Leonard Embody Black Powder Pistol Open (in hand) Carry – Belle Meade may amend the law

I posted about Leonard Embody (kwikrnu as he is known on various internet forums) and his AK-47 pistol open carry incident and the subsequent court complaint filed by him for the violation of his 4th Amendment rights etc..

Originally I was unaware of all his past shenanigans, so my article when I first reported on the AK-47 incident back in December of 2009 I was very sympathetic.  Months later, after reading more and more about him, my opinion did a 180.

If you are unfamiliar with Leonard, Linoge from WallsOfTheCity has a comprehensive outline of all Leonard’s escapades, with links to the relevant forum posts and news stories – HERE

One of the most recent incidents (January 23, 2010) was when he open carried (in hand) a Navy Model 1851 black powder pistol in Belle Meade, TN in order to challenge the following laws:

TCA 39-17-1314 City laws regulating guns preempt state laws if they were made before April 8, 1986. (TN State Law)

Title 11 Chapter 6 section 602 specifically states the carry of an army or navy model pistol is an exception, and it must be carried openly in the hand not in a holster. (Belle Meade Ordinances)

The result?  He caused a bit of a stir and recently ended up getting his carry permit revoked I think he got off easy, considering his 1851 is a replica, and not the real thing.

Unfortunately, it looks like all of his shit disturbing may finally yield something…

In an article in today’s Nashville CityPaper, the mayor Gray Thornburg said the following:

Embody found a loophole in the law that allowed him to carry the military-style weapon, and the city is amending the law to take off the out of date exemption. We’re deleting that particular part which is very, very old. Historically, everybody had that in there.

According to the CityPaper article, the deletion of the law will go before the commission today Wednesday (today?) on a second and final reading, where it will either be approved or deferred.

I had to chuckle when I read the “military-style” part of the mayor’s comment, considering this is what the gun looks like:

28 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

kwikrnu March 17, 2010 at 03:25 am

What is the definition of an army or navy pistol? Were they brand specific?
Colt made this type of pistol for the Union, but they did not sell their guns to the Confederacy. The Confederacy made replica Colts for wartime use. Just because a pistol is a replica or a copy does not mean it is not an army or navy pistol. The army or navy pistol refers to a .36 or .44 caliber pistol as was used in war. My pietta meets that description.
What was the intent of the Legislature in the 1870’s? They wanted an easy way to identify those who were armed. What better way to identify armed citizens than to make them carry their pistol in a way where the armed were easily identified. So, they chose large, cumbersome, heavy pistols. Several years later the State banned the sale of any pistol which was not an army or navy model. Pocket pistols were prohibited.
The State prosecuted people who carried pistols other than the army navy pistols. The state prosecuted anyone who did not carry openly in the hand. Specifically see supreme court decision in Andrews v State in 1871.
Belle Meade has decided to ban handguns with an unconstitutional ordinance. Chattanooga tried the same and the Supremem Court declared it unconstitutional in 1928, Glasscock v chattanooga.

Reply

Anonymous March 17, 2010 at 06:49 am

Even Linoge from WallsOfTheCity doesn’t have all of Kwikrnu’s escapades. He’s been a troublemaker for years and more will come out when his lawsuit gets to court.

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 20, 2010 at 04:47 pm

I see that now. Every time I google anything to do with his name I come across a new thread somewhere with new information.

Reply

slowrnu March 17, 2010 at 09:40 am

Suspension of his carry permit is just the tip of things. I doubt that Leonard has any idea as to the extent of what “will come out” as a result of filing a civil rights lawsuit. What might otherwise be viewed as unacceptable invasions of privacy are in his future. Attempts to dodge this impending invasion of his privacy will result in fines, and/or contempt of court charges and/or dismissal of his lawsuit against a park ranger.

From the plaintiff’s perspective, this impending invasion of privacy may seem unwarranted. From a defendant’s perspective, it could be that we are an inordinately litigious society and that we make it to easy to bring suit against each other. Perhaps good judgement lies somewhere in between the lines that are drawn.

Nonetheless, and wether Leonard likes it or not, before he ever gets his “day in court” his life will become something of an open book. Whilst open carry case law in Tennessee may be thin on the ground, especially in light of recent legislation, case law supporting what Leonard is likely to perceive as invasions of his privacy seems extensive and well supported.

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 20, 2010 at 04:49 pm

Excellent point.

As far as whether he likes it or not… I’d have to say he almost certainly would like it considering it seems he LIVES for the attention his escapades get him.

Reply

Marky March 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Leonard Failbody is a tool, bottom line. He will only continue to cause trouble and unwanted attention for the rest of us until he eventually gets locked up.

Reply

Fred March 17, 2010 at 03:22 pm

Perfect case of a bad apple… hopefully he gets some sense knocked into him soon.

Reply

Josh March 17, 2010 at 05:35 pm

I was unsympathetic (to put it mildly) after hearing the first story. This guy is a complete tool who seems to be trying his best to make gun owners look like irresponsible, immature morons.

Reply

Martial-Lol'd March 18, 2010 at 08:34 am

Frankly I’m disappointed at reading everyone’s remarks on trouble-maker this or that. Really necessary?
1) If he was within the legal limits of the law, what is the problem?
2) How is his making trouble if he is within his legal rights? People are uncomfortable? Security versus the law?
3) It is his fault that’s the way the law is?
I know some of my questions are the same (and/or redundant), but if he strayed from the law even an inch or so, I believe he should be held accountable for his actions. That’s it. Outside the fact that he may be instigating, he still from what I’ve read hasn’t really violated the law. BUT, that’s up for lawyers to debate over, and a judge to make a verdict on.

Rant:
Furthermore, any asshole who thinks this guy represents all firearm owners are extremely fucking stupid. I think smashing my facing into a brick at mach five is conducive to the argument than blaming everyone for this one guy. We don’t blame everyone who is white for racism and slavery just because a few were involved with it, so why should we do the same with others? Albeit an extreme example, but people who are uneducated ought educate themselves first on law before they start to dictate what should and should not be.

Fuck!… (End rant).

Reply

Kevin March 18, 2010 at 09:24 am

For me at least its become obvious that Leonard is just trolling for a lawsuit settlement for the violation of his rights. was sympathetic at first also because I thought it was an isolated incident, not someone attempting to make a career out of trying to get wrongly arrested.

If what he is doing is acceptable then I might as well quit working today and do something similar. Maybe I’ll borrow a friend’s Toyota and try to get it to accelerate uncontrollably.. or maybe i’ll just drive around in my own car and look for an accident… or wait.. the easiest would probably be if I walked around while it is still kind of cold out and found some ice to slip on and hurt myself so I could sue the home or business owner.

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 18, 2010 at 10:08 am

That pretty much sums up how I feel as well.

Reply

Josh March 18, 2010 at 09:26 am

In response to legal rights, legal limits of the law, the way the law is, etc.:

Just because something is, technically within the letter of the law, legal, does not make it appropriate. This particular law regarding openly carrying an Army or Navy pistol in the hand is, I think by anyone’s measure, one of those outdated laws that remains on the books largely because it’s almost entirely forgotten or overlooked, and because it’s so outdated that it’s all but irrelevant to modern situations. There are undoubtedly many examples of these type of laws and statutes all over small towns throughout the nation. We’ve all heard about places that still have laws on their books that make it illegal for a man with a mustache to kiss a woman in public, and other such absurdities. I must wonder, if carrying this pistol was acceptable because it was ‘technically’ legal, are those absurd laws making things illegal acceptable? Would it be acceptable to you if you were fined or incarcerated for breaking such an outdated, absurd law? Would you be ok with being fined if caught putting ice cream on cherry pie in Kansas, cursing inside city limits in Maryland, or sleeping naked in Minnesota?

On the list of crazy laws found on one website (www.bored.com/crazylaws) are the following:
– It is legal to drive the wrong way down a one-way street if you have a lantern attached to the front of your automobile (Alabama)
– A man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month (Arizona)
– In Los Angeles a man is legally entitled to beat his wife with a leather belt or strap, but the belt can’t be wider than 2 inches, unless he has his wife’s consent to beat her with a wider strap
– You have the right to commit simple battery if provoked by “fighting” words (Georgia)
– You will be fined if you do not own a boat (Hawaii)
– A state law in Illinois mandates that all bachelors should be called master, not mister, when addressed by their female counterparts (Illinois)
– In Fort Madison the fire department is required to practice fire fighting for fifteen minutes before attending a fire (Iowa)
– One-armed piano players must perform for free (Iowa)
– You may shoot Native Americans if there are more than five of them on your property at any one time (Iowa)
– Lawrence: All cars entering the city limits must first sound their horn to warn the horses of their arrival. No one may wear a bee in their hat (Kansas)

These laws are just a small sample of those that are said to be on the books, and I limited it to things that are allowed by law, or are required by law, not things that are prohibited. I don’t know how accurate the list is/was at the time of writing, but certainly some on the list where I found these must have some truth to them. Imagine that any one of these I listed is still on the books. Are any of these appropriate?

