diablo982

Never mind.

I appreciate your clarification. If I made a fair assessment of my former coworkers, maybe five percent shouldn't be LEO's; the rest ranged from average to outstanding. It's probably the same percentage of competence for any job. I just wish people would not be so easily manipulated by the media. We see stories about teachers molesting students, but I'm capable of reasoning that most teachers are not predators. I submit there are a lot of negative LEO posts on this forum, although they've decreased in recent months. Last week a poster celebrated the death of an LEO so maybe I was a little sensitive. I realize many gun owners do not necessarily harbor anti law enforcement views.

You say you don't call the cops "bad guys" yet throw out an unprovoked insult by calling them "Barney Fife." To file a lawsuit, you must bring a suit on behalf of an affected party. The Minnesota Police Association obviously solicited their ranks to find an affected party. I doubt any of the officers are permit holders, so the lawsuit is restricted to LEOs carrying into stadiums. A permit holder is a totally separate class and will have to file on their own. I am a former police officer and frankly I'm embarassed to say I used to think the conservative, gun-toting public were our allies. My fellow officers and I detested the wefare cheats, occupy movement types, etc and voted conservative. After reading this board for a couple of years, I now realize both sides hate us equally. If I was heading up the lawsuit, I'd leave out the permit holders even if I thought it was relevant. I'm confident if a MN citizens group filed the lawsuit first, they would have excluded the LEOs too.

Why should the Minnesota Police Association sue on behalf of permit holders? Does the average permit holder pay monthly dues to the association to represent them like the LEO's do? I wouldn't be mad at the association funded by police officers to represent police officers. Maybe the animosity should be directed at the disorganized MN gun owners who are apparently too apathetic to stand up for themselves.

Nice. We don't know much about this officer's character. The same is not true of you.

I use DirectTV, dropping Comcast except for the Internet, sort of. Apparently its a better deal to keep basic cable with the Internet, so we have it coming to our house with no cable box. Twice now they signed us up for HBO and charged us accordingly. Nobody at Comcast can explain how we get "signed up", but it keeps happening. So far this year they sent us a Verizon / Comcast promotion phone that was opened with a stolen identity. Comcast also accidently shut off our modem and told us a tech would need to personally inspect the serial # to restart it. They said a tech could come out in 10 days to verify. My wife eventually went ballistic, they hung up on her, but our modem restarted an hour later. If we had more options, I would drop Comcast like a hot rock.

I'm I the only one who saw parallels with our occupation of Afghanistan?

Honestly I'm not sure why you are airing your detailed, dirty laundry on a public message board. As was already stated, if you have your retired NYPD credentials, and I assume NYPD has some retiree qualification course for out-of-town retirees, you should be good to go. Otherwise, are you just venting or looking for advice?

Technically he is not "forced" to go to work, but his only recourse is to quit and look for something else. That's probably not a realistic option, nor a prudent one. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few pay periods if this shutdown continues. Workers tend to lack motivation when they aren't getting paid. Right now the shutdown is having minimal impact to the general population because most of the essential services continue. I could see a situation in the next few weeks where 2/3rds of the air traffic controllers call in sick, or the customs inspectors at the ports go into slow motion, causing produce to rot on the ships. Frankly, I wouldn't blame them if they did.

Wife carries the 238 Sport and loves it. She carries cocked and locked but with a waistband holster.(She's too small for pocket carry.) One thing about the 238 compared to other 1911 style guns. The trigger pull is substantially heavier. Not in an obnoxious way, just more pressure before it breaks. That gives me additional peace of mind. If for some reason the safety were to come off, you would still need +7 lbs of pressure to get it to discharge.

Great looking gun! I'm a big fan of the old S&W revolvers; especially the model 19.

I understand how you misinterpreted my post so I will try to explain it further. I'm referring to people who don't like a particular "law" and then state Its a violation of their "rights" when enforced. I may feel its my god-given right to walk down the street with no clothes on, but those pesky indecent exposure laws say differently. As far as I know, nowhere in the Constitution guarantees my stand; even the 9th Amendment. I certainly do have the right to dispute it in court and can take it through the appellate levels hoping someone agrees with me. If SCOTUS would hear me (of course they wouldn't) they would have the final say. Assuming they find indecent exposure laws Constitutional, it no longer matters what I think my "rights" are or if I agree with it. That's the decision.

Exactly. Its hard to give credibility to people who acknowledge SCOTUS has ruled on an issue, but "it doesn't make it right." Actually, that's the way our system works. You don't have to like it, you just have to do it or face the consequences. I find those statements just as silly as, "Even though it's not in the Constitution, it's my right to do..." No, unless its protected by the Constitution it is not a "right" and subject to interpretation by laws.

I like to keep an open mind about any topic, but have a hard time seeing how these could be "misused". This armored vehicle is not an offensive weapon. If the story was about every cop in Murfreesboro getting an M-203 grenade launcher for their patrol rifle, I would understand the concern. As it stands now, the only issue I see are the associated costs which appear to be minimal.

I was jokingly referring to the original poster who happens to be a lawyer, deflecting attention from his profession (who actually filed the lawsuit) and making sure to redirect animosity to the deputy sheriff. I don't have a problem with calling a jackhole a jackhole. I do have a problem with the usual suspects who pass absolute judgment without knowing all the facts. That's my description of "LEO bashing."