leroy

Thanks for posting. leroy

RE: This I really like Vero's solution here. Obviously, the person starein aint too smart. I always make it a policy not to aggravate folks that i know are armed. Keep up good work. leroy

All:_______________ Seattle is a pretty interesting place. I used to travel into there in the middle to late 70's and the natives were "real folks"; just like the natives here in tennessee. It was a good place to live, work, and go sightseeing. Downtown Seattle was a largely a heavy manufacturing (...airplanes, shipbuilding, custom metal forging...) town with boeing havin a airfield for testing right smack in the middle of town. Seattle sits right on Puget sound, so you could go down to the sound and fish, ride the ferry, or just walk around. There was plenty of logging back up toward the mountains and plenty of mom and pop fishing guys too. Overall, a neat place to live and work. A beautiful clear day out there was as great a thing as you have ever seen. It appears that sometime up in the 80s to 90s; the hippies discovered seattle and made a rush toward it and took it over in lots of places (...including local government...). Im sure they are busy killin whatever is left up there; they do everywhere else. From this article, it would appear that the adults are fighting back somewhat. I wish 'em luck. Seattle and the surrounding territory is too great a place for a bunch of communist weenies to control. leroy

Wakes:_____________ The guys around here do a custom bore and thread for a choke for about $50. Plus, ya got to buy the choke. That turns a $110 barrel into a $185 barrel pretty quickly. Good luck with your project (..mine always cost more than i originally thought too!!...) leroy

Jonnin:_________________ This: If ya dont have one; go ahead and buy a case gage (...link here: L.E. Wilson Case Length Headspace Gage 223 Remington - MidwayUSA ...) and use it to adjust your sizing die. By the way, this is the voice of experience. It will save brass and make sure the rounds will chamber. Hope this helps. leroy

Sidewinder:_____________ Got a similar project in progress. I intend to use the brass magtech 410 shells and use the old time card and fiber wads, then glue in the overshot card with a good glue (...like elmers ...). We loaded blackpowder loads for an old remington sidehammer double when the son was shooting CAS with good results. You can do the same thing with smokless powder (...i intend to use alliant herco .... check out the alliant site for the load data....). Check out these guys: BALLISTIC PRODUCTS INC - SHOTGUNNER SUPPLIES - 888-273-5623. I would give 'em a call. They may may be able to help. They make some custom shotgun reloading stuff. Hope this helps. leroy

Wakes:_____________ Check the latest Midway flier. It seems i saw an 18 inch aftermarket 870 barrel for about $110. Beltaine: I just did some of this. I didnt bother to add a set of ghost rings. Just a normal bead front. All i did was to add a nordic components magazine extension. Still need a tritium front sight bead (....probably $50 or so...). Got the shotgun exactly like i like it. If you decide to DIY, take a look at the nordic components magazine extensions. There is nothing else out there that is close. I just put a plus 4 on a browning bps (...cost $78 bucks...). They are hands down the best extension ive ever seen. All that being said; like Garfua says, if ya can buy a lightly used police trade in for $250 - $300 thats the way to go. (...i can never find 'em when the notion hits me for this kind of stuff!!...). Ya also got to understand that i'm a "shotgun junkie"; so i like 'em all; from model 97's thru 870s, to auto 5's, to the shotgun that winchester (...and everybody else...) should have made (...and mossberg kinda did....)....), the browning bps. Hope this helps. leroy

Dave:_______________ If this is right: If this is right; i agree with you. My line of thinkin was that it could be read two ways. That was the reason for the arguement. leroy

ET:___________________ Are you sayin here that it is your judgement (...and apparently in Dave's judgement; although i hesitate to speak for him and put words in his mouth...) that the supremes appear to be sayin that they believe that in this specific case, and in this case alone --- that the "exigent requirements" were met; or that they will from this point forward "....they will assume that any indepependent judgement made by the LEO have been met...."? If it is the first; i can buy the "there aint any significant change position." If it is the second, we are back on the warpath again with LEO being able to do a no knock, kick in the door search without any independent review for "probable cause" when there is no danger, mayhem, hot pursuit, or clear criminal behavior in progress? leroy

Dave:_______________ These exact words of the opinion effectively say (...i think....) that "we (...the court...) will always take the officers sole judgement as a bonafide "exigent" circumstance" (...if im readin this right...): When the supremes say "we need not decide..." thay are, in effect, saying that the "officer will decide for himself (...whithout any consultation; again ---- if we're reading this right....).By the way; i hope you are right and a bunch of us and komrade ginsberg are wrong. leroy

