c.a.willard

lenny's not caving in.  At least not in the traditional sense.  Its more like he set dynamite at the entrance to the cave walked into it and sealed himself shut.     He's choosing not to communicate with the DA to get it dropped.  He's choosing to continue down a frivolous path that may result in serious consequences and he's using our tax dollars to do it.    On another note, you can not really call the current government communist not even really socialist, even the farthest leaning leftist is not truly a communist or a socialist in that both political ideologies require advocating that every able bodied member of society works in order to meet the the insane levels of production necessary to permit either.   Also worth of noting is that for either to be successful in a change in the government an armed working class is critical.

I hope that he learns from this enough to get his own attorney.  A decent respected attorney and a conversation with the DA along with proof the suppressor was legal would likely have resulted in the whole thing being dropped.   A probable cause hearing is just that.  The court has no obligation to hear any evidence not directly related to the stop and the arrest itself.  Evidence of innocence is a separate thing and not heard in probable cause hearings. 

From a training perspective there is another way to look at this.  You could always look at it from the feedback perspective.  In quality training there is both positive and negative feedback.  Positive reinforcing what you do well and negative feedback designed to stop you from doing what you do wrong.  Adding an additional penalty for missing high (although im sure not intended this way) functions as excellent negative feedback system.      It forces you to be accountable for the rounds that don't hit the target.  Surely with a law enforcement background you can see the potential benefit in training shooters to be accountable for the rounds they fire out of their weapon. 

There electronic target system is pretty expensive to replace out right, id assume still not cheap to just repair.  The 8 dollars is meant to spread cost of repairs amongst multiple people without penalizing people that could not possibly have resulted in any damage.    I would recommend that if you want to practice head shots at 25 yards and may put one high to tape a head target somewhere closer to center of the full size target or hang it upside down.

Couple thoughts on this one.  First is theres very little chance of me bugging out even though i live in a urban area the dangers of bugging out are greater than staying put.  Second is that your gonna use whatever you have available.  If your only car is a 78 pointo then thats your bug out vehicle.  For me it will be a 2003 GMC sierra HD

I always chose to run an ilwip on my rifle.  Got lots of grief about it because i was the only person that didnt leave my assigned one locked up in the arms room.  So every inventory they had to track it down.    For those not familiar with it the ILWIP is designed to be a pistol light with white light, red lazer, IR light and IR lazer.  Since we were almost always urban i prefered running it because it gave me the benifits of a tac light/ PEQ 2 without having as much bulk on the rifle.    Every one else left them in the arms room because they gave us the lights without a light bearing pistol holster and apparently didnt care about saving on size and weight.

From the way i read the article it appears more, that he did not throw out the charge based on the laws constitutionality, but rather a history of misdeeds by the detaining officer led the sheriff to believe that the officer had little or no reason for the stop in the first place.  This coupled with parrish's innocuous behavior id say it was the right call.  If the officer had no reason for stop then the entire thing would have been thrown out in court either way.

His voting rights would be restored after his punishment/parole and probation periods have ended.    As far as gun rights hes a convicted felon now so they are likely gone forever.  I know there are some provisions in some states laws that allow for him to petition for a restoration of his rights, but not sure the likelyhood of success. 

Seems to me that paying for an additional qualification course would only be wasting money that could be better spent on actual training.   Sure a prosecutor could argue that you didn't qualify with that weapon, I don't see that being a effective argument as long as you practiced ever with your carry gun especially with the qualification requirements being so lax.

Some units are sticklers about it, but a lot of them will allow you to put your personal optic on your rifle for deployment.  The ACOG and the Aimpoint are both standard issue items.  Some units have eotechs issued to them but not as many as the ACOG and aimpoints

He wasn't illegal when he joined. He came here illegally, was granted immunity under the Reagan administration and got his greencard as a lawful permanent resident.

There's lots of lights out there just as good if not better than surefire. They've just done a better job of marketing their name. Securing all those govt contracts didn't hurt either.

They may have a requirement to process their 4473's through some regional office.

Strobe functions are nice for certain things, especially outside of home defense. A strobe enabled light is no more likely to fail than any other. A good light is a defensive tool itself. You can carry a flashlight in places you would never be able to take a gun. The one is none theory comes into play big time with flashlights, myself I typically carry 3 lights with me. Two that are suitable for defensive purposes and a keychain light for utility. For home defense I run a tlr 1s on my defensive gun and a tlr2 on the wife's gun. Along with seperate hand heald lights stored next to each. A good hd plan will have failure built in and redundancies to overcome it.

Couple things. First just to get it out of the way clearing your house is a bad idea. There are times when its necessary but not often. If you do have to, clear just far enough to ensure your families behind you. On to lighting itself. You want a bright light with a really wide throw. The light itself should not be used for actively searching it should be used once you believe you know where the badguy is. Ideally its use should be for final target is. Shoot/don't shoot decision as well as for target control. If your using one properly reflections become a non issue.

Im still trying to figure out why anyone would head for the woods instead of staying in the city.    I live in a subdivision and theres no shortage of wild game if your up to eating a cat or a dog that is.  In fact id posit that i would likely stand a better chance right where im at.    But more on to the OP's question if i find myself in a survival situation in the woods under his given peramiters and realistic would be 22 cal rifle and 9mm handgun.  This is more realistic than ideal.  As the only time im in the woods with a 22 is to hunt squirrel on occassion and i always carry a defensive pistol in 9mm on me so given his peramiters this is the only likely solution that would fit.   Ideal for me if it were a planned excursion into the woods for SHTF would be 300 blackout AR pistol and a 20 guage shotgun.  

