Bush signs H.R. 218, letting some carry guns anywhere, any time

[DoNotRefill]

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/press/pr040722.html

So now a Sheriff from Podunk, Alabama, or Padukah, Kentucky, can carry a pistol when they go to NYC...

[pocket]

1. even southerners?

the nerve!

[DoNotRefill]

2. yup...

nation-wide. All state and local laws are preempted by it.

[moondust]

3. Didn't he run on states' rights?

Like every other phony Repig secretly attempting to usurp all the power they can get their hands on?

[FeebMaster]

30. He's your classic small government Republican. (nt)

[philosophy77]

4. law enforcement carry

Why shouldn't legitimate law enforcement officers be able to carry their assigned weapons to any state? Is your only argument some form of racist stereotype of southern, small town police officers? You have to do better than this.

[greenbriar]

5. "you have to do better than this"

or what????????????

[philosophy77]

6. You make no argument against it

You have no argument, nothing to back up why law enforcement should not be able to carry. I know damn well I wouldn't go to NYC without something.

[mikemayberry]

7. don't see the problem

i like guns. i like the idea of carrying guns. i don't do it personally, but i like that i have the right to do so if i choose. maybe there should be a law against frail senile old ladies carrying weapons on airplanes, but outside of that, i like 'em!

i mean that i like guns, though i don't have anything in particular against old ladies.

[DoNotRefill]

8. Would you feel comfortable....

with an officer from the NOPD carrying a gun in your town? I sure as hell wouldn't...And it's not their service weapon, it's whatever they want.

[philosophy77]

9. NOPD

Do you mean New Orlean's Police Department? You may have a point :)

[Romulus]

10. is that sarcam?

:shrug:

[DoNotRefill]

32. No, it's not...

I've spent a fair amount of time in New Orleans, and have met and worked with a lot of NOPD cops. Most belong in prison, not on a police force.

[MrBenchley]

12. It's because they're trying to pretend

that every neurotic and humhole who spends a few hours at a shooting gallery ought to be allowed to do the same.

And yeah, that doesn't make much sense....welcome to the gungeon and RKBA "logic" or whatever the hell it is.

[Bowline]

14. If I get as much training as the police should I be allowed then to carry?

How much time do you think the average police officer spends at the shooting range? I have several friends that are police officers and I know, for a fact, that I spend far more time at the range than they do.

[MrBenchley]

16. No.

[Bowline]

25. Why not?

If I'm trained to the same standards as the police.

[iverglas]

40. betcha can run red lights real good, too

Now you want permission to do it?

Then there's that arresting people thing, and searching people and places, and even getting warrants to search people and places.

Do you think that if you can demonstrate that you have probable grounds for believing that I have pot under my bed, you should be issued a warrant to search for it? Hell, maybe you can even search bedrooms better than the cops can, eh?

[durrante]

50. just a note

it is illeagal for police and fire to run red lights. If a police car runs a red light and causes injury or death they are subject to the same penalties as the rest of us.

[iverglas]

52. ta ever so much

You let me know when an emergency vehicle is next ticketed for running a red light without causing injury or death.

Then you try it, with a cop car sitting at the intersection, and see how far you get.

[libertywest]

63. That is not what was said

It was something like, if injury or death occurs, Charges can be filed. That is a fact, and maybe members of fire, and police that have lost their jobs and/or served jail time would be a more convincing argument. Your assumption seems to be that if I can get a T.V. out of a store without paying for it or getting caught, I have not violated any law.

[MrSandman]

61. No, it is legal...

They are not civilly immune.

YMMV

[TX-RAT]

18. Do you have any idea what a Peace Officer does?

(How much time do you think the average police officer spends at the shooting range?)
Whats that got to do with you caring a weapon?



(I have several friends that are police officers and I know, for a fact, that I spend far more time at the range than they do.)
Could be they are busy working, instead of screwing off at the range.

[Bowline]

22. Peace officers, or more correctly Law Enforcement Officers..

Are responsible for enforcing laws. They show up after a crime has been committed, take down some statements, and try to apprehend the criminal. Occasionally they happen upon a crime in progress and are able to halt the criminal and arrest him on the spot.

Contrary to popular belief, they are NOT required by law to protect anyone. Is this not correct?

[TX-RAT]

28. My commission says Peace Officer

Interested in where you gained your vast knowledge, of Law Enforcement?

[iverglas]

41. and in case anybody's curious

"My commission says Peace Officer"

That's what my Criminal Code and suchlike say, too.

