Create Your Own GUN FREE ZONE

[WB2WIK]

RXO is entirely correct Steve. Hiring standards for today's LEO's are shocking in their deficiencies. Common sense and good judgement are not valued nor is there much emphasis on what the spirit of the law is. What too many so-called law enforcement leaders (and the number of good ones decreases daily) look for today is unquestioning, non-judgmental enforcement of the letter of the law. You and I differ on the issue of firearms. Hopefully we don't differ on the importance of having thinking cops rather than robotic cops---and in Kalifornia you have too few of the former and far too many of the latter.

I said "wow" because I was appalled to think this is true, but I guess, sadly, it is.

What's the solution?

[N7WR]

I said "wow" because I was appalled to think this is true, but I guess, sadly, it is.

What's the solution?

Steve I honestly don't know and I was in the business for a long time and still teach leadership courses. I think it is as a result of the "it's all about me mentality" and "we don't want to offend anybody" mentality....accompanied by consent decrees forcing a watering down of standards. And those hired under less exacting standards eventually promote to the top of organizations (which has been happening for the last 20 years). That simply perpetuates the problem. I am pretty sure it won't get turned around in my lifetime and maybe never. It is not something specific to law enforcement. The same thing is happening in the military and almost every government entity.

[W3RXO]

That's why you should be carrying your guns at all times! :-)

I would need a half-track, to do so. I might get away with a deuce and a half, but my Essyouvee, and my wife's sedan, would certainly be loaded to far beyond the weight limits of each.

I've heard of old-fangled things like drills and Johnson bars though!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-2ql9gOWzw

http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/22078516#!

While no safe is completely secure from people who truly want what we have, it is a reasonable means to secure my valuables from the VAST majority of would-be thieves. If for some reason, one of those who are willing to go to the extraordinary means to steal what I have, breaks into my house, and uses those extraordinary means to somehow defeat the security mechanisms of my safes, I am insured for that. But, beyond that reasonable level of security, as I wrote in one of these threads, in the past couple of days, I believe in the words of Thomas Jefferson. "I would rather attend to the inconveniences of too much liberty, than too little of it". I REFUSE to live in fear that some scumbag, who wants to steal my stuff, is going to go to the lengths necessary, to defeat the reasonable methods I have taken to secure my valuables. Additionally, it is the reason I am moving to "the country", in very rural Oklahoma, from the very urban, Pomona, CA. There, they are far more likely to steal things from outside of the home, like A/C units and scrap metal.
Personally, I think that were someone to break into my home, with the intent of taking some of my valuables, they would be far liklier to take a TV, or two (even THOSE are OLD, big and very heavy), the computer, the DVD/music system, and probably a few of the microphones from my Collins, Johnson and Hammarlund, boat anchor collection, as well as my Drakes or my Collins "S" Line, as they are far more easily portable. But the security in those, is the knowledge that most thieves are looking for something they can turn for a few quick bucks, and are not likely to steal something they do not see value in, and most will look at those older, smaller, more transportable rigs, as too old for any real value.

[W5TTW]

Here's a nice graphic, easy to blow up, ( pardon the pun ) print out on your computer, and tape inside the front window of your house so everybody will know that here is a haven of safety - a Gun-Free Zone!



Readers who would like more information about the Gun-Free Zone concept should refer to the original post in this topic, which features an informative video.

Bullets are free at my place. Walk right on in for fast delivery.

[W3RXO]

Body piercings performed free, using the Sam Colt method. Sizes range from .223" to .455"
Attachment 95474

[N5PVL]

I would never put one of these up, at my place. - Within a few days or so, we'd wind up having to shoot somebody, or have them arrested.



The major highway that links deep south Texas to the rest of the world goes directly through my farm. Across the road from my driveway are the railroad tracks that do the same.

This means that hundreds of desperate, hungry and broke criminal trespassers ( illegal immigrants ) pass within a few hundred feet of my isolated farm house every week. Only a tiny minority of them are armed or looking for trouble - but it just takes one of such to wipe out a rural family so that they can steal part of a case of beer, some scrap metal, etc...

We do a number of things to make the place look unattractive to the barbarian invaders. - That sign would not fit in with the plan though - besides being dishonest in our case, as every family member is quite well armed and we tend to be up at all hours. - It would be equivalent to setting a man trap. - Not cool!

