TripleDigitRide

Class A is the big dog, truck and trailer. 

You'd think they would provide the training for you. If you have to pay for a CDL training course, expect to pay $3000-$5000, last i checked. That was several years ago, but I suspect it hasn't dropped that much, if at all.

To determine which type of CDL (A or B) you'll need, you need to know what type of truck you'll be driving.    Class A: Any combination (truck and trailer) of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GWVR) of 26,001 or more pounds, provided the GVWR of the vehicle(s) being towed is in excess of 10,000 pounds.  Class B: Any single vehicle with a GVWR of 26,001 or more pounds, or any such vehicle towing a vehicle not in excess of 10,000 pounds GVWR.

The truck driving schools are usually only 3-4 weeks long, but they aren't cheap. My father was an owner-operator, so I had access to a truck and instructor.   The problem is, without going through a CDL training school, finding anyone to hire you is nearly impossible these days. Because of insurance restrictions, 99.99% of trucking companies require drivers to have completed a CDL training course or have a minimum of six months to  one year of verifiable experience.    Your company isn't giving you a reason for this hassle?

If that's the case, you will have to find someone with a truck or go to a truck driving school. 

As far as the physical goes, they are becoming more strict. The big thing now is Sleep Apnea. They use your hght, weight, BMI, blood pressure, etc. to determine if you need to be tested for Sleep Apnea.  Based on memory, they check your vision (simple chart), hearing (whisper from a few feet away), urine (sugar, protein, drugs, etc.). They usually have you bend over and touch your toes, check for hernia, and I've even had a couple of them make me jog in place for 1 minute. No one has asked me to do that during the last few I've had.    It's actually pretty basic.

56FordGuy gave some good info. Unless you already know how to drive a truck and don't need experience, you will need to first go take the written test for your permit. Once you have your permit, you can drive with a licensed CDL holder. Once you're confident that you can pass both the driving and pre-trip inspection portions of the test, you will need to schedule an appointment at your local drivers licence testing center (not all centers do CDL testing), or you can pay a 3rd party (truck driving school) to give you the tests. That's what i did.    If you will be driving a tanker, you will need to take an additional test for the tanker endorsement.

:rofl:   Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw a photo of that van on the local news. A possible connection to the disappearance of several lot lizards in the east Tennessee area.  

That's some awesome news. Congratulations! You deserve it.

I hope they do riot. Then I hope the riots result a handful of Rodney King style beatdowns so we can hear more from Al and Jessie. They've been far too quiet.

Thank you again for the updates.   As someone who's never had the pleasure of being part of a jury, is it safe to assume the potential jurors are questioned without other potential jurors present?

Is the upper a flat top?

Yes, there are plenty of low-profile gas blocks for heavy/bull barrels. I had one made by Troy, and another by Midwest Industries.

Get a free-floating handguard that's long enough for your optic and back up sights. That shouldn't be hard to do with such along barrel. I'm not a fan of exposed gas blocks, but that's just me. I like low profile gas blocks that are under the handguard.

Congrats! You can - and likely will - customize it to your own liking. Enjoy!