"Peace officers" -- http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec2.html

"peace officer" includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff's officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer or a person having the powers of a customs or excise officer when performing any duty in the administration of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

(f) the pilot in command of an aircraft

(i) registered in Canada under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act, or

(ii) leased without crew and operated by a person who is qualified under regulations made under the Aeronautics Act to be registered as owner of an aircraft registered in Canada under those regulations,

while the aircraft is in flight, and

(g) officers and non-commissioned members of the Canadian Forces who are

(i) appointed for the purposes of section 156 of the National Defence Act, or

(ii) employed on duties that the Governor in Council, in regulations made under the National Defence Act for the purposes of this paragraph, has prescribed to be of such a kind as to necessitate that the officers and non-commissioned members performing them have the powers of peace officers;

(Gee, wasn't Diane Feinstein a mayor of something?)

Peace officers *are* granted certain powers that ordinary members of the public don't have, in our societies, whether anybody in particular likes that or not.

When acting in the capacity of peace officer, they are part of the executive branch of government - they are responsible for implementing, or enforcing ("executing"), the legislation that the legislative branch enacts.

Now, up here, I'm pretty sure that peace officers have no special privileges when it comes to carrying weapons when they are not acting in their capacity of peace officer, i.e. when they are not on duty. But I gather that down there, they do.

And I have to say that the legislation in question doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, from the explanation given in the article cited:

Canterbury and F.O.P. Executive Director Jim Pasco met privately with the President in the Oval Office before the bill signing. "The President has truly made this country a safer place," said Canterbury after the ceremony. "By enacting this legislation, President Bush has ensured that when officers are confronted with a situation to which they must react, they have the tools necessary to ensure their own safety, and the safety of their families and the public they have been sworn to protect."

Now that the measure has been signed into law, active and retired law enforcement officers will be able to carry their firearms even when traveling outside their own jurisdictions. The bill, which was the F.O.P.'s top legislative priority, had wide, bipartisan support in both the House and Senate during its consideration in the Congress.

Peace officers do *not* carry weapons for their *own* safety, except in so far as they do so in order to respond to threats to their safety arising out of their efforts to enforce laws, which could be stated as "whenever they are on duty", since when they are on duty they are, by definition, engaged in enforcing the law.

I suppose that a peace officer's duty to protect the public might be regarded as extending to off-duty hours and activities -- although I don't understand how anyone could actually *be* a peace officer anywhere but in the jurisdiction where s/he was commissioned as one. And I fail to see how that extends to retired peace officers, who are not, for one thing, subject to the constraints that ensure that active peace officers do not abuse the authority and powers they are given (e.g. dismissal).

It does indeed look like a bit of Republicaneering, designed to reinforce the effort to persuade the USAmerican public that the world is a big scary place and that the more armed cops there are on the streets, exercising powers that the public doesn't have, the safer everybody is.

And frankly, once again, I just don't see how this legislation can constitutionally supercede state legislation regarding the commissioning and powers of peace officers, and the legality of things done by the general public.

Does nobody read that musty old document down there anymore??

[DoNotRefill]

34. You're right...

SCOTUS has said that the police has a general duty to protect society as a whole, not individual members of society, no matter how dangerous a situation they are in. This is why the cop who was in Columbine High School when the shooting started didn't get into trouble for turning tail and running away.

Police are largely reactive, not proactive. There have been some proactive policing programs (the whole "community policing" idea) but it has some very large problems, notably it's increasing the likelihood of corruption (which is why American police got away from the whole "walking the beat" mentality in the mid 20th Century).

LE is faced with a dilemma. IF they put people on the sidewalks, where they interact with the people, they can gain operational intellegence, but at a cost of risking officer integrity due to temptation. If they put people in cars, they can respond faster, but it leads to being seen as an occupying force, and decreases the amount of operational intellegence they can collect. There's no "right" solution. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.

[minavasht]

47. There was a police officer in Columbine????

It was never mentioned in that movie.
And he just run away?

[Bowline]

13. Why shouldn't ALL law abiding citizens be allowed to carry.

It seems to be working in Alaska and Vermont.

[MrBenchley]

17. Because it's an idiotic idea....

[Bowline]

21. Yep, look how violent Alaska and Vermont are.

They have no concealed carry restrictions. Anyone who can legally own a handgun can carry it concealed with no permit required. The only restrictions are schools, jails, and private property if the owner wishes to ban guns.

[MrBenchley]

23. Look at what an idiotic idea it is....

[Bowline]

27. Look at the rampant crime rate in those states.

The streets are slaughter houses. Shootouts on every corner. Children gunned down in the lunch line at school. It's a national tragedy.

Oh, wait. Those were the PREDICTIONS by people like you that never actually occurred. No shootouts. No blood filling the gutters. No carnage at the Shop 'n' Go.

[FatSlob]

11. I like it.

It is a step on the slippery slope to nationwide reciprocity! I know that, for some, there is a bad taste left in the mouth with the Police having more rights than us, but I expect it to change.

[Bowline]

15. I'm pushing for Vermont-style concealed carry nationwide.

That'll be sure to really tick off a couple of the posters here.

[FatSlob]

19. That would be ideal.

But I don't see it happening. I'll compromise if I have to.

[Bowline]

20. I notice we hear very little about gun crime in AK or VT.

Shouldn't the streets be running red with the blood of children? What about the shootouts at the red light or the ATM? Why aren't we hearing about them? Surely they are a daily occurence all over Alaska and Vermont.

[FatSlob]

26. I would agree with you.

However, I think the reasons are more than one. Neither state has much in the way of big cities. That, combined with the fact that so many people have guns, keep crime to a minimum.

[Bowline]

29. I believe both of your assumptions to be correct.

Big cities certainly have more than their share of crime and, despite the feeble bleating of the Washington Post, and some here, armed citizens ARE a deterrent to crime. One need look no further than the northern Virginia suburbs of our nations capitol. The disparity in crime rates between D.C. and it's Fairfax, Virginia suburb is glaring.

From this article, "Crime statistics, however, indicate that Fairfax County is much safer than the District, even though the city has a fraction of the population of its southern neighbor. From January through April this year, Fairfax County had four homicides while the District had 64. There were 189 robberies in Fairfax County compared with 1,214 robberies in the District, and 18 rapes compared with 100 rapes in the city."

[-..__...]

24. Hopefully...

this will be challenged in the courts and be ruled unconstitutional based on states rights and/or the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

Maybe the ACLU will file the litigation? :7

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

31. Good for the police

I think police need to be armed if they choose. Who knows when or where a policeman/woman is going to come across some yahoo they put in the slammer. Some people don't take kindly to those that incarcerated them.

[happyslug]

33. Text of HR 218

One Hundred Eighth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

END

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c108:./temp/~c108H5OT14

[iverglas]

42. and I ask all the constitutional scholars in the vicinity

What exactly is the constitutional authority for this legislation?

[CO Liberal]

43. Good Question

Here in Colorado, we have what are called "Home Rule" cities. A few years ago, the GOP-controlled legislature passed a gun law that would override any local restrictions. The City of Denver and several other home-rule cities sued, on the grounds that the new law violated the state Constitution. It's still working its way throught he courts.

I'd be interested to see what the US Constitutional scholars have to say about this.

[FeebMaster]

44. Constitutional authority?

No one cares about the constitution.

[MrSandman]

45. Full Faith and Credit Clause...

:shrug:

[iverglas]

46. shrug indeed

That sure ain't how I understand full faith and credit.

If that were the basis,

(a) there would be no need for the legislation in the first place; and

(b) a state could not prevent anyone licensed or commissioned by another state, to do anything at all in that other state, from doing it in the state in question -- e.g. judges from one state could perform marriages and try cases in another state, lawyers (and any licensed professional) from one state could practise law (or whatever his/her profession was) in another state, persons licensed to carry on a trade in one state could carry it on in another, etc. etc.

I don't think that (b) is how things work.

And I think it's pretty plain that the federal legislation in question here is totally ultra vires, beyond the powers of, your federal government.

A federal government can no more override lower government's legislation in this matter, which is plainly within the lower government's jurisdiction, than it could in the case of, oh, drinking and driving. The fact that Montana (was it?) allows people to consume alcohol while driving in Montana really isn't a basis for the US federal govt to step in and enact legislation permitting Montana drivers to consume alcohol while driving in Michigan.

States decide who may carry firearms within their jurisdiction. They just don't have the authority to make that decision for other states, within those other states' jurisdiction. And yet that is exactly what this legislation does: give one state the authority to decide who may carry firearms within another state. It's quite simply bizarre.

[MrSandman]

48. I agree with you...

In fact I believe it violates the 10th Amendment. Pressed to find a basis, it is either full faith or calling forth militia(we are in several domestic wars: drugs, terror, crime, poverty...).

I oppose this and federally mandated reciprocity almost as much as the funding blackmail by Feds over seatbelt laws, BAC, drinking age.

[iverglas]

49. ah, funding blackmail

We have quite a bit of it up here, and we're quite fond of it for the most part. Quebec doesn't like it, mainly for pure ideological reasons (fundamental opposition to the federal state), Alberta doesn't like it for what might be called ideological reasons, where wanting to enable profit-making by removing the provision of certain services from the public sector is dressed up as ideology.

