Merry Andrew wrote:
The suit is obviously frivolous.
The two employees who disarmed the alleged felon at no time had "possession" of the weapon
within the definition of the statute, i.e. they had neither title nor any other form of actual ownership.
I think you misread the NY State law, David.
I am perplexed as to Y u believe
that holding title
to the gun
has any effect in relation to the gun control law.
It does not.
If u ask me to hold your coat,
I will POSSESS it
but I will not own it.
Of course, if you learned how to spell
we might actually understand what point you are trying to make.
I contend that u r spelling rong
( Teddy Roosevelt suffered worse abuse than I do,
when he tried to irradicate this inefficiency. )
I accepted and applied the conventional orthografic paradime,
for several decades. I had little trouble with it,
but, in retrospect, I believe that I have been guilty
of perpetuating the problem of continuing foolish inefficiency;
like everyone carrying 20 pounds of useless iron all the time,
out of respect for tradition. Failing to rebel is COMPLICITY in perpetuation of the rongness.
Let 's adopt better traditions
and stop poisoning the minds of defenseless children,
inculcating them with known inefficiency and waste.