federal lawsuit filed against radnor lake ranger unlawful arrest ak-47

[Anthony_I_Am]

imported post

First recording the ranger states "Technically it's legal but, you know." So there should be no question in court that he knew it was a legal gun.

The ranger who called the police seems like he's more worried about "no lights and sirens" than he is about any ones safety. He said "no lights and sirens" about 3 or 4 times.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

Generally speaking, traffic laws state that pedestrians have the right of way in crosswalks. Nevertheless, it is smart to checkthe state oftraffic before walking into the street. Your position is tantamount to saying that a person should cross partway, and then see if he can trick cars into hitting him.

Do not draw false correlation to my "position" please. Especially with such a horrible analogy.

While your story is interesting, it is a completely unrelated fantasy scenario that contains components that kwikrnus case clearly does not.

One carrying a firearm "legally" does not equal "baiting". This is the attempt to draw a point to, in which you swapped out the "police" for "cars".

How many times do people need to iterate to some of you that it was the ONLY WAY HE COULD CARRY, before you actually get it?

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Anthony_I_Am wrote:

First recording the ranger states "Technically it's legal but, you know." So there should be no question in court that he knew it was a legal gun.

The ranger who called the police seems like he's more worried about "no lights and sirens" than he is about any ones safety. He said "no lights and sirens" about 3 or 4 times.

He wasn't worried about me. We talked, he let me go. I walked past many people on the 20-30 walk to my car. Then it sounds as if ranger ward went rambo and told him to call the cops. If I was a threat why didn't ranger #1 hold me at gun point? Why didn't he want the cops to come quickly? It doesn't make any sense because their actions didn't make sense.

 

[buzzsaw]

imported post

If your post covered this I'm sorry but I missed it. If you are represented but counsel I'm sure they have advised you to quit posting about this at least until the legal proceedings are concluded. As tempting as it may be to weigh in on all this "it aint helpin your case". Let it all work out until it is settled then have as much to say as you please. Not legal advice, just good advice, yours to take or leave at your discretion.

 

[theqbn]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:
How many times do people need to iterate to some of you that it was the ONLY WAY HE COULD CARRY, before you actually get it?

For those of us who are new to this series of events, can you quote or link to some background on this?

 

[Flyer22]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

How many times do people need to iterate to some of you that it was the ONLY WAY HE COULD CARRY, before you actually get it?

How many times do we need to hammer on the point that he CHOSE that particular pistol to carry, instead of a more conventional one?

Every singleproblem he has faced has involved carry of a non-conventional pistol. I still say that he should move to an Anti state like California, because his antics would make convential carry seem tame and acceptable by comparison.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

Flyer22 wrote:

How many times do we need to hammer on the point that he CHOSE that particular pistol to carry, instead of a more conventional one?

Every singleproblem he has faced has involved carry of a non-conventional pistol. I still say that he should move to an Anti state like California, because his antics would make convential carry seem tame and acceptable by comparison.

Flyer, again, since you don't get it...

That is the ONLY LAWFUL way to carry in that town! If you are too lazy to go back and read the first page, that is NOT my problem.


Furthermore, complaining about non-conventional this or that is just DUMB. You either stand for the 2nd Amendment, or you do not! If you want everybody to carry just like you, and whatever YOU decide to carry, then may somebody force you to carry what THEY deem is appropriate.

Here, since you like the automotive analogy:

The only reason it drew attention to him was because instead of driving a Honda, Nissan, Ford, Toyota, or other major marque, he was driving an MG, on a road that said "MG's only". He then was pulled over and harassed for driving an MG on a road that said MG's only. He then is being told by a bunch of uninformed people, to drive a mainstream marque on a road that is explicitly specific in saying "MG's only".

Maybe I just need to color out several different analogies so some of you can get it.

Not everybody agrees with your method of carry either Flyer, but I like how you completely and totally dodged that portion of my commentary simply on the basis of it being absolutely pertinent.

