But law enforcement doesn't happen in a vacuum. As we speak, marijuana is illegal.
However, enforcement is limited to large dealers and very dumb semi-public users and the extremely unlucky. The major difference between American enforcement and Western European non-enforcement is more in rhetoric than outcome. Whence cometh the political will and the money to go knock on the door of everybody who gets a duck license? (Which I would take to be a useful proxy for who owns shotguns.) I still say clarity is a worthy goal even as I am forced to admit that it might not be forthcoming anytime soon. Steve Russell > ---------- > > Steve wrote: > > > If the Supremes would just gut up and say that the Second > > Amendment means something, ANYTHING, we could get on with sorting > > out the policy issues instead of comparing two sets of > > hypothetical horribles--Stingers in every closet on one side and > > the loss of duck guns on the other side. > > I'm not so sure. The Supremes have reversed themselves in the past. I do > not know of a gun owners on God's Grey Earth who would stomach registration > for fear that a future packed court would not reverse an earlier individual > rights decree. > > -------------------- > Guy Smith > Silicon Strategies Marketing > 630 Taylor Avenue > Alameda, CA 94501 > 510-521-4477 (T) > 510-217-9693 (F) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.SiliconStrat.com > >
