CH> TR> The bottom line is that you would be in jail for disobeying a
CH> TR> lawful order, and the police officer would commandeer your
CH> vehicle
CH> DB>Not in Federal Court... you know them; the guys you don't want
CH> >messing around in your "righteous" business?
CH> Even Federal Courts follow the law; and your charge would hit the
CH> trash can there just as quickly.
I think Chuck summed up what everyone was trying to say, best. This 
reply is pretty much for everyone who believes all the system needs to 
do is just pass a law at the drop of a hat...
The BATF and DEA at time though they'd had a right to exploit some 
controversial laws which resulted in innocent people being detained, 
killed or severly injured. Santa Barbara, CA had and incident where 
a Sheriff's intrusion team killed an innocent homeowner; they broke in 
on a well-off man in hopes of confiscating his property... and ended 
up killing him when he confronted them in his home, armed.
Again, there are limits to your laws... You actually may believe you 
can pretty much do anything under the guise of duty, but this isn't 
true.  History has shown many rebellions based on such fact.  
The English actually had laws where a high ranking politico was 
entitled to the first night with a bride, not her husband. This was 
also exercised with gusto for a few centuries until the Scotts 
overturned the law... not by legislature but by resistance.
Until the law acknowledges it is not immune from itself then, like I 
said in an earlier post, our society will have very serious problems.
You may think you have the right to abscond with the property of a 
private citizen, for whatever reason... you don't.
DB
---
 * RM 1.31 3089 * What was that ripping sound?  Oh, just the Constitution!
--- WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12 
---------------