Leonard Embody AK-47 Pistol Incident in TN – Court Complaint Papers

Looks like he is suing for “Damages”:

As a direct and proximate result of Ward’s unconstutitonal actions, Embody was subjected to arrest in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights and subjected to mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment, because, the events described in this Complaint were published widely in the Nashville area by the local news media.

If he is so embarrassed, then why does he showboat around on all the forums?

I’ll hold the constitution above personal opinion any day of the week, but if he expects to win a case like this, I bet any lawyer would have told him to keep his mouth shut, and lay low on internet forums.

Here is the Complaint itself:

Case # 3:10-cv-00126 , Middle Tennessee District Court 6th Circuit

Source: OpenCarry.org

59 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Dom February 11, 2010 at 07:24 am

Ah, so there we go…in the previous post I was talking (and Josh replied) about probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Looks like they did handcuff him, which pretty much removes any doubt – he was indeed arrested. So did the officer have “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief” that a crime was being committed (unlawful possession)?

Meh…I think so. And I’m pretty sure most courts would, too.

In any case, good catch Mike — I think you’re absolutely right that the plaintiff’s self-publicizing of the event undermines his claim of injuries due to “embarassment.”

Reply

Fred February 11, 2010 at 11:00 am

Being cuffed does not mean you’ve been placed under arrest.

Reply

Dom February 11, 2010 at 04:02 pm

Fred, you’re right, I stand corrected. My statement was incomplete; I should say all the circumstances together pretty much remove all doubt that they arrested him – not just the cuffs.

I had already read that they approached him with guns drawn and so forth…the fact that they also cuffed him and kept him that way for a while was what was new to me reading this complaint. The cuffs were what made up my mind about him being arrested…but that definitely wasn’t clear, thanks for correcting.

Reply

Josh February 11, 2010 at 04:23 pm

That depends on how you’re using the term “arrest.” Many people think of an arrest as a formal arrest, not merely being detained. Technically, any detention from which you are not permitted to leave is an arrest. If you get stopped by the police and issued a traffic ticket, you’ve been arrested.

I think most would consider this man to have been detained, and reserve the term “arrest” for those times when a suspect is formally placed under arrest and booked into custody.

Reply

Dom February 12, 2010 at 10:00 am

I don’t want to go around and around about it, but I think anybody who is writing/reading these comments may find this of interest: http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a100.htm.

Reply

scott715us November 29, 2010 at 04:48 am

You are incorrect. You can be detained or “not free to leave,” but still not under arrest. Example: I get called to a burglary call and find a suspect matching the description near the scene of the crime. Enough reasonable suspicion exists where I can detain him for an investigation (also known as “Terry” stop). He is not free to leave, but he is not under arrest either. If he refuses to comply, then I can arrest (under TN law) for resist stop, frisk, halt. If I develop enough probable cause to believe he is the burglary suspect, then I will arrest for burglary. If I don’t have enough evidence, then he will be let go. Either way, I can detain him against his will if I have reasonable suspicion to do so.

A normal traffic stop has never been ruled an “arrest” and that has been addressed by the US Supreme Court (some years ago).

As far as Embody’s case, the facts presented in this document are his facts only as they were relayed to the attorney writing them up. Honestly I think very few officers would believe the weapon he was carrying was a “handgun” for legal purposes just because of its length. Either way, if they had any doubt, then their actions were appropriate in drawing down and disarming him until they could figure it out otherwise. It’s my understanding that official word of the status of the weapon came from an ATF agent. Honestly, I think the actions were still necessary given where he was carrying the weapon and the oddness of painting the tip orange. If I’m a big open carry proponent, why would I paint the tip to reflect a toy gun?

Reply

Josh November 29, 2010 at 09:24 am

Well, a “Terry Stop,” is only just that, a stop. I believe, in that case, the court ruled that an officer could briefly stop and question a person without having cause to arrest. I think the argument there is that when being questioned by police, you still have the right to leave. You simply say, “Am I under arrest?”, and if they so no, you walk away. That’s very different from handcuffing someone and questioning them for a long period of time. Once physically restrained, there is no question that a person’s freedom has been deprived.

Now, you say when you stop a person, they are not free to go. You said you can arrest a person for refusing to stop. I don’t doubt that. But what happens if a person asks if they are under arrest, and when told no, leaves? I was talking with two friends of mine in my state’s legislature some time ago, and they were talking about a discussion several legislators were having on this very topic. It was the opinion of the lawyers in the group (as you might imagine, several very prominent attorneys-turned-politicians), that if the questioning officer said you’re not under arrest, you can turn around and walk away. This seems like a 4th amendment, Constitutional issue, not a state law issue. All I know about TN law is that it’s illegal to shoot any game except whales from a moving vehicle, and it’s illegal to gather and consume roadkill (which seems to be a strange law for any southern state to have. Although, I suppose it was made illegal because of its prevalence).

