Soju

Actually, if you are asked to leave, and you don't, it isn't a civil matter. In most states (probably all states), it is a violation of the law, and you can be arrested for trespassing. If you are asked to leave, and do, then you are not violating the law, assuming you have a legal right to be there initially (unlike breaking into a place). Example: You are open carrying at a restaurant in an open carry friendly state. Somebody complains. The manager asks you to leave. If you refuse, you can be charged with trespassing, but not a firearms violation. Because you have a firearm is the reason you were asked to leave, but that makes no difference. It would be the same as being asked to leave because you aren't wearing a shirt. However, if say, somebody complains, and the waitress asks you to leave, and you don't, you cannot be charged with trespassing, as the waitress has no legal right to make you leave. I have seen instances similar, and the police were called, but because the manager had no issue with it, the open carriers were not breaking any law.

For those that believe traveling to PA simply to carry is illegal, but traveling to PA going to an exempted location is legal, I have some questions. 1. Does the NJ transportation law apply while you are in PA? 2. If NJ transportation laws do NOT apply once your cross the border into PA, are you still required to go directly to an exempted location? Can you change your mind? 2a. If after going to an exempted location, are you required to go directly back to another exempted location like your home? Can you instead carry elsewhere in PA? 3. If NJ transportation laws do not apply in PA, and only apply while in NJ going to an exempted location in PA, does it cease to apply when you reach the PA border? 3a. If it does, unless your exempted location is on the border, is not your destination now some place other than an exempted location? If you think NJ transportation laws apply while in PA, I implore you to show me any other state law that applies to another state. If you do not think they apply in PA, but still apply while traveling to PA, I implore me to give an example of how you can leave the state, and NOT break the NJ transportation laws. If you cannot do either of these things, well the reason is quite simple. Because those condition do not exist, because NJ transportation laws do NOT apply, FOPA does.

Where would you find case law on a legal activity that hasn't shown to even be questionable in court before? Wouldn't a better way to judge the legality of it be based on the number of convictions? Well if nobody gets convicted, charged, or even arrested, then that seems like a better indicator that it is LEGAL as opposed to illegal. The other indicator would be the the law, you know, specifically says it is legal, again, opposed to illegal. Furthermore, NJ law doesn't even explicity say it is illegal. This isn't even a matter of 'taking a conservative interpretation' of something. It is simply making something up. It is like citing a law from England and saying because of that, something here is illegal. That is nonsensical. So how about I quote the law that applies, and not something non-applicable. Tell me where a 'strict interpretation' makes it illegal. Good luck.

Admitting you don't bother researching or even thinking about the possibility that something else could have happened is admitting ignorance on the topic. It is funny you mention Katrina, because there are plenty of theories about it! What would you call the confiscation of guns in Louisiana after Katrina btw? Is that a conspiracy also. We all know that would never happen...

True, it has happened before. In fact, it happened a couple days shy of exactly a year prior. In Norway, killing 77. Some fishy stuff was involved, and there are plenty of rumors and theories that there was more involved and known about what happened then what their government is saying. Is any of it true? I have no idea, but again, to think it isn't even possible is ignorant.

Considering Donald Rumsfeld said it was shot down, I'd say there is a pretty good chance of it. As for Kennedy, nobody yet has been able to duplicate 2 shots from the same type of rifle in the same amount of time with accuracy under similar circumstances (distance. moving target, obstructions). And with Oswald having ties to US and foreign intelligence, again, is it so far fetched to not think something fishy was going on?

There are some pretty solid facts that point to things that are contrary to the 'official' story. Government involvement, something else, no idea. But the story given doesn't add up. As for McVeigh? Could have been the fall guy/patsy. Is any of this true? No idea, but the possiblity isn't outside the realm of reality. There is very little that points to a plane ever hitting the pentagon. Something happened for sure, but it pretty clearly wasn't a 757. I also don't know what happened on 9/11, but have you read the 9/11 Commission Report? The holes in that are HUGE. Even if you believe everything in it, there are some pretty big things left out almost entirely. Why? They aren't telling us something, whatever it is.