 

[caverat]

imported post

kwikrun you just crack me up. I might not agree with you but you got balls I hope everything works out well for you. IMO we could all learn from your exploits if more of us pushed as you do sooner or latter the LEO would learn and just give up busting our ball's.
Since when did the BG's start strolling threw the park's with AK's and why should LEO be the only ones to carry guns.
keep posting I just die laughing when I reed them.
OH and I do walk down the street with my AR late at night. Have some problems with the not so upstanding citizens of our community. Have yet to get tagged by LEO yet but I'll let you know when it happens then you can return my beat down
:lol:

 

[LeagueOf1291]

imported post

Rosa Parks got kudos for refusing to sit at the back of the bus. That was pretty much "in your face." I'm sure glad Leonard has the guts to stand up for our freedoms.

 

[curiousgb]

imported post

Pistol Pete Utah wrote:

curiousgb wrote:

You sir are a narcissistic, money grubbing, jerk off.

Easy buddy, who are you to judge what his intentions were? What happen to agree to disagree, what happen to our unstated mission statement of us Gun owners,

"An Armed Soceity is a Polite Soceity."

How is an AK47 a handgun?

OK, maybe you are right, I might be somewhat judgmental. I'll take away the money grubbing. On second thought his motives seem pretty clear, if not totally nuts. They were self motivated, as shown by stunt # 2. So if not for money what, fame, to stick it to the man? The law is already in our favor. As has already been said, just because I can, doesn't mean I should. A reasonable person would not have taken an AK with a painted muzzle into the park and not expect to be confronted. If I was there I would have had big WTF going on and would have left and if I spotted a ranger I would probably have expressed my concern to them.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

http://thatismessedup.com/2010/02/12/gun-owner-says-its-messed-up-that-he-was-stopped-for-carrying-a-handgun-in-belle-meade/



The above news story was at least fair. They posted a transcript of the detention and the police chief commented.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

You were "injured", and these injuries require compensation? What injuries are those? I'm also curious about being compensated for being delayed on your walk. You are admittedly unemployed. How did this dentention impact you fiscally? No one had to bail you out.

 

[theqbn]

imported post

bohdi wrote:

You were "injured", and these injuries require compensation? What injuries are those? I'm also curious about being compensated for being delayed on your walk. You are admittedly unemployed. How did this dentention impact you fiscally? No one had to bail you out.

So it's okay to illegally detain the unemployed because their time is worth less? WTF.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

I didn't put my name and address out in the press.

I didn't put out a BOLO on myself with pictures and identifying info.

I didn't ask to be detained.

I didn't ask to be humiliated.

I didn't ask to be defamed.

This will affect employment opportunities in my future.

BTW, I was employed at the time of this incident and the incident in Belle Meade.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

theqbn wrote:

bohdi wrote:

You were "injured", and these injuries require compensation? What injuries are those? I'm also curious about being compensated for being delayed on your walk. You are admittedly unemployed. How did this dentention impact you fiscally? No one had to bail you out.

So it's okay to illegally detain the unemployed because their time is worth less? WTF.

Slow down and read all the threads Kwik has posted before questioning my questions. Get a good idea of what is going on first. I never said it was ok to be illegally detained. But he didn't get beat like Rodney King either.....so let's keep things in perspective.

 

[bohdi]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I didn't put my name and address out in the press.

I didn't put out a BOLO on myself with pictures and identifying info.

I didn't ask to be detained.

I didn't ask to be humiliated.

I didn't ask to be defamed.

This will affect employment opportunities in my future.

BTW, I was employed at the time of this incident and the incident in Belle Meade.

Interesting. So you can prove you were fired as a result of the two incidents?

Look, you ask for feedback from the court of public opinion, you are getting it. You are about to be judged in a court of law, where you will again be judged by your peers. So asking you questions because you leave out the details is not wrong.

How were you defamed? Did anyone say you were crazy? If so, why are you not going after those who have devamed you.



I'm not sure you can prove (at this time) that this will affect your employment opportunities in the future. Do you know for a fact that you haven't been hired for the last 10 jobs you have interviewed for because of these two incidents?

