Anselmo

I think that any health insurance you buy on your own will be more than your $2000 deductible or come with its own $2000+ deductible.

Companies have lots of policies. They can't put every policy on the window because that is the policy you're most interested in. The no CCW on premises stickers are for customers not employees. Customers can't read the employee manual and most of it doesn't apply to them but employees can read it. My company just issued a new policy manual and I need to sign attesting that I read it.

I'm not seeing Lymans avaialable as an ebook. To get an ebook on your iPhone, you need an App. Either iBook or Kindle will work. Books with pictures/diagrams might be "translate" to digital books so well.

When my son was 8 he accidentally broke a little girls arm playing tag on the playground. He was hoping he was exaggerating but we ran into her and her parents at a hockey game. The little girl's arm was in a sling. The little girl came over and sat next to my son making 8 year old goo-goo eyes at him. Her parents sat a few row away and never said anything to me. The attorney my wife works for advised us to not say anything to the parents unless they approached me first. That is the path I took. I regret not manning up and apologizing to them.

With the price of copper you won't be the only one not using it. Holy crap the prices are crazy.

Never heard of them but I'll try them out. Good job.

Or he didn't read the policy or he read it and forgot about the weapons section. My workplace says no weapons at work (for the safety of everyone).

Range report available yet?

A jury will decide what "reasonable" means.

Going to work for 9 hours would violate the rule in my opinion. Some people won't even stop for gas or a cup of coffee. You are only allowed reasonable stops between your house and the range or gunsmith. Going to work is a bit of a stretch. When it comes down to it, it would be up to a jury to decide if your definition of reasonable matches theirs. It's a pain in the butt but it's best to make the long drive back and forth so you keep of trouble with the law.

I can fully agree with you.

Sounds like GG was brandishing outside his house. That would give cause to search the house. This case, getting back to the OP, confirms my thoughts that you don't want a Nappen for criminal defense. You want a good defense attorney and a good expert witness. In the end, the jury interprets these vague laws. These questions like is the stock telescoping or adjustable are answered by a jury. I don't understand why everyone seems to jump on the side of the GG. It would be very easy to see someone here write that they got side swiped in their Cadillac by some old pick up truck that, despite horn honking and yelling, wouldn't pull over and attempted to escape the situation. Followed the guy home and he runs in the house and comes out with a gun. This is definitely a story with two sides.

Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passen- core rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.

I'm the one that make the carry license to driver's license comparison. Another poster put forth the proposition that since you needed a special license to carry in Philly, the police could legally use a Terry stop to check for this license. I disagreed and stated that driving requires a special license. My implication was that the police cannot Terry stop a driver just to check their documents. The assumption is that people driving cars are doing so legally and either random stops and probable cause must be present in order to stop a driver and ask for their driver's license. Same thing with those open carrying. The assumption should be that people are doing so legally. The simple act of driving a car does not permit the police to stop you and ask for your license and the same should apply to a carry permit.

You also need a special license to drive a car.

I do the same whenever I drive through Trenton or Camden. I'm very alert and willing to take aggressive action. If in a "bad" area, if I got rear ended or something else went down, I'd drive away quickly. More to the OP's point. The anti-gun person's argument makes a lot more sense if you disarm all the criminals first. Or better yet, eliminate all crime and then there really is very little to no reason to carry a gun or even worry about defensive driving habits/tactics. I don't see that happening any time soon.

What glasses do you recommend?

But, it's not a Glock. I thought Ray only had Glocks...

If the law and prosecution was applied with proper discretion, everyone would be a lot safer. If convicted felons caught with guns were sentenced to long prison terms, if the prosecutors and judges had some common sense things would be a lot better. How the hell does a judge sentence someone to 7 years for having a over capacity magazine and jhp's to 7 years while someone else that actually pulled the trigger and shot someone and has previous violent criminal history gets a similar prison term? The law is written as a tool for prosecutors to not have to prove criminal intent so they can get easier convictions and send the bad guys away. But when it's turned against the common man doing things perfectly legal in lots of other states, that is the problem. If you tighten the law, more bad guys will be on the street. If you tighten the law, more common guys will get into prison. If they applied more common sense and discretion you could get the more bad guys in prison and less common guys in prison.

To me, the gist of the decision is that you cannot resist a police officer's entry into your home even if it is illegal. You have to allow it and then seek civil recourse in the courts. It defines the police as not an illegal intruder and you cannot take defensive measures. Wonder how the Oath Keepers feel about this. NJ law: b. Limitations on justifying necessity for use of force. (1) The use of force is not justifiable under this section: (a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer in the performance of his duties, although the arrest is unlawful, unless the peace officer employs unlawful force to effect such arrest; or If the police in NJ violate the 4th amendment, is that a definition of unlawful force and then resistance is justifiable or is unlawful arrest the 4th amendment violation?

discussion of inalienable vs unalienable The Declaration if Independence talks about unalienable rights. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Link to article Indiana supreme rules no right to resist police in an illegal entry into your house. Crazy.

I notice those signs quite a bit when I travel down south.

My chiro is really into it. He's been telling me about May 21st for about a year now at least. He's been in since the beginning. He told me it will be very interesting because we'll be able to watch it on TV as the earthquakes hit New Zealand first at the International Date Line and continue with the sun until the earth is wrecked. The good people, and those good that died, will be pulled up to heaven. If we're still here on the 22nd, we are not chosen. I asked him why it starts at the International Date Line. His reply, "well, it has to start someplace." Someone is going to have egg on their face come May 22nd.

Especially people that have guns.