James Yeager Revoked of Concealed Carry Permit.
 

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.co...tical-response

I feel like he had this coming after posting that video stating he will "start killing people." He posed a very real threat to the general public and set a horrible example for us responsible gun owners. :brickwall:

What do you guys think?

Agreed. Very irresponsible. It's one thing to feel that way... it's another to come out and say it in a public forum like an internet video. He should know better.

I wonder if he will ever me eligible for one again.

I think that the fewer hotheaded tools we have out front as spokesmen, the better. I agree with their stands, I even concur with their feelings, but we need to present a more more reasoned and reasonable approach to this situation.
What we really need is some of the hot Hollywood types that are pro-gun to get out front and show responsible gun use as a shining example to the world.

I think what he said was stupid. On the other hand, they revoked his CCL before a trial and conviction of a crime. So in essence, they are operating outside the law and outside the judicial system. You cool with that?

It will cost him a lot of money and a couple years to get it back, if he can.

Law enforcement are using any excuse possible to take people's guns and gun rights away right now. Watch what you say, boys.

Say something mildly inciting, you are a terrorist. Bye, bye guns.
Say something depressing, you are suicidal. Bye, bye guns.
Say something agressive, you are violent. Bye, bye guns.
Speak against the government, you are inciting riots. Bye, bye guns.
Say something strange to the doctor, you are mentally unstable. Bye, bye guns.

Laws be damned at this point. It's revoke first, ask questions later.

No, they are operating within the perameters of his own state's laws. A criminal complaint or trial is not needed.

The Army screwed up when they did not nip Major Hassein in the bud when he first started running his mouth, look what then happened at Ft Hood. This state is not going to make the same mistake.

I believe his original remarks and not his lawyered up apology is the real Yeager.

In Tennessee a criminal compaint or trial is not needed to convict someone of a crime? Please explain. Also, please cite the specific Tennessee criminal code he broke and provide a link.

I will say again I think it was stupid and he shouldn't have said it, but his "threat" was conditional, not directed any specific person or group, no one was in imminent danger and no one was subsequently harmed as a result of this conditional, hypothetical "threat."

A CCW is a "privilege". It can be suspended or revoked pending a hearing. I believe they said he can request a hearing. You didn't think CCW was a right did you. :shame:

He was not "convicted" of a crime.

Tennessee law says the DOS may suspend a handgun carry permit when presented with sufficient evidence that there is a "material likelihood of harm to the public."

It is a suspension, not a revocation. He had 10-days to surrender his permit. He may appeal the decision within 30-days either with a hearing with the DOS or in General Sessions Court.

And, if you think what you post on the internet will not be considered as evidence by DOS, you are very wrong. When a former GT member had his permit suspended, the State had a 3" stack of printouts of his posts on several forums going back several years. His posts were considered in the decision to suspend.

Never said it was. Was simply asking for the law he broke. Driving is also a privilege, but you have to break a law for them to take it away. If you went on YouTube and said, "I am going to go 120mph on the freeway this weekend, they wouldn't be able to take away your license, nor would they.

This is all true. And only a fool would think a YouTube video is not evidence. I am simply saying what he did, in my non-professional opinion, does not constitute a crime. But whatever. I have no stake in defending James Yeager. I am not an alumni of his courses, nor do I know him in any way. I don't really care at this point. Whatever.

YouTube...supplying the "tool to broadcast" millions of idiots since 2005

What about the people who are playing/promoting the NRA video game with the NRA president being the target? How about all the people who have said that NRA members should have to shoot their own children, I guess all is fair as long as your going after the "gun nuts".

http://www.examiner.com/article/anti...their-children

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepa...-head-n1489825

If any are citizens of Tennessee with handgun carry permits, file a complaint with DOS.

Nah I'm more inclined to have less government tell me what I can't say and I feel the same way for people I disagree with, I love this country and it's free speech and it certainly should not change just because I disagree with what other citizens say.

I do take notice though when I see one person who has a view and is criminalized and these other people can say anything(kill NRA members and children) and do anything (make/play this game) and you hear of no authorities getting involved.

You do not have to brake a law. All they need is a reasonable suspicion. In this case a video of a threat being made. Then you have to prover them wrong.

I can say I heard you threaten someone. You and I both know it's a lie but they will suspend your CCW until you prove it a lie. It's called error on the side of caution.

It falls in the same category as the Black Panther leader offering a bounty to have someone killed, or Black Panthers with sticks intimidating people at polls. Or BATF&E supplying our enemies with automatic weapons... on and on and on... It's OK because they are on the "Libtard" side. :steamed:

Obviously that is the case here. I am saying I think that it's wrong. It's one of the ways they twist around the justice system. Instead of charging someone with a crime and having to bear the burden of truth (innocent until proven guilty), they are skipping all that and passing the burden of proof onto the person accused (guilty until proven innocent). And I don't care if this is in reference to a privilege and judicial process doesn't apply. This is America and that ain't right, and I ain't cool with it.

If he is such a threat, why didn't they take away his guns altogether? If he was really such a threat, do you really think taking away his "privilege" to carry concealed would really prevent a crime? This was a political statement, pure and simple. Talk crap about the government, pay the consequences. Dissenters will not be tolerated. They will mess with your life in any way possible.

Go to this website Material Likelihood of Risk of Harm to the Public for other times when Tennessee used this provision in the law.

Your first paragraph is correct. As to the second. He's lucky they didn't. I often say things here... The Truth... then I wait for a knock or kick. Thankfully it hasn't come. :whistling:

It seems that the pro-gun speakers need some help! We have some folks that have potential but are to extreme or not efective like the NRA. James, Nugent etc..We need folks that can articulate and speak under fire with calm and stats to back up what the are saying. It a new world, I still hope that all of this works out the best for all of us!

I agree with you guys. And I am not doubting Tennessee law. I am simply saying I disagree with it on a personal level. This country is going down the tubes. The law is so vague and there are so many overlapping laws on the state and federal level, that the government can pretty much do whatever it wants and justify it with vague language, intimidation or legalese.

If he were a man whose "word was his bond" he needs to be in jail awaiting a comprehensive Psych or other exams. In his tape he made pretty concrete threats he just did not name the folks he was going to shoot.

If he is just a big mouth blowhard maybe then they can give him some slack but closely watch him anyway because sometimes even these types will act.

This is just a matter of government protecting others from the unbalanced, young, strong, and reckless.

His threats were conditional, i.e. he prefixed them with "If." Most people are just responding to the media spin that "Crazed gun instructor says he's going to start murdering people." And shame on anyone who fell for the media spin.

He said that IF the degredation of the 2nd Amendment continues, that he would kill to defend his rights if anyone tried to take his guns. That was the gist of the video. The threat was conditional and not directed at any specific person or group. It was made 10 times worse because of how he looks and how frantic he was in the video. If it had been part of a casual conversation in a normal tone of voice, I doubt it would have gotten the attention it did.

Does anyone know if he plans an appeal?