Contrary to the fevered imagination of an ignorant few, the great majority of gun owners do not pine for a chance to shoot somebody. That's because they are people, and that's how most people are.

But compared to seeing a friend, neighbor or family member shot by some worthless scumbag ( or anyone else, for that matter ) - Then all of a sudden it starts to look amazingly like the lesser of two evils. - And very few sane, rational people have any difficulty connecting those particular dots.

Under those condition, I would shoot with gusto - and the mess it would make on the carpet be damned.

[W3RXO]

Contrary to the fevered imagination of an ignorant few, the great majority of gun owners do not pine for a chance to shoot somebody. That's because they are people, and that's how most people are.

But compared to seeing a friend, neighbor or family member shot by some worthless scumbag ( or anyone else, for that matter ) - Then all of a sudden it starts to look amazingly like the lesser of two evils. - And very few sane, rational people have any difficulty connecting those particular dots.

Under those condition, I would shoot with gusto - and the mess it would make on the carpet be damned.

Charles,
I'm not sure there are many who are pining for chance to shoot anyone. Rather it is more of a posturing, in a manner letting it be known, that force WILL be used, in an attempt, to alleviate potential intruders. 'Tis better to scare off many, seeming like a bully, than to use deadly force on one. But, I think that was the point you were trying to make.

73,
Dan
W3RXO/6

[WA6TKD]

The question in my mind is WHY he allowed the search if he KNEW the gun laws and KNEW he wasn't following them.



I mean, if a you are in a motor vehicle and police stop you, you are required to give license and insurance documents, and possibly sobriety testing. But that's about it, unless accused of some clear violation (like speeding, running a red light, etc.

I wonder what the guy was thinking?

73 de Jim, N2EY

He didn't testify WHY he allowed the search and his lawyer only gave an opinion in closing arguments that he felt he didn't have anything to hide from the officer and it was a simple mistake of forgetting that he had left his backpack in the car from the previous day. Of course the defendant had already testified that he normally kept and transported his gun in his pack pack placed in the rear seat even though we said he was aware of the proper method during cross examination. So I don't know who was the less intellegent person, the defendant for allowing the search in the first place or the lawyer for allowing him to testify, which is his right not to.

It made the jury deliberations rather simple and short (30mins or so), unlike my previous two jury deliberations which I found very time consuming and frustrating, even though we eventually reached consensus in them also. While jury trials are very structured and things explained well to juries, the jury deliberation process is anything but structured. It can be very much a free for all with both dominate and passive members and often facts and evidence have to compete with personalities.

[WB2WIK]

It made the jury deliberations rather simple and short (30mins or so), unlike my previous two jury deliberations which I found very time consuming and frustrating, even though we eventually reached consensus in them also. While jury trials are very structured and things explained well to juries, the jury deliberation process is anything but structured. It can be very much a free for all with both dominate and passive members and often facts and evidence have to compete with personalities.

You can say that again. Our system may be about the best in the world, but it's still lacking and frustrating.

I've been on "JD" seven times now. Only twice did I actually land on a jury, the other times I was dismissed (not because of anything I did or said, they just didn't need me and several others).

The deliberations process both times made me wonder if I heard the same evidence and testimony as the other eleven.

I believe JD is an obligation, maybe even a privilege, but it really sucks. Of course the $5 a day they pay and the free parking make it all worth it. What they pay doesn't cover the cost of my gasoline to get there. It's silly.

Wish we had professional, trained juries. Second best might be to have juries made of entirely retired folks who really had nothing better to do anyway, and have lived long enough to have practical experience in many facets of life. And I think there should be a juror entrance exam to test if people can hear properly and understand both what they're hearing and the instructions. I swear on both juries I served, half the people qualified by having a pulse.

[N2EY]

He didn't testify WHY he allowed the search and his lawyer only gave an opinion in closing arguments that he felt he didn't have anything to hide from the officer and it was a simple mistake of forgetting that he had left his backpack in the car from the previous day. Of course the defendant had already testified that he normally kept and transported his gun in his pack pack placed in the rear seat even though we said he was aware of the proper method during cross examination. So I don't know who was the less intellegent person, the defendant for allowing the search in the first place or the lawyer for allowing him to testify, which is his right not to.

The really scary part is the dude didn't know where his gun was.

73 de Jim, N2EY