The Cop Revolt Against Gun Control

RichardPoe.com ^ | October 23, 2003 | Richard Poe

[Richard Poe]

AN ALL-OUT REVOLT against gun control may be brewing among rank-and-file police officers.

In my last column, "Gray Davis’ Cop-Killing Gun Law," I revealed that anti-gun zealots such as Sarah Brady and Ted Kennedy have found a new enemy: cops. No longer content to disarm ordinary citizens, gun prohibitionists now want to strip off-duty and retired police of the right to keep and bear arms.

Reader reaction to my column was mixed. Virtually every correspondent favored gun rights, but many expressed disdain for the rights of police.

"Maybe when their CCW [Concealed Carry Weapon] rights are stripped away they will look more favorably on ALL of us being allowed to carry," grumped one reader on the FreeRepublic.com message board. "Police officers should not get special rights."

"Hear Hear! Screw the cops… let them see how it feels!" responded another.

"[I] find it hard to feel too sorry for the cops," opined a third reader by e-mail. "…Let them taste some of what we supposedly free Americans have been dealing with. If I can't carry across state lines or into a government building, why the hell should a cop be able to?"

The resentment these readers express is understandable. Police spokesmen often publicly applaud gun crackdowns. But police brass in big cities are not free to speak their minds. They get their marching orders from City Hall. If they want to keep their jobs, they must toe the party line. Often that means pretending to support gun control, when in fact they oppose it.

During a 1990 crime wave in New York City, an ex-cop named Stephen D’Andrilli suggested on a TV talk show that the city issue one million permits to carry handguns. Host Dick Oliver asked then-New York Governor Mario Cuomo to respond. Cuomo snapped, "Why don’t you ask the cops what they think of everybody packing guns?"

Oliver replied that a Mr. Byrne, then head of the Police Benevolent Association, had said of D’Andrilli’s plan, "It’s a good idea."

"Well, somebody better talk to Mr. Byrne, straighten him out," said the governor.

Many high-ranking police have been "straightened out" behind the scenes just as Governor Cuomo prescribed.

"The Clinton Administration was particularly successful at enlisting police support for gun control," notes the Web site of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA) a national anti-crime organization of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens, based in Falls Church, VA.

"[The Clinton White House] funneled millions of your tax dollars in political payoffs, disguised as `research’ into the pockets of national law enforcement organizations…," states an online article published by the LEAA. "…In one year during the Clinton Administration, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the Police Foundation collectively hauled in $4.4 million in Justice Department grants. …[P]olice groups that scurried to do Clinton's bidding happen to be the same ones that were awarded the lucrative federal grants."

The same LEAA article notes that many police officers were literally ordered to support the Brady Bill and the 1994 "Assault Weapons" Ban. "In some outrageous cases, police officers who actually opposed the legislation were forced by their superiors to appear in staged photographs as if they were solidly behind gun control!" charges the LEAA.

Despite all the payoffs and political arm-twisting, when the National Association of Chiefs of Police conducted a mail survey of 15,000 sheriffs and police chiefs in 1996, 93 percent said they approved of law-abiding citizens arming themselves for self-defense.

More and more pro-gun cops are working at the grassroots level in support of citizen gun rights.

Shortly after the 9-11 attacks, Sheriff John Raichl of Clatsop County, Oregon proposed recruiting armed citizens to guard docks, bridges, reservoirs, power stations, gas lines and other potential terrorist targets. Governor John Kitzhaber shot down Raichl’s plan.

Kennesaw, Georgia and Virgin, Utah passed laws requiring every household to own at least one gun. "Hundreds of towns and cities are passing or considering similar ordinances," claims VirginUtah.com, a Web site which promotes the town’s unusual gun laws.

Meanwhile, Sarah Brady and Ted Kennedy continue antagonizing police by opposing Senate bill 253 – a law that would permit active and retired cops to carry concealed weapons anywhere in the USA, without restriction.

Gun-ban activists have made a fatal error by targeting police. They have laid the groundwork for a grassroots alliance of gun owners and lawmen – a coalition that could well tip the scales in favor of our beleaguered Second Amendment.

__________________________________

Richard Poe is a New-York-Times bestselling author and cyberjournalist. His book The Seven Myths of Gun Control was just released in paperback. Poe’s forthcoming book, The New Underground: How Conservatives Conquered the Internet will be available soon.

