"Yeager — who made that frightening video promising he would start killing people if gun control legislation progressed — has had his handgun carry permit suspended by state officials, according to local TV reports." (Thanks, Matthew!)

62 Responses to “Tennessee takes away gun permit from guy who threatened to kill anyone who tried to take away his guns”

  1. Christopher says:

    As a Tennessee resident I don’t often get to say this, but I’m so proud of the state officials right now.

    And this comes on the heels of state representative Curry Todd finally being convicted after he was arrested for driving while drunk with a loaded gun in his car. This is the same representative who was pushing a measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons in bars, apparently for his own benefit.

  2. iamlegion says:

    Just another gutless armchair warrior – happy to threaten people who aren’t there, but like any bully, if you look him in the eye, he’ll back down.

  3. Sarge Misfit says:

    Cool.

    And since they used current legislation, he’s got no beef about any new gun control legislation.

  4. dave3 says:

    From the tone of the video, it seems this guy is going to carry with or without the permit. Teh gubmunt ain’t tellin’ him what to do. ‘Cause this here’s ‘Merica!  Right?

    • Sirkowski says:

      From the tone of his later videos, he seems to be pissing his pants at the realization that he’s in way over his head (considering his limited thinking skills).

    • niktemadur says:

      Don’t give no damn ’bout no freedom of speech;  don’t give no damn ’bout no freedom of privacy.
      This here’s my gun to deal with dem liberal varmin.  I polish my gun every night, sometimes two, three times a day.

  5. whatebahw says:

    Went to grade school with this guy. He used to scare the $&!# out of me. I wouldn’t call him gutless. I know to stand up to bullies but this guy just didn’t give a ….

  6. Joan D'arc says:

    You know, I had a long well thought out comment for this, and I stared at it before I posted it, and I decided not to. Instead, let’s cheer on taking another man’s freedom away because he said some stupid shit on the internet.

    I thought you were better than that BoingBoing, you’re going to defend that kid who posted nasty remarks during the olympics, but not someone who is under our constitution, who’s basic freedoms are actually being taken, right now. A reminder: BECAUSE HE SAID SOMETHING STUPID ON THE INTERNET (and then took down, almost immediately because clearly he thought he was out of line, and reposted an edited version without the killing part)

    In case you forgot the olympic thing happened ==> http://boingboing.net/2012/07/31/17-y-o-arrested-in-england-for.html

    • JoeBuck says:

       Sorry, no, you don’t have unlimited freedom to say something stupid on the Internet, and he did not disavow the underlying threat. In particular, you don’t get to say that if elected officials don’t do what you want, you’re going to shoot people.  That’s called making a terroristic threat, and it can also be assault. Normally people who do this are let off if they back down completely, but this guy didn’t; in several interviews after this, he repeated the threats, phrased in a variety of different ways.

      If he only loses his gun permit he’s getting off easy. There are a number of Muslims serving hard time for this kind of thing.

    • He’s not having his guns taken away, nor his right to have firearms. He’s just no longer allowed to carry a handgun in public because he said he’s going to start killing people. As long as he a) hasn’t actually followed through and b) still gets to keep/own his guns, I’m totally ok with this whole situation.

      We all say stupid things, online and off. Sometimes these things get us in trouble because we didn’t have the foresight to consider consequences. Then we get to deal with it, learn, and move on while trying to not make the same mistake again.

      • whatebahw says:

        Correct. They SUSPENDED his carry permit. He may still get it back. He still has plenty of guns. He still has all his guns. TN just thinks it might be better if he cant carry a concealed weapon in public for the time being. If he were to start shooting people we would be wondering why no action was taken. If I remember correctly this guy can be rather impulsive (in my opinion) A little time to reflect might do him some good.

      • Joan D'arc says:

        You both make valid points, it just bothers me. I’ve been arguing about this all morning hahah. I totally agree he should be punished, I just think that’s a bit severe. I carry my gun in public everyday, and it bothered me on a personal level. But, I’m a lady, and I live in a scary place, and that gun is my safety net.

        To me, taking my gun away would be taking my safety away. That’s I guess what bothered me the most about it. I don’t think the punishment fit the crime.

        I have lost all eloquence today. I’m probably just going to retract my comments, I feel defeated. I cannot find the words i’m looking for to express my opinions.

        • whatebahw says:

           Well, Joan, if you like carrying your gun in public I would advise you not to announce to the internet that you plan on shooting people if you don’t get your way.

          • whatebahw says:

            I’m amazed that people consider guns a “safety net”. A study in Philadelphia found if you’re robbed while carrying you are 4 times more likely to be shot. If you keep your gun at home it is far more likely to kill yourself or a loved one than to ever kill a “bad guy”. But, oh well, as long as you FEEL safer.

          • whatebahw says:

             https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2759797/

          • Navin_Johnson says:

             @whatebahw:disqus
            Ok, Black Bart, now you get yours!

        • That’s why (I assume) you’re rather more careful about the things you do so as to not jeopardize your “safety net”. His need to carry concealed probably isn’t as visceral or necessary as yours, so he wasn’t as careful with his privilege.

          Honestly, I wouldn’t particularly worry if I were you. This was a rather measured and well thought through response to a possible threat to public safety. (I doubt you’re going to unhinged and ranting like that on the yootoobz, but hey, I’ve been wrong before!)

        • Tynam says:

          Please don’t retract your comments.  Most of them seem like a consistent and reasoned position to me, and I for one especially value the contributions of people I don’t agree with.

          (I think you’re being *way* too generous in your assessment of this nutcase, but that’s not an offence.  Better to be too slow to outrage than too quick – of which I am often guilty.)

          • marilove says:

            consistent? sure. reasoned? hardly.

            just because some is being calm about something, doesn’t make what they say “reasoned”.

            sometimes i get the feeling that people are easily swayed by tone and intent, rather than content and context.

        • EH says:

          You both make valid points, it just bothers me.

          Looks like irrational emotional outbursts are something you and Yeager have in common, is this a thing with members of the gun subculture?

        • wysinwyg says:

          If you’re really serious about being a responsible gun owner then guys like Yeager are your worst enemy.  Idiots like him are the reason a lot of people think Americans are mostly too stupid and emotionally impulsive to handle the responsibility of owning guns.  It is people like this who undermine all your best arguments against gun control.  Joining with people like this in lockstep just make it seem like you do not take the issue any more seriously than he does and cements the current polarization of attitudes.

          And purely statistically speaking guns don’t make you more safe.  I’ll challenge you with my usual money-where-your-mouth-is argument: if guns make one safer why do gun owners pay higher insurance premiums?

        • heligo says:

          Safety net?? What are you going to do? Shoot someone? Are you honestly going to shoot someone if you feel threatened?

          This man is a gun expert and threatened to kill people. Isn’t that enough for you? Or does he need to do more to convince you?

          This is the problem with America. People think that carrying a gun makes them “safer”. So lets all carry guns and we’ll all be safe. Think about that for a minute. Yep, insane right?

    • Navin_Johnson says:

       ”let’s cheer on taking another man’s freedom”

      F___ his “freedom”*. Our freedom as citizens to be safe from people like him is much more important.

      * uh, and a good many of us don’t believe the right to carry around a handgun with you is an actual guaranteed “freedom”.

    • Is threatening people with violence free speech? Because I don’t think that it is.

    • beepbeep says:

       A distinct an obvious threat to kill people was made, clearly and unequivocally. What? You want to wait til AFTER he follows up on it to do something?? Er, something here about yelling ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater…..

    • chris jimson says:

       ”let’s cheer on taking another man’s freedom”
      No kidding, I can’t believe the fascist pigs took away my right to urinate in public.  Where’s MY freedom?!

      Sarcasm aside, in a civilized society we all have to agree on what is an acceptable amount of freedom.  Not one of us is truly 100% free (unless maybe you live alone on a desert island and can walk around naked, burn your trash sans environmental laws, or play music at top volume in the middle of the night.)   All of this debate isn’t about absolute freedom (nobody has that), but where we draw the line on what’s an acceptable amount of freedom.  It’s my opinion that an angry man with guns threatening to shoot people simply because he disagrees with them is at least worthy of a slap on the wrist, which is really all he got.  Nobody took his guns, he didn’t get sent to jail or some imagined liberal re-education camp, as far as I can tell he didn’t even get a fine.  “Material likelihood of risk of harm to the public” is what the authorities cited, and that seems about right.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        No kidding, I can’t believe the fascist pigs took away my right to urinate in public.

        So, the fascists are taking the piss?

    •  As a gun rights supporter, I’m not exactly thrilled about coming to this man’s defence. However, as a supporter of free speech, I must.
      What he said is most likely not illegal. Even calls for the death of the President are (sometimes) constitutionally protected:

      http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2084921,00.html

      It is very easy these days to get angry at people you believe are attempting to take away your rights; there’s a lot of material to work with. However, both making death threats or cheering at the comeuppance of this man are cheep substitutes for engaging in quality debate with those you disagree with.

  7. Joan D'arc says:

    Note: I still love you all dearly, but …pick your battles. If he was a well known internet activist, and not just a gun fan on youtube, I doubt your take on the story would be the same.

    Edit: I retract this comment, I am an ass. Misdirected anger and stuff hitting to close to home Tuesday :[ Sorry guys.

    • JoeBuck says:

      If a well-known Internet activist threatens to shoot people, and the threat either names specific people or says that people will be shot if a specific and likely action happens, and said activist clearly has the means to do the shooting, I would fully support the police in investigating that person and, at minimum, disarming him or her.

    • Christopher says:

      How many well-known internet activists threaten to shoot people because of their beliefs?

  8. Neural Kernel says:

    Crazy guy with a weapon stockpile? Meh… crazy guy with a muscle car… crazy guy with a million dollars… crazy guy with an Antibiotic Resistant Tuberculosis infection…

    • Bearpaw01 says:

      Yup … If any of those examples makes repeated, public, and credible threats of violence, there may be possible legal repercussions. Waving around the Constitution doesn’t change that.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

         I’m for taking away muscle cars from people that compare cars to guns too. Clearly such folks need to be in an asylum anyway…

  9. robcat2075 says:

     In case anyone missed it, his lawyer sat him down and got him to say he never really meant it. :D

    I’m sure he’s pissed that he still doesn’t get his gun back.

    http://youtu.be/wD5kuOMIVts

    • So…..”He apologized and said that he doesn’t advocate the violent overthrow of the government and he doesn’t “condone any violent actions towards any elected officials … it’s not time for that. It’s not time for any type of violent action.” 

      So…. this issue isn’t about a rant that somehow found it’s way to mass media (didn’t he use upload it himself?) asking others to also prepare for civil war and advocating “packing some food, cleaning (the) weapon and taking lives (see video for his exact words)”, the issue (instead) is that “now is not the time”. 

      So… can we assume this might be the time for something else, like broader background checks & mental evals before you’re allowed a permit?

  10. TheOven says:

    I’m disappointed he didn’t shoot anyone when they took his guns away. Hypocrite. 

  11. Tay Boy says:

    As a gun owner I can’t help but think that it couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. This is exactly the sort of jumped-up mouthy dillhole that my shooting buddies and I avoid like the plague. We were all collectively face-palming a month or two ago when he was trying to set up some kind of legal framework to challenge people to a duel to the death for calling him a coward. The man is an ass.

    • Tynam says:

      I feel for you; it’s always more painful when the moron making the whole issue poisonous is on supposedly on your side.

    • wysinwyg says:

      Still, don’t be shy to speak up and say stuff like this.  It is really reassuring to those like me who don’t really have a problem with gun ownership except for the fact that it’s so prevalent among idiots like Yeager.

  12. unclegabby says:

    Why hasn’t he been charged for threats of terrorism?

