HBecwithFn7

Well, if I go with the full blown enclosure project and erect block/stucco walls like the rest of the house (i.e. surround the slab with them) and put new roofing (and insulation) over it, it will be my new "great room" where my office desk etc. will be, as well as some other storage. So It will probably need the same constant ambient temp. as the main house. Still, Perhaps I can cut back a little in the main house while I'm in there. There's also a window that leads to the master bedroom that I might open fully as an access way (and put a security door there). The possibilities are endless, at this point.

Thanks! I kinda like the mini-split idea. There are a number of different options there.

Hey, long time no type! Perhaps you can help with a dilemma I may soon face. My central unit in FL was installed in 2008, but the compressor was refurbished in 2011... both long before I bought the place in Sept. of 2015. I don't know if that's "old" or not. I do, however, believe the expansion coil and blower are original equipment (from when the house was built in 2003). Problem: I've had to get the system recharged every 6 mos. I've been told that there's a leak somewhere in the coil. About $1,100.00 to replace the coil (which I hope includes pressure testing the lines). This is an HVAC with Heat Pump unit. And one simply cannot live in FL without decent HVAC. That said, I have a decision to make. I have a screened porch on the back of the house (part of the main slab on grade) with which I do absolutely nothing. It's just there for "storage" right now. Storage of things that aren't climate sensitive. I don't go outdoors while on the property unless it's for lawn maintenance, etc. Eventually, I might want to enclose this porch and turn it into a great room, under HVAC. Anticipating this, I've put off replacing the coil, until I decide whether or not I want to replace the entire system with something new, and maybe upgrade the compressor by half a ton to accommodate the new enclosed space (it's a 3 Ton at present, covering 1130 Sq Ft. internally, not including the garage). For now, it's just cheaper for me to recharge the system every 6 months, until I make a decision (I'll PM you shortly on the details). Just curious as to your thoughts. Would be worth doing the HVAC upgrades in advance/anticipation of the enclosure work? Are there easier/cheaper ways of enclosing the screen porch and making it HVAC'able without a full enclosure (i.e. block/stucco walls)? Said full enclosure would increase the Sq. footage of the floor plan and, of course, the "assessed valuation" for tax purposes (but down here, that's not a huge priority). Thoughts?

Actually, it doesn't. Not for Florida CWFL holders, at least. Several years ago, per Florida Statute "FS 790.0601," FL CWFL registration data was made "confidential." and exempt from "public records" disclosure laws. Law enforcement has to "show cause" to be able to access the records per FS 790.0601(3)(c). This, after some news paper accessed the (then) public records and published them, sort of like what happened in NY/CT. The CWFL data (for holders of a FL CWFL) is not available in D.A.V.I.D.

Or from where it's coming..... At least the one guy asked if anyone knew that...

Unfortunately, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything from watching it. I could see, though, that a lot of people were still milling about while shots were being fired. Perhaps they should have "taken cover...." perhaps???

OK then, as I stated above, everyone, including congress critters should be allowed to carry. There should be no "guns for me but not for thee." I was only thinking of what might and could happen realistically, if not full carry for everyone. Doesn't mean I like it or approve of it. I want to see all be able to carry.

Yes, I think that at any event where more than a few Congress folks are gathered, there should be some US Capitol Police present (not Secret Service - they only protect POTUS, VPOTUS, First & Second families, past POUTSes, POTUS candidates and other heads of State). They were lucky this time because the Majority Whip (the congressman who was shot) is part of the leadership team and, therefore, gets 24hr Capitol Police protection. Had he not been there, they might have had a huge problem. So yes, the leadership team should be protected, but there should also be some Capitol Police presence when there's an organized gathering of, say, more than 5 reps at such an event off of Capitol Hill.

I think what you're referring to is a question we as Americans will be wrestling with for some time. The balance between "Freedom/Liberty" (which this country was founded upon and which we cherish) and "safety" from the evils which threaten our existence. Very many people believe that incidents like this are the "price we pay" for living in such a free society. And it's a price many are still willing to pay. The old Benjamin Franklin quote: It's a personal choice for everyone. As for me, I'm down with Ben. I consider it my responsibility to protect me and mine. And I'd much rather have the liberty I need to get that done. I'm actually hearing that there's talk of allowing our congress critters to carry, when they don't have Capitol Police protection. Hmmmm..... "Guns for me, but not for thee....????" I don't thank so... Homey don't play dat!" If congress critters can carry when not under police protection, then so can the rest of us.... for the very same reason!!!

I love how a lot of the people (and reps in Congress, MSM, etc.) are commenting on it being a "good thing" that there were some Capitol Police there to respond "so quickly... Otherwise, i/we aren't so sure what might have happened." Well, I know what might have happened if we were allowed to carry in public!!!! But that probably won't be mentioned, today...

And... Gov. McCauliffe just brought up "Gun Control!" That said, I think he was baited by the MSM on the scene.

In the case of "Sideline" it's free only because you agree to have ads in the display on the app. You can however, pay $2.99/mo to remove the ads. There are also other upgrade options such as "keeping the number permanent" (i.e. it won't go away after 30 days of inactivity). You can even opt for the "teams" service for roughly $10.00/mo. And you can manage a block of numbers. So I wouldn't worry about terms of the agreement changing. As for VoIP, I think it depends on the service you get. I have an Ooma Telo. I ported the old NJ phone number I had locally onto that Ooma Telo, and I now have it in FL. I can use my old phone gear that I had on the POTS lines in NJ, because the Ooma Telo device has a jack for me to use that gear. So that works. Some of the Ooma manufactured phones do more (i.e. handle 4 phone lines), etc. but I don't need all those bells & whistles. Other VoIP services might be different. No different formats or standards that I know of.

I was just looking into this myself. There are a couple of alternatives to Google Voice, one of which is free (if you can deal with the ads). These are apps that allow you to add a 2nd Phone number to your existing cell phone without involving the carrier. The first is Line2. The second is Sideline. I chose Sideline because it's free for single use, but it does allow you do some very cheap upgrades (remove ads for $2.99/mo) etc. If you get the business package, you can manage a block of numbers and assign them to employees to load on their cell phones, etc. etc. And no, I don't own stock in either.. I think Sideline is your best bet in this case. Your personal number (assigned to the phone by the carier) stays hidden and doesn't appear on caller ID, etc. (if you place your calls through the app). If you have the free version, you must use the number at least once every 30 days, or they'll take it away and recycle it. No problem for me, as I call people at least weekly if not more frequently. OP, Give it a try.

You probably know his real name. I don't.

He last logged on here on 03/27, according to his profile page. And it's difficult to Google him or look him up in other social media, as "mipfox" is a legitimate chemcial name and comes up with those results... Hope he's OK.

I was in Puerto Rico last year, but on the southern end of it (Ponce), near the Caribbean Sea. Much more laid back than San Juan. There was a casino in my hotel, but I'm not a gambling kinda guy.

That would be Michael Dunn. And yes, that's, precisley, whom I believe this is about. The Jordan Davis/Michael Dunn case was, in essence, "Martin/Zimmerman Round 2." Only this time, Dunn was guilty as sin and, thusly, convicted. Angela Corey (Duval County SA at the time and who's team was brought into Seminole County to prosecute Zimmerman) prosecuted this case personally, refusing to allow a repeat of Martin/Zimmerman.

Agreed. But I think they're believing that a "duty to retreat" would involve the ability to flee the scene in your vehicle. But one can still get shot trying to do that. Or the BG can disable the vehicle by shooting the tires, etc. I wouldn't want to give the BG those opportunities.

Update: Reports are, this morning, that Govt. Scott also signed SB-1052. So we'll see how this plays out in the courts.

It's been reported this evening that Gov. Rick Scott signed SB-128 into law, today. This bill shifts the "burden of proof" in cases involving a HD/SD use of force (including deadly force) from the defense, to the prosecution, where the original law intended it to be. In FL, If a person involved in a HD/SD use of force and/or deadly force claims that use was "justifiable" under FL's "justifiable use of force" laws, they have the option of a pre-trial hearing to resolve the matter. If the pre-trial result is that the use was justified (or it's declared justified by LE or prosecutor without a hearing), the shooter is then immune from any further legal action (either criminal or civil) in re: that particular incident. However, due to case law and judiciary procedures, the burden of proof (that the use of force was justified) has always fallen upon the defense. With the signing of this bill, the burden of proof shifts back to the State or prosecution.... HOWEVER, with a "reduced" standard of "clear and convincing evidence..." not the more difficult "Beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It's more than "preponderance of the evidence" std (51%) but less than "reasonable doubt" (about 90+%). Still, it's the best pro 2A thing we got this year from the legislature, so we'll take it. That said, there remains one bill on the Gov's desk that can affect 2A folks this year in FL. SB-1052. This bill makes alterations to that "justifiable use of force law." Originally, the change being made was designed to correct a "scrivener error" that, in essence, inadvertently required a person in their dwelling/home or occupied vehicle to be "under attack" before they "no longer had a duty to retreat and could 'Stand their Ground' " under that law. The correction now states that a person "in a dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and may stand their ground, etc. etc." But notice.... something is missing.... the protection of that law no longer applies to one's "occupied vehicle..." The dems made them take that out to get support for the bill. I think it was in response to the Michael Dunn Case, here in FL There is some conjecture as to whether or not it will result in a loss for 2A people, because there's a different law that was not changed that might still keep that "No duty to retreat/ Stand your ground" protection in tact when in one's vehicle or in any other place where the shooter "has a right to be." But the concern among 2A people is that judges will interpret the removal of "occupied vehicle" from the law affected by SB-1052 as a restoration of a "duty to retreat" when in your vehicle. We hope the Gov. vetoes it. I can live with the "attack" issue for a bit longer until they get it right.

