c.a.willard

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:

Or its not a hate crime because it wasn't motivated by race.  it was motivated by the victim snitching on one of the attackers for trying to sell him marijuana.  I really get tired of seeing every interracial crime claimed by one side or the other as a hate crime. 

I hope it didn't come off the wrong way.  I think the way the law is is complete BS.  I also think the stores could at least put a warning by the binary compounds to help prevent these incidents.   Seeing as there was no criminal intent and no public damage done i think there should be room to plead it down.  Unfortunately the criminal justice system in California doesn't try to make any sense.    Doing some more reading it appears that there's only one real charge that he needs to get rid of the 18710 offense is still a misdemeanor in itself.  It is the 18720 charge that's causing it to all be charged as felony offenses. 18720. Every person who possesses any substance, material, or any combination of substances or materials, with the intent to make any destructive device or any explosive without first obtaining a valid permit to make that destructive device or explosive, is guilty of a felony, and is punishable by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years. I hope for this guys sake and his family the DA uses their discretionary power and pleads it down to simple possession. 

Since it's binary when you buy it it is not an explosive and therefore legal to sell.  When you mix it it becomes an explosive and therefore a felony in in the PRK even before you make it blow up.     You can use tannerite if you file for the appropriate permit.  I believe that application process is done through the local fire department (may be wrong on issuing authority)   The problem is they made an explosive (mixed the tannerite) and exploded it without the permit.  Like i said before it sucks but by the letter of the law there guilty of a felony.      Seems to me if i lived in the PRK i would be extremely careful about researching stuff like that before doing it.  But i can also understand there view that they bought it in a store and made the assumption that it was legal to use.

It looks like under the penal codes for California even possessing unmixed tannerite without a permit can be construed as a felony, much less actually blowing it up.  I am really sorry for this guy and hope the court takes it easy on him (not likely).  If i were them right now id be doing my best to plead this down cause by the letter of the law he is guilty of a felony.