[Monty22]

I'm highly offended that my comment wasn't quoted :)

Anyway, I stand by those comments, mine and all. Cops should *not* have special rights.

[agitator]

Speaking from personal experience, there are all too many cops that are perfectly comfortable putting their paycheck waaaaaaaaaay above their sworn duty to uphold Constitutions they've never read while they jam you into the meat grinder.

[sergeantdave]

An alliance of gun owners and peace officers is a natural. It would drive the left wing gun grabbers up a tree and get them shouting: "Fascists! Fascists!"

Now add in the fact that more than 90% of active duty officers in the military identify themselves as "conservative or Republican."

I'm for it.

[45Auto]

Here's something that really shows just where some of the police brass are:

Posted on Wed, Oct. 22, 2003 The Philadelphia Inquirer

Police chiefs' conference opens in Phila.

By Ira Porter Inquirer Staff Writer

For the next few days, Center City should be safer than usual, with more than 15,000 law-enforcement officials from around the world in Philadelphia for the 110th annual conference of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

Mayor Street welcomed conference attendees yesterday at an afternoon luncheon at the Convention Center, where the event will run through Saturday. Street was one of several big-name guests to greet officers. The chiefs will also welcome U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Gov. Rendell, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller this week.

The conference, which is not open to the public, is a chance for officers to network and educate one another about different law-enforcement tactics being employed around the world.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner Sylvester M. Johnson, who also attended yesterday's opening, thanked the chiefs' association - and its president, Joseph Samuels Jr. - for bringing the conference to Philadelphia for the first time in 37 years. The city hosted the chiefs in 1955 and 1966.

"We have every intention of making this one of the best conferences in the history of the IACP," Johnson said, and then joked that former Police Commissioner John F. Timoney offered to host the conference while he was here - and then left. Johnson, who has urged his officers to attend the conference, said the department would lead several workshops, including one focusing on Philadelphia's antidrug program.

Exhibits will begin today, showcasing 1,600 booths with new technology, mapping systems, vehicles, and a host of other tools used in law enforcement. The conference has 120 workshops listed, covering issues from homeland security, terrorism and community policing to law-enforcement ethics.

Also today, a group of chiefs representing major American cities will formally urge Congress to extend the Brady Bill, which bans assault weapons. The Brady Bill is set to expire next year, and groups including the National Rifle Association have been trying to persuade Congress to let the law expire.

Benjamin Braxton, chief of police in Willingboro, Burlington County, came to Philadelphia yesterday with hopes of taking new tactics back to his department. "We're all talking about issues we may need to know," Braxton said. "We're here to pick up new ideas. Every police chief has some problems, and there is some chief somewhere who has had the same problem."

The problem is as long as some of the LEO brass are in favor of gun bans, then I have a hard time gunning up any sympathy for them. On top of that, the reporter who wrote this piece is obviously a dufus; he doesn't know what the hell the Brady Law is nor that it is not that rotten piece of crap that bans so-called AW's. It is just another demonstration of how the press is deliberately ignorant about the RKBA, because their minds are already made up, not to be confused by actual facts or by some real checking of facts before writing stupid anti-freedom articles.

[William Tell]

The Kalifornia Supreme Court recently struck down a provision of one of our "assault weapons" laws which exempted police officers (retired, perhaps).

This should be a clear warning to them that they will someday be disarmed when it is only their own personal defense or that of their families which is at stake. Police who infringe the right to keep and bear arms have no justification for doing so and are themselves violating the supreme law of the land.

[tracer]

It took me a couple of years to catch on and discontinue my membership, but the LEAA doesn't really give a rat's a$$ about "civilians."

They'll take our money in dues, but they only beat the drum over such LEO-friendly issues as national CCW reciprocity for active and retired LEOs while usimg their "concern" for the rights and interests of "civilians" as front to stay afloat with donor dollars.

They doggedly beg on at least a monthly basis for donations and even admit that they are in financial doo-doo.

AMF, guys. Market forces are in play...

[AdA$tra]

It pretty much depends on the cop. Some have a grasp of how having an armed citizenry is safer; others want to be in control of everything. It is actually the same with me listening to my police scanner. Some cops praise it, as I have helped catch some bad guys by being informed in the right place at the right time. Others look at me as a nuisance that is intruding into their turf by listening. I started listening by accident and got hooked because I wasn’t getting the truth from either the cops or media as to what is really happening around me.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Mayor Street welcomed conference attendees yesterday

Gee, is that the same Mayor Street that may be going down soon in the Federal inquiry into, what is it?, city pension fund irregularities in Philly?