I’ll concede the point about normal traffic stops. However, during a normal traffic stop, a reasonable person would not feel free to leave, and it seemed to fit the definition of arrest on that grounds. It seems that whether or not a court considers a traffic stop an arrest hinges on the amount of time the police deprive a person of. When a traffic stop starts taking much longer than a normal stop, it starts turning into a de facto arrest.

Reply

kwikrnu November 29, 2010 at 11:52 am

They could have looked up the law to determine the length requirement, but why didn’t they know the law before I was stopped? If they didn’t know the length laws why was I detained? RAS of a crime must come first, then the stop.

Why wasn’t the barrel ever measured? Because they didn’t know the law. They stopped me because they didn’t think I should have a gun in the park. This attitude is demonstrated by the ranger’s comments, ” I don’t know why you need that here.”

An oranged tipped toy gun is legal, an oranged tipped real gun is legal to carry with a permit. The officer was shown my permit and informed the gun was real within the first minute of contact.

It wasn’t until 20-30 minutes after the first ranger had seen my permit, and was told the gun was real, agreed that the gun was legal, and after seeing I was no threat to anyone(because he followed me) that the second ranger(in contact with the first) pointed a shotgun at me, searched me, and held me 2.5/3 hours.

As far as length of stops and if detentions are considered arrests. Detentions are considered arrests. Detention of people on a traffic stop are considered arrests if the time is unreasonable. Now, what is unreasonable? In a recent 6th circuit decision coming from the middle tennessee district a traffic stop of longer than 15 minutes is questionably an arrest.

I did not request to be detained. I asked to leave. I was detained for nearly an hour before they came up with something to charge me with. They tried to charge me with the carry of a rifle. Now, why did they try to charge me with that if the clear definition by law of my firearm is a pistol? They did not allow me to leave and one of the rangers acted as a guard. In fact near the end of the detention I was read my rights, searched, cuffed, and placed in the cop car.

Reply

scott715us November 29, 2010 at 03:29 pm

I can put you in handcuffs and it can still be considered a detainment. Officers do it every day. Normally handcuffs are used when there is a safety concern. We can deprive someone of their freedom for a brief period of time when we have reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has been committed, is being committed, or about to be committed. If I have RS to detain you then I will tell you you’re not free to leave. If you ask me if you’re under arrest, I will clarify for you whether you’re being detained or if you’re under arrest. Either way technically you’re not free to leave. If you’re not under arrest, don’t assume you’re free to leave unless the officer says so. Refusing a detainment/Terry stop can lead to a criminal charge (as I already mentioned) just like resisting arrest.Also keep in mind that since TN is a “shall issue” state when it comes to Handgun Carry Permits (HCPs) an officer has a right to stop and verify that the person he observes carrying a handgun has a permit to do so. No permit = illegal = arrest (in TN).

As far as traffic stops are concerned, you are correct. If the traffic stop goes beyond a reasonable time when taking all of the circumstances in context, it CAN turn into an arrest. But I think telling folks here that every traffic stop is an arrest is sending the wrong message. You don’t get booked into jail and you’re not required to attend court when you’re cited for a traffic violation. It doesn’t go into your criminal record either. The US Supreme Court has ruled that way and Miranda is not even required when questioning you on a traffic stop. It is up for the courts to decide whether the stop itself went beyond “reasonableness” and turned into an arrest.

I’m weary to put anything in stone that one hears from politicians or just any lawyer. Some lawyers do not have any criminal law experience aside from what they learned in law school. So although they may know the text of Constitutional/Criminal law, applying it is a different matter if they have no experience in criminal court. I’m currently in law school and I hope that some of the students in my class grow up fairly quickly, as they have no idea how it is in the real world. I have nine years experience as a LEO and currently a Sergeant/FTO with my department, so obviously I have a leg up on the bulk of them when it comes to criminal law.

Ok Kwik, education time. A mere detention is not an arrest. Just because you’re not free to leave does not turn it into an arrest. This is not rocket science and I would expect someone attempting to do as much research on the topic as you are would know that. Every situation can be different. As far as your little episode at the park, the issue the court has to address is whether the time you were held was “reasonable” or not. Even if the involved officers arrested you and it was later to be determined an “unlawful” arrest, they thought they were doing the right thing according to their interpretation of the laws and the weapon they had in front of them. In order to be successful on a civil rights-related civil suit, you have to show where their conduct was “gross” in the sense. Although LEOs have much more education/training in the law, they are not expected to know every local, state, and federal law ever printed. You seem to think different, which is probably where we will disagree. I think this will be what the court will ultimately address in the 6th District.

