Reply #27: indeed

[iverglas]

In other words, police are hamstrung. If someone points out a person carrying a firearm, police must look the other way. And if the person subsequently shoots his estranged wife in the head across a crowded mall, too bad, it could not have been prevented, her tough luck.

Tell me that CANNOT and WILL NOT happen. Please.

And people attending services at the church of their choice, who have been fool enough not to think of plastering NO GUNS signs on their property, must tolerate piece of shit provocateurs, who are total strangers to them, promenading around on their premises with firearms with the obvious and 100% foreseeable effect and thus INTENT of intimidating them, and may not expect police to investigate.

After all, that's not what the police are for.


City has already lost that one in court with this very same person. The cops surely knew that when they ran her ID.

Really?? The police maintain a database containing information about people who have sued the police? Phew. You like this idea, do you? Phew.


Does everyone the cops see driving get pulled over to make sure they have a current license or that they are allowed to drive that particular car without reasonable suspicion or probable cause? They are both examples of legal activities being done in public.

People driving cars are not doing it to "express their rights". They are doing it to get from point A to point B.

Too bad your heroine could not come up with something else to tell people who asked why she had intruded into their church service with her gun, eh?

SHE was and is a provocateur. As are all the rest of her ilk.


typo