Mrs. Peel

Well, I believe we can agree... to disagree. Of course, once that happens, subsequently we shall immediately move to opposite corners of the room where we will continue to eye each other suspiciously. Because that's the way it has always been, and that's the way it will always be, between Pork Rollers and Taylor Hammers. It is what it is. Let the battle rage on....

Everyone... breathe! When I mentioned my concern a few posts upthread, I didn't mean to open up a negative train of thought to which everyone would then pile on! My impression is that lawyers working on big cases are often reticent, with good reason, to share their strategy with ANYONE. They want to stave off leaks and thus prevent giving an edge to their opposition. When I heard the cases were combined, I thought this close-to-the-vest attitude could perhaps bubble up at some point within the (2) pro-2A teams - particularly if the lawyers involved hadn't worked together before, didn't have a level of trust built over time, etc. (...and I'm only guessing that might be the situation). So yes, I think it's entirely possible (though not a given) that there wasn't a ton of advance coordination because of how lawyers zealously guard case strategy. I mean, these are still in many respects still 2 different cases, right? There's just being heard together for convenience because of the many overlapping issues. So, if (and that's still a big IF) their strategy today revealed any weaknesses which, in fact, led to them stepping on each other's toes a bit, well... they'll just have to immediately pivot and heighten their level of coordination. It seems to me that legal cases are by their nature long, drawn out affairs... with a ton of moving parts... I'm sure strategy adjustments happen often. None of that changes the fact that, with Bruen, it seems that SCOTUS has set a very pre-determined, narrow pathway by which these 2A cases need to be decided. Based on Judge Bumb's prior questions, (to this non-lawyer anyway), it sounds like she's well aware of the legal precedent, the legal chain of command, and her responsibilities within it. And I'm sure she's savvy enough to distinguish between the state's blatantly unconstitutional ideas (even if presented with swagger today) and our sides constitutionally sound ideas (presented today with some slight pauses). She can weigh those 2 things accordingly and make the right decisions, I'm sure. In other words, though today's performance raised a question about coordination levels... I think it's far too early for pearl-clutching, garment-rending, or conspiracy-spouting. These 2A teams have been GREAT thus far. I am sure they'll quickly regain their footing. So, let's not be the usual beaten down, negative Joisey folks of the past. Let's not abandon ship at the first minor glitch in the case. Stay the course. That's my attitude anyway!

Some fine Taylor Ham, perhaps!

I certainly hate to hear that observation!

I had a different call and was unable to jump on the conference call... now I'm locked out but I am following the twitter feed. Observation + question: weeks ago, on one of these threads, I had asked in so many words whether combining these 2 pro-A cases carried any inherent risk --- meaning, would the approaches of the 2 teams necessarily be well-coordinated? Now, today... I'm reading comments from the hearing that Judge Bumb was questioning whether Jensen's legal argument may have inadvertently undermined Schmutter's legal argument. Because I'm not actually "hearing" the convo... for those of you who are either physically there to read the body language -or- at least listening in and catching all the inflections... did that sound like a big problem? Or, did it seem like a minor hiccup that was smoothed over quickly? Appreciate your insights....!

Hey... love your site! Bookmarked. The more gun owners out there promoting the 2A & shooting sports - the better! Well done.

It sounds like they backed away because they realize they overplayed their hand and ticked the judge off (as laid out in the video above). Good. I'm delighted they're fumbling this. They're going against the U.S. Constitution, they have no justifiable case only empty politics, savvy Judge Bumb knows it... and hopefully, they'll get their asses handed to them with more delicious snarky quotes we can all enjoy. Winning. Gosh, it feels quite nice for a change, doesn't it?

I don't remember seeing this posted here... it's kind of funny: If Women Had The Same Rights As Guns - YouTube

Wow! This is an eye-opening article. I used to travel a lot and was "prepped" by some of my fellow female travelers in the office (thankfully)... so I had my eyes open and was a reasonably savvy and cautious traveler from the get-go. That said, I was still surprised to read how some of these hotel staffers mentioned in this article simply handed out keycards to women's rooms without ascertaining that the man requesting it was actually listed as a room occupant!! I mean, they just literally handed the keycards over to predators. Now, you might think, well the woman should have used the interior safety latch once she was in the room (because, I admit, that was the first thought that I had, too)... but in one of these cases, the perpetrator actually convinced the hotel staff to disable the lock! Yeah. That's worthy of a rare quadruple: Unbelievable! He must have been quite the con artist. (In a couple of cases these women got falling down drunk... and damn, that's so risky for a woman under any circumstances, and especially when away on travel. Nonetheless, it doesn't excuse the attacks, of course, nor does it describe all of the cases). Some of these attacks sound just horrific... and resulted in big settlements against the hotels. Forewarned is forearmed. Pass the word to any women you know! Hotel sexual assaults on the rise as predators given access to women’s rooms in horrifying trend: law firm (msn.com)

@winmag45 - I'm locking this thread down. In the unlikely event the deal were to fall through, you can just hit "report post" and ask us to unlock it.

I don't know what the original title was - I just changed it to Pennsylvania Non-resident Permit to Carry ... If that's the improper label... let me know and I'll revise it. Thank you!

I did not know this! Happy 2A Day....

@10X - moved and pinned. It should get more eyes on it now. Let me know if it becomes burdensome and you need help keeping up with it.

@10X -- There are a number of posters that don't use the 1A Lounge. Is there a reason you started this in here, and not a public-facing forum? I mean, your call - but it would get more eyes on it elsewhere. Up to you!

That's a fair question... but you're talking about how you think things should be... whereas I'm talking about how they are. Juries are swayed by what's put in front of them. People will mix pot and guns at great peril IMO (again, even if they're not impaired). I don't know - but I don't think we're going to sway each other at this point. Agree to disagree?

This reminds me of a friend I had years back who used to say, "I wasn't drunk... I was just feeling good." We agree on one point... mixing any kind of intoxicating substance with carry is incredibly dumb. Where we differ is that I still think the murky nature of testing for pot impairment (where you can test positive for THC, yet not actually be impaired) ALSO makes it MORE of a legal guagmire on all sides. Can you imagine, god forbid, you get involved in a shooting.. .they test you and THC shows up? Even if you were straight as a church mouse, how much money will you need to shell out for expert witnesses to debunk the test? More to the point, will the jury even believe them? No matter how you pitch it, pot + guns is a potential legal quagmire for anyone who ventures there. Just my opinion!

Devil's advocate... I'm so down with that! How 'bout this... let's suppose (perish the thought!) some high-as-a-kite driver smashes into the car that your wife is driving and your kids are in the back seat (or grandkids, sorry, don't know your age) . All occupants are grievously injured... and your family is now facing the prospect of their ongoing, sustained medical care (and the resulting huge bills) perhaps for decades to come. Same situation for a bad shoot... someone's depth perception is off... your family is now badly injured. I would think that proof of guilt in those situations (or lack thereof, since it's pot and not alcohol), might well affect any resulting lawsuits that you file, and certainly might impact the jury as they determine what amount of $ you should be awarded. In legal situations, I think evidence of guilt is pretty potent!

Sorry, but that's not what I'm seeing... I'm seeing that, yes, Col. has a "bodily limit" above which you can be "charged" with DUI (though I'm seeing 5 nanograms btw?), but it remains controversial because THC is metabolized much, much differently than alcohol, and there doesn't seem to be much direct relationship at all between THC levels in the blood and actual impairment. To complicate things more, for frequent users, much higher levels of THC than that bodily limit can last (yes, even in the blood) for DAYS even if they haven't done the drug in that time. So, although the blood test is one more piece of info a prosecutor can use, it's not the same kind of slam-dunk that an alcohol blood test is. So, apparently, they are still relying MORE on field sobriety tests in court... and researchers continue to search for a better test that would be as accurate as the alcohol blood tests. The entire situation makes these cases VERY difficult to prosecute apparently. If I were a defense attorney and my client was charged with DUI, I'd have a FIELD DAY with this situation! If you have better info, pls send links... I have ZERO medical/legal expertise, so I'm merely relaying what I'm reading. I am always happy to learn something new!

Hmmm? Am I the only one in this thread with real concerns about this? Isn't the part I bolded above an ongoing problem with pot right now, even with driving? My understanding is that unlike alcohol (where there's a pathway for proving guilt by way of a blood alcohol content level that can be measured), it's not so with pot. Someone could have smoked 24 hrs earlier - or - smoked 30 min before they grabbed and used their firearm... but they'd still have THC in their bloodstream without a definitive, measurable way to show whether or not that level of THC made them impaired. (If I'm wrong, I trust someone will come on and correct me). Perhaps roadside sobriety tests (you know those "close your eyes, now touch your nose" tests) carry more weight in a court of law than I'm aware of? Because I would think a good lawyer could make mincemeat out of those roadside tests - "my client was tired after working long hours... he also had a recent inner ear infection... of course, he couldn't walk straight, your honor..." etc. (Isn't that likely why cops follow-up with a breathalyzer or blood test in the first place? To have evidence that is harder to refute in court?). It's bad enough if someone drives (or carries, etc.) when they're drunk... at least you can definitively, measurably prove that... and if nothing else, justice will be served after-the-fact. I just don't see how you can ensure the same result if someone is high. And I hate like hell the thought that some dumbasses will have some "bad shoots" while high, thereby giving our anti-2A opposition MORE ammo to use against us. I just don't see how this is a positive development... besides, I feel like our society is self-medicating at a rate that's growing alarmingly fast. I don't see any of this as a social good.

Just cleaned up a number of extraneous posts... pls get this thread back on track. Thanks.

Stop insulting other posters...! Enough of that. It's inappropriate, against forum rules and frankly, if comes off belligerent and bratty. I'm sure you can do better! And I hope everyone else on here knows they shouldn't be taking rash-sounding legal advice from strangers on the Internet... do I even need to say that? Hopefully not!

@Xtors, it's not a dumb question at all. And, @JackDaWack, with all due respect, I'm not so sure about that advice... what defines the boundaries of a playground from the rest of the park it resides within? How would you know where those boundaries were? Would you need to go to the municipality and pull the latest blueprints on file? Would that even be legally sufficient? Since all of these carry issues - including the playground aspect - will be hashed out and ruled on before too long, why not act out of an abundance of caution? Simply avoid parks with children's playgrounds (that leaves you with plenty of recreational options and you're not risking felony arrest while this combined case works its way through the system). Or at the very least, discuss with an actual attorney. I have a feeling a lot of these answers will be forthcoming soon anyway from a variety of 2A legal presentations, etc. Personally? I'm hoping the whole insurance requirement gets tossed altogether. We don't need mandatory insurance to exercise any of the other amendments, so why for the 2nd? It's ridiculous. It's just a blatant scam by the state to make gun ownership more expensive and onerous.

And now I owe YOU a beer! And thanks for making me spit out my diet Coke.

And thank you @DirtyDigz - for your wonderfully detailed and lightning-fast-out-of-the-gate "informal transcript". Much appreciated by me... and I'm sure by others! Update: He informed us downthread the transcript wasn't his... nonetheless, he's been one (of a handful of you) who've been really great at sharing information on this thread. Depending on how busy the workday is (I'm sure many agree), it's nice that I don't have to go searching multiple websites to get the "gist" of things. And may I say... all of these hearings just sound absolutely DELICIOUS! Nice to be WINNING for a change. Can't wipe the smile off my face.

It's SO different... that I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around it! How sad is that? Been in Joisey too long I guess.