Even with my experience and training I would have probably detained you until I could ascertain whether the Draco you were carrying was considered a “handgun” in the context of federal/state law. Given all of the involved circumstances (location, clothing, painted orange tip, assault-style rifle pistol with large magazine), I would have definitely made sure I was safe when approaching you, even if that includes drawing down on you to do so. It seems to me that the involved rangers/officers were not sure whether it was a handgun or not. I would say the best way to make sure is call those who are experts on the matter, which in this case would be the ATF. The feds are not quick to respond in some circumstances, so from the time of the actual stop to your release, I don’t see it as “unreasonable.” Obviously my opinion doesn’t matter, but based on my training, experience, and how I feel about your case and the law, I find it hard to believe that the court will rule in your favor.

I can almost guarantee that your court action claiming TCA 39-17-1307 is unconstitutional will be dead in the water. The TN AG’s opinion pretty much summed up how I feel about that issue. Even with the current SCOTUS rulings in the Heller/McDonald cases, the US Supreme Court does not see any state laws requiring a permit to carry a handgun unconstitutional. The Heller/McDonald rulings did not address anything remotely close to carry permits. Those cases dealt with banning handguns in the homes, which is attempting to restrict the right to carry far beyond the permit issue. Although I agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in those cases, I also agree with the fact that some handgun regulation is necessary. As I mentioned on other forums where you and I have blogged, I don’t think you have a winnable case in both your civil action against the ranger and your claim that TCA 39-17-1307 is unconstitutional. I am keeping a close on it as I’m sure others are as well.

Reply

Josh November 29, 2010 at 03:59 pm

The person relaying the story to me is a highly sought after criminal litigator; I’ll trust his knowledge of criminal law over that of a police officer. I think part of what’s happening here is that there is the police version of what an arrest is (booking, court date, etc.) and then there is a more basic legal version of arrest, the restraining of a person’s freedom. As you conceded, a traffic stop that extends beyond a reasonable time can be considered an arrest by a court, without the need for any formal arrest procedure. Similarly, when a citizen restricts the freedom of another person, the term for that is an arrest, hence the charge of “false arrest” when a person (often private security or employees of an establishment) unlawfully prevents someone from leaving – again, obviously the employees/security are not effecting a police arrest procedure and booking them into custody, etc.

Back to the “not under arrest/walking away thing.” As I think about it, I don’t believe the discussion necessarily dealt with a stop by an officer that had reasonable suspicion to believe you committed, or were about to commit, a crime. It may very well have been a casual stop by an officer. In that case, you absolutely could refuse to answer and walk away. Reasonable suspicion allows you to go further and not only briefly detain, but also search a suspect. That being said, if I was minding my own business walking down the street, breaking no laws, and you stopped me and started asking questions, I’d ask if I were under arrest. If not, I’d tell you I was leaving. If you decided to arrest me that would be your prerogative, but it would be up to you to be able to articulate a good enough reason for doing so that my lawyer wouldn’t tear apart. Again, this is assuming I’ve done nothing wrong.

Whether you want to admit it or not, we both know that police officers take advantage of the fact that most people are unaware of how far their rights extend. How about the old, “You’ve got nothing to hide, right? You don’t mind if I search your vehicle, do you?” Well, I mind. Not because I have something to hide, but because you don’t have any right to, if you did, you wouldn’t be asking for permission.

Reply

scott715us November 29, 2010 at 03:37 pm

p.s….I would say the same thing if I was the park ranger. No common-sense, responsible gun advocate/owner would carry a Draco AK-style pistol (especially with an orange painted-tip) as an everyday form of self-defense. Many of the most pro-gun folks on the internet have told you the same on the other half-dozen forums you have been posting on. That’s why many criticize your actions as something your doing simply for attention and a chance at money at the burden of the taxpayers.

Reply

kwikrnu November 29, 2010 at 04:22 pm

So, you’re for reinstatement of the assault weapons ban? There is no reason for anyone to have a rifle or handgun that may look mean. That goes for high capacity magazines too!

Reply

Josh November 29, 2010 at 04:05 pm

… I was detained for nearly an hour before they came up with something to charge me with. They tried to charge me with the carry of a rifle…

It’s too bad it’s not a crime to be an obnoxious, irresponsible, attention-seeking, moron. You’d be on death row.

Reply

scott715us November 29, 2010 at 05:11 pm

Josh – Whether a criminal litigator or an ambulance chaser, law enforcement know what they need to conduct an investigative detention and/or an arrest. It’s what we do everyday. I’m pretty sure most know when they’re arresting someone versus when they’re detaining someone for an investigation. In Kwik’s case, carrying a firearm is illegal unless you have a valid HCP. The officer has plenty of RS to detain to determine what he was doing was legal. Obviously, if he didn’t have a HCP, he would have been arrested. The issue with his arrest is the weapon itself. Most officers are not going to look at that weapon and say that it’s a “handgun” that falls under the statutory requirements that the HCP laws/exceptions cover. That’s why he was detained until it could be determined definitively that the Draco was a “handgun” under federal law. How often have YOU walked down the street (minding your own business) and an officer approached, questioned, and asked to search you? We have more important things to deal with then stop and search people for no apparent reason. When I normally ask to search a vehicle, I already have RS/PC to do so, but asking never hurts. It sends a few more signals when the person’s mannerisms change (body language, eye movements, etc) when I ask about searching.

On a side note, although there are definitely cases where officers have taken advantage of folks who “didn’t know better,” ignorance of the law is no excuse. 99% of officers in this country do what they’re supposed to do legally. It’s not their job to inform citizens of this country every legal aspect of the law and what they’re entitled to. It’s not because we’re trying to get one over on them. It’s because the police would not be able to do their job if we had to explain every Constitutional right afforded to the person during our contact with them. That’s the court and/or their attorney’s job. If we abuse anyone’s Constitutional rights, then it comes out in a courtroom by excluding any statements/evidence obtained during the illegal search/seizure. Officers who grossly violate constituional rights (as mentioned above) are not immune from civil action, but the conduct had to be pretty bad.

Kwik – don’t ignore the point. My post doesn’t imply that people shouldn’t be allowed to own assault rifles. Who do you know that carries an assault weapon on their person in a state park around soccer moms and strollers as every day self defense? The state of TN finally makes some leeway for pro-gun folks by allowing guns in state parks and this is how you answer the new legislation? by parading around kids and families with an assault-style pistol in BDUs? It should have been a “win” for those that wanted to exercise their right to carry in other places that were previously prohibited. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of the counties/cities that opted out of the state law and created their own ordinance did so because of your shenanigans at Percy Warner that created so much attention. It’s really the common sense issues you’re trying to avoid by posting more gun-related jargon when answering my posts.

Reply

kwikrnu November 29, 2010 at 05:34 pm

Who was in BDUs? Not me.
Who was in Percy Warner park? Not me.
I saw no one in a stroller. Not me.

The Second Amendment, Tennessee Constitution, nor any state law limit the carry of an ak pistol. Yet, you make an argument that it shouldn’t be carried.

The second ranger who stopped me at gun point had no RAS I was illegal. I had shown the first ranger my permit 20-30 minutes before I was stopped at gun point. The first ranger said he followed me 20-30 minutes and saw no threatening behavior. Both rangers said no one reported any threatening behavior. Both were in contact with each other. If they knew the law defining a handgun all they would have to do is measure the gun. They didn’t tell the police I broke a law when they contacted the cops. They even told the cops not to run lights. The problem was they did not know the law regarding lengths. If they had known they wouldn’t have stopped me.

Reply

scott715us November 29, 2010 at 06:14 pm

Radnor Lake/Percy Warner, same difference. It’s a state park. Park rangers ARE commissioned law enforcement officers. I’m assuming they contacted MNPD for assistance. Obviously the first ranger that came in contact with you was probably unsure about the weapon, so he contacted a more senior ranger. I’m sure the second ranger had to determine whether your gun was legal so he did have RS to stop and do so. Regardless if your behavior was “threatening” or not, the issue here is the gun in question. The rangers detained you until it could be determined DEFINITIVELY that the type of weapon you had was in fact technically a handgun. It is very rare for any LEOs to run across that style weapon, especially carrying it in the manner you chose to; hence why there was some issues about it’s lawfulness. I think that anything that has a banana clip in it shoud be declared an assault rifle, but that’s me.

It has been interpreted by our courts in TN, that it is not a violation of the TN Constitution or the US Constitution to regulate firearm carry. It is unlawful to carry a pistol in this state, as with many others, without a carry permit. You will learn that this isn’t going to change when your 39-17-1307 case is tossed.

Reply

kwikrnu November 29, 2010 at 06:50 pm

percy warner is a davidson county park.

The first ranger states the weapon is legal on audio tape.

Police have no right to detain you to determine if the currency in your wallet is legal.

Police have no right to detain to go on a wild goose chase to determine if my weapon might not be legal. There was no indication it was illegal. No attempt was made in 2.5 hours to simply measure the barrel.

I had a permit and it was checked 20-30 minutes before the 2.5 hour detainement/arrest took place.

Josh November 29, 2010 at 06:23 pm

Who was in BDUs? Not me.

Fair point. You don’t have a BDU uniform do you? Because you never served? You were wearing a Gore-Tex jacket, purchased from a surplus store, right? Because you have to turn those in when you ETS. I would expect a veteran, at least one who actually carried a weapon as part of his duties, to show a little more responsibility and maturity with respect to the carrying of firearms.

I saw no one in a stroller. Not me.

So, you have poor situational awareness. Congratulations.

Reply

kwikrnu November 29, 2010 at 06:51 pm

Not that it matters, but I am a veteran of the United States military.

Josh November 29, 2010 at 07:25 pm

To kwikrnu:

Not that it matters, but I am a veteran of the United States military.

It sort of does matter, because like I said, I would expect more firearms responsibility from someone who carried a weapon for a living. Although, “I served” is pretty ambiguous. Coast Guard? Maybe you changed airplane tires in the Air Force? Cook on a ship in the Navy?

This sort of immature and irresponsible handling of firearms is something I would expect from someone who joined, but washed out in basic training. That doesn’t count, by the way. If that’s what happened, you’re not a veteran. This seems like “I tried to join the police force but failed and now I’m a mall cop” type behavior.

Josh November 29, 2010 at 06:27 pm

How often have YOU walked down the street (minding your own business) and an officer approached, questioned, and asked to search you?

Never. And I hope you’re not misinterpreting my statements as a defense of this idiot’s actions. We’ve gotten a little off topic with the discussion of police and individual’s rights, etc. That tangent doesn’t need to be discussed here any further. In fact, I think we should end all of this discussion entirely. All it’s doing is giving numbnuts (AKA kwikrnu) the sense that someone’s paying attention to him, which is, quite obviously, all he’s been after with all of his ridiculousness.

Reply

scott715us November 30, 2010 at 05:14 pm

I haven’t misinterpreted your posts. I just wanted you to know that 99% of us LEOs do what we’re required to do according to the oath we were sworn to when we received our badge. I know there are bad LEOs out there, but they make up a fraction of the ones that are putting their lives on the line every day, just as you and your buddies did in the military, which I commend you for. I didn’t serve, but my father, grandfather, great-grandfather, older brother, and a multitude of other family members did. Good discussion on your part and if you have any TN-related LEO questions, please feel free to ask.

With regards to kwik, I’ve been on other blogs and discussions about his antics. I personally know the Ranger who detained him. I haven’t spoke with him in a long time, but from what I remember he was a squared away guy who always wanted to be a Ranger and I truly believe he did what he thought was the right thing to do given the circumstances in front of him. I honestly believe neither of Leonard’s lawsuits will be successful. I am looking forward to January so that Steve can get this all behind him. At least us LEOs in the middle TN area don’t have to worry about kwik’s parading around anymore due to the loss of his permit. I believe in the 2nd Amendment in most aspects, but this issue is just like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. You are protected under the Constitution until you decide not to use common sense. He made his bed and now he has to lay in it.

Reply

kwikrnu November 30, 2010 at 05:30 pm

You may think it is okay for the State of Tennessee to prohibit law abiding citizens from bearing arms, but I think it is against the supreme law of the land. I have a federal firearms license, I have a Florida handgun carry permit. I’ll soon have handgun carry permits from other States. I can legally carry in most States with no permit at all. The suspension of my permit just shows the arrogance of state government and their blatent attempt to discount the Constitution of the United States.

scott715us November 30, 2010 at 05:59 pm

TN’s laws are not unconstitutional. Your interpretation of the McDonald/Heller cases are completely erroneous. Those cases dealt specifically with the attempt to ban weapons in the home. The US Supreme Court’s decision in those particular opinions even tells you that their decision is not attempting to overturn most states who regulate the carry of firearms. The TN courts are not going to change their historical opinions about the regulation of the carry of firearms just because a couple of states (Chicago & DC) attempted to ban guns altogether. You had your chance in TN and blew it. TN’s weapons laws do not restrict RESPONSIBLE gun-owners. You decided to put on a show with an assault-pistol in a state park and carry a gun in your hand down the road of a prominent neighborhood. The rights of the people to feel secure and safe in public parks and in their own neighborhoods holds more weight than your misplaced attempt for your “cause.” TCA 39-17-1307 does not violate the state or US Constitution and you will find out soon enough.

Josh November 30, 2010 at 06:04 pm

…I just wanted you to know that 99% of us LEOs do what we’re required to do according to the oath we were sworn to when we received our badge. I know there are bad LEOs out there, but they make up a fraction of the ones that are putting their lives on the line every day, just as you and your buddies did in the military, which I commend you for.

I do believe that most law enforcement officers are doing the right thing most of the time. And I think that law-abiding citizens are probably very rarely inconvenienced by police officers who mistakenly stop/detain/question them. I have a lot of respect for the officers who do their job well and don’t let their position of authority go to their head (although I think that there are many who don’t fit into that category. Few in relation to the total number, but enough to cause concern). I don’t envy police officers for having to deal with drunk and disorderly idiots, domestic violence, and everything else that happens routinely. This conversation took a bad turn, and I didn’t mean it to imply that I think all, or most, police officers are not doing their job well, or are taking advantage of people in any manner.

