Soju

There is no slippery slope.. In fact, that particular part of the code you mentioned (about moving) from the quote would only even need to apply when he no longer holds ties to his older property (ie. his lease is up/no longer owns it). If he is still residing there, it is still his residence. He stated he bought a new house, so that is "premises or other land owned or possessed". He can transport between the two however many times he wants. Assuming both homes are in NJ, FOPA does NOT apply. It is for INTERSTATE transportation. INTERSTATE is different from INTRASTATE travel. Which this would be. There of course is no case law about this because it doesn't apply! Please people, read the codes of what you are talking about first!

Great article. Most of what was written, most of us here already know. The problem still remains. When the majority of the population are unaware of these facts, either intentionally so or just by ignorance, you get this major misconception that police are more trained, qualified, and in general, better then people who are not when it comes to handling and carry firearms. The reality is, this is a terrible and inaccurate generalization, because whether you are or are not a police officer has little to no correlation on your ability to handle firearms. That is to say, it is all up to the individual. Many cops are much more qualified and have much more training then the average gun owner. Many themselves fit the category of being the average gun owner. Many still have less training. Same goes for those who aren't cops. Many have more training then the average LEO. Many have less training. Many still have about the same amount. So why do police get to carry in every state, but the average gun owner's ability to carry encompasses all ranges of the spectrum, from almost no restrictions to outright denial, depending on the state? It is all about control, and as it works out, ends up being pretty arbitrary. As someone mentioned above, some departments actually DISCOURAGE it's officers from seeking additional training? Why would they possibly do this? Well, I would imagine it is simple. They want control. And they use arbitrary guidelines and the excuse/reason that you might receive bad training. And liability. All these things though, when it comes down to it, are legal or political reasons. They ignore important factors, including basic ones like, whether people die/are killed or not. Because lives are not as important as money and power. Sorry if you get killed. You living might cost me more money...

So few posts, so much misinformation. The address on your FPID is irrelevant. In fact, whether you even have an FPID or not is irrelevant. An FPID has no correlation to the legality of you being able to possess a pistol at either location. Do you own this new house/property? If yes, then you can keep and carry your pistol there. Do you either own your old house/property, or still reside there? If yes, then you can keep and carry your pistol there as well. Since both locations are exempted locations, you can also transport between the two at your leisure. You just have to follow the transportation laws, as mentioned above (and quoted again below). This idea that it has to be locked, or that ammo has to be separate, is made up, unfounded, and not substantiated in the code. Well you called it. If you didn't make something up nobody would have to "jump in and disagree".

Oh goodie. We are blaming facebook now. Yes, parents should be responsible for everything their kids post online. That is the problem.

I'm not sure if you are doing so intentionally or unintentionally, but I'm not sure you are understanding properly. I get your position. Your premise is sound. Scummy people who do scummy things and breed other scummy humans are a problem that can only be fixed by eliminating them. The only way to curb violence, is with violence. I get it. I agree. I'm not arguing with you. I'm just confused whether or not you really think the mass murder of an entire city is a good idea or not, and why this idea itself being a bad one is confusing to you...

This thread is disappointing. I thought you were going to say instead of getting a laptop, you received an AR or Sig 556 or something.

I must point out though, if he really didn't know who Hitler was, that does not make him stupid at all. It just makes him ignorant. There is a big difference. On the other hand, thinking a kid using sign language is the same as having a weapon, or even similar, does in fact make one stupid.

No, that is not what he was saying. You see it or read it wrong. Another solution or none at all has no correlation with your 'solution', and cannot serve to substantiate or negate it. The 'solution' itself does that. In the case of your 'solution', I had assumed it to be rhetoric, but if it wasn't, then it was being trashed because it was garbage. I hope you don't take offense to me calling it garbage. Because you are right on with the cause. It is the people. So yes, just eliminating them all would do wonders to fix the problem. But it isn't practical, feasible, logical, or moral. Since I am still unsure, was your 'solution' in fact a hyperbole? If so, then I agree! If not.....

+1 I am in fact offended that people get offended over something like this...a name. Actually, I'm only being truthful in an ironic way. I find this far more asinine. Using sign language is a violation of a 'weapons in school' policy? Seriously? Sounds like whoever is saying this wouldn't know what an actual weapon is until they get shot in the face with one. What is also ironic is that person(s) works in the education field. I don't want anyone that dumb near anyone. It reminds me of a Billy Madison quote. "what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." The above Futurama meme is certainly applicable.

You're welcome!

I know some posts were deleted, but I've only seen one person here actually cop bashing. Far and away more people were raising issues with the political issues effecting the ability of cops to do their job...so I'm not sure where this 'non-stop cop bashing' you are talking about is coming from.

How do you know it didn't? This isn't a trial and we aren't a jury. This is in online forum giving opinions and discussing ideas. You on the other hand seem to think we shouldn't do any of that. I'm not aware people are stating these things as absolute facts. So why are you commenting anyways. How do we know the news reports are accurate? How do we know anything? Were YOU there? You can play naive. I'm sure you aren't though.

If you don't wish to read "monday morning quarterback keyboard warriors" posts, then I'm not sure what you are expecting a discussion on a online forum on a topic like this to be. People give their opinions on the incident and interject thoughts about what they think happened and what they would have rather happened. I'm not sure what the purpose of calling that "monday morning quarterback keyboard warriors" is. The fact that 9 bystanders were injured by police fire is an issue, regardless of the reason. I said before, I am not blaming the officers themselves. They really had no option but to shoot. But if you don't think there are factors that were against them that attributed to 9 bystanders being hit, you are being naive. Of course in a perfect world, nobody innocent would have been injured. Of course this isn't a perfect world. Chances are, if a gunfight breaks out on a busy NYC street, some people not involved are going to get injured. That does NOT mean there aren't ways to try and mitigate that and reduce the risk. That is why people are talking about the ridiculous 12 pound triggers they are forced to use. That is why people are talking about the limited training they can get. Dismissing these factors because of some sort of notion they don't matter as long as the actions were correct, is baffling.

Oslo is the most expensive city in the world, so that doesn't surprise me.

Victim has RO against gunman. Gunman shoots victim. Police encounter with gunman. Gunman draws on police. Police fire on gunman. Bystanders are hit by police. Assuming this is mostly factual, I have a few observations and expectations. Restraining Orders are useless. Well, not always, but as shown, if someone really wants to, the RO isn't going to mean a thing. NYC gunlaws are useless. Again, if someone has the intent and motive, they will find the capability. A law isn't going to do jack. Police had no choice but to shoot. Unfortunately, they hit others in addition to the gunman. I expect they will be cleared of any wrongdoing. They should be. If a similar incident occurred and it was not the police that hit bystanders, I'd hope they would be cleared too, but doubt it would end up as simple and easy. I hope I'd be wrong.

What happened to the whole 'no starting threads where you only post a link' thing? This post is about as useful as the thread itself, or useless rather.

This is concerning for a number of reasons. He was arrested though apparently not charged with any crime. He was arrested for freedom of speech, regardless of how crazy you think his speech was. Police, FBI, and SS were involved. I had read that when originally contacted, the FBI said the police had him, and the police said the FBI had him. Not sure of the veracity of that, but if true, is odd... All this happened without a warrant. Whether or not you feel he should have been arrested, detained, committed, or otherwise, there are ways to do it while still following the law. Considering though, the Constitution has been pretty much thrown away already, I guess this is not surprising.

I find it sad that neither of you seem to be able to understand the difference between making an (incorrect as it turns out) assumption and being an liar. If you know their assumption to be false, why not just say "hey, even though that may seem unlikely, is entirely inaccurate'' or something, instead of trying to cause a conflict and call them a liar (or accuse them of calling someone a liar). Actually, that seems ironic to me. I don't know, maybe I am alone and am making an inaccurate or false assumption.

Maybe, but it still doesn't make a required interview legal or legitimate.

Please help me understand something. So on the PPQ, you were in fact able to remove the slide from the frame? However even in a condition were you could better analyze he issue, the best course of action you could still come up with, was to put it back on the frame and chuck it at the ground?!?! Come on now. You can't be serious. Under what logic does someone who claims to be scared that the round is going to go off, does that person then reassemble a malfunctioned firearm and throw it? So in the course of disassembling, and resembling, and then repeatedly throwing a firearm, you were comfortable enough that it wouldn't go off, but casing and transporting it to a gunsmith was too scary? Either you are lying about being scared, or you didn't actually give much if any thought to what you were doing (or both).

Yes you do. I suggest you watch City of God and Old Boy for two truely great films. And Joint Security Area actually. To be honest, also Battle Royale (ignore the sequel, damn why did they make a sequel!), Audition, and Lady Vengeance.

Haha yes! That guy is awesome. All he does is make badass slingshots. http://www.youtube.com/user/JoergSprave

I was trying to find this film. In fact, now they you mention it, I think I do have a link for it. If anybody is interested in a low budget direct to dvd type movie with potential (I heard they are making a sequel!), check out Outpost (UK) NAZI ZOMBIES! I don't think I need to say much more. I'll have to check out both Trollhunter and Riki-Oh. Thanks for the info. I'm still trying to digest Audition. So freaking bizarre and crazy. Too many little details that make you think one thing, but then other details that make you think the opposite.

Exactly. Which is why it was an illegal arrest, and they likely KNEW they couldn't arrest him legally. That they did so anyways is a problem we see way too often.

Yes. Because the only way (outside of things like inheritance) for you to receive a handgun is with a PP. I agree, but not on principle, but rather because that is what happens with most people. To not do so goes align with this thread, as that is hypocrisy. I am also confused. As Dan pointed out, there is a federal exemption for gifts. So it wouldn't matter if Delaware has one. It would however matter, if Delaware specifically had a law restricting or prohibiting gifting.