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it. leroy

Dave:_______________ If i understand this right; here is the "money pronouncement". Its found on page 20 of the pdf of the opinion. Here is the quote: The italicized portion talkin about the "exigent circumstances" presumes that there are some; and leaves that judgement to the individual officer. That says to me, at least, that if LEO "thinks" a crime is goin on; mind ya, he doesnt KNOW ITS GOIN ON, he simply "thinks" it. He can proceed with a warrantless no knock entry and explain it all later. You couldnt do this before this particular ruling unless there was clear evidence of a "crime in progress", "hot pursuit", etc. Check out what that noted commie ruth bader ginsburg says about this (...a one in a million shot, she is probably right on this one...) It starts on page 23 of the pdf. Here it is: Now, do ya see what were all talkin about? leroy

I will grant that there is a difference between building magic components in electronic sights and assembling suburbans. PS-- i also got a toyota prerunner. proudly built in kalefornia by non union (...to some "rat"; but im ok this that.....) labor. HEHEHE. Toyota didnt need no stinkin bailout!!! Heep up the good work! leroy

Guys:_______________ Ive got a 99 gmc suburban with 226K miles built in mexico. It's doin pretty good. leroy

Dave:___________________ Please read this post from Redbarron: Then click the supremecourt.gov link included in the post and read the supreme's ruling. Then go below and read all my baloney and it will make more sense. The real problem aint eh IN supreme court thing (...except in IN...). The "real problem is the US Supreme Court Ruling. As i understand the "expanding the cause for search" (...and bear in mind that i may be missing or misintrepreting something here...) here is what i think i understand: In the "old days" before this supreme court ruling; LEO needed a review by a judge prior to obtaining a "no knock unannounced" warrant. Its also my understanding that AFTER the issuance of that warrant, LEO serving the warrant would go to the house identified in the warrant; then serve it. The details of serving the warrant would be TO KICK IN THE DOOR AND SIMULATANEOUSLY IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS POLICE. That gives the element of surprize and identifies the door kickers as legitimate law enforcement; and, in effect, allows you the time to stand down and not resist the entry. Warrants would be served during the normal times specified by local law , unless the review allowed for a "midnite"raid because of "vicious criminals, threats, etc". Now to the CHANGES: This ruling appears (...to me at least...) to remove the requirement to obtain a judicial review. It appears to me (...again, i hope im wrong about this...) that all LEO needs to do an "unnannounced kick in the door" entry is "to think that a crime is in progress or that evidence is being destroyed". The change appears to be the removal of a judicial review for "probable cause" and prior to warrant issue and substitution of the individual officer's judgement without any review. That means, in effect, if im LEO and im feuding with you and harboring a "hateful grudge", all i need to do to bushwhack you is to "think something is going on" work out an administrative approval with my supervisor, then kick in the door, shoot or jail you, and go on about my business. At the resulting inquest or trial; all i have to do is to say "i thought criminal activity or destruction of evidence was in progress". That gives an air tight defense for doing this heinous deed. I fully agree with you that "crimes in progress" and "hot pursuit" is not changed by this ruling. The thing that does appear to change is the judicial review and what i would term the "i thought evidence was being destroyed" defense. The whole crux of all the squalling and hollering about the fourth amendment violation is the removal of the independent judicial review for probable cause for "i thought they wuz destroyin evidence" and "i thought there wuz a crime in progress" pronouncement. Hope this helps (...and i hope im wrong about it too...) leroy PS; WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS FOR SOMEONE WHO IS A LAWYER TO READ THE SUPREME COURT DECISION AND GIVE US HIS OPINION AS TO WHAT IT SAYS. I (...AND OTHERS MAY BE MISSIN SOMETHING...). I HOPE WE ARE...