Thank you – for what you do, and for being one of the ones who does the job with integrity.

kwikrnu November 30, 2010 at 06:07 pm

By your reasoning the only part of the second amendment which was incorporated was the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. The Heller court specifically cites prior case law where carry is the ability to carry a weapon for use as a defensive tool. They also talk about laws which prohibited carry in the 1870’s, specifically andrews v state in Tennessee. If I lose all it does is strengthen the arument that the right to bear arms can be regulated by the State to prohibit the law abiding from carrying under “good cause” exceptions. If I lose my suit I’ll set up residence in another State, get a permit, and still carry a handgun in Tennessee.

Josh November 30, 2010 at 06:17 pm

…You may think it is okay for the State of Tennessee to prohibit law abiding citizens from bearing arms, but I think it is against the supreme law of the land.

I would think it’s perfectly okay for the state of Tennessee to prohibit those who have shown, on multiple occasions, through actions and words, that they are not mature or responsible enough to bear arms. You have certainly demonstrated that. And what’s most peculiar is that you post on firearm websites, proclaiming your position and antics, and, by and large, the community of firearm enthusiasts can’t stand you and thinks you need to go away. I’m far from an expert in psychology or mental disorders, but it’s clear that there is a serious underlying problem that you have.

Josh November 30, 2010 at 06:19 pm

…If I lose my suit I’ll set up residence in another State, get a permit, and still carry a handgun in Tennessee.

Come on, don’t subject another state to the annoyance that you are; stay in Tennessee.

Josh February 11, 2010 at 11:03 am

This certainly does shed a little more light on the situation. I will concede that it gives a little more credence to the idea that he was detained longer than necessary. It does not, however, support any notion that he should not have been stopped at all, or detained long enough to determine that his weapon was not illegal.

I certainly hope the defendant offers up as evidence the internet postings made by the plaintiff, as it is quite clear that he was seeking attention by his actions. It’s pretty absurd to seek damages on the basis that the events were made public by the news media when the plaintiff himself made not only these events public, but his intention to deceive by painting his weapon to look like a toy.

Reply

Roger February 15, 2010 at 04:20 pm

Looney Leonard is at it again! This guy is a threat to all of us that want to carry in a responsible manner. He will make sure he continues until he scares enough people that they will change the law to prevent idiots like this from doing what he does best….. Scaring children and women! Wonder if he did not get enough attention as a child or if he really wants to be a cop and couldn’t get hired??? What scares me is his temper and his childish behaviour when he doesn’t get his way…….

Reply

Anonymous March 17, 2010 at 06:13 pm

Of course he’s a looney – he’s a sociopath. There are only two people in the sociopath’s life – victims, and accomplishes who will become victims. He’s never wrong, he looks for trouble then cries “victim”, he lies convincingly, etc.

Look up sociopathic symptoms and you’ll see Leonard Embody.

Reply

Yllw March 14, 2010 at 08:01 am

So this guy walked around in camo with a gun that might be a pistol or a rifle and painted the tip orange???

The officer checked to see if he was legal then put him on his face after verifying legality?

I question the carriers sanity but the fact remains, despite his cry for attention, the officer DID violate his rights. Good luck with the lawsuit

Reply

Woot September 7, 2010 at 04:27 pm

Ok. The First officer ( a Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agent) asked him if it were legal. He did not rely on this info. The second officer, before finding it was a legal firearm, did “put him in the dirt.” Again, BEFORE finding it was a legal firearm, and not the illegal “sister” firearm, which looks practically identical.

Anyone know how far this has gotten? (why I am posting in something so old…)

I do believe the fellow does not have legal representation… Which will not go well…

Reply

Admin (Mike) September 8, 2010 at 12:27 am

Last thing I heard was that he was denied an NFA item he applied for, and the sheriff also pulled his carry permit on the basis that he poses a likelihood of risk to the public. I think he said that he was going to sue.. but i’m not sure if that ended up happening.

Reply

leonard embody November 19, 2010 at 07:54 am

I was denied because the sheriff did not execute the form as required by tennessee law tca 39-17-1361. However the chancellor of williamson county did not agree that the sheriff must execute as required by statute so I lost in a summary judgment. I did not appeal the ruling.

It is amazing what the judiciary can do to thwart justice. I have a clean record. Hell, I have a federal firearms license.

Reply

leonard embody November 19, 2010 at 07:51 am

I do have legal representation. The rangers have all been deposed. The trial is in March 2011.