[FreedomPoster]

I'll stand behind you on those comments. Had a long on-line conversation with a cop on a car board, and he's got those same "civilians shouldn't be carrying" attitudes. This from a guy who trumpets that he is "ticketproof", so the superior rights for cops attitude shows through again and again in this particular rank-and-filer. It isn't just the big city chiefs.

Robert A. Heinlein had it nailed:
"In any sufficiently advanced society, civil servant is semantically equal to civil *master*."

[Liberal Bob]

Obviously you have something against the police. Do you think they make these laws? Or do you believe that they should not enforce these laws that they swore to uphold?

Maybe it’s some kind of class envy everyone or no one? How about convicted felons or illegal aliens should they be part of the everyone?

I was once ordered by the the city I worked for to tell citizens if asked the question, Should I buy a gun, “NO guns are unsafe to have around the home and you are more likely to shoot a member of your family then a burglar.” So when asked that question I would answer, “I have been ordered to tell you, NO guns are unsafe to have around the home and you are more likely to shoot a member of your family then a burglar. Then I would say, “I have a number of guns in my home and every member of my family can shoot them well.”

Street cops have a greater percentage of NRA members then the public and most police range masters are NRA trained. Your gripe is with the chiefs and city management and your legislators not the rank and file cops. The street cop can not make decisions on the constitutionality of the laws he is sworn to enforce or your system of justice will begin to fall apart for that action in itself would be unconstitutional and lead to confusion amongst the governed.

[sistergoldenhair]

later

[patton]

a national anti-crime organization of law enforcement professionals, crime victims and concerned citizens, based in Falls Church, VA.

You think you are offended. I am the third generation in my family to own this house, in Falls Church, VA...

And we have been screaming for years, THOSE F%%%%%% ARE IN FAIRFAX!

(Our post office serves a large area. If you are served by our post office, you have a Falls Church address.)

[Liberal Bob]

Here is what the rank and file cop feels about guncontrol

[Monty22]

No, my gripe is that there shouldn't be a set of laws for police, and then some for everyone else.

[#3Fan]

"[The Clinton White House] funneled millions of your tax dollars in political payoffs, disguised as `research’ into the pockets of national law enforcement organizations…," states an online article published by the LEAA. "…In one year during the Clinton Administration, the Police Executive Research Forum, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs Association and the Police Foundation collectively hauled in $4.4 million in Justice Department grants. …[P]olice groups that scurried to do Clinton's bidding happen to be the same ones that were awarded the lucrative federal grants."

Was there anything during the Clinton years that wasn't fake?

[goldstategop]

Exactly. I have little sympathy for the plight of our lords after all the years they stripped us peasants of our rights. Now the shoe's on the other foot? I'd say let them wear it and see what it feels like to be deprived for a change.

[Richard Poe]

Here is what the rank and file cop feels about guncontrol

Thanks for the excellent link. I have added it to my gun link page.

[dasboot]

Your gripe is with the chiefs and city management and your legislators not the rank and file cops.

Here's the trend:

My state passed a law that allows officers who obtain an Associate's to get a 10% pay increase; 20% for a Bachelor's; 25% for a Master's (Crim. Just. or Law only). About half the guys who never went to college took advantage of the thing and got degrees at the diploma mills that sprang up.

A lot of the fellas get their brains washed but good. Without a firm technical understanding of the foundational aspects of US tradition, they are at the mercy of liberal college profs and their fawning, brainless fans in the mixed classes. Cops get called Nazi's and such for expressing an opinion about this or that conservative notion, and they usually cow because they don't know how to defend or even articulate the truth they can feel in their guts.

The rank and file in this Northeastern State is being 'transformed' in other ways, too. I could go on.

Suffice to say, don't depend on protection for your rights from PO's. Conservatives are marginalized: Libs are awarded rank. You wouldn't believe the stuff some of these college educated cops spew as 'known fact'. It's like "The Body Snatchers".

[philetus]

Police should NOT enforce unconstitutional laws.

[Ches]

bang

[headsonpikes]

A lot of the fellows get their brains washed but good.

The thin edge of the wedge, getting thicker by the day.

[Liberal Bob]

No, my gripe is that there shouldn't be a set of laws for police, and then some for everyone else.