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

I didn't put my name and address out in the press. Your name and address can be found on the Inrternet.The press can be very good at digging up info, when they want to be.

I didn't put out a BOLO on myself with pictures and identifying info. What? You didn't think Metro would warn other agencies about some one on the hunt for a law suit? OH Pleeeease.....Do you really think you are smarter than every one else? How arrogant.

I didn't ask to be detained. Yeah, sure. That's like crack users saying they didn't ask to have their lives ruined.

I didn't ask to be humiliated. Well, that's what happens when you do dumb stuff in public, Leonard. IF you were humiliated, you bought it on yourself.

I didn't ask to be defamed. How have you been defamed? You had no "fame" before these stunts of your, so how could you be DEEE- famed? You have to be lied about for the purpose of ruining your reputation. No body made up these stories about you doing what you did, you actually did them. Some of us thought what you did was dumb and we called you on it. Spouting opinions is not defamation.

This will affect employment opportunities in my future. What have I told you, Leonard? Actions have consequences.

BTW, I was employed at the time of this incident and the incident in Belle Meade. But you resigned shortly after. Were you forced to resign? (I'll point out that "actions have consequences" thing again) Or did you figure you had hit the jackpot with a lawsuit and wouldn't need the job any more? Or maybe your on the Brady Bunch payroll now.

Well folks, I believe kwik has exposed himself as a true liberal. His attempt to reject any responsibility for his actions and the consequences thereof is highly typical of a hard core liberal anti-gunner.

I, and I suspect everyone else on these forums, has seen this kind of argument coming from the anti-gun crowd and other liberals over the years. They always refuse to accept any responsibility for what they do (or don't do), blame everyone else for their misfortunes. Nothing is ever "their fault." The above post, which I respond to in red, that kwik made is right out of the liberal playbook. He shuns any responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

TF16,

You do realize, that NOTHING you said is solely indicative of JUST kwikrnu right?

I could dissect ANY of the run-ins some of these other law abiding citizens have had and they would sound EXACTLY the same.

Here is one for you:

"SO, you went into a movie theater, with a GOD DAMN FIREARM ON YOUR HIP, and EXPECTED to not be dragged out of the theater? You brought that onto yourself!"

or maybe...

"You are riding your motorcycle around town with a GUN ON YOUR HIP. What the hell did you think would happen?"

perhaps...

"Why would you bring a firearm into Starbucks? Why would Starbucks ALLOW this? It'so incredibly DANGEROUS!"

and in all cases, including kwiks, people were abiding by the letter of the law, and exercising what little freedom they could under their local statutes.

You are trying to pen kwikrnu here as a "liberal" (Like that is an all reaching bad thing? ALL liberals are against RTKBA? Boy if there were any for it, one look at your comment and they're probably gone!), using the PRECISE, LASER-GUIDED, BS propaganda spew that the anti's typically spout.

I am sorry but by openly attacking his LEGAL RIGHT and FREEDOM to do something, in my eyes, that makes you no better than the very same people you apparently can't stand.

I am going to take this a step further:

Complete Hypothetical ----Suppose you are kwik, and you ARE a lefty wingnut who is extremely opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. You sit and pontificate long and hard about how to cause problems within the ranks of those who understand it's a universal right. You think that if you could show them how absurd it is, then they might start to see things your way.

----The solution?

----Become intimate with every firearms law, and push every single boundary you can right out to the letter of the law. Hopefully, by this point, you have succeeded somehow in alarming even the firearms community, and ironically, without even breaking any laws or partaking in any illegal activities whatsoever. By showing us just how "ridiculous" the right to keep and bear ANY arm is, perhaps we will "come to our senses" and start to support "reasonable regulation".

----Boy wouldn't that make the Brady Bunch smile all smug? I am betting creating dissent for completely legal, and relevant activity to the cause would be reason to laugh too.


