“One CEO says he’s willing to go to outrageous lengths to protect his right to use a gun.
James Yeager, CEO of Tactical Response, a Tennessee company that trains people in weapon and tactical skills, claimed in a video posted on YouTube and Facebook thathe would “start killing people” if President Barack Obama decides to take executive action to pass further gun control policies, Raw Story reports.
In a frenetic address to the camera, Yeager puts a call out to other gun rights advocates to “load your damn mags” and “get ready to fight” in what he claims will turn into a “civil war” if gun control measures in the country get any stricter.
SEE FULL VIDEO BELOW — WARNING ADULT LANGUAGE…”
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
NASHVILLE — The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security announced today the suspension of James Yeager’s handgun carry permit after he was featured in a threatening YouTube video post that went viral earlier this week.
The decision to suspend Yeager’s handgun carry permit was based on a “material likelihood of risk of harm to the public” (TCA 39-17-1352).
Yeager, 42, of Camden, Tenn., allegedly claimed he would “start killing people” if the Obama administration took executive action to pass gun control measures.
“The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public’s safety. Mr. Yeager’s comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail, and he will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail,” Commissioner Bill Gibbons said.
Mr. Yeager is also the CEO of Tactical Response, a firearms and tactical training school in Camden. He is not a Department of Safety and Homeland Security certified instructor, nor is his school department certified.
Mr. Yeager has the right to seek review of the department’s decision in the general sessions court of his county of residence or through the Department of Safety and Homeland Security.
And so it begins.
Some left leaning desk jockey arbitrarily brands someone a terrorist or threat to society and revokes his rights without arrest, arraignment or trial.
The “left leaning desk jockey” is a lifelong Republican in a southern state, was President of Vanderbilt College Republicans at university, was appointed to state positions by three Republican governors, and was a Republican candidate for governor in 2010.
Arrest, arraignment, and trial would be steps in criminal proceedings. Yeager has not been accused of a crime. He has had his permit suspended, likely under the clause allowing suspension or revocation if there is evidence that a permit holder “Poses a material likelihood of risk of harm to the public”.
Yeager is entitled to a Department hearing to review the decision. If he doesn’t like the outcome of that hearing, he’s entitled to a judicial review of the hearing.
Your point is?…….
My point is that a persons right to bear arms should not be subject to the interpretation of a single person whose ideological views may cause him/her to hold that any other person may or may not pose a threat.
What if someone deems you to be a threat and decides you should not be allowed to own property (another right listed in our Constitution).
It’s the same premise in my book.
You got caught making shit up.
I’ve already posted the legal process Tennessee provides for Yeager to challenge the suspension of his permit, so your “single person” whine is too little and too late.
Ott……..off topic for a moment. Did I read in a post somewhere that you are Dutch? A fellow member of the chosen race? 🙂
“material likelihood of risk of harm to the public” (TCA 39-17-1352).
The above is in quotes. I would assume that someone; a person in other words, said that. Maybe my assumption is wrong but I would bet that someone, someplace in that agency made the call to suspend his carry permit. Someone as in a singular human being. No?
On the OT:
I’m not sure what a chosen race is (I’d choose to see ex-Congressmen running around a dog track, chasing a lobbying contract), but I’m not Dutch. A poster or two have decided I’m someone/something I’m not, based on a Google result or on an error in memory or interpretation of comments I’ve made here.
Regarding the single person:
The law doesn’t define a process for determining if a person presents a “material risk”, but the press release language appears to rule out a single person making an arbitrary or ideological decision:
“Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately.”
I believe that, if you think carefully about why a “single person” decision makes you uneasy, you will be able to narrow your concern to relatively few situations.
Single-person decisions are quite common, because they tend to be efficient and are sometimes necessary. The world is full of directors, managers, executives, judges, officers, etc., who are expected to make decisions. This is more good than bad, I believe.
In your initial comment, you objected to arbitrary decisions, indicating that you have already narrowed the problem in your mind. We prefer that single-person decisions be evidence/experience-based reasoned attempts to pursue an agreed-upon goal or to follow a set of standards, criteria, or norms.
But even arbitrary decisions can be further broken down into those subject to review and those not subject. Review provides restraint at the time of decision and the possibility of reversal or recompense after the fact.
I suggest that what you really fear is arbitrary decisions not subject to review. If I am correct, you should readily see that the suspension of Yeager’s handgun carry permit did not fall in that category. I don’t see it falling even in the arbitrary category, given the statements he made.