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 18, 2010 at 10:12 am

Some of those laws you posted are just down right ridiculous, and go a long way in illustrating your point which I recently am in agreement with.

Reply

Martial-Lol'd March 18, 2010 at 10:31 pm

You list good points Josh, but until the law is change it is still legal, regardless of appropriateness, no? That is the only difference I see, though I agree with your opinion at a personal level; however, should he (kwiknru) be punished for his behavior in not illegal?

Reply

Josh March 18, 2010 at 10:54 pm

You’re right, it is legal (by the merest of technicalities), regardless of appropriateness. That’s why he wasn’t arrested or ticketed for it. He was punished, by revoking his permit, not for this instance, but for the collective stupidity he has demonstrated by a series of controversial and irresponsible acts. The revoking of his permit to carry would be an administrative punishment, not a criminal punishment for violating any law.

I don’t know what the requirements for the issue of a permit are in Tennessee, or revocation of one, but I would imagine that a demonstrated inability to carry or possess firearms in a responsible manner is grounds for an administrative revocation of a permit.

Reply

Anonymous March 19, 2010 at 03:26 pm

Kwik continually mentions that he did nothing “illegal”. Fortunately, revocation of a handgun carry permit does not require one to do anything illegal. Once he proved through multiple situation involving guns that he poses a risk to the public the state had grounds and the obligation to take his permit.

There once was a man named Kwik
Who had a gun instead of a d!%^
He sued for his “right”
Though his future was bright
But then he lost his permit

Reply

Admin (Mike) March 20, 2010 at 04:50 pm

LOL great poem!

Reply

kwikrnu October 26, 2010 at 05:52 pm

I received my FFL on Monday. The BATFE received the application on Oct. 10, 2010 and the letter postmarked on Oct. 21, 2010. Tennessee denies handgun carry permit to FFL holder.

Reply

Josh November 7, 2010 at 08:32 pm

I was hoping that this couldn’t possibly be true. I trusted that the gov’t would do a better job of keeping nutjobs from getting FFL’s. The ATF finally (just today I think) published their list of October FFL holders. There is no Leonard Embody listed for Tennessee as FFL holder.

http://www.atf.gov/about/foia/ffl-list.html

Reply

Admin (Mike) November 7, 2010 at 09:14 pm

Maybe he has a company that it’s under? I checked your link, and I can’t find his name on the list either.

Reply

Josh November 7, 2010 at 09:45 pm

I don’t know. It looks like Lenny is from Brentwood, TN. There are only 3 FFL holders listed with a mailing address in Brentwood. Only one has a business name listed as both the license name and business name, and, according to the TN Department of State, that business was administratively dissolved in August of this year. And the name on the annual report is not Embody.

I think the more plausible explanation is that somebody’s looking for some more attention. There may be another explanation, but can you really trust anything that comes from a guy like this? I think he has sufficiently demonstrated a severe lack of maturity and good judgment.

Reply

Admin (Mike) November 10, 2010 at 07:04 pm

There may be another explanation, but can you really trust anything that comes from a guy like this?

heh no kidding.

Good detective work as usual Josh. Thanks!

Reply

Josh November 10, 2010 at 07:19 pm

Well, that’s the kind of thing I’m good at. You keep up your good work, and I’ll do what I can to add to the conversation.

Reply

Lord Baltimore August 5, 2011 at 06:18 pm

Unfortunately, guys like this DO become construed as representative of gun owners as a whole, and every stupid incident whether he was technically within his legal rights or not will be twisted and contorted into another argument for the gun control folks.

As a responsible, law-abiding citizen who wishes to exercise their 2nd Amendment right by owning firearms, every action you do with respect to those firearms represents the whole. You are an ambassador for gun owners whether you like it or not.

That includes everything; from range shooting to hunting, to living history or home/self defense. It even includes the comments you make on websites and message boards.

Reply

Sammy Comer July 30, 2013 at 03:30 am

Leonard still has his FFL. I did not know about this guy until I saw him on the news pertaining to carrying an AK47 pistol in downtown Nashville. Based on what I see, he is challenging the laws and/or enforcement of 2nd right, but really don’t know what is going on inside his head.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: