HBecwithFn7

So the "pond" was frozen or semi-frozen at the time? Yeah, that could have been a true "Charlie-Foxtrot" if some of the first responders also got trapped below the ice attempting a rescue for which they weren't properly trained/equipped. Ice is considered an "overhead" environment, as are caves, in the diving world... requires special training. And, if the rescuers aren't properly geared up (specialized dry suits, etc.), they could also get hypothermic within minutes. I realize it seems totally unfair to the one "already suffering" victim. But the objective of these policies is to prevent the rescuers from becoming victims as well. That can easily happen if the responders are not geared up or trained to do that kind of rescue. Yes, they could have thrown the victim a rope, but if the victim got towed under or pushed under by heavy ice (and if there were currents), s/he could have pulled whoever was on the other end of that rope into the pond with them. And what if the rope were caught on something or snapped? The last thing that is needed at any disaster scene is rescuers being injured or killed, because it distracts the other rescuers that are still "rescuing." That is why an injured rescuer has the very top "triage" priority when it comes to being transported away from the scene and to the hospital, even if another victim has more serious injuries and has greater need for transport. Does it make sense? Sometimes, absolutely not. But it is why they do it that way.

Hmmm. I wonder if Wal-Mart's employee policy indemnifies the associate, should they become "co-defendants" in that whopper of a lawsuit. Maybe that's why they have to "get to safety..." so they aren't seen on cameras actually opening those chips and sitting on the lounge chairs. Again, "minimizing" victims. Underwater rescue (especially cave rescue) requires special training. In Fl. there is a volunteer org. called IUCRR - International Underwater Cave Rescue and Recovery. They are called in to do the rescues for Law Enforcement in this area. If a "first responder" LEO who was not a trained recovery cave diver did this, they'd become the 2nd victim, putting the IUCRR crew at even greater risk, since they now have to recover two bodies. And, besides, I don't think the average LEO would carry the diving gear needed to do it. Or was this a drowning in a bathtub, or something?

Well, I'd assume "policy" would be to call "security" or "911" and then get to safety, lest you become a victim as well. For a retailer as large as Wal-Mart, I'd think they'd have internal security, anyway, watching through multiple cameras, etc. to call 911 or send their own people. Heck, my supermarket has that (unarmed, though). As for the employees, I guess the policy logic being, "while one victim is unacceptable, 'many more' victims is even more unacceptable." Unfortunate for the "targeted" victim, but maybe they figure that since s/he is already "targeted"... Again, would they rather be sued by one victim's family or by *several* victims' families?

It would seem that "engaging the perp" in any form (armed/unarmed, etc.) is a violation of Wal-Mart policy. Anything which causes tension and (potentially) further violence to escalate, I guess. I think the policy forgot the "I need get rid of all witnesses," scenario.

Update: Just caught a web article last night which says that a Wal-Mart associate that defended a woman but was fired for violating "policy" has been offered his job back See article from the Missoulian. No word as to whether or not the associate will accept the re-offer.

Update: I went to the NJ DMV website, this evening, to do some research, and within 30 seconds, I was able to register a change of address back to my street address on file, free of charge. I expect to receive stickers to affix on the DL for the change within 14 days. I just have to make sure I'm not stopped in between now and the time I get home from Florida. And since I need to renew the license in another two months anyway (regular 4 year renewal), it won't matter much. So that problem solved, I'll have to see if they will add my full middle name. If yes, then I can fill out the sts-033 and other docs with confidence that they won't cause any "discrepancies." 2nd Update: I think I have my answer, already. I went to the "Contact Us:" form on the NJ DMV website and, sure enough, it requires entry of your name.... "First Name, Middle Initial and Last Name" Oddly enough... it does *not* require Social Security #.

Is it "practical," though, to request more than three at a time per sts-033, considering OGAM, and the permits being valid only for 90 days from the date of issue? Or am I wrong about the 90 day limit?

Yup, that it did (Googling). Apparently, she obtained it *after* the Moscone/Milk incident, and after the Pres. Reagan/Brady incident. It's starting to seem like she made an "executive exception" for herself... And yes, having become a US Senator, she no longer needed it. Seems a tad hypocritical to me...

I think the store/company might be considering a "nightmare scenario," where the clerk pulls the gun in their own self-defense, but the perp (if there are bystanders in the store) takes a "hostage" at gunpoint. Not that the perp might take hostages without the clerk pulling their weapon, but more likely to happen if the robber feels "more threatened" than they already do. I can see a point to that policy if other customers/bystanders are in the store. But if it's just the clerk and the perp, I think the clerk should be able to defend themselves. And I also think that's a reasonable, "teachable," exception to the policy (i.e. being "alone" vs. being with others in the store). Still, did the company do their "due diligence" to keep the clerk protected? Should there also be a policy of being behind "protective glass" during the night hours? Should there be other employes present at those hours (i.e. "No Lone Zone")? Should they be hidden from view but monitoring the security cameras and stand ready to call 911? BTW, I do recall a story where a "restaurant" night asst. magager was jacked and chose to resist the perp, and was fired the next day. A very similar scenario, and dismissal for the same reason.

