Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"The right to bear cameras"

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:13:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."

http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...

More about : bear cameras

Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:52:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com writes:

> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."

See
http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/05D0847...
for a court opinion awarding a man $41,000 in damages for being arrested
while videotaping police performing truck inspections.

Eastern District of Pennsylvania, July 19, 2005, by the way. A federal case
upholding the rights of citizens to gather information for public
dissemination.

--
Phil Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
The Civilized Explorer | spam and read later. email from this URL
http://www.cieux.com/ | http://www.civex.com/ is read daily.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 5:28:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>
They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
Related resources
August 26, 2005 5:48:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<casioculture@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...

Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told her
to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed up.
While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
dangerous.

Jean
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 6:52:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
news:D enjgj$dhb$1@dns3.cae.ca...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>
>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>
> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.

Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
"automatic cameras".......
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:21:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"jean" wrote
> Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
> came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told
her
> to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed
up.

A private property owner can deny you from taking pictures of their property
while on their property. They cannot deny you from taking pictures of their
property while on someone else's property, or while on public property.

> While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
> dangerous.

Reminds me of the woman last year who was complaining about jackhammers
outside her house being damaging to her unborn baby, yet she was smoking a
cigarette in the newspaper picture. Made the rounds on the internet.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:13:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 26 Aug 2005 08:13:05 -0700, casioculture@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
>"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
>
The problem is not with law enforcement as a whole. It's a few who
want to flex their muscles.
I live near a Naval Air Station and have photographed the aircraft
many times and have never been approached for questioning or
otherwise.
I have also photographed law enforcement officials handling traffic
accidents and other duties without being harrassed.

--
Colyn Goodson

http://www.colyngoodson.com
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 10:57:31 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

William,
Well at least the size of their cli.. I mean memory cards should be
limited. :-)
Paul


William Graham wrote:
> "Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:D enjgj$dhb$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>
>>casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>>>give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>>>detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>>
>>>http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>>
>>
>>They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>
>
> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
> "automatic cameras".......
>
>
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:00:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>
Suggest anyone going by names that are likely middle eastern READ THE
PATRIOT ACT. It might save your freedom.
If all the guys who hijacked the aircraft and crashed them into the WTC
had been bald blue-eyed anglos, I would EXPECT extra scrutiny when doing
certain things. In fact, I would DEMAND it.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:06:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <5DIPe.1380$Ld.405137@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:

> <casioculture@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> > give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> > detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
> >
> > http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>
> Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
> came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told her
> to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed up.
> While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
> dangerous.
>
> Jean

It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.
August 27, 2005 1:17:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:D enjgj$dhb$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>>> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>>> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>>
>>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>>
>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>
>Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>"automatic cameras".......
>

Assault cameras are the worst !!
<rj>
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:40:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:1125091668.43333799547c2af8df981935d504e30c@teranews...
> "jean" wrote
>> Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
>> came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told
> her
>> to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed
> up.
>
> A private property owner can deny you from taking pictures of their
> property
> while on their property. They cannot deny you from taking pictures of
> their
> property while on someone else's property, or while on public property.
>
>> While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
>> dangerous.
>
> Reminds me of the woman last year who was complaining about jackhammers
> outside her house being damaging to her unborn baby, yet she was smoking a
> cigarette in the newspaper picture. Made the rounds on the internet.
>
>
Jay Leno had a newspaper photo the other night of a guy that had had two
heart transplants.....He was holding a cigarette in the photo......
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 1:41:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gXOPe.15809$1g2.14676@fe05.lga...
> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>
>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>
> Suggest anyone going by names that are likely middle eastern READ THE
> PATRIOT ACT. It might save your freedom.
> If all the guys who hijacked the aircraft and crashed them into the WTC
> had been bald blue-eyed anglos, I would EXPECT extra scrutiny when doing
> certain things. In fact, I would DEMAND it.
>
Yes....And they would detain you for 24 hours if they caught you wearing a
rug.......
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:50:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:D enjgj$dhb$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>>> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>>> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>>
>>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>>
>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>
>Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>"automatic cameras".......

Yea, firing 3 or more shots a second, no less! And being able to hold
several hundred rounds!!! Who needs that kind of fire power? We should
outlaw automatic cameras.

Gary
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 2:50:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Edstrom wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "William Graham"
> <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:D enjgj$dhb$1@dns3.cae.ca...
>>> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs,
>>>> required to give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background
>>>> searches and then detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime?
>>>> Carrying a camera."
>>>>
>>>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>>>
>>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>>
>> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against
>> those,
>> "automatic cameras".......
>
> Yea, firing 3 or more shots a second, no less! And being able to
> hold
> several hundred rounds!!! Who needs that kind of fire power? We
> should outlaw automatic cameras.
>

My tribe is a traditional user of images shot with whatever implements
are available.

