When asked if I had any weapons, I informed him that I did not, as he could plainly see. After Chief Drought frisked me to verify that was the case, i.e., that I was unarmed and defenseless, as school policy stipulates, we were able to continue our conversation. I began expressing my concern about the policy and explained how it puts the students at serious risk. We spoke about the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. I informed them of the organization I started, and we talked a bit about the laws in Illinois. Both officers claimed many times to agree with my views and claimed to share my beliefs. At one point in the waiting room, I was about to quote Thomas Jefferson, when Chief Drought said I didn’t need to, as he knew all of the quotes as well. This seemed encouraging to me – a knowledgeable and informed law enforcement officer that believes in freedom.
The Chief then asked me to come in the back, so we wouldn’t have to speak in the waiting room. He led me into a room, shut the door, and we sat down and talked some more. I don’t remember the specifics of our conversation, but I think it was still centered around what I thought were the beliefs we shared. At some point, he told me he had some other things to do and that Officer Crumb would be taking over. Officer Crumb came in the room, and we talked some more. I could tell he was a very haughty man by his attitude and demeanor. He would constantly patronize me with agreeing confirmations and quirky smiles, but this didn’t bother me. To each his own – I was perfectly satisfied in discussing my beliefs.
The guy goes to the campus police station to discuss school policy on firearms and in order to continue the conversation he has to consent to being frisked. I think the conversation should have been terminated then. He is being asked to give up his Fourth amendment rights to exercise his First Amendment rights of discussing his Second Amendment rights. I can’t see things getting any better here–and they don’t.
The other interesting thing is that the Gestapo claimed to share Kranish’s view of the Second Amendment and the illegality of Illinois law and campus regulation. I would have to review some of my books, but I’m pretty sure this is a standard interrogation technique. The interrogator establishes a rapport with the person being questioned and they open up and confess without even realizing that is what they are doing. An example would be interrogating a wife beater the cop would say something like, “There are times when my woman gets out of line. I haven’t hit her yet, but one of these days I know I’m going to. She needs it. She needs to understand who’s wears the pants in the family. So what does your old lady do that just pisses you off? How do you keep her in her place?”
Keep in mind that while in a conversation with the police you are required to be truthful and they are not required to be truthful with you. While engaged in a discussion with the police of a repressive government such Illinois, New Jersey, California, etc. you should be even more wary than usual. Kranish is an example for all of us.