Stegall Law Firm

I think imported guns have the best chance of increasing in value and becoming collectible, like Saiga 12s and AKM variants.  An import ban one day is a very real possibility. It's already been done with China, and history repeats itself you can count on that.  There will be more American-made AKMs as the supply of the foreign ones becomes finite, and the foreign AKs will command a premium. 

In addition to breaking or being lost, magazines can get banned.  Not sure if it'll ever happen again in this country at the federal level, but anything is possible.  If you want to pass on to your children the freedoms we enjoy now as shooters, a lifetime supply + is not a bad idea (I wish it were so easy though with ammunition).    With as cheap as AR and surplus AKM magazines have been the last couple years, you should have lots. 

  This'll tempt you: http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?groupid=5226&name=Glock+19+9mm+Gen+2+Law+Enforcement+Trade+In     How's that work?  I want to have new sights put on my two model 19s and will be in that area later this week.  Can I just bring them by?  Schedule an appointment?

I wish ammo would follow.  But it won't.  Ammunition has gone down in price the last 2 1/2 years but not to the degree the AR15s have.  As for AKs, I do not think they'll be as cheap as ARs.  When I first got into guns it was $350 AKs and $800 ARs (and up) and now it's pretty much the other way around.  Heck, Wazzers used to suck, they were the whipping boy of the arms world, and now apparently they rock. 

How many magazines do you think you'd like to have?  Coming from New York you should give this serious thought.  If you're going to be a magazine slut (like say more than 20, and if that is the criteria then I certainly qualify) then consider that Glock factory mags are some of the least expensive out there.  You can get new ones for $20 and police trade-ins for around $15.  The new Magpul Glock mags are also $15.  Ergonomical issues can be dealt with through practice (which you should be doing a lot of anyway).  Cost of ownership never goes away.

First real heat I've seen this summer.  As cold as last winter was, this summer has been awesome weather-wise.  I remember stepping outside about dawn on July 4 and could see my breath it was so chilly.  I don't mind the heat now because it's going to start cooling off for good in a few weeks.

I have 3/8" ar500 steel targets from JC steel.  Recently I've noticed in a couple places that there is a slight indentation in the surface.  Running my finger across it I can feel it but they are not very deep, maybe the width of a few pieces of paper.  Is this normal wear and tear or the start of some real damage?  I shoot 223 and 7.62x39, closest distance being 50 yards.  The 223 is not varmint rounds, just standard 55 ball.  The targets hang on chains.

There's some hate out there for the 19, particularly the gen 3 and maybe gen 4 because of brass to face.  Not sure how much is real and how much is internet phenomenon.  Some people say the cause is limp wristing, others say it is proof that Glocks officially suck.  Mine's a gen 3 and never had any problems with it.  Great gun. 

   From where?

  It's about 20 cents a round currently.  Who's paying .34 for it?   I had a Saiga 223 and sold it last year, about 10 months too late to get a really good gouging price out of it.  But between the conversion and the magazines I just never had a whole lot of love for them.  I'll take a good Wazzer or an Opap instead.   Guess I should up and panic buy a few thousand of steel Russian/Ukraine/wherever ammunition tomorrow.  Do my part and all.

This is the time to buy.

Does it matter if it's brass or steel case?  The Armory has had great prices on a lot of stuff lately.  They have 500 rounds of Wolf 223 for an even quarter a round after shipping ($115 + $10 shipping).  http://www.the-armory.com/shopsite_sc/store/html/product945.html  That's about the lowest I've seen yet for 223 since the panic.  I have no problem with steel case ammo, and that is mostly what I buy and shoot.    You seem to need this quick.  Is it for a class, or do you have some inside dope on an impending zombie outbreak, or what?

  I think his practices and his system are maybe not unethical but they are shady.  He goes around the country to other states, places where he is not licensed to practice law, is not associating with local counsel, and I'm betting has never set foot in a courtroom, and teaching the law of that state.  He says it right there on his site: he'll be using cases, jury instructions and statutes from that particular state.  That is, in the words of Sonny Crockett, major uncool.  I go to nationwide CLEs with lawyers from Texas, California, you name it, teaching all kinds of subjects, but these are just general strategies, not state-specific practices.  If you want to learn Tennessee self defense law you better get it from somebody other than the guy spending a couple nights at the Days Inn down the street.   Also I'm not too impressed with his ability to analyze cases.  He apparently thinks the case he started this thread about is a big deal in self defense law.  It is not.  It is hardly about self defense.  It is an extremely common post conviction appeal on the Strickland v. Washington elements of ineffective assistance of counsel.  Thousands of these are heard each year in Tennessee (and other states I'm sure).  It is an unreported decision with little precedential value.  His main argument is that the trial lawyer did a bad job by not knowing the law central to their defense.  When I pointed out that the defendant was facing about 150 years and received a whopping 22, I got...no response.  Yes that little fact was just ignored.  I'm guessing that he's got such an erection for this case because it came out last year and so he can spin it on his unwitting customers as a new (maybe even groundbreaking!) and "important" legal decision on what a lawyer should and shouldn't do in a use of deadly force trial. 

Folks, the Hines decision is really nothing more than a run of the mill post conviction case that happens to be about a shooting that the defendant tried to make into self defense.  It is not announcing any new law, and it is not a reported decision (meaning it has little precedential value).  Also, while I'm not going to go as far as TMF in the other thread, I do think there is some misleading information being conveyed by the OP that needs to be cleared up.   The trial lawyer in Hines did not do a bad job.  His client was charged with first degree murder, felony murder (essentially first degree murder) and especially aggravated robbery. He was convicted of the lesser included offenses of second degree murder on the two murder charges, and aggravated assault on the esp. agg. rob.  Guy was facing two life sentences for the murders (and I'm guessing this was a non-capital case) and an additional 15-25 on EAR.  A very, very long time if convicted as charged.   He got a total of 22 years.  That's very good, ok?  That's a great result.    Furthermore, it looks like the failure to understand self defense law was the less important of two issues in this case.  The bigger one was the lawyer's failure to impeach state's witnesses, and the defendant actually got further on that issue.  On a post conviction petition in Tennessee you have to establish two things.  One is deficient performance by your attorney, and two is prejudice resulting from that deficient performance. You can have deficient performance but no prejudice, and that's what happened here with the failure to impeach.  The court said the lawyer should have impeached, but that they didn't was of little consequence to the outcome.   As for not understanding the self defense law, both the trial and appeals court said it wasn't even deficient performance (the trial court maybe not as clearly) so the defendant didn't even get past the first hurdle. In other words, the appeals court didn't think it was that big of a deal. Yes, they did send out a little side note to the lawyer to please read the law before trial next time, but they didn't by any means throw him/her under the bus.  In fact the court commended the attorney for being able to switch tactics like that in the middle of trial.    So I disagree with OP that the trial lawyer was "pretty darn bad."  I think that lawyer did an excellent job with what he/she had to work with.  I think OP has latched onto a relatively minor issue and is trying to make it into the be-all-end-all of bad lawyering within the context of self defense cases.  Even the best lawyers have "oh crap" moments in the middle of trial.  Lawyers joke to each other that what we do is called the practice of law, meaning that we're continuously practicing it and never perfecting it.     Like TMF I do question OP's intentions for coming onto TGO with all of this.  Is it to sell a book?  I don't know.  But I do believe facts are being twisted.  Finally I disagree with his first comment that finding the right lawyer is too long of a topic for a forum post.  It's really quite simple and I can boil it down for everyone in a few words: get the best criminal defense lawyer in your area that you can, period.

As we celebrate our nation's independence this week, remember how it was tested and nearly lost at the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1-3 1863.  Truly a watershed moment in American history.  I visited the battlefield many many years ago with my old man, and have read a number of books on it (my favorite being The Killer Angels, which is more historical fiction).  It is of course amazing to be there and walk the ground, and I would love to go back.  It featured some the most horrendous, close quarters, brutal combat you'll ever read about, particularly on day 2 in places like the Wheatfield, the Peach Orchard, and Devil's Den.   Like all significant battles, so much of it turned on random events and dumb luck.  So many ifs.  If the South had pressed the advantage on day 1, when they had the North on the run...if Col. Chamberlain doesn't hold his position at Little Round Top on day 2 (probably THE turning point of the war)...if Lee tried anything but a reckless, suicidal frontal assault on day 3...would've been a different outcome.   The Union was ready to sue for peace that summer, and England was just looking for a reason to join in on the side of the Confederacy.  They win Gettysburg and that probably would have been it.  Who knows, after helping the South mop up, England might have said we want back what used to be ours.  We might all be speaking today with British accents, and goodbye Constitution!   So take a moment to remember.