Saturday, January 12, 2013


The state of Tennessee is taking James Yeager's threat talk seriously:
James Yeager, the CEO who recently threatened to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama pursued an expansion on gun control, has had his gun permit suspended.
My first thought was that this was a slap on the wrist, and that Yeager would get all his gun rights back in a couple of weeks after the story died down, especially after I read this:
According to officials Yeager can seek a review of the department's decision in the general sessions court.
But Tennessee is not as cavalier about these things as I, a smug Northeasterner, assumed. Many states, for instance, are very quick to restore gun rights to convicted felons, but Tennessee is not one of them (to the consternation of many gun-rights advocates).

And even when no felony is involved, being an idiot with a gun in Tennessee can have real consequences. Consider the case of Leonard Embody. In 2009 and 2010, Embody walked through one park brandishing an AK-47 and walked down a street openly carrying a loaded pistol. In the park incident, he alarmed other park-goers, as well as the cops:
In camouflage gear one Sunday afternoon, Leonard Embody went into a state park near Nashville carrying a Draco AK-47 pistol fully loaded with 30 rounds to test his constitutional rights. Frightened visitors reported that a man was in the park with an "assault rifle." A park ranger, thinking the weapon might be ready to fire, sensibly ordered Mr. Embody to the ground, removed his gun, patted him down for other weapons and detained him.
He became known as the "Radnor Lake Rambo" -- and he had his carry permit revoked by the state.

And you know what? He eventually dropped his appeal of the permit suspension. He's pursued other avenues of legal redress, but his efforts keep getting rebuffed by the courts. He's busted.

The same thing may happen to Yeager -- oh, and:
Officials with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security were explicit in stating that the Yeager was not a Department of Safety and Homeland Security certified instructor, nor is his school department certified.
It won't surprise me, though, if he moves to a more gun-friendly state and just sets up shop there. And I bet certain members of the right-wing media would love to make him a martyr -- if Fox thinks he's too hot to handle, I bet Alex Jones would love to be his champion.

Or maybe he'll just get his own radio show. He's obviously a self-promoter first and foremost -- that would probably be his smartest move. He'd probably be a big hit.


UPDATE: However, ABL is obviously right about this:
If James Yeager had been Jalal al Yeager or Tyrone Yeager, who wants to wager that the response to his roid tantrum this week would have been vastly different?


Being white must be nice.
Also, too:


Victor said...

"...stating that the Yeager was not a Department of Safety and Homeland Security certified instructor, nor is his school department certified."

So, while he may be 'certifiable,' neither he, nor his school, is certified.

One small leap for mankind...

And oh, yeah, he'd be a big hit on Reich-wing Talk Radio.

I'm surprised that the NRA never got into the Cable TV racket.

He would be perfect for a show there, if there was one.
Today's episode: "Yeager Meisters Mausers."

aimai said...

The argument that "blacks kill and its normalized" and "whites kill and its medicalized" makes superficial sense until you realize that gun violence is understood as "natural" when there is an obvious material cause (poverty, oppression) and unnatural when there is no clear materialist gain. All the "big" shootings--the attention grabbing shootings--have all been the result of fairly obvious upper class white ressentiment against women, non whites, children, random other white people. Bernard Goetz was not considered mentally ill he was considered responding to a "real" threat. Gangbangers aren't considered mentally ill they are considered acting in accordance with their professional and material interests. The minute a materialist/monetary interest or cause can be associated with a killing it ceases to be understood in terms of mental health issues--the case is closed, as it were.

The NRA is going for the "mental health" issues first because its a distraction--not because they believe that white gun violence is the product of mental illness but because they don't want everyday white violence to be legislated at all. They are simply throwing a bone to a dog.


aimai said...

I do want to agree with something unstated in the tweet though which is absolutely right on "When black people die it is normalized when white people die its a national emergency." Anyone remember the case of the black children killed in Atlanta while no one batted an eye? Wasn't it like 30 children, slowly over a period of years, kidnapped and killed by the same guy with zero public (read "white/media") outcry?


Ten Bears said...

The update say's it all. Could just be me - all white dogs look alike - but with that beard you could turn down the sound, wrap a rag around it's head, and you've got a binLaden video.

Victor said...

I was finishing College in Upstate NY when those Atlanta child murders were going on. And, from what I remember, the NY Times did front page that - after awhile, of course. And I can't remember when the coverage started, or what the body count was at that point, when the paper finally paid attention, and which then propelled the story into TV News.

And I remember the joy in White America, when the young guy accused of the murders, Wayne Williams, was a young African-American (the same age as I am, so maybe that's why I remember that so well).
And, yes, of course, he was convicted - he's "Bhah," after all.

To this day, though, there seem to be some people who say he's not guilty, and he has now maintained his innocence for over 30 years.

I don't know how much truth there may be to his being railroaded, but the cases have been opened up a number of times in County and State courts, both by individual victims, and in groups.

The DNA evidence still around, while not exactly convicting him, unfortunately, doesn't seem adequate to allow him to prove his innocence, either.
DNA evidenve was still new, and the samples don't allow more modern techniques to apply.

Steve M. said...

Gangbangers aren't considered mentally ill they are considered acting in accordance with their professional and material interests.

I disagree with that. Twenty years ago, William Bennett and John DiIulio made a big deal out of arguing that we were on the verge of developing a new breed of "superpredators" -- and the people they were pointing to were folks like the Central Park Five (who, as it turned out, weren't actually guilty of raping and nerly killing a jogger), as well as crack-era gangbangers.

Oh, and now we have good liberal Kevin Drum arguing that crime peaked in the 70s and 80s because lead paint made kids, particularly inner-city kids, crazy. I'm very, very skeptical.

Dark Avenger said...

Steve, there is a correlation between environmental levels of lead and human intelligence, but as they say in the biz, correlation doesn't equal causation.

If there were a way to test people in prisons, mental institutions, the homeless, etc.. for their past lead exposure, you could see if there was a greater than expected % than would be seen by random chance. Until that sort of data is avaliable, Drum's hypothesis is merely seductive enough to be mistaken for a theory.

aimai said...

The argument isn't that the lead poisoned them and they became stupider (though the effects of lead on intelligence and brain function are very well understood) but that they failed to develop the ability to self censor, to control impulse.

The "superpredator" argument isn't actually that they are mentally ill and need or get sympathy--it was that they were animals, subhuman and merciless. If you watch the kinds of movies that were made about that imagined group--New Jack City, American Me (great movie, by the way, with lots of political commentary) the point of the crack babies/superpredator argument was that violent non white youth were not human and didn't require any kind of treatment because they wouldn't benefit from it.

I might add that this argument that specifically "inner city youth" were subhuman goes way back and includes attitudes towards italians, irish, and later puerto ricans and dominicans. Up the down staircase?