Reply

scott715us November 29, 2010 at 04:53 am

Just out of curiosity, why is the lawsuit only against the individual park ranger and does not include the state of TN?

Reply

kwikrnu November 29, 2010 at 05:36 pm

The state is usually immune from 1983 suits.

Reply

kwikrnu December 5, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Anonymous January 29, 2011 at 09:02 am

Why hasn’t Leonard Embody posted here since his lawsuit was dismissed on January 21, 2011? Is it because of the following…?

Kwik is a man without reason
His actions do border on treason
He is real kwik to sue
(and, yes that includes you)
But now he’s got his due season

Reply

kwikrnu January 29, 2011 at 09:10 am

I didn’t think I was required to post comments. My lawsuit was dismissed, but I have motioned to amend the judgment. If the motion is denied I’ll just appeal.

Reply

inandywetrust February 19, 2011 at 07:27 pm

This is the kind of shit that gives handgun carriers a bad name. I am a veteran as well, I was Airborne Infantry and I did my time in Iraq- but you wont catch me wearing anything Uncle Sam gave me outside of camping, hunting or doing something that would require me to get dirty.

I certainly would not be carrying a f***ing Draco around! What is wrong with you?! Ever heard of suitability? JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN, DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN YOU SHOULD. You already know how the public, let alone the world feels about the AK and its variants. It raises eyebrows on TV let alone being carried by some Joker in a park. Whats with the orange tip? Did you think that was funny? So now, not only do you look like a tool, you look like a tool with a convincing airsoft gun. Thank you for reminding me why discretion and tact are valuable things to teach. I support carrying. Hell, here in KY I sometimes open carry when It is too warm for a jacket, and I have a 1911. But I at least have the common fucking courtesy to present myself in a fashion that puts people at ease when I do. My barrel is an extension of my hand, not an extension of my penis.

That Ranger was simply doing his job. Sometimes, you gotta do things that don’t make sense. But you do them for the greater good. Does he have a wife? Kids? Motherfuckers (God bless em) gotta eat. What if he gets relieved? What if you win and that breaks the bank for him? Light that with a Zippo and smoke it, you 7.62×39 carrying faggot.

Reply

Scott Chandler September 2, 2012 at 07:58 am

inandywetrust: “JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN, DOES NOT ALWAYS MEAN YOU SHOULD.”

Shouldn’t the exercise of any right, whether natural, constitutional, civil, or otherwise be up to the discretion of the citizen? Who are you, any law enforcement officer, lawyer, or judge to say that a citizen should not? Short of a new ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court which has determined that the Second Amendment is an individual right (as opposed to a collective right, meaning “National Guard”) nobody –and I mean NOBODY — can tell a citizen if, or even when, he can exercise a Constitutional right.

By the way, the U.S. Constitutional and all federal laws pursuant to it trumps any state law, regardless of what the state may think.

Reply

kwikrnu February 19, 2011 at 08:13 pm

I’ll carry my ak and you’ll continue to carry something else…

Reply

scott715us February 25, 2011 at 05:14 am

Why keep filing motions and wasting the court’s time? They’re not going to overturn the decision.

p.s. You won’t be carrying that AK/Draco in TN unless you’re transporting it to a firing range or to hunt.

Reply

kwikrnu June 9, 2011 at 02:39 am

The juidge reversed his decision, according to you he wouldn’t…

Reply

kwikrnu February 25, 2011 at 07:20 am

I have carry licenses/permits from 3 other states. If I lose my constitutional challenge all I need do is establish residency in any other state and I will be able to legally carry in Tennessee on any of those permits/licenses.

Reply

scott715us March 3, 2011 at 01:28 pm

Just because you have a license from another state which may have reciprocity with TN doesn’t mean the Dept of Safety has to honor it. I know you’re trying to find technicalities to still carry in TN since your permit was revoked, but that isn’t going to be one of them. The state of TN has the right not to honor your out of state permits just like they had a right to revoke your TN permit.

Reply

kwikrnu March 3, 2011 at 03:04 pm

Cite an instance where that has happened. Cite the law which gives them that authority.

Reply

scott715us March 4, 2011 at 03:01 am

If you live here or work here as outlined by the HCP laws, you’re required to have a TN HCP. If you want to move out of TN just so you can carry, I’m sure no one is stopping you. It’s less headache the LE community has to deal with. It’s doubtful that it has happened before. Honestly, who would want to move out of TN and obtain a permit just so they can step over the TN state line and giggle tee hee hee like a 10 yr old. Just keep your work and your residence in the other state and you shouldn’t have any problems. Keep working or living in TN and attempt to use the out-of-state permit and you’re likely going to land in jail. Remember a permit is only a defense to 39-17-1307. It’s not going to be a very successful defense if prosecution can show you deliberately and fraudulently obtained a permit from another state in an attempt to continue to carry in TN.

