Emortal

This is what I thought...it seemed to me like it's risky to try and establish a parents house as alternate residency. Where is the line drawn? Why not argue that any relative or close friend's property is an alternate residency?

Browsing reddit tonight, I came across a post detailing a recent self defense shooting in NJ. The original post is as follows: http://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/2qzcpa/drew_and_fired_my_gun_three_days_ago_on_home/ He goes on to specify that this occured in NJ, and that he regularly carries his firearm on any private property that allows, and transports the firearm unloaded and locked away. My understanding of the law was that this would be illegal, and you can't transport a firearm to someone else's residence without a carry permit, as this type of thing does not fall under any of the transportation exemptions. Is the shooter justified here? Are you allowed to transport a firearm to your parents residence?

Lawmen Supply definitely doesn't sell firearms to non-LE any longer. It's a corporate policy at all of their locations. They still sell accessories to the public but any firearm sale is LE only.

This is still the case. Any new enlistment contract is for 8 years, always. Subtract the active portion of your contract from 8, and that's how long you'll be IRR and eligible for recall. To answer the original question....I do believe it this scenario is plausible, but would be extremely unusual in real life...which doesn't always play out like it does on TV. Generally speaking, a prosecution/defense lawyer shouldn't be too keen on forcing people to testify. Are there procedures in place for them to do it? Yes. But do you really want to risk your case on some guy you had to recall to active duty to show up? A real person won't a give shit about being "under oath," they'd be fucking pissed at whichever attorney was responsible for their recall. Threatening people is really all they can do, if the guy calls their bluff the attorney realistically just has to move on.