what I find astonishing is that there is a retailer anywhere who does not yet have a video camera system in place.

ETA: the word "not", which kind of makes the sentence a whole lot different. People seemed to know what I meant regardless.

the ordnance would require the sale itself be on tape and be turned over to SFPD.

absolutely do not support taking away people's guns are opposed to this sort of regulatory harassment. I know the OP has made these assurances in the past so I have no doubt we enjoy his support.

Right?

Last edited Thu Sep 10, 2015, 10:22 AM - Edit history (2)

the proles can not be trusted, they must always be monitored to ensure obedience.

opposed to this.

Or do you believe a business engaged in an activity that is Constitutionally protected per SCOTUS ruling should be forced to close by burdensome local regulations?

So a municipality wants to compel the production of recorded media (1st Amendment violation), and routinely search such privately-owned media (4th Amendment violation), wherein images of customers engaging in lawful transactions might be used against them in a form of involuntary testimony (5th Amendment violation).

But sure, gun-grabbers always respect the Constitution.

-app