Reply

kwikrnu March 4, 2011 at 06:52 am

If, as I said, set up residency in another state I would also work in that state. I would move out of state just to show up and carry in downtown nashville and in tennessee state parks on the weekends.

Reply

scott715us March 10, 2011 at 03:48 am

Good luck with that. I’m sure your family would like to move to another state just so you can carry a firearm back into TN. You seriously miss the big picture. You’re going to be alone and a hermit, but at least you will be able to carry a gun……I’m impressed.

Reply

kwikrnu March 10, 2011 at 06:57 am

I’m impressed that you’re impressed. The point is the state of Tennessee has illegally denied me the ability to carry a gun while I am a resident of the State, but if I am a resident of a different State I may legally carry. I won’t have to worry about it after I win my lawsuit.

Reply

Scott Chandler September 2, 2012 at 08:06 am

I see by your reply that a citizen knowing and exercising his Constitutional rights are a headache to law enforcement. That is just another piece of evidence that Officer Friendly got buried with Sheriff Andy.

By the way, what’s the deal with the new skinhead look favored by newly-minted rookies? In my recent experience, seeing one of those tells you he reserves the right to be an asshole right off the bat without any apologies.

Reply

Wolf September 2, 2012 at 11:20 am

After reviewing carefully the comments I have allegedly made that have sparked such anger within the ENDO community, I have decided to change my password and logoff before I leave the office.

While I personally am not a fan of the open carry policy per se, I am a firm believer that we have been born with Constitutional rights to protect ourselves against corrupt government and those who wish us harm, as well as an avid conceal carry-er.

I most certainly do not condone the use of the word “faggot”, as it a derogatory word towards the LGBT community, of whom I support wholeheartedly.

One of the most laughable comments that made it clear to me that I did not write this was the 7.62×39 and 1911 comment. I am a huge fan of 7.62×39, and do not own a 1911. I am a Glock guy.

I am also not Law Enforcement, nor will I attempt to claim that I am, as that is not only dumb but illegal. I am a Journalist and Student. I did serve in the Iraq War and was a paragrunt for many years. At least OP got that right. Law Enforcement is a fine profession. Someday I hope to delve into it as a profession, but right now in this economy- education comes first. Until then, I support good LEOs and reject the bad ones.

I will, before I finish this statement make a final point:
Some people are simply trolling when they open carry. Thousands of Youtube videos are dedicated to this, and it is shameful to a certain degree. While I do not personally know Mr.Embody, I did my research on him (as journalists often do), and have found little to the contrary that he is an attention-mongering individual who more or less makes carriers look bad. I believe open carry could be a great thing- if society was again ready to accept it. In states where it is allowed and CC is not, I think it is a great thing. In states where CC is allowed and is accessible as OC, I believe CC should be the route to take. Having worked the contract curcuit and personal protection route before I left to get my degree, I firmly believe in being a “quiet” professional. People don’t need to know I am armed 24/7. To be quite honest, that pistol is for personal defense. Personal- meaning my immediate self and those under my charge at the time. Loved ones, friends, etc in a close-range, immediate threat situation. Beyond that, it is to my discretion and personal threat/collateral/legal assessment to make a quick decision if it is okay for me to act beyond that immediate bubble.

I was once a victim of a legal OC incident which resulted in me having my home surrounded by a Tac team, simply because I spooked a coffeeshop owner to the point that she went into hysterics and called the cops with some cockamaney story.
I was detained briefly, then let go. However, I learned a valuable lesson that led me to much research on the topic.

If you can conceal carry and accept any and all responsibility for your actions- please do. If you wish to open carry and accept that people are going to be freaked out and you run the risk of being stopped by police of varying levels of professionalism- please do. Just conduct yourself in a manner befitting of a good citizen, not a gunstore lawyer. Make us all look good.

Scott: I have no idea why. Personally, I would grow my hair out. I think it is because most Academies now require the boots shave their heads, and they are too self conscious to have the awkward in-between dumb looking phases between shaved hair and awesome dude fauxhawk.

Reply

andywolf March 3, 2011 at 03:22 pm

Cite you? I’ll cite you right now for being an attention-whoring douchebag.
I bet you secretly want to buy a conceal carry badge too.

Reply

kwikrnu March 3, 2011 at 03:36 pm

I don’t need a badge to carry a gun.

Reply

Anonymous September 5, 2011 at 03:42 pm

…but he needs a permit to carry a gun… a Permit that he doesn’t possess. The world is much safer without sociopaths carrying loaded guns. Kudos to the fine State of Tennessee for having the foresight to see that Leonard Embody poses a material risk to the public.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: