Silence Dogood

The apologies are rolling in ... http://www.cnbc.com/id/102371281 Whoops. For most of New York and New Jersey, what was supposed to be the Blizzard of 2015 turned into the Bust of the Century instead. As the sun rose Monday, there were forecasts that New York City and northern New Jersey could conceivably see 24 to 36 inches of snow from a storm described as "crippling" and "historic." By sunrise Tuesday, Central Park had only 6.3 inches of snow, with the National Weather Service acknowledging there might as little as 2 more inches on the way. Parts of New Jersey that had been in line for as much as 18 inches ended up with as little as 3 inches

http://www.arcc-inc.org/arc-dbas.html

Lying can be hindering, as noted. And in response to the direct question, "Officer, there's nothing illegal in my car." Nothing more.

Thanks all, I plan to roll right into General. Got 60% on a General practice exam before even studying. I have both 2M and HF rigs.

Passed Technician Exam last night. Missed one I think.

When NJ2AS was considering this approach, their language (researched?) indicated that a CCW denial did NOT hurt you the way a NJ FPID denial would.

Taking the Technician test 1/19.

On that we agree! It will get interesting when we have an incident so bad that the police go home to their own families to protect them, or the community cannot access funds to pay them.

Best.answer.ever, Jack!! Other than suggesting anatomical impossibilities

"Ashes Up, Up and Away" - good folks! If not too far - http://ashesupupandaway.com/

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/12/02/unusual-new-jersey-firearm-law-doesnt-apply-to-smart-gun-ag-finds/ A handgun designed to work only when paired with an accompanying wristwatch is not a “personalized gun,” according to a recent report by the New Jersey Attorney General’s office. The determination on the Armatix iP1 pistol is bad news for gun-control groups hoping that the acting attorney general, John Jay Hoffman, would find the firearm fits the definition of a “personalized gun” under New Jersey law. Such a determination would put the state on the path to selling only guns with personalized technology within three years. On the other hand, the finding last month is welcome for gun-rights groups, who feared that the law would might make handguns harder to get in the Garden State. A little background: In 2002, New Jersey passed a law saying that three years after the technology becomes available to prevent a gun from being used by an unauthorized person, only handguns with kind of technology may be sold in the state. The New Jersey law is the only one of its kind in the U.S. Under the law, the New Jersey attorney general is obliged every six months to inquire as to whether such firearms are available, and report back to the governor and state legislature. For years, the AG’s office was slow to make reports, however, and had yet to weigh in on the iP1, a gun made by German company Armatix. That gun only works when within 10 inches of an accompanying wristwatch. Gun-control groups said the firearm went on sale in both California and Maryland earlier this year. In May, two groups — the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and a New Jersey chapter of the Million Mom March sued Mr. Hoffman to force him to enforce the law, hoping he would certify the iP1 as a “personalized gun.” But Mr. Hoffman found otherwise. Under the New Jersey law, a “personalized gun” is one which “may only be fired by an authorized or recognized user.” But that’s not the iP1, Mr. Hoffman found: After careful consideration of the iP1′s design, we have determined that it does not satisfy the statutory definition because, as a matter of design, the pistol may be fired by a person who is not an authorized or recognized user. That is, as long as the pistol is situated within 10 inches of the enabling wristwatch, it may be fired by anyone – the authorized user or any other person who is able to pull the trigger. Continues the report: Situations may readily be envisioned in which an unauthorized individual gains access to the pistol in close enough proximity to the wristwatch component (by either maintaining possession of the pistol within 10 inches of the authorized user’s wrist on which he or she is wearing the watch, or by forcibly taking possession of the wristwatch), and therefore would be able to fire the weapon, despite the limiting technology. Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the iP1 design meets all the elements of New Jersey’s statutory definition of a personalized handgun. A spokesman for the New Jersey attorney general’s office declined to comment. Rob Wilcox, a staff attorney for the Brady Center, said the litigation rendered what he was hoping: a report from the AG’s office. “We view this as a complete victory,” he said. “We got the attorney general to respond.” Mr. Wilcox said that the next report, under the law, is due in six months. “We’ll be there, ready to provide the state information on guns and gun technology.”

Got my study guides and am gearing up to install a multiband dipole antenna.

Nice. Regarding the top-mounted Magpul QD sling mount - are you aware that Diamondhead makes one that screws into the holes on the handguard - http://www.diamondhead-usa.com/products/vrs-qd-sling-swivel-mount

Anything you want to do in your home is fine with the state.

And this is what the 'antis' want - make it too complicated and risky to exercise basic rights.

Convenient flowchart for determining legality #eyeroll

I can only *imagine* the Superintendent of the State Police trying to run a meeting with say, Bryan Miller, Nicola Bocour, Frank Fiamingo and Scott Bach. LOL ... the State Police ought to oppose the measure just on that basis!

Here are two of the biggest problems: The bill requires the superintendent to prescribe the basic curriculum for the firearms education program, in consultation with a firearms safety panel. The panel is to consist of four members. Two members are to represent organizations, associations, or clubs promoting hunting, shooting sports or competitions, one each to be appointed by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the General Assembly. The two other members are to represent organizations, associations, or other entities advocating gun violence prevention, one each to be appointed by the President and the Speaker. The superintendent is designated as chair of the panel and is responsible for determining when and where the panel will meet. The bill requires the basic curriculum of the firearms education program to include classes relating to responsible firearms ownership, safe storage, restricting access to firearms by unsupervised minors, and any other matters concerning the safety and well being of this State’s families and children. So, you could have two non-NJ residents (how about Shannon Watts and Chuck Schumer??) sitting on a panel demanding that for FPID you need to watch two hours of 'Everytown' videos. Contact your nearest Assemblyperson and complain on this basis alone.

"The two other members are to represent organizations, associations, or other entities advocating gun violence prevention, one each to be appointed by the President and the Speaker. " So this panel could include a Sandy Hook parent from Newtown, Bryan Miller, Shannon Watts or Nicola Bocour??? NFW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Those friends that he thanks for "always being by his side"? I'm guessing that it's by his LEFT side ... just saying ...

Tile shop.

Lightning can kill a tree which in our case (large trees) can cost > $3,000 to remove, not to mention the loss of the tree.

Another interested person here. Biggest question I have so far is how to avoid lightning risk from a tree-run dipole. From what I've learned so far this might involve grounding the dipole and 'free-floating' the coax end away from the house when not in use (fishing line pull-in and connect) but what about lightning risk to the trees themselves?

We used Laticrete Spectra-Lok Pro grout (water-based epoxy) which is virtually unstainable. Only useful if you decide to re-grout, sorry.

Under New Jersey law, contents of a vehicle are presumed to be owned by the driver of the car, I believe. If they can search the car due to probable cause/reasonable articulable suspicion of the driver (or their permission) then they can attribute the contents to the driver's ownership (and search them). Please correct if I have this wrong.