leahcim

Go HAWKS Go DAWGS

Someone had to say it.

Wow, good to know. I usually just do some research and do the work myself unless the required tools cost a lot. A friend replaced his pump, bought parts at HD and said it was pretty straightforward, but that was 20 years ago-before Obama EPA started regulating every mud puddle as a navigable body of water. Guess I'll have to call the pros when my 20 year old pump goes

I do not disagree, but they could still sue and if Comcast or any major corporation is involved, who do you think they are coming for? And as Edge stated, once one person goes off the road, the Comcast guy should have done something--if nothing else then to protect himself and Comcast.

Does that mean that if my submersible well pump goes, I cannot legally pull it out and replace it myself??

I totally agree. Unfortunately, if the Comcast crew could have reasonably determined that their trucks posed a safety issue (even though the issue was totally caused by the fact that people were driving over the limit) AND there was an easy, commonsense way to address it, then the courts would probably determine that Comcast has some liability for their failure to act. If it were my business, and I saw a potential issue like this, I would do whatever extra that I could to protect myself from liability. You know that if any of those people decide that they want to sue someone--regardless of their own culpability--they are going after the deepest pockets. And at a minimum there will be costs to defend yourself. God forbid if a court determines you could have taken very simple measures to improve your visibility AND determines that those measures could have prevented the accidents. Why not just take the simple measures in the first place? It really does not cost you anything and If you still end up in court at least you can say "Well, I did everything I could to make sure people could see me."

I think the Comcast worker inability to think beyond their instruction on how many cones to put out based on speed limit--regardless of road conditions, possible obstructions, weather conditions, sightlines AND several dangerous incidents of people going off the road. If you are doing work and people are sliding off the road because they don't see your markers in time, isn't it just common sense to change something to maybe give those people a little more advance warning? Obviously the Comcast instruction is meant for normal conditions and should be adjusted, especially when it is obvious that they are not working.

"When dealing with guns, the [NJ] citizen acts at his peril" State of NJ v Peletteri

Often you can hover the mouse pointer over an email address to reveal the real, underlying address. You can also hover any links to reveal the actual target (just do not click!) I used to get a lot of fake ebay emails, promising all manner of dread consequence if I did not click to login and update my profile or something. Ebay has a [email protected] to forward suspicious emails, and I believe they will follow up to tell you if it is legit or not. Generally I will delete the email and login to my account via regular method, most bank and ebay accounts have a secure message area, anything legit should be available there. Check the original email for poor grammar, spelling, mismatched case/plurals etc. This stuff usually is foreign origin and fortunately English is difficult for them to write very well.

IIRC, The law carves out separate transport exemptions (from where to where) for HGs and HPs. The HG exemption includes something like between homes (or maybe lands or residences) while moving. Aitken's lawyer argued "that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(l), which prohibits the possession of hollow nose bullets, is unconstitutionally vague. He further contends that the moving exemption found in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(e) should be read into N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) and applied to possession of hollow nose bullets while moving, despite the fact that the wording of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) does not include it." The appeals court let the HP conviction stand, even while reversing the HG conviction as being covered by the moving exemption. I believe the specific wording of the law allows HPs between place of purchase and home/land/business that you own and between home/land/business and the range. So the only way to legally move HPs from one residence to another is to make a stop at the range. As for the inscrutable NJ gun law, refer to my signature... "Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

The judge in the Aitken case was, of course, an idiot. BUT the appellate court did uphold the HP charge on the basis that there is no moving exemption for HP. So you can travel between your lands and businesses (exempt locations) with HG and "loaded" magazines (not in the HG) as long as they are not loaded with HPs. As far as your comments on NJ gun laws, refer to my signature.

Prior to Aitken I would've argued that transporting HP between residences while moving is fine, and falls under the same exemption as HGs. And the fact that the law doesn't specifically say this is a mere technicality. No rational court would convict on that basis. Now I would definitely drive through the range parking lot on the way. I've also always interpreted "while moving" to mean moving in the Newtonian sense, now I'm not sure.

