On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:37:18 -0500, Robert Woolley wrote: >This particular legislation doesn't cover anything except pistols. Knives, >e.g., are not mentioned.
>But suppose that a radically pacifist religious group *did* want to go so >far as to ban possession on its premises of any object (not part of one's >person) it perceived as readily usable as a weapon--tire irons, Leatherman >tools, metal-cased fire extinguishers, bike-lock chains or cables, ropes, >etc. Should this group be allowed, as a matter of public policy (setting >aside any particular piece of legislation for the moment), to set compliance >with such rules as a condition for entering or using its building and/or >parking lot? We can even stipulate that the list the group has compiled is, >by overinclusion and/or underinclusion, quite irrational. Does that matter, >if the religious belief underlying it is genuine? I don't have a cite handy, but memory is that the Amish have those orange triangles on the backs of their buggies as a result of either court action or a settlement in the respective states. The initial Amish reaction was something along the lines of "they're too bright." _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