So TF16 and others; Be alarmed. Be Worried. Make statements about how kwiks actions must mean he is the next McVeigh. Project how shocked you are that his open carry firearm of choice was a AK47 pistol. Bust his balls every chance you get, because in the end, you are smashing your own nuts in a vice. Nobody to blame but you, because of your excessive reaction to normal, law abiding activity we all purport to believe is a natural right of every living and breathing human being.

If kwiks actions are indeed the act of an anti, then every sneer, snivel, complaint, cry, or outburst substantiates their arguments.

Go ahead guys....throw the monkeys a banana or two.

 

[Rugerp345]

imported post

Or maybe your on the Brady Bunch payroll now.




Maybe he's a double agent. He could be working for us but wants the brady crowd to this he works for them so then he can come and report back to us.

wait...that would be a TRIPLE agent!

 

[Task Force 16]

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

TF16,

You do realize, that NOTHING you said is solely indicative of JUST kwikrnu right?

I could dissect ANY of the run-ins some of these other law abiding citizens have had and they would sound EXACTLY the same.

Here is one for you:

"SO, you went into a movie theater, with a GOD DAMN FIREARM ON YOUR HIP, and EXPECTED to not be dragged out of the theater? You brought that onto yourself!"

or maybe...

"You are riding your motorcycle around town with a GUN ON YOUR HIP. What the hell did you think would happen?"

perhaps...

"Why would you bring a firearm into Starbucks? Why would Starbucks ALLOW this? It'so incredibly DANGEROUS!"

and in all cases, including kwiks, people were abiding by the letter of the law, and exercising what little freedom they could under their local statutes.

You are trying to pen kwikrnu here as a "liberal" (Like that is an all reaching bad thing? ALL liberals are against RTKBA? Boy if there were any for it, one look at your comment and they're probably gone!), using the PRECISE, LASER-GUIDED, BS propaganda spew that the anti's typically spout.

I am sorry but by openly attacking his LEGAL RIGHT and FREEDOM to do something, in my eyes, that makes you no better than the very same people you apparently can't stand.

I am going to take this a step further:

Complete Hypothetical ----Suppose you are kwik, and you ARE a lefty wingnut who is extremely opposed to the right to keep and bear arms. You sit and pontificate long and hard about how to cause problems within the ranks of those who understand it's a universal right. You think that if you could show them how absurd it is, then they might start to see things your way.

----The solution?

----Become intimate with every firearms law, and push every single boundary you can right out to the letter of the law. Hopefully, by this point, you have succeeded somehow in alarming even the firearms community, and ironically, without even breaking any laws or partaking in any illegal activities whatsoever. By showing us just how "ridiculous" the right to keep and bear ANY arm is, perhaps we will "come to our senses" and start to support "reasonable regulation".

----Boy wouldn't that make the Brady Bunch smile all smug? I am betting creating dissent for completely legal, and relevant activity to the cause would be reason to laugh too.


So TF16 and others; Be alarmed. Be Worried. Make statements about how kwiks actions must mean he is the next McVeigh. Project how shocked you are that his open carry firearm of choice was a AK47 pistol. Bust his balls every chance you get, because in the end, you are smashing your own nuts in a vice. Nobody to blame but you, because of your excessive reaction to normal, law abiding activity we all purport to believe is a natural right of every living and breathing human being.

If kwiks actions are indeed the act of an anti, then every sneer, snivel, complaint, cry, or outburst substantiates their arguments.

Go ahead guys....throw the monkeys a banana or two.

Another agent provocateur.

No one attacked kwik for his "right" to do what he's done. It's his judgement, or lack there of.

Slow, you don't live in TN. You don't have a clue as to what the LEO climate is here. It isn't like what you may experience in Washington.

We just ahd a short spell of being able to carry our handguns into restaurants that serve alcohol, until a liberal judge shot the new law down with a bogus reason of "vagueness." Due to kwiks stunt at the park, we may not see a comeback of that law. And there's already been talk by some lawmakers of reworking the carry in parks law that we just got passed last year.