Bond....James Bond... The Iris at each film opening

Had they just finished watching "Little Rascals?" That circle around the left eye looks like "Pete."

That's why I never got more than 2 P2P's at a time. I got three sets of them (1st set was with my FPID). The last one in the last set I never used. I had it extended for the addl. 90 days, but I had left the PRNJ before it was used. One of these days, I'll frame it and hang it up as a memento of what it was like....

My point was not whether or not the prosecutor should do their job. I'm not saying the prosecutor should ignore the crime. I'm saying that part of "doing their job" is using the "discretion" they have in deciding if a crime has occurred and the appropriate response to it if one has occurred. They can "throw the book" at an accused (and, by doing so, "make an example" of them), they can cut a plea deal, or they can do things like offer "Pre Trial Intervention." Or, they can choose not to prosecute at all, citing "insufficient evidence" for trial, among other things. My point, above, is that when it comes to incidents involving guns, NJ prosecutors on average are, more than likely, to find that a crime has occurred, and respond with a full "throw the book/make an example" response (as was the case initially with Shaneen Allen), as opposed to cutting a deal or offering PTI, or choosing not to prosecute. That, until (in Shaneen's case) it was exposed that the same prosecutor offered PTI to an NFL player that committed aggravated assault against his wife in an elevator. All of a sudden, PTI magically appeared "on the table" for Ms. Allen. And, in a final statement of how much that initial proposed punishment didn't fit the crime, Ms. Allen was pardoned by Gov. Christie. Again, point being, prosecutors have a lot of discretion in re: deciding if a crime has occurred, whether or not to bring it to trial, and what punishment to seek. And it just seems to me that when it comes to violations of NJ's gun and HD/SD laws, NJ prosecutors seem a lot more overzealous about finding that crimes have occurred, and bringing them to full trial / seeking maximum punishment, as compared with other crimes. This, in support of an "anti gun" political agenda. Yes, we do need to change laws and penalties we feel are too severe. But that isn't happening. These laws and harsh penalties are kept on the books to allow prosecutors to keep that "discretion." I'm just saying, NJ prosecutors seem to go "full force" on gun crimes/citizen HD/SD scenarios, than, perhaps, their counterparts in other states.

Depends on the zeal of the prosecutor, I would think... or the political pressure they might be facing. I've seen some people prosecuted in cases that should have never come to trial. In fact, I was a juror on one such case. The accused was facing a slew of cascading charges including 2nd degree assault, possession of a deadly weapon, pos. of weapon for unlawful purpose, etc. etc. etc., "Cascading..." because the jury had the option to convict on the 3rd of 4th degree offenses if not 2nd degree. But the prosecutor simply had no case. They were hoping to convict on "circumstantial evidence alone..." I also think the prosecutor was counting on the jury being "shocked and angered by the crime" and wanting us to throw the book at the defendant. The prosecutor was wrong. And he even knew he was in trouble from the start. 23 witnesses listed on the original Voir-dire form including NJSP Forensic analysts,etc... Not one of them showed up for trial. Only the local PD detectives, evidence tech and the doctor that treated the victim. And the one witness to the brawl brought in by the prosecution to testify actually contradicted the prosecution's theory. It got so bad for the prosecution that they added one additional charge to the indictment after the trial had begun for a "Simple assault" charge... a DPO, but with the "mutual consent" finding question. We, the jury, after two days of deliberations, ended up acquitting the defendant on all the original charges, and convicting only on the one added charge, but with the finding that there was mutual consent... reducing it to a PDPO (30 days in jail). We suspect the trial prosecutor in this case was under pressure from the prosecutor's office to bring the case to trial for political reasons... the county DA being a resident of the town in which the crime occurred and facing political pressure from the town residents (read: Biker gang bangers) involved. Yet it seems, when it comes to gun crimes, they often do "find the time." Just ask Shaneen Allen... and "victims" like her. BTW, I also agree this was a righteous shoot. With drowning infants, seconds don't even count... milliseconds count!