So you answer is to fight with them instead of joining them. Go to that link under my post to you and see what Leroy went through working for Joe Mac. His fight was well publicized in print and local TV but not one of you citizens came foreword to object to the way he was treated for his membership in the NRA and his fight for the second amendment.

[Liberal Bob]

Suffice to say, don't depend on protection for your rights from PO's. Conservatives are marginalized: Libs are awarded rank. You wouldn't believe the stuff some of these college educated cops spew as 'known fact'. It's like "The Body Snatchers".

Sorry but I’ve been there and for the most part you are wrong, there are always exceptions to the rule.

[Liberal Bob]

So you will leave it up to every cop to determined what laws are unconstitutional? What a free hand they would have in our society, talk about corruption. Better to concentrate on the law makers not the law enforcers.

[philetus]

The Privileged Elite?

Cops Are The Wrong Target

By: Leroy Pyle

(This article composed in 1992, but appropriate in these times)

It is ironic that Chief Joe McNamara, San Jose PD, found the Achilles Heel of the American Gun owner, and gun owners are doing the most to take his lead and act on it. McNamara marked the target, and gun owners are taking all the shots!

I refer to the generally declining respect for law enforcement demonstrated by the Second Amendment Community, in general, and, specifically, that community's response to a call for a national concealed weapon carry law for law enforcement.

RKBA enthusiasts communicating on electronic bulletin boards, the Internet, or in everyday conversations at clubs and meeting places display this very negative attitude quite openly. It is especially evident when the topic of the national CCW for cops is brought up, and was very apparent in the response to any media addressing the subject.

The proposed legislation would make it lawful for licensed and trained LEO's to travel across state lines while armed. It was drafted and proposed by pro-gun LEO's in an attempt to re-establish some lines of pro-gun communication with the law enforcement community at the line officer (grassroots) level.

It wasn't too many years ago that law enforcement was the traditional, recognized, friend and ally of the gun owner. That was made very obvious in the battle over Proposition 15 in California, in 1982, which called for a handgun ban. Initial polls showed a two-third majority of Californians supported a ban on sales of handguns.

And then a concerted campaign by gun owners resulted in a defeat of that proposition by a truly amazing turnaround. Much of the credit for the two-third-majority win is attributed to the law enforcement support of the N.R.A. and The Right To Keep and Bear Arms!

It was the results of that election that led Joe McNamara and HCI to the conclusion that something must be done to drive a wedge between those traditional allies, cops and gun owners. Together, he guessed correctly, they were invincible, and he initiated his campaign to "divide and conquer".

And by listening to Second Amendment Activists, I think we can agree that his efforts have met with great success.

In response to those few political police-types who parrot the HCI agenda, and the obviously biased media support of that agenda, gun-owning activists have developed considerable resentment. I try to consider that it is understandable, since most legislation has been carried on the emotional claims of a police loss in the so-called gun wars. But it is now being carried to an extreme by a minority of those who have a personal grudge against authority, or by individuals who's personal agenda or affiliations involve a greater resentment of government and/or authority than the average RKBA'er.

And whether justified, or not, the resentment is misdirected when aimed at the beat cop who is restricted from political involvement by that very same political police administrator who makes the false claims, and then muzzles any attempt by department members to debate or tell the truth.

Think about the times you have heard the claim that the police "need this legislation", or are "outgunned" and "losing the battle". Those statements are made by a political cop or a politician and seldom, if ever, by a line officer.

And yet, the typical claim is that a CCW law for cops creates a "privileged elite". There is, no doubt, a privileged elite. The antics of Diane Feinstein, Joe McNamara or Carl Rowan have been well publicized. More examples include the FBI Director breaking with tradition to go political, and an aid to Barbara Boxer (D-CA) discovered packing a 9mm semi-auto.

There, you have your privileged elite!

In the case of the average police officer, though, I think we may be confusing privilege with responsibility. The cop is hired to assume the responsibility of enforcing the laws of the community. Those responsibilities are many and varied, and include the carrying and use of a firearm.

Unlike a privilege or entitlement, which connotes a special advantage, the law enforcement officer's role is voluntary and includes the obligations and accountability of an office of trust. The prerequisites are many, and include the requirements of many months of classroom and on-the-job training.

Culpability and liability are major factors in a law enforcement officer’s daily assignment, also. There are specific laws directed at the misuse of the authority, or the tools of that authority, by an officer.

So it might be best to reconsider your target. Aim a little higher on the political chain. It should be a shot (figuratively speaking, of course) just above the line officer's level. And for Harry Thomas's sake, be a little picky with lieutenants!

I do not claim that law enforcement support is the major factor in the battle for our RKBA, but no one can deny the value of a positive coalition with that audience, and we do find ourselves in dire straights without it.

If we continue to shoot at what Joe McNamara and HCI have defined as our Achilles Heel, we may well be shooting ourselves in the foot.

[philetus]

Good site BOB

[philetus]

What I was speaking of, is when police enforce a law they know is unconstitutional.

[Liberal Bob]

philetus

I understand that but there are many opinions of what is constitutional here on freepers. And I would guess I could find a libertarian cop that would say that child molestation laws are unconstitutional as long as everyone consents.

[dasboot]

I'm still there. 2 to get to my 20.

Favorite quote I hear in the station: "Sorry I had to arrest you, I'm just following orders." That one don't fly with me.

I have a nice spot to spend my time remaining. I run the jail. I have the pleasure of seeing people arrested because our state supreme court determined that a mere complaint is probable cause for arrest. No need to do investigations anymore. The system is chewing up innocent people. More now than ever before. It used to be an unfortunate circumstance; now it's business as usual. Like we need the bad PR.

And you're dead wrong about it not being the duty of every LEO to determine what is, or is not, lawful and constututional. It is essential to the proper execution of duty. Peace officers were never intended to be soldiers. You don't know what you're talking about.

[Liberal Bob]

Favorite quote I hear at the station, “I can flush this down the toilet or book you. What can you do for me?”

[dasboot]

Community Police?

[Liberal Bob]

That's what you're asking for isn't it? The right to make the call as you see it. That's a lot of power to give to anyone and can go the wrong way quick.

[dasboot]

Your train of thought seems illogical. Every cop has to call it as he sees it. And defend that call (although the courts are covering shabby stuff relating to domestic violence)

By its nature, the job requires discrimination, objectivity, and knowledge. Are you implying that it's the duty of an officer to arrest or summon without an application of knowledge or law; without discriminating between what is, and is not, an offense?

I'm not sure what you're trying to express.

[dasboot]

So you will leave it up to every cop to determined what laws are unconstitutional? What a free hand they would have in our society, talk about corruption. Better to concentrate on the law makers not the law enforcers.

I, on dutious patrol, observe and hear you express your displeasure at a certain politician. Are you engaged in free speech, or are you a common disturber of the peace?

Ah, let the court figure it out, *click*.

[philetus]

Thanks for the reality check Bob.

[DMZFrank]

I am a retired police officer who has gone toe to toe with my colleagues over this issue innumerable times in my career. I believe that the 2nd amendment guarantees a clear constitutional individual right for military pattern small arms suitable for modern day militia use, and incidentally allowing for concealed firearms for personal public protection. Many of my compatriots did not share this position. I even said that no police officer should have one scintilla more right to personally own a firearm than any other law-abiding citizen.

Despite this, I believe that most rank and file PO's substantially support the classic rights of the 2nd amendment. It is the brass, particularly in the big cities, who kowtow to the gun grabbing tyranny of their political masters.

[El Gato]

Or do you believe that they should not enforce these laws that they swore to uphold?

Actually yes, they are also sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and of their state as well. That includes the second amendment and whatever RKBA provision their state Constitutions might inclue. From Article 4 of the Consititution for the United States:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So yes, they should refuse to enforce any unconstitutional "gun" laws.

Maybe it’s some kind of class envy everyone or no one? How about convicted felons or illegal aliens should they be part of the everyone?

Illegal aliens should be deported, making the question moot. Convicted felons should have their rights restored after they have served their time, and that would include probation time. It was that way, not so very long ago. At the federal level it was 1968.

[El Gato]

The right to make the call as you see it. That's a lot of power to give to anyone and can go the wrong way quick.

The alternative is the "I was just following orders" defense. I believe that one was discredited in the mid 1940s. I'd trust cops before I'd trust politicians to do the right thing. It's when the cops follow unconsitutional orders, and enforce unconstitutional laws that most of the potential for corruption, and the actual corruption, occurs.

