has a right not to. His right to privacy extends beyond his home, to that case he was carrying, locked.

An officer arresting you for not breaking the law IS a violation of his rights

[David]

But he has no obligation to engage the officer in discourse, as a matter of a fact, he has a right not to. His right to privacy extends beyond his home, to that case he was carrying, locked.

An officer arresting you for not breaking the law IS a violation of his rights

Everything seems to fit Terry v. Ohio to me. How the defendant went from there is up to him.

[Forever_frost]

Everything seems to fit Terry v. Ohio to me. How the defendant went from there is up to him.

This wasn't a stop and frisk, it was opening a locked case.

[YALE]

How is searching a locked case he's carrying different than a frisk?

[David]

This wasn't a stop and frisk, it was opening a locked case.

Supreme Court stated
Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ...he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Appeals have affirmed this can include back packs, bags, etc.

[Forever_frost]

How is searching a locked case he's carrying different than a frisk?

Because he does not have immediate access to it and it's the same as if a cop walks up to you and asks you to open your trunk. You don't have to open your trunk and he has no right to do it himself. 4th amendment. Great thing.

[Forever_frost]

Supreme Court stated
Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, ...he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Appeals have affirmed this can include back packs, bags, etc.

Outer clothing of such persons. This was not outer clothing, this was a locked case. Let's take a look at the constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"


Show me where it states government can stop you, open your property and look around just because they feel like it. Since the constitution is incorporated, every amendment is incorporated which means every level of government must obey this. In this amendment, point out the power to do what you're saying.

What was the probable cause supported by oath describing the place to be searched or seized, written into a warrant

[David]

Outer clothing of such persons. This was not outer clothing, this was a locked case. Let's take a look at the constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"


Show me where it states government can stop you, open your property and look around just because they feel like it. Since the constitution is incorporated, every amendment is incorporated which means every level of government must obey this. In this amendment, point out the power to do what you're saying.

What was the probable cause supported by oath describing the place to be searched or seized, written into a warrant

They don't need one. You can argue all you want. Complaint calls of an individual with a gun is enough for a terry stop at minimum and plenty can be established from there. And the supreme court has already ruled on such matter as bag etc. an from what I've read it wasn't a locked case.

[Forever_frost]

They don't need one. You can argue all you want. Complaint calls of an individual with a gun is enough for a terry stop at minimum and plenty can be established from there. And the supreme court has already ruled on such matter as bag etc. an from what I've read it wasn't a locked case.

SC has no authority to limit the 4th any more than it has to hear most of the cases it does. Again, supreme law of the land trumps every court and officer. I'm not seeing authority for an officer to open a case during a Terry stop

[kwikrnu]

video 1 First detention at about 3:13pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRVgFQ4P1Sw

video 2 Second detention at about 3:46pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScD986-UZE

audio 1 First detention and news channel 5 interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIPzMFH7To4

audio 2 both detentions, interview, additional questions, and commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WicsyKmz6SQ

On 7-29-13 starting at about 3:00pm I passed out leaflets stating, "“… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Second Amendment to the United States Constitution," in downtown Nashville. I openly carried a molded kydex rifle case on my back while wearing a ballistic vest. I purchased the ballistic vest because Tennessee cops have repeatedly pointed guns at me. It would be foolish not to wear a ballistic vest. I was detained once for about 20 minutes and let go. The search included a pat down and the temporary seizure of my rifle case. Once I was released I proceeded to do an interview with news channel 5 who was taking pictures from across the street. I then continued to pass out leaflets and was walking back to my vehicle when I was stopped by a crazy cop. He detained me, while his henchmen removed my sealed locked rifle case and pried it open without permission. They saw a suppressor attached to an AR15 rifle inside the case. The rifle was unloaded and had no magazine. I was arrested for the silencer even though confidential ATF form 3 paperwork was inside the case. I am an FFL NFA dealer and pay the SOT. Information from the form 3 ATF document may only be disclosed to federal officials for violation of the NFA. The cops said that since the case appeared to maybe have a rifle in it they were justified in opening it. I was arrested for illegal possession of a silencer. I was strip searched as ordered by a sergeant to look for "keys". I was the only one that I saw stripped searched in that manner. I was held without bond for several hours. I was finally given a chance to see the magistrate at about 9pm on video. He gave the cops permission to cut the cable lock on the rifle case. Inside the case they saw that the rifle was unloaded and they discovered the ATF form 3. That did not matter to the magistrate judge and I was charged and to be held on a $3000 bond. I thought I would have a real judge see the evidence the next morning so my intention was to hang out for the night, but they said court would not be held until Aug 2. I was not going to wait three days in jail so I bonded out at about 5am on 7-30-13.

I have broke no law and believe the DA has not dropped the charges for fear of a federal lawsuit. I have filed papers with the criminal court for a preliminary hearing, speedy trial, pro se defense, discovery, motion to change the court time to Aug 20 9am, motion to return my property, and jury demand trial.


The case was made from kydex. The kydex covered every part of the firearm and no part of the firearm was visible. The kydex was molded to be form fitting and was very tight. The case needed nothing to remain closed, but I made sure the case would not open by using additional means. A cable lock was placed on the kydex case so that the firearm could not be used. The cable lock was placed around the trigger housing. The sling was strapped in two places over the kydex case, prevent the case from being opened. As a final touch I placed tape around the case at six points to ensure cops did not attempt to open it. As added security there were no keys for the cable lock.

http://www.kwikrnuarms.com/vacuum_form_rifle_cases.htm

Form 3 Information

http://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-5320-3.pdf

"The information from this application may only be disclosed to Federal authorities for purpose of prosecution for violation of the National Firearms Act."

[Chili]

video 1...

Welcome to the always humble dfwmustangs.net.. Is this the "real" Leonard Embody?

[danielhv]

Lol at the "case" the rifle was in... He was walking around looking for a reaction, not trying to educate like he portrays.

I'll put my flame suit on and side with the cops on this one. Having a firearm is one thing. Being responsible with it is another. Scarring the public by walking the streets with a rifle wrapped in a skin tight "case" with a bullet proof vest on trying to prove a point does nothing positive for responsible gun owners and advocates.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk 2

[Ruffdaddy]

What a dumbass. Deserves what he got.