Read the decision in the State v. Aitken case and get back to me. The appellate court rejected his argument that HP be treated under the same exemption as the HGs he was moving. He also had HGs, that conviction was overturned based on the moving exemption, HP conviction was NOT overturned. Here are some relevant passages from http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NJCO%2020120330329/STATE%20v.%20AITKEN? "Brian next contends that N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(f)(l), which prohibits the possession of hollow nose bullets, is unconstitutionally vague. He further contends that the moving exemption found in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(e) should be read into N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) and applied to possession of hollow nose bullets while moving, despite the fact that the wording of N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) does not include it." "Brian also argues that, using the rule of lenity, we should interpret N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) as including an exception for moving hollow nose bullets between residences, even though it is not included in the statutory language. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) provides as follows: "Nothing in subsection [(f)](1) shall be construed to prevent a person from keeping such ammunition at his dwelling, premises or other land owned or possessed by him, or from carrying such ammunition from the place of purchase to said dwelling or land...." In contrast to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(e), which concerns exemptions with respect to the possession of weapons, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3(g)(2)(a) does not contain a specific exemption for possession while moving between residences. Citing the concept of lenity, Brian argues that we should read that exemption into the statute."

You just can't transport HPs between your residences and lands while moving, as you can with HGs

I have taken a bicycle to the range many times. No need to have it in a locked case it, it just needs to be "unloaded and contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, securely tied package, or locked in the trunk of the automobile in which it is being transported." NJ 2C:39-6 g IANAL, but in my opinion a clear ziploc bag would suffice as a securely tied package. However, I would recommend something opaque--no one needs to know.

Don't you watch PMSNBC? I don't either, but I am sure this story is either playing there or just about to right now. Seriously though, this type of story just does not fit their agenda, so it never happened. So much for objectivity. It really bothers me that they very rarely will run a story like this. It is dishonest, hypocritical, and disingenuous. But what do you expect from the MSM?

I have seen this so many times at it always cracks me up. Gotta love Shatner!

This is how it's done ;-) https://youtu.be/_KvO-8IvoCI Thank God for guns!

I am certain PMSNBC is putting a big story together right now. Probably just workin out the details with Miracle!

The story refers to a "cache of unlicensed weapons." What licenses are required for revolvers, rifles, and shotguns? Especially if they are locked up in a safe.

I know this is impossible, especially in NJ. And the toll collector unions and other entrenched interests. But if I were dictator, that is what I'd do.

I really would not have a problem with a gas tax if every dollar could be used only for transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) AND if they would do away with tolls and pay for everything out of the gas tax. Even if the gas tax had to increase, I believe the overall spending would be less (if it only went to roads) because the whole toll-collecting has so much overhead of wages, maintaining and billing easypass, etc. If you pay everything from a gas tax, and you already have the collection infrastructure in place (gas stations), you fire all the toll collectors and the EZpass administrator and eliminate a significant expense. I think, overall, it will be cheaper.

I always though the gas tax was per gallon so if they increase it by $0.23, that means the state gets an additional $0.23 on every gallon sold, regardless of the price per gallon.

Not only that, if one does feel concern--for oneself or another in your household--there is no easy way to secure your firearms by, say, asking a friend to hold on to them until you get through it. Or if your friends/family are concerned, they cannot act to secure your hardware until you are better. Thanks to the transfer laws, it is legally impossible (in my understanding of the law) to temporarily store your hardware at a friends place. I suppose you could notify the police, but good luck ever seeing your stuff again. Very sad, may he RIP and God bless and help his family with this.

They are ready for prime time when used correctly. Tesla's system is one of the most advanced, but the Tesla system is not meant for autonomous driving, but only to augment driver capability and enhance safety. The driver is still 100% in control and responsible. The Tesla system has about 140 MM with only one fatality, compared to about 1 fatality per every 100MM (or less) in the US-and everyone blames the machine. Now, obviously one cannot extrapolate a statistical relationship after one incident, but it looks pretty capable so far. Plus the fact that it sounds like the truck driver was in the wrong, and a fully engaged human driver may have had the same result.