Zed's_Dead

That's embarrassing. Why in the world would you answer a question that you don't know the answer to?

I am nominating this for a "Post of the Month" award! lmao

Plaintiff's lawyer. I don't like self-hating lawyers who generalize about an entire portion of their own profession to the detriment of all of us.

It does not support justifiable needs clauses. That is just their explanation of the NY decision. If you continue reading, you'll see that the 7th circuit disagreed with the reasoning behind the 2nd circuit's upholding of the NY permitting process. Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit ’s analy s i s (apart from disagreement, unnecessary to bore the reader with, with some of the historical analysis in the opinion we regard the historical issues as settled by Heller) is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction. For example, the opinion states that “in Lawrence v. Texas, the [supreme] Court emphasized that the state’s efforts to regulate private sexual conduct between consenting adults is especially suspect when it intrudes into the home.” 2012 WL 5907502, at *9. Well of course the interest in having sex inside one’s home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one’s home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home.

Just saw this story in the December issue of American Rifleman in the "Armed Citizen's" column. A google search turned up nothing on the pharmacist being charged to date.

There will be no treaty with other countries banning guns. In order for a treaty to become binding, it must be ratified by two-thirds of the sentate!!!! Not only do the Dems (of which I am one) not have a two-thirds majority in the senate, there are many democratic senators from historically pro-gun states who would shoot this down (pun intended). Please, can we stop with the treaty talk? Second, the new congress coming in in 2013 has approximately 50 more republicans than democrats in the House of Representatives. How is any anti-gun legislation going to get through the House? It's not. The senate breakdown is 53 dems, 2 independents and 45 republicans. Getting gun legislation through the Senate is no guarantee with that makeup, either. Only 6 combined Dems and independents would have to break ranks with their party to stop it from going through. It's a lose-lose for Obama...his law doesn't go through and he fails to build any type of goodwill with republicans he may need in the future. Obama and this country have way more important things to be worrying about over the next four years to screw around with guns.

Wow. Great post, Shawn.

Eddie Murphy's take on the Amityville Horror: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPdgrr5diM

Yeah, cuz we do such a bang up job with our other elected officials. Elected judges are a terrible idea. Do you really want someone ruling on a case you might be involved in who relies on the public to keep him employed?

Not true.

Chocolate!

MLS teams don't play in stadiums like the major European teams. The stadiums generally hold about 18-20,000 people, give or take. Much more similar to hockey or basketball arenas than a MLB stadium. Check out this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_League_Soccer_attendance link for exact figures.

In 2011, Major League Soccer outdrew both the NBA and NHL in per game attendance. Only MLB and the NFL drew more attendance per game.

New Jersey already has frivolous lawsuit statutes on the books. See below: Sanctions for frivolous litigation are governed by the Frivolous Litigation Statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1 and the motion procedure to be followed by a party seeking attorney’s fees as a result of the frivolous litigation is prescribed by R. 1:4-8. N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1, is recognized as “serving a dual purpose.” Toll Bros., Inc. v. Tp. of West Windsor, 190 N.J. 61, 67 (2007) (citing Deutch & Shur, P.C. v. Roth, 284 N.J. Super. 133, 141 (App. Div. 1995). “On the one hand, ‘the statute serves a punitive purpose, seeking to deter frivolous litigation.’” Ibid. “On the other hand, the statute serves a compensatory purpose, seeking to reimburse ‘the party that has been victimized by the party bringing the frivolous litigation.’” Ibid. The statute permits a court to award reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs to a prevailing party, whether a plaintiff or defendant, in a civil action if the court finds “at any time during the proceedings or upon judgment that a complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or defense of the nonprevailing person was frivolous.” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(a)(1). A complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or defense is deemed frivolous if it was “commenced, used or continued in bad faith, solely for the purpose of harassment, delay or malicious injury,” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(b)(1), or if “[t]he nonprevailing party knew, or should have known, that the complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim or defense was without any reasonable basis in law or equity and could not be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law,” N.J.S.A. 2A:15-59.1(b)(2).

Many people say the same thing when folks use the court system to try to enforce their rights to own or carry a gun. It's a slippery slope when you start denying people's right to address their grievances in court.

PTSD is just the current medical terminology for "combat fatigue" or "Shell shocked". It's been diagnosed under different names for decades upon decades. While I don't agree with the lawsuit, even though I'm an evil ambulance chaser, the situation here could cause a legitimate case of PTSD.

This picture reminds me of this comedy bit by Jim Jeffries . Be warned the language is quite salty.

I just saw the Kia in Cherry Hill not too long before this. It was at a little league field so I hope he wasn't delivering!

As a lawyer, I wish there were as many multi-million dollar lawsuits out there as you guys seem to think they are. The insurance lobby has everyone bamboozled.

Bones you say "following the law" like every situation is the same. They're not. Why do you not see that? Is the two hours for everyone, or only the people who were released last? The article doesn't make it clear. It's obvious that you have a grudge against the police and whatever I, or anyone else, say, we aren't even going to be able to get you to see both sides of the argument, let alone change your mind. I absolutely believe that in the right circumstances, a two hour detention is reasonable. In some cases it won't be reasonable. We just don't have enough information to make a judgment on this particular incident is all I am saying.

Bones you can't quantify something like this before it happens because the words have no definition beforehand. What's an "extended time period" in one situation might not be in another. Once it happens and we have the luxury of hindsight, it's easy to either say the police did the right or wrong thing depending on the situation. In general, I tend to err on the side of the police. If the tip the police got in this situation was reliable, then I think this situation satisfies what you have in bold above. I don't know what that is a quote from but it says right in there that "There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials".

I, am not applying anything at all, Bones. Merely pointing out that for those who are so sure that their opinion is the rock solid correct one, that it may not be the case as there are two sides to every argument. If someone called the police and said "the bank robber is in his car at the stop light at 5th and Main" is that a reasonable suspicion to conduct a warrantless search of the cars containing males? I am a mere lawyer, not a judge, so I can't give you a definitive opinion. But you make an assumption about the search based on one news report. I doubt the police have released all the info they have regarding this to the media.

The Supreme Court in many, many instances has already upheld warrantless searches as legal as long as there are exigent circumstances that require the search to be made. If you google "exigent circumstances exception" you can find all sorts of examples. There's one that seems like it fits this situation pretty closely. United States v. Kreimes, 649 F.2d 1185, 1192 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (upholding warrantless search based on hot pursuit and danger posited by possibility of armed fugitive remaining at large)).

Vincent Dinofrio (sp?) and Ed Burns are who you are talking about I think. Kevin James from King of Queens always seems to get a Mets jersey on in his movies at some point.