Thanks Cap, BBR, and Dolomite. I took a look at the zoom dot and i like it. Seems to be a great idea. Thanks again. leroy

Dave:_________________ Were goin around in a big circle here. You seem to be missing a key fact (...as near as i can tell...). That fact is that if im a law abiding citizen and the door breaks in in the middle of the nite, there aint time to find out who is knocking it down. That, to me at least, is a very dangerous situation for participants and bystanders on both sides of the door. I got no problem with the police announcing who they are and expecting immediate compliance with "were commin in". That lets you know who they are; and that's what i think should be goin on. This new ruling seems to allow (...ill grant i dont know this for sure; but it "seems" to to me...) for the officer drivin down the street to suddenly have a "vision or revelation" that something unlawful is goin on, and then he can proceed to kick in doors without benefit of a warrant, review, or anything else (...other than an ok from his supervisor...) because he "thinks that there is somethin goin on". That puts this entire decision at one level without any review. My complaint (..aside from the ourtragous infringement on the fourth amendment....) about this is as much an officer safety issue as it is a citizen safety issue. You seem to believe that only civilians and would be hoodlums get shot. That aint necessarily so. Officers may survive the shootin better because of body armor, etc; but it is entirely possible that both sides of this misunderstandin can get hurt or killed; especially innocent bystanders. Officers have family and the folks who could potentially get their doors kicked in have family too. Nobody wins in this if the shootin starts and the ones shootin back are only guilty of being at the wrong house (...which may happen to be theirs...) at the wrong time. Thats why this is so outrageous to most folks that look at it. I certainly hope im wrong about this; but thats what i believe the rulling says. Thats why i and others are stirred up about it. leroy

Dave:________________ My problem is "no knock door kickin searches" fishing for crimes you think are in progress; not the ones you actually know to be in progress. The supreme court ruling is about "thinkin that evidence is being done away with"; not "hot pursuit" or "mayhem in progress". That is what has everyone's hackles up. The supremes essentially said that "thinking that evidence is being destroyed" is enough to allow for door kickin searches and that the citizen had better not interefere with them. My problem (...and everyone elses problem...) goes this way: Number one: It appears that this ruling would allow the sheriff to ride down the street in front of my house. He can "imagine a crime in progress and/ or destruction of evidence in progress" (...if im understanding correctly...) at ANY time, not specified times for serving warrants. Number two: He can proceed to initiate a no knock search and i better not interfere with it. The big problem is: ...how do i know that it is, in fact the sheriff that is doin the door kickin when im layin in my bed in the middle of the nite with my shotgun or my AR next to my nitestand?? When the door cracks in, what would your reaction be? As i and others have said; i cant tell who is who at nite and i may genuinely think my and my family member's lives are in danger when the door busts open and envoke the "castle doctrine". When i do that; either i or someone else could be dead. That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem. Any legal niceties and pronouncements may not mean too much to those layin dead or maimed as the result of this foolishness. Havin said all this; do ya understand why everyone is stirred up? Number three: When the shootin and killin is all over and someone is maimed and/or dead; the sheriff who started all this can invoke this legal precident and say " i thought they wuz destroyin evidence." The poor private citizen (...if he and his family members are still alive...) is turned into a criminal simply because he was protecting his home and family. RE: the "random house to house sheriff" is indeed the one you've identified. looks to me like he may have come to his senses. He may have realized that there will be another election in the near future. Hope this clears things up a bit more. leroy

Good choice too!! leroy

Guns:_________ RE: This: Im like you. I think a tornado blew him up here. Keep up the good work!!. leroy

Dave:______________ Read the supreme court decision. Not the IN decision. The supreme court decision that scotches the IN decision is about police suspecting the destruction of evidence; not whupping up on your wife and barring entry. The IN sheriff that is talking about "random house to house searches" aint talkin about whuppin up on your wife and barring entry either. As has been said before, i dont condone whuppin up on anyone (...nor do i believe anyone else here on TGO or in the "real world" does either...) while LEO or anyone else is standin around watchin for that matter. All my posts are aimed at "unnanounced no knock searches"; not standin by to get a warrant while some bozo kills someone else. If an officer has "probable cause" to think something like mayhem is goin on or is in 'hot pursuit"; you dont need a warrant, and im ok with that. I have a problem with fishin trips, not real crimes in progress. Sorry for any misunderstandin. leroy

This is a neat place!! Highly recommended. Depending on how old your son is; ya need to put out an APB to some of our brother TGO'ers to allow his to see a locomotive up close and mabee even get in the cab. I would recommend this for the bigger kids --- say 8 or 9 up. There is also a great place in chattanooga called the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum (...Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum - chattanooga, TN ...). It is a wonderful place; highly recommended. For the ultimate in railroad coolness; here is the place: Cass Scenic Railroad State Park . Its a long way away; but it is truly a great thing!! Have fun!!! leroy