Lets take that last argument and break it down into pieces so that maybe youll understand more   1) your assuming the 11 year old girl would stay static while the officer was covering that 20 feet of distance.  Lets be realistic that just aint happening.  Also the cars traveling by are covering about 176 feet in that 1.5 seconds.  Do you want to guess how far the average low beams illuminate on most cars.  Ill give you a hint the numbers are real close.  Take any good defensive class and they'll tell you that the tueller drills place is more academic than practical gunfighting, why because people can move.   2) Number 1 just disproved your "evidence"   3) your allowing your personal bias towards police officers to cloud your critical thinking skills.  This next part is an assumption on my part but people tend to dismiss the good and zero in on the negative causing a slanted view of the people involved.   4) Even you have to see the fallacy in trying to use recorded complaints to state that the majority of officers are bad.  For starters some of those complaints are BS.  Also people tend not to call and say i would just like to tell you that i had a really good encounter with one of your officers they were highly professional.  Again because people ignore the good and zero in on the bad   5) Your friends conspired to commit a violent forcible felony and you think this cop is the bad guy.  Explains alot.

So I came across an image intensifier tube in a box of electronics that i bought bulk.  Id like to know a little more about it.  But really what im looking for is if anyone knows someone i can send it to to get it tested for function.   Its marked KM 272069-8 and from my research appear to be a thin filmed non auto-gated gen 3 tube.  But thats as far as my knowledge extends.    There doesnt appear to be any scratches or defects on the glass and no damage to the body either.    

I agree that that choice of date seems to be in bad taste.  I can also see why they chose that day though as thats the moment that some started viewing all muslims as enemies of the country regardless of their actions.    But for that particular date seems like it would damage their cause more than help it.

Or you could realize when you post this stuff that some members will disagree. Since this is a discussion board not a one sided rant board you can also assume they will post that disagreement to your topic. You made the post you didn't like the response either intelligently debate it or get over it. ""If you cannot handle the notion that you may be out-maneuvered, out-debated, out-argued and out-thought by those who hold a difference of opinion, you do not need to post in this forum. When that happens, if you fail to maintain your maturity and resort to petty behavior, action will be taken by the moderators."--Quote from the current events and politics rules.

agreed it's pretty stupid.  There are some exceptions written in, like you can possess up to 5lbs of black powder and up to 20lbs of smokeless powder.  Anything over that is a felony.   I think the worst part is that although there is an individual responsibility to research laws yourself, the stores that sell it should also be informing their clients.  I understand they do not have a legal obligation to do so, but how hard would it be to place a warning placard next to the product.

Heres what i think about it.    Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are two of the rights specifically protected in the constitution.  If the Muslim community wants to hold a peaceful demonstration why should any one care.  Or are we at the point where were willing to suspend the constitution when it applies to people we disagree with.   As far as Russian troops, that has been debunked a while ago.  Yes there was an agreement between FEMA and its Russian counterparts.  That agreement is an exchange of experts.  for training and readiness purposes not sending in troops.   I think a quote from another forum member about another conspiracy theory thread sums up my opinion fairly well.   "Thoughts? This is a crap load of crap from crap town. I'm pretty tired of all the conspiracy crap already. It's crap like this that distracts people from the real issues this country is facing."  -TrickyNicky

I did reread what you said.  From the way is written it implied that you thought that the 3 black kids were shouting racial slurs while beating the kid.    As far as assumptions i try to avoid them but there are some logical assumptions i used in comming to in my opinion that it wasn't racially motivated.   The biggest was there was no evidence whatsoever in the article to suggest the attack was racially motivated.    I also make the logical assumption that certain websites are more likely to put different spin on things.  If there was a black on white racial motivation behind the attack you can typically count on it being mentioned in some of the far right news outlet.  Just like you can count on white on black crime being written about as a hate crime on some of the far left leaning publications.  It wasn't, not even the most far right publications are putting anything out that would offer evidence of racial motivation.  Outside of the title of a few of them that is.

  1st because i read an article about it the other day before i ever say the video   2nd because i make it a point to at least do a little bit of digging on a subject before jumping to conclusions.   Heres the text from one of the articles, I dont remember where i found the one the other day that specifically referenced marijuana.   GULFPORT, Florida – A brutal attack on a Florida school bus was caught on camera. Three students stomped a 13-year-old-boy on the bus after he told school officials that one of the attackers had previously tried to sell him drugs. The attackers broke the boy’s arm and stole his money. John Moody, 64, immediately called for help from dispatch. The school district’s policy is that the driver is not required to intervene. “I wanted to help him so bad,” Moody said. The three boys involved were arrested on aggravated battery charges. Moody retired two weeks after the beating.   http://www.khou.com/video/featured-videos/School-bus-beating-caught-on-tape-218423271.html       Way to assume the 3 black kids were shouting racial slurs with no audio in the video though. 

JayC it is not a stretch at all. The state of California defines explosives differently than the federal government. California Health and safety code 1200 For the purposes of this part, "explosives" means any substance, or combination of substances, the primary or common purpose of which is detonation or rapid combustion, and which is capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat, or any substance, the primary purpose of which, when combined with others, is to form a substance capable of a relatively instantaneous or rapid release of gas and heat. "Explosives" includes, but is not limited to, any explosives as defined in Section 841 of Title 18 of the United States Code and published pursuant to Section 555.23 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and any of the following: