1LtCAP

she'd have been luckier had the tree totaled it. owdie........ i love my ariens. i've got a troybuilt 24" at the shop......kept clogging the chute, and bogging. the ariens is a 28". no bogging, launching that crap clear across the street.

even better would be to stop prescribing those fucking things.

YOU'VE noticed that too?

this is a form of child abuse. these people are walking all over these kids. these kids think they're doing something good, being as they probably don't know any better.

we have crapcast. rather weirdly, my electric was out when i got home last night. once i got the genny fired up, turned on the tv.....and cable was good.

that'll be his workaround//

why not just get his approval to use this, rather than just getting something close?

took 8 months. i was given same reason. understaffed. moms took 9 months. she was given same reason...till month 8 when someone called her and said her fingerprints weren't showing up properly. she had to get them re-done(no charge) then it took the full 9th month.

this is very very simple. i've seen at least one suggestion that may end up being a lie to them. don't do that. just politely tell them that they have no need to know either way if you've bought anything, nor do they have a need or right to know what it is you may or may not have bought. keep it simple and honest.

i thought everyone was saying these would never get out of the legislature?

no. he's right. if you don't have your fPid, you're ok....as long as you're otw to or from an exempted place, or at one of them. if you do have your fPid, then you can toss a long gun in your vehicle, and keep it there from now till the end of time and go pretty close to anywhere with it.

or other exempted destination

if that vegan were doing their job properly, then it shouldn't matter.

i don't have much hair on top.....but i might need a dt combover, lolol

if ya were a wrencher/tech, i'd wanna talk to ya.......

sorry again....just got in to the shop.......drinking my caffeine now, lolol

sorry, i missed that. the having to ask them to leave? that's not the case. you need to tell them to desist. essentially that translates to "get the bleep outta here!". or...."stop!"

statutes above. no muddy water.

ALL threads on this(and every other forum on the interweb) go off on tangents eventually.

it's rare...but you're wrong on this one. if you feel your or your loved ones lives are in danger, you can estimate the necessary force. EDIT 2C:3-6. Use of force in defense of premises or personal property Use of Force in Defense of Premises or Personal Property. a. Use of force in defense of premises. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is in possession or control of premises or is licensed or privileged to be thereon and he reasonably believes such force necessary to prevent or terminate what he reasonably believes to be the commission or attempted commission of a criminal trespass by such other person in or upon such premises. b. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of premises. (1) Request to desist. The use of force is justifiable under this section only if the actor first requests the person against whom such force is used to desist from his interference with the property, unless the actor reasonably believes that: (a) Such request would be useless; (b) It would be dangerous to himself or another person to make the request; or (c) Substantial harm will be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request can effectively be made. (2) Exclusion of trespasser. The use of force is not justifiable under this section if the actor knows that the exclusion of the trespasser will expose him to substantial danger of serious bodily harm. (3) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force is not justifiable under subsection a. of this section unless the actor reasonably believes that: (a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or (b) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to commit or consummate arson, burglary, robbery or other criminal theft or property destruction; except that (c) Deadly force does not become justifiable under subparagraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection unless the actor reasonably believes that: (i) The person against whom it is employed has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or (ii) The use of force other than deadly force to terminate or prevent the commission or the consummation of the crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger of bodily harm. An actor within a dwelling shall be presumed to have a reasonable belief in the existence of the danger. The State must rebut this presumption by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. c. Use of force in defense of personal property. Subject to the provisions of subsection d. of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what he reasonably believes to be an attempt by such other person to commit theft, criminal mischief or other criminal interference with personal property in his possession or in the possession of another for whose protection he acts. d. Limitations on justifiable use of force in defense of personal property. (1) Request to desist and exclusion of trespasser. The limitations of subsection b. (1) and (2) of this section apply to subsection c. of this section. (2) Use of deadly force. The use of deadly force in defense of personal property is not justified unless justified under another provision of this chapter. L.1978, c.95; amended by L. 1987, c. 120, s. 2. 2nd EDIT 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection. 2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. 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 (b)To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if: (i)The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; (ii)The actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a reentry or recaption justified by section 2C:3-6; or (iii) The actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm. (2)The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if: (a)The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or (b)The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that: (i)The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and (ii)A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed. (3)Except as required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion. (2)A reasonable belief exists when the actor, to protect himself or a third person, was in his own dwelling at the time of the offense or was privileged to be thereon and the encounter between the actor and intruder was sudden and unexpected, compelling the actor to act instantly and: (a)The actor reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the actor or others in the dwelling; or (b)The actor demanded that the intruder disarm, surrender or withdraw, and the intruder refused to do so. (3)An actor employing protective force may estimate the necessity of using force when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, withdrawing or doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action.

read the statute. in ones dwelling, there is no duty to retreat. that's all we need.

you will find that nj is may issue on paper and no issue in practice. i carry at work(own business) and home. it's the only places that it's legal in nj.

SADLY you are correct, and there is probably an article in the works focusing only on those that've been not quite so helpful.

glad you mentioned "gun lobby". 'cause......the nra isn't even in the top FIFTY for lobbyists.