There can be no domain over our rights to shoot, other than our own.

--
Frank "Red Chief" ess
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 5:32:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, William Graham wrote:

>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>
> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
> "automatic cameras".......

Not necessary. Much better to require a license to use any camera
that accepts memory cards larger than 32 MB or has a burst mode.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 7:44:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, William Graham wrote:
>
>>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>> "automatic cameras".......
>
> Not necessary. Much better to require a license to use any camera
> that accepts memory cards larger than 32 MB or has a burst mode.
>
Now that might improve the quality of photography. Grin.
I would rather they require a certificate of training to allow use of a
flash. So many people think they have infinite range and use them for
every picture.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:11:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:32:48 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, William Graham wrote:
>
>>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>>
>> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>> "automatic cameras".......
>
> Not necessary. Much better to require a license to use any camera
>that accepts memory cards larger than 32 MB or has a burst mode.

And pistol grips shout also be outlawed.
They are the preferred grips of paparrazi!

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 3:14:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:06:23 GMT, kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

>In article <5DIPe.1380$Ld.405137@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:
>
>> <casioculture@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
>> news:1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>> > give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>> > detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>> >
>> > http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>
>> Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
>> came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told her
>> to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed up.
>> While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
>> dangerous.
>>
>> Jean
>
>It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.

What cops?
"Help! There's someone taking pictures of my gas station!"
"Is this person on your property?"
"No, he's on the sidewalk! What should I do?"
"Smile."

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 6:57:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, William Graham wrote:
>
>>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>>
>> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>> "automatic cameras".......
>
> Not necessary. Much better to require a license to use any camera
> that accepts memory cards larger than 32 MB or has a burst mode.

And force camera owners to keep their cameras, lenses and memory cards
locked up in separate camera safes at all times. Not to mention the
five day waiting period to even buy any of the above...
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 10:37:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 14:57:45 -0700, Bob Harrington wrote:

>> Not necessary. Much better to require a license to use any camera
>> that accepts memory cards larger than 32 MB or has a burst mode.
>
> And force camera owners to keep their cameras, lenses and memory
> cards locked up in separate camera safes at all times. Not to mention
> the five day waiting period to even buy any of the above...

Patriotic camera owners will readily comply with these new
requirements of Homeland Security. Once cameras were given the same
classification as computers (munitions) it was easy sailing (to mix
metaphors) down the slippery slope. Didn't terrorists take pictures
of their captives before executing them? Only traitors and other
America Haters would object to camera profiling. Unfortunately,
Ashcroft's replacement continues the practice of not releasing, even
requiring the destruction of purchase data of known terrorists, now
extended from firearms to photographic equipment.
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:39:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What exactly were you photographing in the warehouse district?
Property owners can prohibit you from photographing on their property
if they wish. Did he mention anything about the owners not wanting
pictures taken?However, this sounds like a cop who simply had nothing
to do but harass someone who was doing nothing illegal.

Susan
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 12:58:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Bill Funk" <BigBill@pipping.com.com> wrote in message
news:g4b1h192msptblqmdg2tc8jkivpcjm0mc1@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 01:32:48 -0400, ASAAR <caught@22.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, William Graham wrote:
>>
>>>> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
>>>
>>> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>>> "automatic cameras".......
>>
>> Not necessary. Much better to require a license to use any camera
>>that accepts memory cards larger than 32 MB or has a burst mode.
>
> And pistol grips shout also be outlawed.
> They are the preferred grips of paparrazi!

I don't even like pizza
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 5:36:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 27 Aug 2005 20:39:27 -0700, "spaceyfi" <spaceyfi5@yahoo.com> wrote:

>What exactly were you photographing in the warehouse district?
>Property owners can prohibit you from photographing on their property
>if they wish. Did he mention anything about the owners not wanting
>pictures taken?However, this sounds like a cop who simply had nothing
>to do but harass someone who was doing nothing illegal.
>
>Susan

Most warehouse districts I've seen have public streets.
(Docks are an exception.)
Taking photos from the street is very legal. Protests should be
round-filed.
If warehouse owners don't want pictures taken of their warehouses,
they should buy lots of property, and place the warehouses out of
sight.

--
Bill Funk
Replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:05:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ASAAR wrote:

> Patriotic camera owners will readily comply with these new
> requirements of Homeland Security. Once cameras were given the same
> classification as computers (munitions) it was easy sailing (to mix
> metaphors) down the slippery slope. Didn't terrorists take pictures
> of their captives before executing them? Only traitors and other
> America Haters would object to camera profiling. Unfortunately,
> Ashcroft's replacement continues the practice of not releasing, even
> requiring the destruction of purchase data of known terrorists, now
> extended from firearms to photographic equipment.
>

Stop that EMBOLDENING right this instant!

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 10:29:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com says...
>
> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...

Better to stay away from the US right now if your hobby is photography.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
August 28, 2005 10:29:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> casioculture@gmail.com says...
>
>>
>>"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>>give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>>detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>
>>http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>
>
> Better to stay away from the US right now if your hobby is photography.


Why? Those idiots don't scare me.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:23:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <kz8rt3-5A00C6.17062326082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:

> > Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
> > came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told her
> > to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed up.
> > While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
> > dangerous.
> >
> > Jean
>
> It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.

Are you mad? In the US? People have wound up in Gitmo for less!

--

Thingumy Bob
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:23:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Thingumy" <spam@notever.net.nz> wrote in message
news:spam-02491E.07233528082005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <kz8rt3-5A00C6.17062326082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the
>> > attendant
>> > came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told
>> > her
>> > to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed
>> > up.
>> > While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT
>> > is
>> > dangerous.
>> >
>> > Jean
>>
>> It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.
>
> Are you mad? In the US? People have wound up in Gitmo for less!

I couldn't get cops to turn up when i was being mugged. Nor could my
neighbour whilst they were standing and watching my car being broken into.
If they came rushing round lights flashing and sirens blaring cos i was
taken a photograph someone objected to i might just have to kill the
bastards with my bare hands.!!!
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:23:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thingumy wrote:
> In article <kz8rt3-5A00C6.17062326082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the attendant
>>> came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told her
>>> to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed up.
>>> While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT is
>>> dangerous.
>>>
>>> Jean
>> It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.
>
> Are you mad? In the US? People have wound up in Gitmo for less!
>
Oh? Please describe a specific case.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
August 28, 2005 11:23:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"ian lincoln" <jessops@sux.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:Gv4Qe.25690$5m3.8504@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Thingumy" <spam@notever.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:spam-02491E.07233528082005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> > In article <kz8rt3-5A00C6.17062326082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
> > kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the
> >> > attendant
> >> > came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I
told
> >> > her
> >> > to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops
showed
> >> > up.
> >> > While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT
> >> > is
> >> > dangerous.
> >> >
> >> > Jean
> >>
> >> It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.
> >
> > Are you mad? In the US? People have wound up in Gitmo for less!
>
> I couldn't get cops to turn up when i was being mugged. Nor could my
> neighbour whilst they were standing and watching my car being broken into.
> If they came rushing round lights flashing and sirens blaring cos i was
> taken a photograph someone objected to i might just have to kill the
> bastards with my bare hands.!!!
>

I bet if your neighbors were taking pictures of the thiefs, the cops would
have turned up very fast, think of it, there could have been a gas station
or a governement building in the frame.

Jean
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 11:23:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

ian lincoln wrote:
> "Thingumy" <spam@notever.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:spam-02491E.07233528082005@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>> In article <kz8rt3-5A00C6.17062326082005@news1-ge0.southeast.rr.com>,
>> kz8rt3 <kz8rt3@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Today I set up my camera to take pictures of a gas station, the
>>>> attendant
>>>> came out and said I could not take pictures and it was illegal. I told
>>>> her
>>>> to call the police, took my pictures and was off before any cops showed
>>>> up.
>>>> While she was talking to me, she was smoking near the pumps, now THAT
>>>> is
>>>> dangerous.
>>>>
>>>> Jean
>>> It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.
>> Are you mad? In the US? People have wound up in Gitmo for less!
>
> I couldn't get cops to turn up when i was being mugged. Nor could my
> neighbour whilst they were standing and watching my car being broken into.
> If they came rushing round lights flashing and sirens blaring cos i was
> taken a photograph someone objected to i might just have to kill the
> bastards with my bare hands.!!!
>
>
Which brings to mind that old saying about there never being a cop
around when you NEED one, just when you are doing something WRONG. Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:50:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>
>Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>"automatic cameras".......
>

What about those lethal "sawed-off" wide-angle lenses that can cover
such a broad area with deadly precision?
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 6:59:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

richardsfault wrote:
>> Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>> "automatic cameras".......
>>
>
> What about those lethal "sawed-off" wide-angle lenses that can cover
> such a broad area with deadly precision?

Just the thought of all that unregistered barrel distortion leaves one
feeling like a pincushion!
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 7:23:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 09:50:10 -0500, richardsfault
<richard1-nospam@richardsfault.com> wrote:

>
>>
>>Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
>>"automatic cameras".......
>>
>
>What about those lethal "sawed-off" wide-angle lenses that can cover
>such a broad area with deadly precision?

And what about those with telescopic sights? You can be off hiding in
the bushes someplace. Your victim will never know its coming!

Gary
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 8:44:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
casioculture@gmail.com writes
>
>
>"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
>http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>
Ancient Greek proverb: "Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first
make mad."

David
--
David Littlewood
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:58:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <DlaQe.2405$Ld.567516@news20.bellglobal.com>,
"jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:

>
> I bet if your neighbors were taking pictures of the thiefs, the cops would
> have turned up very fast, think of it, there could have been a gas station
> or a governement building in the frame.

Still, at least you would have pictures of the crims as evidence. Unless
they beat you up and stole your camera....
....then the cops wouldn't want to know.

--

Thingumy Bob
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 2:01:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <k0fQe.15351$ih4.2246@fe02.lga>,
Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> >>> Jean
> >> It's not illegal. You should have waited for the cops.
> >
> > Are you mad? In the US? People have wound up in Gitmo for less!
> >
> Oh? Please describe a specific case.

That's the problem, no-one is allowed to know who is in Gitmo and what
they are being held for. So much for your Constitution. Jeez, so much
for the Magna Carta.

--

Thingumy Bob
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 1:38:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 13:28:51 -0400, Paul Bielec <no@spam.com> wrote:

>casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>
>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>
>They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_constitutional.jpg

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 4:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter scribbles:

> > "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> > give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> > detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
> >
> > http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
> >
> Suggest anyone going by names that are likely middle eastern READ THE
> PATRIOT ACT. It might save your freedom.
> If all the guys who hijacked the aircraft and crashed them into the WTC
> had been bald blue-eyed anglos, I would EXPECT extra scrutiny when doing
> certain things. In fact, I would DEMAND it.

Mr. Hunter, you say nothing new here: we all know that your sort of
obsequious prostrations to anyone with a gun, your patheitic, servile,
boot-licking is the anomaly, not the norm for "bald, blue-eyed anglos".
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 5:32:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>
>http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>

Good thing they had ID.

Remember when we used to make fun of the Communist countries
for stopping citizens and demanding to see "papers"?
August 30, 2005 12:24:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If he looked like a HIABEEB or or was ridding a Camel then OK, when are they
goint to Profile, and then pick on the right ones.



"Michael Urban" <urban@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D ev2q7$8jm$1@reader2.panix.com...
> In article <1125069185.909505.86700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
>>give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
>>detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
>>
>>http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
>>
>
> Good thing they had ID.
>
> Remember when we used to make fun of the Communist countries
> for stopping citizens and demanding to see "papers"?
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 9:54:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <bt6vg19r1i1d2antha87ga07hm833joq5g@4ax.com>,
Gary Edstrom <gedstrom@pacbell.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 14:52:29 -0700, "William Graham" <weg9@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Paul Bielec" <no@spam.com> wrote in message
> >news:D enjgj$dhb$1@dns3.cae.ca...
> >> casioculture@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "No sooner had we started than we were stopped by Sheriffs, required to
> >>> give them our IDs and subject ourselves to background searches and then
> >>> detained for about 20 minutes. Our crime? Carrying a camera."
> >>>
> >>> http://thomashawk.com/2005/08/right-to-bear-cameras.htm...
> >>>
> >> They should bear guns instead. Nobody would have asked.
> >
> >Well, manual cameras are OK, but they should make laws against those,
> >"automatic cameras".......
>
> Yea, firing 3 or more shots a second, no less! And being able to hold
> several hundred rounds!!! Who needs that kind of fire power? We should
> outlaw automatic cameras.
>
> Gary

What about large format cameras. Why, just about anyone can buy one of
these large caliber Canons. Can you imagine just how much detail one of
these things can capture.



Don't forget about self timers. You can set a camera to take a picture
and get out of the area before it goes off (admittedly it would be a
small area)

Then there are Mini G.. ah, video cameras.

--
Clark Martin
Redwood City, CA, USA Macintosh / Internet Consulting

"I'm a designated driver on the Information Super Highway"
!