You understand you are attacking someone for trying to be law-abiding, right? On a forum where we only advocate for the law-abiding, right?
I can tell you that early in my gun-toting, shock-trooping, activist career, I was very careful about that little 1000' rule myself. It boils down to having enough knowledge to have judgement on the issue. Just like anything else, if you only have a few facts, your ability to make fine judgement calls is going to be necessarily less than someone who has lots more knowledge of all the angles. For example, this is why we listen to people like User--because he's a litigator and has been immersed in criminal law for years and years.
So, without knowing how much knowledge our bike-rider has, or how new to the subject, or how broad his sphere of exposure, I think it a little bit of jumping the gun to go after him quite so fast. For all we know, the part about the GFSZ 1000' rule never being enforced may be totally new to readers. Its a crucial piece of information. Think about it. You hear about a law, you're going to assume its being enforced or will be enforced. How many people stop and read the history of every gun law to see if it was ever shot down by an appellate court and then re-written by the legislature in a feeble attempt to pass muster? And, then research to see if prosecutors were risking it by enforcing it after is was rewritten?
There are three points I'd like to address here.
First, I do not see anyone being personally attacked. Neither has a group been criticized for anything other than their opposition to OC. People have spoken out on a condition about which they have some passion, but have avoided for the most part any direct reference to an individual's personality traits. No foul, no flag.
"We only advocate for the law abiding" - true enough and literal. Rule #15 reads:
"WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts."
That said, I submit that some acts/conduct are more egregious (in violation) than others - the degree/quality of ignoring the rule(s) is always a consideration. Seriously promoting/advocating armed rebellion or murder will illicit a hard and final response from the administration, but those that jay-walk in the middle of a block will likely only be reminded that has little (nothing) to do with OC or RKBA, if such is even addressed on these pages at all. There are those who feel that the rules and interpretation of them should be rigidly defined in black and white. We have before said that is not always case and indeed is not possible unless we have something akin to the weight and volume of
Robert's Rules on parliamentary procedure - even that gets revised occasionally. See the reference in OCDO rules,
"Please note that these Rules may be revised and reissued without notice at any time." Some decisions are made that are not always precisely identical to others that would seem similar - each question of violation, particularly serious ones, are treated individually - the facts and motives are considered.
As to the poster in question being new having merit - most definitely. He was given a broad range of responses: precise legal and well as the non-legal, this-is-the-way-it-is, understanding of others. Is that not working to change the law by being willing to test the merit/effectiveness, even the response of LE? Maybe a bit of a stretch for some - but perhaps not.
In fairness to our doctrine and my instructions, I am entering the rules violators in this instance in my ledger book of infractions and awarding each rule bender with one (1) demerit. Trust that this recognition will satisfy those that demand this situation be watched - it is.
As to the actual law itself, I suspect this will one day be addressed again by SCOTUS - something I believe that the other side would rather avoid.