  13. chris jimson says:

    Gun-rights supporters who are so gung-ho, and imply they are basically just *waiting* for a chance to use their guns maybe haven’t thought about the reality of the situation.  You can’t make threats against government officials (and you can’t really make threats against private citizens either), anymore than you can phone in a fake bomb threat as a joke.  The First Amendment has limits, it always has.

    And have they thought about what it means to actually USE their guns when a cop comes to their door?  Can you name an instance in modern history when that ended well?  Sorry kids, there isn’t going to be a revolution and you won’t be standing triumphantly atop the White House waving a flag and ushering in a new age of true freedom.  You will be locked up in jail or shot.  Grow up.

    The Second Amendment has limits too, or is the NRA going to start lobbying for privately-owned nukes and tanks and flame-throwers?

    • Bearpaw01 says:

      If the weapons dealers thought there was a big enough market, they would.

    • Christopher says:

      Yes, that would be the same NRA that opposes taggants being used in explosives, or even in fertilizer. Because, you know, the Second Amendment was clearly written with ammonium nitrate in mind. 

    • ohbejoyful says:

      Hey, if the guns manufacturers could make these available at an affordable price-point, you betcha the NRA would be promoting responsible tank ownership!

      Remember – it is actually quite legal to own a rocket launcher; the cost of the ammo is what makes it prohibitive.

  14. Atvaark says:

    “So, who wants to go tell him?”

  15. Musing about this on my own blog the other day, I managed to boil my atitude down to bumper-sticker length:

    “No Guns For Assholes”

  16. chgoliz says:

    I don’t understand how temporarily suspending the permit has any real effect on his ability to choose to shoot any of his guns any time he wants, anywhere he wants.

    Is it to create the possibility of an added misdemeanor to his charges when he shoots someone, if he does it without that special little card in his wallet?

  17. Mister44 says:

    James Yeager is a nut ball. He has a “tactical” channel on youtube with questionable tactics. Supposedly when he was running private security in Iraq, his convoy came under ambush, and he booked it to the nearest ditch leaving the others to fend for themselves.

    At any rate he doesn’t speak for the millions of sane gun owners.

  18. Phillip Ramirez says:

    he is a coward thats all juiced up. he ran from a firefight while his fellow contractors died running to the fight. oh well. 

  19. That’s unexpected.  Good for Tennessee! 

  20. I was listening to the Alex Jones show last night. I am not a fan or believer, but I like to listen to other viewpoints that I don’t agree with just to try to understand them…

    But this Alex Jones guy and his followers are just plain nuts! They are completely out of touch with reality. They really believe that Obama is planning to come into their house and take their guns within a matter of days.

    It is really dangerous when people like Alex Jones gets the nutjobs all worked up. He is continually painting this picture of a totalitarian America and basically saying that every Tom, Dick and Jane needs to be prepared to take matters into their own hands.

    Any rational person could see Alex Jones’ act for what it is. But there are a lot of irrational folks out there with firearms right now. 

  21. whatebahw says:

     Oh, I know! You have gun skills like Ralphie!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M9INFJ-PTw

  22. Tynam says:

    I have to agree with you on this; I don’t think the punishment fits the crime either.  He should be in jail.

    Hyperbole on the internet is normal and harmless.  But when an armed person repeatedly has that hyperbole take the form of threats to kill others?  In my country that’s a criminal offence, and the only possible defence is that you (reasonably) didn’t intend those threats to be taken seriously – which is clearly not the case here.  If he can’t control his temper and his mouth, I don’t want to bet the lives of innocent bystanders that he can control his trigger finger.  Once he’s grown up and learned to act like an adult, then we’ll trust him with the big kid’s toys.

    (This is a consistent position.  If I threaten to run people over if I don’t get my way, my driving license should be suspended.  Clearly I’m not responsible enough to trust with it.)

    That is an entirely different case from you carrying a self-defence weapon.  (I take issue with that too, but not with your choice to do so; it’s a reasonable position and there’s room to disagree politely, as you have.  With remarkable forbearance, in a couple of cases.)

Leave a Reply