The exercise of the federal spending power ensures that all Canadians have the same level of protection by the social safety net -- pensions, health care, income support, education -- both by transferring funds from have to have-not provinces and by imposing minimum standards for the use of the funds.

I guess the difference is that our federal spending power is exercised in more direct relation to the funds themselves: "you get the money if you use the money as required by the national standards", rather than "you get the money if you do some unrelated thing we want you to do", which is more what your case sounds like (I don't know what "BAC" is). I think that the latter would be regarded as an improper exercise of the power, up here.

In the case of individual rights, a compelling state interest can justify infringements. In the case of the constitutional division of powers, which seems to be the case here regarding states' authority to prescribe who may and may not carry concealed weapons within their geographic jurisdiction, assertion of a compelling interest wouldn't work. I would think there would have to be some sort of specified emergency power in order for this to be done, say for national security reasons or something like that. Maybe the US federal govt could just deputize all these active/retired peace officers. ;)

[MrSandman]

55. I oppose federally mandated CCW reciprocity...

BAC= Blood Alcohol Content.

Federal Highway Funding has been used in all of these cases, IIRC.

And all of this from the State's Rights Party :puke:

The irony is that in WV, a seatbelt violation is only secondary, maximum fine is $25 and applies only to juveniles or adults in the front seat. But, heh, we got our federal highway funds.

[happyslug]

35. I want to join the Meadville Pennsylvania State Police....

I believe that is their name (It has been a few years since I heard of them). Any way about 1900 the Pennsylvania Legislature was asked by a group of men out of Meadville (I may be wrong about the city but I am sticking with it till I can find out positively the correct name) to authorize them as "State Police" to chase down "Horse thieves" and other felons. Since it would cost the State Nothing, the State Authorized this s "Meadville State Police Force". A few years later (in 1903) Pennsylvania would form the REAL Pennsylvania State Police (A professional Police Force) but the State Assembly NEVER revoked the previous authorization to the "Meadville State Police Force".

Now the "Meadville State Police Force" is nothing more than a club, it has not chase down any Horse thieves in decades, and while ready willing and able to chase Criminals, it has not been asked to do so for decades (Except for assistance in looking for someone lost in the woods etc).

Under the wording of this Statute if I was member of the"Meadville State Police" a authorized STATE POLICE force of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I could wear my gun to New York City. I would not need ANY Training (all the training this statute requires is whatever training the "Meadville State Police" requires).

My point is this LAW is unworkable WITHOUT FEDERAL LAW SAYING WHAT IS A POLICE FORCE. I can see it be used to further federalized local Police Forces (By saying you have to meet X requirements for you to be a "Police Force" for the purposes of this stature, and if you are NOT a "Police Force" under this statute you are NOT a "Police Force" for ANY federal purpose).

Remember this is the FIRST statute that REQUIRES one state accepting what another state says is a POLICE OFFICER. Sooner or later WHAT is a Police Force for this statute will have to be adopted. It should be by further legislation but could be by Regulations or even a ruling by the Courts.

One way a Court can changed this statute would be to rule that this statute only applies to full time police officers, so that members of the "Meadville Pennsylvania State Police" would NOT be police officers under this statute for their are NOT full time even through there have meet every requirements of the "Meadville Pennsylvania State Police Force". The problem with this ruling is that it leads to another set of problems, I live in a Urban/Rural County, in my county there are some Rural Police Officers who DO NOT WORK FULL TIME AT ANY ONE POLICE FORCE, Instead they work 2-3 local Police Forces (For more than 40 hours per week). If the court ruled you have to be a full time officer, none of these officers are full time and again do not come under this statute.

My point here is this statute without a Definition of what is a "Police Officer" will lead to problems and to a FEDERAL ruling what is a "Police Force". What that decision is made, be it by further legislation, Regulations, or Court Decision, it will be in effect having the Federal Government define what is a "Police Force", for good or bad.

[skippythwndrdog]

36. Nice inclusion there, DNR

Thanks for the stereotyping of those of us who live in the South(east) part of the country. Are you saying that we are somehow inferior to the rest of the country? It certainly seems so. For that matter, are you implying that anyone who is not from a metropolitan area is in some way inferior to those who live in metro areas?

By all means, pick on the rural American. Remember, that's the American that feeds you. I suggest that you grow a garden, buy some livestock and use them to feed yourself.

Before you get into the corporate farming argument, just remember this: corporate farms cannot succeed without the comon folk working the land.

Or were you simply trying to offend a large part of America and this board with your comment? You succeeded with me.

