[TheForge] OT, but I Just have to ask...

[Andrew Vida]

 > I guess it would work this way in your dreams or maybe
 > on the teevee but in real life you would probably end up in
 > court for disorderly conduct.
 >
 > Good luck.
 >

The truth of this depends largely on what the law actually says and how 
well you make the argument before the officer, and failing that, the judge.

Most of the bullshit that goes on, legally speaking, does so because of 
interpretation of what is on the books.  If you can make a forceful case 
for a differing reinterpretation of law, you may emerge victorious. 
This is how it usually happens.

There is law and then there is policy, and the two usually have nothing 
to do with each other.  The constitution says what it says, but 
government policy may be to interpret it in a manner that is partly or 
even wholly inconsistent with what has been written and set into law. 
Look at firearms issues.  The second amendment clearly guarantees the 
individual right to keep and bear arms, yet those who would deny this 
claim that it merely grants a collective right or a state's right to arm 
and regulate  the national guard, none of which makes a damned bit of sense.