View Single Post
Old 11-20-2012, 7:12 AM
Old_Bald_Guy's Avatar
Old_Bald_Guy Old_Bald_Guy is offline
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: California
Posts: 2,848
iTrader: 0 / 0%

Originally Posted by Deadon View Post
Old Bald Guy hear ya. This is just like the guys that were wearing their guns out to starbucks "just because they could" That got us a long way eh?
Ha ha! Yeah, they proved a point they felt was absolutely vital at the time, and were portrayed in the media as insane wackos. If the Brady high command were to pay people to implement a plan, it couldn't get much better for them than that whole mess.

This issue of fighting every restriction doesn't have the same potential for media exploitation, but it's still counter-productive right now. Sometimes, the bigger question (absolutely no regulation of any kind/slippery slope vs. some lines, somewhere) has to be set aside for practical, strategic reasons. I need to scroll back through and look again, but I don't recall getting a response from the OP about whether he really does favor the no restrictions model--no statutory restrictions or enhanced penalties for felons, for example. As soon as a person admits there's room for some regulation, they've abandoned their slippery slope stance even though they may not be comfortable acknowledging it.

Finally, anyone with several to many negative interactions with law enforcement is either riding a string of incredibly bad outcomes in a statistically possible but not very probable series, or he's dealing with a distinct sub-population of officers who have established and well-documented histories of such behavior (not nearly as likely in Sacramento as it might be in the Florida panhandle for some people--not even close), OR he is projecting something negative that the officers are picking up on. One occasion in which the interaction starts out negative without any verbal or nonverbal contribution by the citizen does not necessarily negate the presence of a perhaps unrecognized pattern of attitude projection by that individual. I'm not saying that's necessarily what's happening in this case, but it's a possibility.

The reality of this situation is that when an LTC holder applies for renewal in Sacramento County, every one of those contacts with law enforcement will need to be listed on the application and will likely lead to a question or two by the interviewer. An excessive number of interactions--positive, negative, or neutral--will lead to more questions. I understand the reason for this.
"Almost every reform movement has a lunatic fringe, but here, the fringe is apparently sane."
― Theodore Roosevelt

Last edited by Old_Bald_Guy; 11-20-2012 at 7:16 AM.. Reason: Formatting, clarification
Reply With Quote