[Bowline]

37. Isn't it obvious?

You are from a rural area of the country, ergo you simply must be an ignorant, inbred hick. There can't be any other explanation for it. /sarcasm

[skippythwndrdog]

38. I'm gonna git Unkle Daddy to kick yore ass!

[skippythwndrdog]

39. I'm reminded of a concert in Central Park (NYC) in the late '90's

Garth Brooks was performing to a crowd in excess of 100,000. Reportedly a NYC cop asked who Garth was. A fan said that he was a country singer. The cop asked' "What country?"

Telling, isn't it?

Believe what you will about the South. I know what I know about the South. I've lived and worked in NYC, LA, Chicago, and Phoenix. I know what I learned about the folks in cities. I'll take the rural lifestyle and people any day. Did you know that we even have BOOKS here? We even get television, radio, and the Internet! Hell! We might even get 'lectricity someday!

Yup. I'm still offended by your geographical stereotyping. It's very UNdemocratic.

I may post about this again if my blood pressure stays up. Now where did I put those grits?

[durrante]

51. I am from rural America

I have always suffered the hick image (mostly with pride), but anyway.
Several several years ago a budy of mine asked if I wanted to spend Labor day with his and his friends an Lake Geneva. One of their parents had a summer cabin there, so I rode along. All but my budy and myself were Chicago born and bred. The had set my buddy up with a girl for the weekend. Any way this girl was 23 years old and had never been out of the city of Chicago, had never seen a cow, or pig or sheep. couldnt find north with directions on the back of her hand, and on taop of all that current events were two words she never considered together in the sam sentence. And we were the hicks

[skippythwndrdog]

53. Been there. Done that.

Amazing how removing a city dweller from his/her environment changes things.

With the breking up of some old family farms in the area, I've noticed a number of people from Louisville, KY buy 5-20 acre parcels near me to "enjoy the country life". They're the same ones who are currently pushing for county ordinances regulating odors because of the "terrible stink" produced by the livestock in the area. I actually heard one remark that he couldn't have a backyard barbecue because of the stench of the cow manure from the neighboring farm. I wonder where his burgers came from?

I could write a book about these hapless Oliver Wendell Douglas wannabes, but I believe you catch my drift.

[iverglas]

54. snork

Amazing how removing a city dweller from his/her environment changes things.

What's really amazing is how durrante changes his/her environment. (If'n ya don't get it, it weren't meant for you.)

I could write a book about these hapless Oliver Wendell Douglas wannabes, but I believe you catch my drift.

Talkin' to the wind there? Isn't it a drag when one's new little playmates and potential new best friends get sent home from the playground for peeing in the sandbox?

[MrSandman]

56. Hey it works both ways...

I get in some cities, I am, either literally or figuratively, lost right away.

I've seen some (figuratively)lost in my neck of the woods from the city. Of course I know some folks around here who are in a perpetual fog.

[iverglas]

57. hmm

When I was that footloose, fancy-free, hitchhiking undergrad, I could find my way to Newfoundland without problems, and knew Montreal up and down and east and west after the first visit ... but I could never get the hang of Toronto. Which is bizarre, considering that Toronto is a perfect grid, I have since realized, once I lived there for a bit and smacked my forehead.

But none of that has anything to do with what/whom I was talkin' 'bout. S/he/it surely is in a fog, but has an unerring sense of direction. One might even say single-minded, like a homing pigeon, which also isn't a paragon of discernment ... and poops where it isn't wanted. ;)

[MrSandman]

58. I had a similar experience...

E. Lansing, MI was no problem.

Morgantown, WV? Couldn't find my rear end with two hands and a road map.

[iverglas]

59. ah yes, (E.) Lansing.

I don't believe we've encountered Morgantown yet.

Now, I think it was Ann Arbor that I decided to drive all the way around 1.5 times. Those ring road things; we don't use 'em up here, mainly because most big cities are on big water, I suppose. There I was, on my way from Nashville back to side of the border, all in one day and having run out of money with just enough left to get the Suzuki home ... and I found myself looking at the full moon, and thinking hmm, isn't that supposed to be on the other side of me? So of course by that time I had come just about exactly full circle, so it was six of turning around and half a dozen of keeping on going and hoping to come out the other end right side up next time past ...

Now, my experience is that very few USAmericans could find *anything* with both hands and a road map. Asking for directions to places in the same city I'm in has proved fruitless most times I've tried it. And really, how the hell was I supposed to know that in Raleigh NC, the damned ring road has different names depending on which side of it you are on??

[MrSandman]

60. My fave has to be in Wytheville, VA area...

You are on I 77N and I 81S at the same time. Talking about diametretic opposition.

[skippythwndrdog]

62. No drag. There's always you to brighten my day.