Interesting that "they" almost immediately went after him "out of bounds" when he started asking uncomfortable questions. That's virtually an admission of guilt--but I imagine they thought he would shut up once he realized that they were willing to play dirty.
Unfortunately, this is not unusual. The Powers That Be don't like to be questioned ... or caught out.
I live in a state that issues carry permits, generally without a lot of hassle. In my small town (population under 10,000) there are somewhere in the vicinity of 475 carry permits issued (verified with the State Police, which is the issuing agency) as of two years ago. My town also has a local ordinance prohibiting the "possession" (not just "carry" of a loaded firearm on any Town-owned property. When I discovered this ordinance (by accident), I consulted the local police, and I was informed that, yes, Town-owned property includes Town roads. I live on a Town road. This means that (1) legally, I can't walk to my mailbox with a loaded gun on my hip, because the mailbox is within the road right-of-way. (2) If I want to go armed to anywhere, I have to start out unarmed and drive either a mile north or two miles south, until I reach a state road, whereupon I can find somewhere to pull off (not not on Town-owned property) to load up.
I engaged a firearms rights attorney and we approached the Town Council about amending the ordinance to fix what we perceived to be the unconstitutional nature of this ordinance. After three meetings and much correspondence, they proposed a revision that would:
- Create a carve-out for the police (currently there isn't one);
- Create a carve-out for lawful carry on public roads; and
- Make it a violation to possess ANY firearm (even unloaded) on Town-owned property.
So their proposed "fix" would actually make things worse. There is still no way for anyone from out of town to know about this ordinance -- who researches the local ordinances of every town they drive through or visit for business purposes? There are no signs posted on major roads leading into the town, and no signs posted at entrances to town facilities. Under the existing ordinance, I can at least stop on the state road a quarter of a mile from the library and town hall, unload, and leave my unloaded pistol in the car while in the building. Under the proposed revision, I couldn't even do that (legally). I would have to know in advance that I was going to the town hall, and leave the gun at home. Or else park in the church parking lot a quarter of a mile from town hall and leave the gun there.
The Town attorney assured my attorney, before sending us the proposed revision, that they had fixed the problems and that he was certain her client (me) would "love" the revised language. What a joke! The proposed revision was clearly a "poison pill" proposal. In one of our meetings with the Town Council, the mayor (an attorney) basically acknowledged that they know the ordinance violates both the federal and state constitutions, but "We don't like guns."
And that's the crux of the issue. When the Powers That Be are willing to put their personal dislike for firearms ahead of their sworn duty to defend and uphold the constitution(s), you can expect them to play dirty at every opportunity.
In my case, the next step would have to be to file a lawsuit. But the state's judiciary are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats who hate guns, so that's not a good option ... and I don't have the money to undertake the suit anyway. So, in the end, we slunk away with our tails between our legs, and the old ordinance is still in effect.