Was that before or after she got her concealed carry permit? The incident occurred on 11/27/1978. I'm not sure if/when Sen. Feinstein received a CCW. Is that "public record" somewhere?

I guess the company thinks that the liability risk of being sued by the robber (or survivors/bystanders) for being shot by the clerk is greater than that of being sued by the clerk (or survivors) if s/he is shot or injured by the robber. The problem with policies like this is that, sometimes, the "cash in the register" just ain't enough. If the robber is of a mind to "not leave witnesses," the clerk is doomed, no matter what they do. The clerk should have every right to defend themselves if directly threatened. Of course, the robber should realize that there are security cameras monitoring the facility. Perhaps, the company should post signs indicating this in plain view of the entries. I don't know if the clerk/employee signed any "indemnification" agreements with the company (in the event of this kind of scenario), but if I were his/her lawyer (or one looking to start a class action), I'd be looking at "inadequacy of protection" issues (i.e. why no "bullet proof glass" to protect him... why no extra personnel on at night... Why wasn't the camera footage fed live to a security firm who might have called 911... etc. etc. etc.)? Yeah, I know these things cost money... but it could have cost an (now former) employee his/her life.

Well, one outta two ain't bad. I don't have the $, but I do have the patience.

I think there may be more to Sen. Feinstein than meets the eye. Recall that she was the San Francisco "President of the Bd. of Supervisors" and had to go before the S.F. media one evening and tell them (and the world) that its mayor (George Moscone) and a fellow supervisor (Harvey Milk) had just been assassinated by a former supervisor (Dan White). I watched that press conference live (it was the first time I'd ever seen her), and repeated endlessly (at the time) by the MSM, as events like Newtown and Aurora were. The reaction from the press was enough to "shell shock" the strongest of people. I think there might be some direct "personal motivation" to her anti-gun agenda.

Not for right now (there's no way I'm qualified for it), but I was curious as to whether or not the Tac Ops Bravo-51 competition sniper rifle is manufactured anymore and/or still available for purchase? How common are they at this point? I've seen Tango-51's on the exchanges in the $3.5K range... A tad pricey for me right now, but maybe later. Thanks.

Thanks much! PM sent. I will no longer participate publicly in this thread, lest I bring any further shame upon us for expressing how this tragedy "affects me." Seriously???

I absolutely understand. But they knew me well enough to take a bunch of my money on an annual membership. And to not be able to use that membership, now, based on a rule change after the fact is a bit of an issue. That aside, I'd also ask how does the range expect to encourage new people to use it and to grow, if these kinds of policies exist. Is the "inherent risk" that much greater than the potential reward?

Well, I'm not sure what I can do to ensure them that I'm not "suicidal." So, maybe they might not rent to me in the future. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

What makes you say that?

True, but I'm not sure that's the root intent of the DL security requirement. I think it's more to ensure that the weapon remains on the range and that it's not "ripped off." To be honest, the logic of requiring of a lone shooter to own a weapon before rental escapes me. If it's a matter of training, they can require a range orientation class or other training, etc. Anyway, hopefully, it won't be an issue for me for very long.

The two PA ranges with which I have familiarity (and membership) do not have this requirement. Otherwise, they probably would not get very much money from me. Of course, it's "their range, their rules," but I'd consider it bad marketing on their part to not allow rentals to people who don't own. They might very well make that first "buy" from the range, when able... and other buys. When they rent, they take my Driver's License as "security." That's a pretty good incentive (among others) to be a good rental customer and do things right, regardless of what I own/don't own.

No, I was renting. If I had my own guns, I wouldn't need to rent...

My first time there I was a "non-member" and rented. The 2nd time, I started the membership on the spot and rented. That may change, though, now.

No such rule, as of two weeks ago. I've gone by myself and rented. After this, I'm not sure, but I hope not. I just purchased a 1 year membership with them.

Already, having been in Fl 3 days, and having talked to old diving friends and at my favorite range, down here, I've had several people tell me "move down, here ASAP!!!" They can't believe the bureaucracy NJ requires to own firearms, especially hand guns. It can't/won't happen in the near future, and probably not until well after I'd already completed that NJ bureaucracy and acquired my FID card and P2Ps (and the inventory itself. ). But what happens to all those NJ docs if, once acquired, I do choose to move out of state, permanently? Am I obliged by law to file "change of addresses" or simply surrender the docs to the local chief? Do I need to file for "cancellation" of the docs? PK90...any insights? Thanks.

I actually did see a couple... in fact, out in my county.