Owners may not get guns back (Guns Were Not Illegal, But Will Not Be Returned To Owners)

How about an unwitting violation of any law?

"What did I do"?
"It's right there, Code 486.345a. 'Sneezing and thereby allowing bodily fluids (phlegm) to soil the public sidewalk'. You were observed doing this, by an anonymous source."
But, I didn't know it was illegal!!!"
"Ignorance of the Law is no excuse. Since you admit the violation, summary judgement is 90 days incarceration; $25,000 fine and forefieture of your life savings."
"You're f%$#&^ing nuts!"
"Resisting an officer of the Law. Add 10 years to your sentence."

YOU actually are in possession of a copy of UC ?!?!?!?!?!? Please assume the position and wait for the socialist FLEAS and BatFag's............they are enroute :o)

I'm going to donate to the public library here and then see if they put i on the shelf.

Actually I've been thinking of going down to the Library and complaining (politely the first couple of times) about the fact that they have no, none, zero hunting, fishing, or shooting magazine subscriptions.

They have the English language version of some French Commie newspaper which I'm sure gets a lot of traffic.

I know there are lots huntersand shooters around here. I'm going to even bring down some issues of Soldier of Fortune and some gun mags to show them the safety articles in the gun mags and the war reporting and sex slave trade articles in SOF.

Probably be lucky to get a smile out of them but it's worth a try.

Ernie

LOL !!!! .......Yer in the land of rainbow people and microsoft brains Ern........your the lone light in a land of darkness IMHO.

I think with PETA losing their tax exempt status and you dropping a bunch of gun rags in the local socialist reading room a criticality could occur up there :o)

Tell em now that Rosie's magazine rag has gone bottom up (I know its a big bottom) they can buy SOF , Predator , 4 Wheeler ect ect.........

Stay Safe

Posession in the home and on the person is stretching it, You think? Just carrying a little around in case she decided to start using it?

Most mandatory drug tests are pre-hire and post-accident. "Random tests" are expensive, and become lawsuit bait if everyone isn't randomly tested at once. Quite possible to pass the test and be a user, just stay clean before the initial test, and don't get in a wreck.

BTW, most jurisdictions frown on having a drunk behind the wheel, too. (No CDL, No Chauffer's license with DUI). Mere posession of booze is not a crime if you are not a minor(unless you are driving wih an open container in many states). Drugs are a different story.

There are far better test cases, where someone had marijuana growing on some remote corner of a large property, and lost their guns, even though a quite credible case could be made that they were unaware of the presence of the plants.

You want a test case, go there, not flying the flag for folks who knew they were in violation of the law.

I agree in many cases that performance on the job should be the main criterion, but some jobs are considered important enough, or to have a great enough potential for disaster that a condition of employment is not using drugs, or abusing alcohol. Sea Captains, Commercial Truck Drivers (D.O.T.), and Airline Pilots are all examples of occupations in which the standard for intoxication is 0.04% B.A.C., not the 0.08 to 0.10 % for ordinary drivers. We as a culture consider a busload of schoolchildren important enough that we expect a higher standard of behaviour.

Or should we wait for the wreck to decide there might be a problem?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.