BRaptor

Is there an OGAM problem?

Happy Birthday, Frank!

I apologize to anyone claiming jury nullification or some other form of mass common-sense sweeping over the tri-state, but I fear that may not be the situation, here. I'll bet that the violation for which he was being tried required him to "knowingly" possess the firearm in his car. I'm also willing to bet that his attorney managed to convince the jury that this man "forgot" that his pistol was in his glove box and, therefore, did not "knowingly" possess the weapon. I don't believe for one second that this guy forgot the gun was in his glove box. However, I am proud that the jury looked to this argument as a way to tell Cy Vance to f*ck off. So, it might not be the jury bringing back a verdict that is contrary to what the law directs them to do, it is a step in the right direction.

But, it's not parody...it's political commentary. Oh, just forget it...nevermind.

Happy Birthday, Ty!

Happy Birthday, Drew!

Perhaps it's vorboten, or crass. But that's never stopped me before! Happy birthday to me!

You're right. It possibly comes down to the old saying: "when all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." Perhaps, if Ung didn't have a gun, he may have backed down, talked less or worked harder to talk the situation down and it may have worked....

One of the joys of liberty is that each man can make that decision for himself when the time comes for him to make that decision. I respect your choice to say you'd rather get your a$$ kicked. I'm a little shocked that you're willing to put your life in those drunken asshats' hands. Your life doesn't have to be in imminent danger for it to be self-defense. You only have to reasonably believe that you are in danger of serious bodily injury. Still, are you sure they would stop beating you after you lost consciousness? What do they do to the other people in your party while you're laying there bleeding and unconscious on the sidewalk? Are you sure you won't get permanant brain damage from the beating you're about to take? What happens if you do become permanantly disabled and the clowns that beat you are penniless, so your civil suit gets you a nice, big, fat judgment that you can't collect on? I'm not saying your choice of don't shoot is wrong. I'm just saying Ung's choice wasn't wrong and could very well have been the best outcome in that situation.

Honestly, if you're strapped for cash, you shouldn't sell to buy, or hold and buy. You need to stop buying. Sell the two rifles, get a good price for them. Then, stop buying. I'm strapped for cash, too. That is why I have one gun...and it was a gift.

If I remember correctly, a .22LR can travel over 1 mile, perhaps up to 1.5 miles. So, yeah....a .22 will definitely go somewhere. Of course, in a recessed wooded area, shot by an experienced, practiced marksman and barring a freak ricochet, there's little chance of finding out how far that .22LR will go. I still prefer established ranges, though. Also, if you want to purchase .22LR ammunition within this "great" state, you'll need an FPID. If you order it online, you may not need an FPID to purchase and have it delivered. It's another thing as to what happens to you if you're found to be in possession of the ammunition, though.

Taken from joejaxx's post: It looks like they're right on schedule. The only question is when will the court decide the motions? And what will they decide? (not really a question, I know what a NJ judge will say...even a federal one).

You're such an optimist! I love it, really. In my opinion, based on what I've seen him do, Mr. Aitken has no motivation beyond what he can see at the tip of his nose. He will become the poster-child for nothing. He is not motivated to change anything. Like 99% of the other 'tards in this state, he just wants to go back to working his meaningless job to earn his meaningless pay, pay his sky-high taxes and complain about it to nobody in particular, but anybody that will listen. This man took the publicity 2A supporters created, used it to his advantage and then turned his back on those that helped him. I can't say I blame him (I'm sure Christie forced him to do it in order to get his freedom back), but I don't like it. In my book, he is neutral. If he disappears into and annals of history, I'll be just fine with it. This man will affect no change in NJ. Others may pick up his name and use it do the work that he isn't man enough to do, but he, himself, is worthless to our cause. Enjoy your freedom, Mr. Aitken, and no matter what you do, we'll still stand up for yours and others' rights when they are infringed!

You mean, for example, if someone FORCES you to buy car insurance or face a fine? Or if you're FORCED to pay for registration and license plate for your car or pay a fine? Or if someone FORCES your business to be bonded and/or insured or face a fine? I don't mean to sound like I support the healthcare bill, I don't, because I don't know what's in it. But to say that you object based on the principle of being forced to purchase something is a bit overbroad (unless you're willing to go so far as to oppose state-mandated car insurance, contractor bonding/insuring etc.). I believe that this "buy health insurance or face a fine" law has two problems. 1) As I understand the bill, I think it violates the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, because you MUST file taxes and the government is inspecting your tax records to see that you paid for health insurance and based on those tax filings (that you submitted and MUST be truthful), you will be fined and 2) the interests of the government are too far removed and do no outweigh the individual's right to freedom to contract or not contract. At least with car insurance, there is a "we don't want uninsured motorists out there injuring people and not able to pay for the injury they cause" concern. With the healthcare bill, there is a "we don't want healthcare bills unpaid, because that burdens our hospitals and healthcare system and might cause some hospitals to go out of business or cause taxpayers to have to foot the bill and the solution is that everyone must have health insurance." The public concern isn't direct enough for my liking and the solution isn't direct enough.

What do you mean only?!?!?! At the current exchange rate, that's like $50,000 USD!!!! I keed, I keed. But, the gangstas here in Newark wouldn't hesitate to kill you over $200.

No, "SCOTUS" never said such a thing either in Heller or McDonald. The majority opinion in Heller doesn't discuss a state's ability to regulate firearms (as it shouldn't, it was a decision based on federal law). McDonald's majority opinion also doesn't mention a state's ability to regulate firearms. There is a portion of Justice Alito's opinion (which Justice Thomas didn't join) that discusses "reasonable" regulation. However, that portion didn't garner a 5th vote to become the voice of SCOTUS. Thus, it's not controlling. McDonald was only about incorporation of the 2A to the states through the 14A and that is all the majority decided. The 2A is incorporated and the majority opinion went no further. Frankly, fighting over "reasonable" is not what I want, anyway. I want SCOTUS to decide that--like most other rights that are fundamental to our liberty--strict scrutiny applies to a state's regulation of 2A rights. Then, these unnecessary and ineffective laws start falling. The majority opinion did find that the right to keep and bear arms is "among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty." Moreover, and interestingly, the majority opinion's wording in Heller, which helps define the 2A right, discusses the handgun ban infringes the right to keep. Arguably, SCOTUS didn't include the phrase "and bear," because they have a different definition for that different word and intend to apply "bear" in a different context (I'm thinking carry). I've got money that says, if anything, SCOTUS might split the 2A into two rights: 1) "Keep" in the home and 2) "Bear" outside the home. It will then apply two different standards to the two different rights. Statutes regulating the right to "Keep" will be reviewed under strict scrutiny and (I hope and pray) that statutes regulating the right to "Bear" outside the home will be reviewed at least under intermediate scrutiny. In the end, any lawyer that says "No court is going to require a state to issue permits if it doesn’t already have its own ccw statute" is looking at what the courts do in Constitutional decisions through the wrong end of the telescope. If SCOTUS believes it is right, and SCOTUS decides a right to carry is covered by 2A/14A, then the default is that we have a right to carry and states may only impose upon that right in a manner in accordance with the US Const. Thus, SCOTUS won't force a state to write a CCW statute; SCOTUS will say the default is Open or CCW and that the state statute is invalid as unconstitutional and the default (Carrying either open or CCW) is back in place. Try that one on your lawyer friend and see if he can spot and appreciate the difference. If he can't, the conversation/logic is lost on him.

A creative attorney could argue that even if you did shoot the third one in the back, he could argue that all three shots were still only one "act," that you were unable to distinguish that his back was turned (adrenaline can really change your perspective and what you perceive in the heat of the moment)and you were trained or prepared to repel 3 attackers and didn't "reassess" the situation until after all three had one shot in them. As an example, my Criminal Law professor successfully defended a man that put 3 magazines in an intruder (in NYC!!!). He argued that it was all one act, that the man was in such fear and had some training and that training was to not stop until the last magazine is empty. For him, that meant 3 magazines, 2 re-loads and one dead intruder. See, creative lawyers aren't all bad!

For all those "pussification of America," "lawyers make people sue too much/get greedy," and "our forefathers never envisioned this" people, please keep this in mind: Tort law is designed to keep people from taking the law into their own hands. Yes, sometimes it's better to just go out into the parking lot and beat the snot out of each other. That works great when both parties have a lot of pent up energy to vent or when both parties want to act out their aggression. But what if KrdShark's BIL decided that because there was no way to be remedied for being bitten, he just went over and shot the person's dog in front of their kids and shot the owner for good measure? Is that a better, "tougher 'merica" for you? Should we go back to dueling, maybe? Or can we go back to Capulet and Montague-style blood feuds? Also, the damages for torts are determined by juries of your peers. They decide how much you've been injured and for what injuries you can recover. It's a way for society to punish the wrongdoer, acknowledge the victim's injury and help protect future societal order by punishing wrongdoers without putting them in jail. When word gets out about what there is to lose when a person who owns a dog that is unlicensed and has a history of attacks keeps that dog and the dog attacks again, hopefully people think twice about keeping unlicensed, aggressive dogs. The fine for keeping an unlicensed dog is something like $57. I don't think that would stop people from keeping unlicensed/aggressive dogs. Finally, tort law is an inheritence from English Common Law, of which our forefathers were intimately aware. Lawsuits sounding in torts (as well as punitive damages!!!) are older than our republic and fully contemplated by our forefathers. As for the development of an award for pain and suffering, those awards are supposed to be kept in check by the jury's award (runaway jury awards are WAY less frequent than you would think). Also, the common law is designed to adapt to what society deems appropriate as awards for wrongs done. Thus, even if pain and suffering damages weren't around in 1776, society has adapted to recognize that people should be compensated for being put through pain. I hope nobody here experiences "pain and suffering" that a jury would award damages for, but I also ask you to keep your mind open to the possibility that there is an amount of pain and suffering that someone can go through where it may be right to recognize the pain (no, money can't take away pain, but the award is a societal acknowledgement and a way of "hurting" the offending party without beating them or doing the out-dated "eye-for-an-eye" routine).

No. There's almost always award/consideration of damages for pain and suffering, emotional damage/distress (a future fear of dogs that the victim didn't have prior to the attack), damages to career and liberty to engage in your chosen profession (if the victim has to change professions out of a heightened fear that he'll be bitten by snother dog) as well as punitive damages (damages to acknowledge that this was "wrong" and to deter others from committing the same behavior). With a dog bite from an unlicensed dog (possibly higher punitive damages) that results in hospitalization and unwanted shots (possibly rabies shots which are very painful) there should be enough here to interest any attorney.

I don't know of any dog bite lawyers, but I found this law: This is a "strict liability" statute. Which means any lawyer with a pulse should be able to win a case where someone is bitten and the bitten person isn't doing anything wrong.

Posting it twice doesn't make it any better! That girl was so incredibly off beat--kinda like Ludacris' Greatest Hits (By random white people) skit. Warning, Not Work Safe (NWS) Language, but funny, fast forward to 0:23 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrDidXcXp0M&playnext=1&list=PL9CF9B9D0D0D9F0EF&index=8

Yeah, plus, I found some verbiage that looks like it might be referencing dialing. Of course, it being a typical NJ law, it's completely unclear, and I don't want to get into the discussion. Sorry 'bout the confusion.

Never mind....

Or, I don't have a job and will be going straight from home to the BH. But, yes, for other participants who are thinking about coming from work, please don't keep your weapons in your car while at work.