DRM

There is no magic answer: seeds, nuts, and fruits. Find them - eat them. Which ones depend on where you are and what the current season is.

Agreed - federal tax deductions for home interest, reduced federal VA loan interest rates, first time home buyer tax credits, etc... If the standard is that government involvement monetarily in property ownership negates that property being "private" - wow, that's a BIG can of worms to open up, and really doesn't have much to do with the discussion at hand.

Let's say I am parked on your property, in the driveway of your home. Are you suggesting you do or do not have the right to control that a gun is on your property? And if you do have that right, what is your remedy? You cannot search that car - you can however ask that the car be removed, correct? Now explain to me why ANY other property owner should not have the SAME EXACT right, and remedy?

If I read this correctly, it seems you have fallen into the same trap - You start off by saying we all are called in the state Constitution to go armed for the common defense, yet you draw the line at only HCP holders being able to carry at work, and even then only carry in the car - locked up - while working. Why the later distinctions? If the Constitution truly says that - then NOBODY should be able to "post" any business to stop ANYONE from carrying inside. Further - doesn't your original theory on the Constitutionality basically negate the HCP process entirely? How are you drawing distinctions there?

I have no clue who first through it was an employer's "right" to search your vehicle - but it needs to stop, and NOW. Like I said - a business property owner should have the exact same remedy I have at my home - ask them to leave. I can't go searching your car just because you park in my driveway, and an employer shouldn't be able to do it either. I think fixing this would go a LONG way in stopping further property rights from being violated.

Well stated, Tom. Very nice!

BTW, thanks Sky and others for engaging in a good debate here

What I advocate is retaining private property rights. You retain the rights to your vehicle not being searched, they retain the rights to control what is on their property. What I also advocate is YOU deciding how important your safety is. Everyone here knows that people with carry permits still carry in prohibited places. Every second of the day - we make decisions and weigh the risks and rewards. What I propose is no different - you weigh the risks ans rewards and act accordingly. I prefer to think of it as a "don't ask, don't tell" type of policy (er, maybe after that just got struck down it's not the best analogy - ) Let's be clear on terms, here. Searching someone's car is not a "right". That is a concept that was created by the stroke of a pen. I am simply suggesting that the right to secure your car as private property is greater than any perceived right of the employer to search your car. And the remedy should be the same as if someone carries at hour home: you ask them to leave your property.

Then why aren't you seeking a law that does not let an employer violate your personal property rights by searching your car? If that is the problem - fix THAT problem. Again - if that is the problem, change the law so you cannot be fired for an employer wanting to take away the private property rights of your car. Problem solved. This is yet another common fallacy - the employer is NOT taking away your rights. YOU GAVE UP YOUR RIGHTS if you took a job where you AGREED not to bring a gun to work. This is a stark difference from you actively trying to TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS of property owners. To recap: one right is being GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY, the other (proposed by you) is FORCIBLY TAKEN. Today you want to take away a *business* property owner's right to say "I do not want guns on MY property". Tomorrow - do you plan to take away personal property (i.e. - my home) rights to say "no guns"? Where does it stop? With all due respect, these kinds of "heartstrings" and emotional arguments aren't going to get very far with me. This is a discussion about rights, and mentioning "female friends", what about your wife and kids" and such arguments really just cloud the discussion with things trying to sway emotions. I'd rather just talk about rights I have no problem with a business property owner being held responsible in civil litigation for failing to provide protection when they actively restrict guns on their property. That seems perfectly fair to me. Please let's be honest here: The employer is not denying anything. YOU AGREED TO THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. In a free market - if enough people refuse those terms, the employer WILL change them if they want to stay in business.

I lost my mom at the young age of 64 on November 8 of last year. She had beaten ovarian cancer back in 1997, but non-Hodgkins lymphoma got took her from us way too soon. As if that wasn't bad enough - her oldest sister was just diagnosed a couple of days ago with ovarian cancer, and they weren't able to get all of it out during the surgery. Here I was thinking 2011 would be better than 2010 - and it's already off to a rough start. I feel your pain.

I agree - and that is what I said above: So at most - the employer could only ask the employee to leave or remove the car if they suspect a weapon is in there. And that puts the employer in the position of having to decide if they want an employment lawsuit for not letting their employee come to work without actual cause. I think this is a fair offset for the employee who keeps a weapon in their car, and has to decide if retrieving said weapon to protect themselves is worth the risk of losing their job.Again - this is like carrying on your person at a business. The business does not have the right to search you, but they can ask you to leave. I think the same thing should apply to your car when at someone's business. I think this gives all parties pause before they decide what to do - yet does not take away the rights of anyone.

Welcome, Sam! Actually, it is your position that holds no water. Based on your logic - since the government can already tell you you can't own X weapon, and can make you get a tax stamp to get a silencer, and any other number of regulations, then the government can go ahead and tell you you can't own a firearm at all. It is the same as saying "well, they already took too much freedom away, let's pile on a few more for them to take away". Sorry, but I refuse to use that logic when it comes to taking away rights and freedoms. Just because a person chooses to run a business on their property is NOT a defacto reason to strip away that property owner's property rights, especially not based on the fact that the government has already taken away other rights. Property rights should be retained - period. If I don't want you carrying a gun on my property - business or personal - that should be my right as a property owner. I have discussed this here before, and there ARE solutions that preserve property rights and carry rights. For example - an employer should have the right to restrict guns from his property, however the property owner should ONLY have the recourse of asking someone to remove a gun from their property. An employer should not have the right to search or inspect a vehicle of an employee for guns - because that too would be infringing on property rights. Just as people carry - on their person - guns into places where they are legally not allowed, you would still have employees keep guns in their vehicle if they deem the need worthy of the risk (being asked to leave, or losing their job), and still retain everyone's rights. Gun rights are here to PROTECT property rights, not trample on them. I will not ever be party to taking away property rights in that manner.

Follow up rumors say the Saiga is not the target of this. Nobody seems to know for sure about any of it.

Thanks for the offer, I might take you up on that if I don't pull the trigger and order one for myself. I assume you did the 16" JSE upper and a 22lr conversion kit?

Why do you think Aluminum is inherently better? You show me a complete assembled AL lower, with 5 position adjustable stock, FCG installed, shipped to my door for under $130 and I'll buy several of them, today.

Links to reported failures?

JSE is out of their cheap $320 uppers, so I'm holding out until I find a budget one I like. I guess I could swap my 20" upper over to it and see how she runs... might just do it.

Finally picked mine up from my FFL tonight... an impressive little piece, for being plastic

Last day of the season, about 20 minutes before closing time. 2 each - all 4 shot less than 30 seconds apart, each of us hunting across the farm from each other. He took 2 does, I took a doe and an antlerless buck. Talk about a SUPERB way to end the season

If it comes down to it - there is NOTHING I won't eat to survive. Period. And yes - that includes other people. Don't think I could bring myself to start killing off people to eat them... but I'll reserve that decision if the time comes and my wife and kids are starving to death and I gotta make a decision

I really don't believe in adding people to my ignore list on any forum I am on. EVERYBODY has the potential to add something to the discussion, and I'd rather use my brain to filter our the garbage than miss out on a nugget of knowledge handed out by even the most annoying poster.

The biggest problem is all the "cool" vehicles are... well... BIG. And maneuvering a BIG vehicle through a tangled mess of abandoned vehicles and zombie bodies sounds like the makings of a SLOW trip wherever you think you are headed. A standard HMMV with up-armor is about as big as I want to deal with.

<<whew>> Since my teeny-wittle .380 isn't "dangerous" (according to some), I'm GtG!

So I take from your response that you haven't watched the videos?

Did you watch the videos? Was that gun "unreliable"? I have heard a LOT of complaints about Hi Points... but reliability has never been one of those complaints.