ET:________________ RE: this: The fact is that i do not agree with the ruling on principle (...remember, courts can make lousy decisions too. This is one, in my opinion...). Ive never deviated from that positon since the beginning of the discussion. I've also said its ok to have differing opinions. The fact is that the justice enterprize can and has made bad rulings and mistakes. There was a time when the supreme court ruled that a certain class of people (...slaves...) were property and could be bought and sold like cattle. In regards to the intrepretation of facts and data: I am a man who has made his living playing with numbers; stacking up facts and data in the best possible light. Data manipulation is not a lie in the strict sense; only a "creative" use of facts and data with the goal of shedding the best possible light on a specific situation. There is an old limeric that i would call your attention to: "....Figures dont lie, but all liars can figure (...especially if they have a professional and compelling need to. Read that: job security and demonstrating progress...). Numbers and statistics are just that; and they should be viewed for what they are, nothing more. As you can tell; i do not worship the law nor those who are sworn to uphold it. I intend to respect the law and those who are sworn to enforce it as long as they are deemed worthy of that respect; and by and large they are. Do i think they make mistakes, cover them up, take advantage, and obfuscate the facts; even stretching as far as wrongdoing? You bet. By and large (...thankfully...), those instances are rare, but they are there; and some are heinous. I think the justice enterprize is pretty much like everything else. That means that the whole spectrum of society; all the way from those who are honest, noble, and truly called to this vocation to the lousiest, rattiest, sorriest among the debris of mankind are represented. We can quibble about the details of qualifications on this; but it is a fact. I view the legal enterprize as a necessary evil that does some good. Others here see it as a holy calling and an infallible definition of what is good for us "unwashed rustics" or ordinary citizens. If you view the law and and its apparagics as as the ultimate authority in government and leave out the citizen's voice; you devolve into classes and become cynical concerning your brother otherwise law-abiding citizens who dont see things the way you do. This allows those who are worshipers of the law and its apparagics to become "super citizens" and "upholders of rightdoing" which can allow for a casual kicking around of us dissenters. That effectively repeals the First Amendment and the right to vote --- you simply dont need the vote or free political speech -- the legal enterprize will tell you all you need to know, dictate what you will do, then enforce it at the point of the gun and arrest powers if you dont do what they say. I dont like that, and neither sould you. That's why we have elections, debate, and "checks and balances" (...for the time being, anyway...). The problem with our system at this juncture in history is the tendency of our society to see the law and the supreme court as the ultimate authority; rather that what it was originally meant to be. A mere interperter of the law. As our society devolves further into hedonism and anarchy and ethical teachings are forgotten and/or disregarded; more "tools" are needed to fight crime and keep the peace. This results in the citizens of the usa being increasingly put upon in the name of giving law enforcement all the tools they asked for to "fight crime" thru a continual lessening and restriction of freedoms that was never envisioned by the founding fathers. Every time the fight aint goin too well; the law enforcement enterprize asks for more authority and leeway to infringe upon various citizens rights. That is exactly what this recent ruling and those berfore it is. I dont like that and neither should you. I wont play the "facts" game in regards to crime reduction; simply because my casual obvservations tell me a different story. My neighborhood is simply not as safe as it was 10 or 20 years ago; and there are plenty of folks who would join me in that opinion. I'll close with this: This issue is, at its heart, a philosophical one. The question is this: Do you believe that the incursions into and resulting limitations upon your freedoms guaranteed by the constitution as the result of these rulings are worth the little bit of additional help given to those sworn uphold the law or not? My vote is no. It may be ok for you; it aint for me. As regards to "facts replacement". I dont believe there has been any; and i would ask you to point out specific examples. There has, indeed, been a different conclusion drawn --- worlds apart. Incidents cited in my posts are true. You may take a different view of them and thats ok. Casual observation and a bit of research will prove otherwise. When you stoop to calling things that are true untrue; you are trying to impune the character and motives of those who disagree with you to lessen their credibility. That trick may work in court; but it is, at it's core, unethical. I've defamed you in no way. I have questioned your judgements and conclusions; not your motives. You need not question mine. I find that offensive. Hope this little essay finishes this discussion. It is at a clear impasse. leroy

Et and other opiners: ______________ Reckon there could be a "confilct of interest" and/or "interference with or prohibition of work" by government workers here? leroy

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heinrich. Evidently New Mexico Congressional District 1 (....link here: Preview Map ...) which includes Santa Fe is now certified "moonbat" territory. It looks like that district 1 is slowly turning demorat. Patdowns at the prom (...ithey could be invasive?....) shouldnt be a surprise for these folks. Mabee the adults will take the assylum back over soon. Keep up the good work. leroy