How is that even possible? What makes calling someone something vulgar any different that using a racial slur? At any rate, y'all are nitpicking my post in order to ignore the point I made. Folks are prosecuted all the time for shooting a person in a place they have a legal right to be and aren't breaking any laws. The point I'm making here is INTENT. If your intent is to provoke an attack or violent behavior in order to use your weapon in self defense it doesn't matter how many times they bounce your head off the pavement. Nitpicking? Not only are you using poor analogies, you're also implying that you somehow had the power to read Zimmerman's mind during the time ofbthe incident. There is zero proof, anywhere, that Zimmerman had the intent to engage in a physical altercation with Martin. If I hear a noise in my backyard and go outside to investigate, this doesn't mean I am doing so with the intent to do anything other than find out what's going on. Once there, if I am put in the position to defend my life, property or family, I will take the necessary measures. There are ZERO facts to back up any claims that Zimmerman intended on physically harming Martin in any way, shape or form. None. You can presume and assume all you want, but the facts [as we know them to be] speak for themselves. If you consider him guilty, it's souly based on emotion and the fact that you may have handled the situation differently. If you are comfortable with the justice system operating in such a fashion, let's hope you are never in the position to be judged by a group of your peers who would have chosen to handle any given situation differently than yourself. Or you could convince yourself that you'd never find yourself in such position. I have no problem with someone having an opinion opposite of my own, but please back it up with some facts. Afterall, this is a situation where a man's freedom is at stake. I, for one, do not take such a situation lightly, even if I have no dog in the hunt. We also must not forget, law enforcement initially concluded that not only did Zimmerman not commit a crime when shooting Martin, he also did not commit a crime leading up to the shooting. As far as I know, they still are not claiming he was guilty of a crime leading up to the shooting. To me, it seems this case wouldn't even be going to trial, had it not been for the emotional outcry from the community. Had Martin been gunned down on his way home from the store by some gangbanger on the street corner, we wouldn't even know his name.

Thank you for the wrap-ups. Very interesting insight into how this process operates.

I agree with you. 

Gee...that one may have been my best post ever! ROTFLMAO It made the most sense. :p

What he said.

In such a scenario, you would be committing a crime, most likely disorderly conduct. Not the same thing.

Merely following somebody is not a crime under Florida law, nor does it justify the person being followed in launching a deadly force attack upon the follower. Absent lawful justification for his attack upon Zimmerman, Martin was simply committing an aggravated assault and battery at best, or attempted murder at worst. Both are more than adequate justification under Florida law for Zimmerman to use lethal force in defense of his life. In order for Zimmerman's "following" of Martin to have provided legal justification for his deadly force attack upon Zimmerman the State would have to prove that Zimmerman was "following" Martin in such a manner that a reasonable and prudent person in Martin's circumstances would have feared that they faced an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm. Perhaps some types of "following" could be construed in that way. But not under the facts in evidence in this case. There is no evidence that Zimmerman ever closed distance with Martin in a way that could have led a reasonable and prudent person to fear a deadly attack, certainly there is no evidence he ever approached to contact distance or anything like it. Rather, Zimmerman "followed" Martin so as the keep him under observation, while Zimmerman was talking the police onto the scene with his cell phone. (Get that part--the whole time Zimmerman was supposedly "stalking" Martin he was on the phone talking with the police--hardly the behavior of a vicious killer.) Indeed, not only is there no evidence that Zimmerman closed with and confronted Martin, the only facts in evidence on the subject indicated that it was Martin who closed with and confronted Zimmerman. And THAT is the dilemma facing the State (just one of many actually). Andrew @LawSelfDefense There you go using facts and common sense. That's a horrible method for arguing your point.

After the story and photo you posted with your dog a while back, you'll always be alright with me.  :cool: 

The thing is, it is illegal to start a fight. It is not illegal to "patrol" your neighborhood for possible illegal activity. If you see someone or something that appears suspicious in your neighborhood, it is not illegal to further investigate. Even if Zimmerman happened upon Martin and asked him what he was doing, that is not illegal. If Zimmerman physically assaulted martin first, that would have been illegal. But there is zero proof that happened. As far as I can tell, at least up to this point, there is zero evidence Zimmerman broke any laws.    We have the testimony and bloody pictures of Zimmerman with two cuts to the back of his head and a bloody nose that appears to be swollen to twice it's size. If anyone is insinuating these are self-inflicted injuries, you are seriously grasping at straws.   Martin is no longer around to contradict Zimmerman's testimony, and anything anyone thinks he would have said holds zero water.    As far as I am concerned, unless the prosecution has some damaging bombshells up their sleeves, I can't fathom Zimmerman being convicted of murder. If the jury can take all emotion out of the equation and only consider the facts, a murder conviction is not justified, in my humble opinion.   Even if Zimmerman is proven to be a full-fledged member of the KKK and/or a convicted murderer in a previous life, that does not mean he murdered Martin. 

:rock: