Incorrect as usual.

First, dog whistle for what/whom? I just answered your troll with something that I admittedly knew you would make incorrect assumptions on and run wild with.

Second I have no difficulty understanding that he was retired and no longer active - you just keep bringing it up even though it is irrelevant to the point (as usual)

Third, no private limitations on ownership would likely have had zero effect unless you also assume 1) no exceptions are allowed for those affiliated/retired from service , which is unlikely - and 2) that police departments would cross the "Blue line" and start forcibly searching the person/property of their own retirees.

As usual you arent able to see the larger picture, or factor in anything that might be inconvenient to the conclusions you find socially comfortable to hold. In this case, the human element.


The correct answer with how to have prevented this.. is frankly better monitoring, and evaluation of public servants.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)