In article <telecom26.59.6@telecom-digest.org>,
nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net says:
> In article <telecom0.0.10@telecom-digest.org>, reading this group,
>> I think you worked at the Skokie Swift station.
> TELECOM Digest Editor responded, saying:
>> About the _MORON_ Grove police department. In 1985 or thereabouts,
>> they managed to get a city ordinance passed -- purely city, mind you
>> -- banning the private ownership of any handguns within their
>> village. Forget about the Second Amendment and all that rot; that did
>> not matter at all to them. They put up a sign on Dempster Street where
>> Dempster goes into Moron Grove warning everyone that all were subject
>> to search and seizure for handguns; now I do not own any form of gun;
>> truth be told, weapons of any sort frighten me a lot; but what scares
>> me a lot more is the blaise way the village fathers were doing away
>> with guns, just on the say-so of their police department, and their
>> neighbors to the east, Evanston and Skokie who also supported the
>> anti-gun initiative. Moron Grove police were very corrupted anyway,
>> (as are Skokie and Evanston police) and I just did not get along very
>> well at all in that part of the world. PAT]
> Here in RI your right to have a concealed weapon is strictly
> controlled by the Attorney General's office. And our current AG
> Patrick Lynch while in support of gay marriage, is a stickler when it
> comes to not issuing carry permits.
> [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: What if it is an _unconcealed_ weapon?
> Suppose you simply walked down the street with a gun strapped on your
> belt, like an oldtime cowboy? You are not attempting to hide
> anything. PAT]
You'd be stopped and searched without any waste of time whatsoever.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: And in the final line above, the man
speaks total, unvarnished truth. Not only would you be stopped and
searched, you would most likely be arrested, if for no other reason
than some cockamamie excuse the police made up there on the spot. The
police officer's best friend, and a helpful tool, the catch-all
'Disorderly Conduct' comes to mind. If you brought up Second Amendment
objections, chances are police would just laugh at you or humor you;
that kind of thing (constitutional law) means nothing to them
anyway. All they know is what they know, which isn't a lot. Police do
not have a lot of use for private citizens, and tend to think bad
about any of us. If they see a gun on any of us, we must be criminals;
if they see a computer belonging to any of us, it must be the place
where we keep our pornography. And if we have a scanner radio and pick
up their transmissions, we are up to no good also. And you _will_ obey
one, no matter how arrogant or sassy or beligerant he/she happens to
be. And if your normal human reaction to his behavior leads you to
slap him hard or knock him down, then, by God, you have 'assaulted an
officer' which is a crime also. You cannot win with those guys. PAT]
T (nospam.kd1s@cox.nospam.net)