James Yeager gets his carry card yanked

[batoncolle]

Thanks, it is just my observation. I have little confidence in the average American White Male, the fight was stumped out them in the years following 1862. They will not band together, they will not fight for what is due them and in almost all cases...... they will surrender their rights in the name of being compliant. The last of the brave American Men passed away as our grandfathers died out.

Luke

Very true.

 

[Luke]

Very true.

Actually, that should have said "American Southern White Man". We all know that the northern white man will fight for any reason given to them, by those that govern them whether it be honorable or not. We seen that in the years following 1860.

Luke

 

[batoncolle]

This is from the TN state code.
39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(1) Is prohibited from purchasing a handgun under applicable state or federal law;

(2) Has not accurately disclosed any material information required by § 39-17-1351;

(3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;


Sounds like exactly what they said was the reason. Gee it's almost like they knew that was in there.I don't see where the State had any choice given the all to public comments of Yeager.
Not saying I like it but that is the price you pay when asking permission.

Yes it looks like they may have him, and all because of a carry permit which is unConstitutional in the first place. You have to stand on rule of law, or you become like them. But it's also the reason why we need to just stop being complacent and let them keep trying to take away our rights. Liberals win because they never stop fighting. Conservatives lose because they always fight from a defensive position.

 

[ArmedinAtlanta]

This is from the TN state code.
39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(1) Is prohibited from purchasing a handgun under applicable state or federal law;

(2) Has not accurately disclosed any material information required by § 39-17-1351;

(3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;


Sounds like exactly what they said was the reason. Gee it's almost like they knew that was in there.I don't see where the State had any choice given the all to public comments of Yeager.
Not saying I like it but that is the price you pay when asking permission.

Thank God someone busted out the statute.

 

[DaveTheMinion]

Actually, that should have said "American Southern White Man". We all know that the northern white man will fight for any reason given to them, by those that govern them whether it be honorable or not. We seen that in the years following 1860.

Luke

I really wish I could prove you wrong here, but the fact is, I can't. If it was just ME, I'd saddle up to the front lines. Unfortunately, I have to realize that my wife and kids are dependant on me. Any decision would require a great deal of thought put into it, a lot of talking to the wife, and a lot of last moments with my children, but I also realize that if I don't fight, my children's children would be slaves because of my inaction, which may be all I need to fight.

 

[sovietak474u]

This is from the TN state code.
39-17-1352. Suspension or revocation of license.

(a) The department shall suspend or revoke a handgun permit upon a showing by its records or other sufficient evidence that the permit holder:

(1) Is prohibited from purchasing a handgun under applicable state or federal law;

(2) Has not accurately disclosed any material information required by § 39-17-1351;

(3) Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public;


Sounds like exactly what they said was the reason. Gee it's almost like they knew that was in there.I don't see where the State had any choice given the all to public comments of Yeager.
Not saying I like it but that is the price you pay when asking permission.

Well that solves that. Oh well.

 

[Luke]

Yes it looks like they may have him, and all because of a carry permit which is unConstitutional in the first place. You have to stand on rule of law, or you become like them. But it's also the reason why we need to just stop being complacent and let them keep trying to take away our rights. Liberals win because they never stop fighting. Conservatives lose because they always fight from a defensive position.

I do not think that he "poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public", possibly to those that come to take his guns but not the public. Here is the hazard of taking things from context. He has had the ability (for years now) to harm the public if he so desired and to my knowledge he hasn't. I think it could reasonably be assumed that the threat of harm was directed at those that would take his possessions. It is no different than a bumper sticker that reads "they will only take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers".

Luke

 

[Constitution Hour]

I do not think that he "poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public", possibly to those that come to take his guns but not the public. Here is the hazard of taking things from context. He has had the ability (for years now) to harm the public if he so desired and to my knowledge he hasn't. I think it could reasonably be assumed that the threat of harm was directed at those that would take his possessions. It is no different than a bumper sticker that reads "they will only take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers".

Luke

I agree with your statement. That said neither you or I issued his permission the State did, and by thier rules, they get to decide. Looks like they decided.

 

[Deleted member 20426]

I do not think that he "poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public", possibly to those that come to take his guns but not the public. Here is the hazard of taking things from context. He has had the ability (for years now) to harm the public if he so desired and to my knowledge he hasn't. I think it could reasonably be assumed that the threat of harm was directed at those that would take his possessions. It is no different than a bumper sticker that reads "they will only take my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers".

Luke

Oliver Wendell Holmes said your right to free speech doesn't include shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. Or to incite violence or breaking the law. Really fundamental constitutional boundaries. The only debate here is whether his tirade was parody - it wasn't. He was just pretty much the Angry Guy who also happens to run some kind of tactical training company. The combination shows he's wasn't doing standup warming up for Seinfeld.

 

[Constitution Hour]

Oliver Wendell Holmes said your right to free speech doesn't include shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater. Or to incite violence or breaking the law. Really fundamental constitutional boundaries. The only debate here is whether his tirade was parody - it wasn't. He was just pretty much the Angry Guy who also happens to run some kind of tactical training company. The combination shows he's wasn't doing standup warming up for Seinfeld.

Holmes was a moron. We have always had laws regarding personal injury like what might happen when pulling a prank. I.E. yelling fire in a theater. Yes you have the right to yell fire, you also have the responsibility of your actions. Holmes also said the Constitution was a contract. It is a Constitution, a charter creating a Government, it is not a contract.