Mattv2099 doing things just to do them:

Matt told me he named his Draco “Malfoy” in honor of his man crush / and favorite movie villain.  Shout out to the Harry Potter franchise.  I suspect Matt even keeps a folded up Draco Malfoy picture in the bottom of the pistol grip.  I watched “Half Blood Prince” with my girlfriend last weekend… good flick.


The ENDO Apparel Picatinny Rail t-shirt clothes Matt’s tactical upper body in this video.  Pick one up, and watch your life go from good to great.



I can’t resist posting gun related video this nice looking. The crisp professionally recorded sound was such a bonus too.

I like how the one guy dissed airsoft king freddiew (from youtube) at the end of the vid. haha


After reading Josh’s comment in the previous Leonard Embody related post here on my blog, I was browsing through the list of crazy laws he linked to, and came up with the following in Google Maps:

With his weapon carry permit revoked, Leonard Embody (kwikrnu) is now setting out on a road trip around the U.S.A. to challenge other obscure laws in hopes of being arrested and getting rich off a wrongful arrest lawsuit settlement. (Click to view map)

I picked out on the most obscure items that were apparently legal, just to prove the point.


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:


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

« Click to continue…


You have already heard my point of view on the incident HERE and HERE.

Josh from Iowa, who frequently comments on this Blog, has this to say:

In response to the news about the lawsuit filed by the owner of the AK-47 pistol, we may have to agree to disagree. I think this guy got exactly what he was asking for. Notice that I said “asking for.” I believe this guy went out with the intention and the hope of provoking a reaction from the public and a response from the authorities. Let’s not forget he was dressed in camouflage clothing. I imagine dressed in woodland camo with an AK-47 (pistol or not) slung across his body he looked more like an Afghan militia member than the upstanding, law-abiding citizen he will be portraying in court. Worth noting also is that he had painted the end of the barrel blaze orange, seemingly in an attempt to make it look like a harmless toy. At the very least I think that he demonstrated a lack of maturity and showed a sense of irresponsibility that law-abiding gun owners and gun rights activists should be ashamed of. This is not the image of gun owners I want popping into peoples’ minds when they pause to think about the second amendment.

Admittedly, whether or not he was trying to provoke a response from the authorities, and regardless of the fact that in doing so he may not have been acting in the most responsible and civilized way, it seems that nothing he did was illegal. Let’s examine that though. It seems that his weapon is legal by the slimmest of margins. The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, section 479.11, defines a pistol as:

“A weapon originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile (bullet) from one or more barrels when held in one hand, and having (a) a chamber(s) as an integral part(s) of, or permanently aligned with, the bore(s); and (b) a short stock designed to be gripped by one hand and at an angle to and extending below the line of the bore(s).”

It seems to me that it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to argue that his weapon was originally designed as a rifle, not a pistol, and therefore does not meet the requirements to be classified as a pistol. I know this isn’t the case, but I think this weapons classification as a pistol is a bit shaky. I have yet to see one of these things being fired from one hand either; that certainly seems improbable, and certainly not how it was intended to be fired. Its legitimacy as a pistol is, I think, questionable to begin with.

All of that aside, let’s look at why he’s filed a lawsuit. I haven’t seen the actual lawsuit, but according to the story that was linked to, his civil rights were violated by, “detaining him on Dec. 20, 2009 without probable cause and for longer than was necessary to determine he was not committing a crime.” The officer acted in good faith while performing his duties in stopping him to determine whether he was acting within the law or not. As a combat veteran infantryman, I’ve spent enough time in Afghanistan to recognize an AK-47 (or its variants) when I see one. I certainly would not have thought this to be considered a pistol by any means. He had probable cause to detain him, that’s clear. To release him without verifying the legality of a weapon that does not appear to be a pistol would have been irresponsible on the part of authorities. The only real question seems to be whether or not he was detained for an unreasonable amount of time. It seems that will be left for a judge to decide. I’ll say this though, if I were the authorities detaining him, once I determined that it was technically a pistol, he would remain detained while I determined whether or not he violated any laws by painting the end of the barrel orange to make it look like an airsoft toy. I believe that’s illegal in some jurisdictions, and I think rightfully so.

In the end I think (and hope) that this case will be dismissed; nothing awarded to the plaintiff.  I feel no sympathy for his predicament. I do, however, feel sorry for the fact that he must go through life operating with a sub-standard level of maturity, and am regretful that he feels compelled to act out in ways that bring negative attention to the firearm rights he purports to hold so dear.


What do you guys think?