Yes, great ideas. I wonder if that has ever been tried before, like maybe we should make prisons like Russian Gulag camps and use a 'justice' system like the Gestapo and KGB.... I'm also not convinced you even understand how our current justice system works. I don't mean in theory, but in practice. You are already not too far off unfortunately. Don't even bother debating. You can never win. I see this a lot. One of my favorite quotes usually applies. "It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument". McAdoo.

Most Penn and Teller BS videos you can find right on youtube. They make some good stuff.

A couple things. 1. This is nothing new. The article even said that they have had these type of units since WWII. 2. I am well aware of all the things that are going on that are chipping away at our civil liberties. I am well aware of the things that are leading us more and more in the directions of a police state. This however, is not one of them. 3. As mentioned, AD military are not allowed to act in a civilian type police capacity within the US, not including military bases and such. 4. A much more relevant thing would be the role of National Guard units from around the country in LA after Katrina. Some of the stuff that went on there is like what you are talking about.

Yes. Wait, you aren't against stop and frisk? How does that spin it in an anti-gun way?

The funniest thing about that, is I bet he has no idea what FOPA is, or says. He says "the text of New Jersey law stands as it is written", which is cool in all, but the topic he was talking about deals with going to Pennsylvania! Wouldn't it be great if there was some sort of law that covered things like traveling between states? Oh, there is? Oh, that is where FOPA comes into play? Weird. The ignorance of people is astounding.

What is the most sad? That unless something like this has a personal effect (like a family member or close friend being one of the victims), the anti-gun lobby actually is glad that this happened. I mean, if it doesn't effect them, it is only 12 people dead right? Do you think they actually care about the victims? Hell no. They care that they can spin this to help their agenda. I don't just mean this incident, or just the anti-gun politicians, but rather that is how politics work.

Nearly ever article I read says he had a helmet of some sorts. People have been shot two or three times withOUT body armor, and were still able to fight. Two or three shots WITH body armor would still suck, but people are quite capable of overcoming pain. We can argue the hypothetical "If there were people with a CCW there" angle all day, but it will be rather pointless. Maybe it would have helped save some people. Maybe it would have prevented it. Maybe it would have simply been that a someone CCWing is killed in place of one of the other victims. I don't know. What I do know is that with nobody CCWing, 12 people are dead and like 60 others wounded. What does that mean? Allowing people to CCW would not hurt. Unfortunately the media and anti's try and spin it the other way, without any legitimacy. And people by into it. Because people are scared of inanimate objects.

I still can't get over how absurd it is NJ makes you pay $15 for a free check.

If this is directed to the US specifically, there is a huge barrier preventing 'gun control' from working. Even if I thought a total ban on all firearms was a good idea, and the solution, it isn't for the US. While gun control works in Japan, Japan doesn't already have 200 million privately owned firearms in it's country already.

Ironically, the Norway massacre last year was right around this time.

This is why there are internet trolls. Because it is hard not to troll the crap out of these people.

I'm not sure. I was unable to even look at the photo for fear of my life, so I just put my hands over my eyes and started screaming.

Every time I think some of my faith in humanity is restored, I lose it again. From another forum on the same subject, this is what someone said. Where is the face palm meme or smilie?

I'd imagine you do not have kids, or at least, young kids. If you did, would it not make MORE sense, to actually carry rather then have loaded firearms around? Also, who is more paranoid? The one carrying a gun, or the one with loaded guns strategically placed? I'm not judging, I often do both. Just seems a bit odd you would do one while thinking someone who does the other is paranoid.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/police-press-motive-denver-area-movie-massacre-232932177.html Love the propaganda. Yep, HUGE arsenal he had going. That was the thing the story highlighted. Not that he killed a bunch of people, but that he had 6000 rounds and an 'assault rifle'. If that is an giant arsenal, I wonder what they would call what a lot of us have?.

What makes it even funnier (to me at least), is that one is pretty tame!

A Ruger MK III with a 4.5 inch barrel has a total length of 8.5 inches. That is barely 1.5 inches longer then most pistols with a 3.5 inch barrel. Why does it need to be all medal? A 22/45 with threaded barrel seems like it a pretty good fit. I'd imagine if I had a suppressor it would be pretty darn 'tactical'...