[El Gato]

Peace officers were never intended to be soldiers

Even soldiers may be called upon to make such distinctions. After all, they do take an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same". Is the oath just meaningless words. The requirement to take the oath, at least for officers, (both and civil and military) is contained in the Consitutition itself. (Art. 4). The military officers' oath does not even mention obeying orders, although the enlisted oath does. And since I took the latter once and the former several times, I should know. (My retirement certificate is on the wall in front of me as I type, it doesn't relieve me of the oath, nor even remove my commision, it just transfers me to the retired reserve list)

[dasboot]

True, but disregarded by me for brevity's sake.

There's a great quote by Lincoln's VP..can't remember the name...about how it is every man's duty to uphold the Constitution as that individual understands it....

Washington and the DWM's had some to say about it , too. Something about the bulwark against tyranny, etc.

We are obliged to know and uphold..at all cost...the ideas therein (for the children). If there is a duty placed upon me that I find odious to the principles, I know what I must do. Refuse, resign, take the consequences. Liberty and justice ain't free. Ask Rosa Parks.

Oh yeah...Seward!

[archy]

Favorite quote I hear at the station, “I can flush this down the toilet or book you. What can you do for me?”

More common on my old department: It's okay, we aren't breaking the law...we are the law....

-archy-/-

[archy]

The military officers' oath does not even mention obeying orders, although the enlisted oath does. And since I took the latter once and the former several times, I should know. (My retirement certificate is on the wall in front of me as I type, it doesn't relieve me of the oath, nor even remove my commision, it just transfers me to the retired reserve list)

Yep, all too true. Seven times now I've taken that oath now; twice as a cop.

But of course, in the long run, it may not matter: if the second amendment, or any other portion of the constitution is *waived*, *reinterpreted,* *suspended,* or in any other way rendered meaningless and moot by those who are first to be governed by it, then the entire document is moot, null and voided. And thereby the constitution that sworn officers is the basis for their sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend it is just as meaningless, and that consatitution, the source of the laws and rightful authority derived therefrom is equally null and void- they are police no longer, though they may have pretty uniforms to rival those of any bananna republics goons and thugs.

And at that point, it's quite literally *every man and woman for themselves.*

-archy-/-

[Liberal Bob]

So you run the jail and house all those poor innocent prisoners that are unconstitutionally arrested. Lets see you put up or shut up, take your keys and release all those you “know” to be held unconstitutionally by these unconstitutional laws. I’m sure we’ll read about it tomorrow how you were protecting the constitution like any great patriot would.

You've got the last word good nite.

[dasboot]

I can't do that. The clerks won't get their release fees, and I won't be able to get my tickets fixed anymore.

[William Tell]

archy said: "But of course, in the long run, it may not matter: if the second amendment, or any other portion of the constitution is *waived*, *reinterpreted,* *suspended,* or in any other way rendered meaningless and moot by those who are first to be governed by it, then the entire document is moot, null and voided."

Sounds like the situation in Kalifornia since the state Supreme Court has ruled that Kalifornians don't have a right to keep and bear arms.

[archy]

archy said: "But of course, in the long run, it may not matter: if the second amendment, or any other portion of the constitution is *waived*, *reinterpreted,* *suspended,* or in any other way rendered meaningless and moot by those who are first to be governed by it, then the entire document is moot, null and voided."

Sounds like the situation in Kalifornia since the state Supreme Court has ruled that Kalifornians don't have a right to keep and bear arms.

Just so. So far as I'm concerned, there is no legitimate government in CA, though Ahnuld may take steps to restore it.

I certainly wouldn't count on that happening, of course, and in point of fact, CA has no more governmental legitimacy than if it was run by the Crips or Bloods, or from Mexico City. Which in fact, may be the case to a large extent.

Anyone wanting to ignore CA laws or legal restrictions will find little argument from me. That's Outlaw territory, baby.

-archy-/-

[Travis McGee]

Interesting times we live in. I think I picked the novel title of the decade.

[archy]

Interesting times we live in.

That should be *Interesting times in which we live* for a distinguished author and wordsmith such as yourself, or you'll be getting the same complaint letters from retired little old lady English teachers that I did as a newspaper calumnist.

It is sometimes said that *May you live in interesting times* translates as a curse in Chinese; but upon checking out the possible truth of that aphorism with a native Chinese history professor and scholar, he was unable to offer me any likely source or derivation for the happy thought from his native land. He did opine that to him, it sounded like some of the short choppy and to-the-point phrases sometimes heard in the Wu dialect of pre-WWII Shanghai. Further deponent knoweth and sayeth not. -archy-/-