INTENT

[The Gipper]

By the way, here is that link to that law dictionary. You can look it up yourself:

 

http://www.blackslawdictionary.com/

 

That may not actually work as it is only a come on, buy our product site. See this instead:

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xxxxup

[Thaak]

OK, to resolve some of this, here is the text of the statute Rogers could be hit with:

 

 

 

 

§ 46505. Carrying a weapon or explosive on an aircraft

(a) Definition.— In this section, “loaded firearm” means a starter gun or a weapon designed or converted to expel a projectile through an explosive, that has a cartridge, a detonator, or powder in the chamber, magazine, cylinder, or clip.

( General Criminal Penalty.— An individual shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, if the individual—

(1) when on, or attempting to get on, an aircraft in, or intended for operation in, air transportation or intrastate air transportation, has on or about the individual or the property of the individual a concealed dangerous weapon that is or would be accessible to the individual in flight;

(2) has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed a loaded firearm on that aircraft in property not accessible to passengers in flight; or

(3) has on or about the individual, or has placed, attempted to place, or attempted to have placed on that aircraft, an explosive or incendiary device.

© Criminal Penalty Involving Disregard for Human Life.— An individual who willfully and without regard for the safety of human life, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, violates subsection ( of this section, shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than 20 years, or both, and, if death results to any person, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

(d) Nonapplication.— Subsection ((1) of this section does not apply to—

(1) a law enforcement officer of a State or political subdivision of a State, or an officer or employee of the United States Government, authorized to carry arms in an official capacity;

(2) another individual the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security by regulation authorizes to carry a dangerous weapon in air transportation or intrastate air transportation; or

(3) an individual transporting a weapon (except a loaded firearm) in baggage not accessible to a passenger in flight if the air carrier was informed of the presence of the weapon.

(e) Conspiracy.— If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection ( or ©, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be punished as provided in such subsection.

 

OK, some notes here:

1. It is a federal offense. This is the Federal Statute.

2. It does not make any exception for the fact that the person may have a permit. The only exceptions are for law enforcement officers or Federal Marshalls and the like; or, if the person has packed an unloaded weapon in his checked baggage, not his carry-on, and has informed the carrier that the weapon is packed in checked luggage.

3. If it was deemed intentional, or reckless, the penalty could increase from 10 to 20 years. The information about Rogers weapon being loaded and cocked COULD throw his case into this latter "reckless" category. That is why it may be significant.

4. Thus, for those of you who think this is no big deal because he had a permit, or because he didn't "mean" to do it, here is what I have to say: STFU. If the Feds, or the TSA really want his ass, they have his ass.

5. The real question is one of jurisdiction. Because the Feds CAN bring a charge under this severe regulation doesn't necessarily mean the WILL bring a Federal Indictment. If they choose, I guess it is possible that they could allow him to be prosecuted under only state statutes. That would be one big MFing favor they might do for him. I guess we shall see.

 

Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...

 

One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...

 

You came up with the Federal Statute...

 

My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?

 

Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.

 

But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.

 

I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.

[ballpeen]

I will say this however...based on my google research, Rogers is not yet charged in Federal Court. He is only charged with a 4th degree felony in Cleveland Municipal Court.

Fyi, all charges, felonies and Misdemeanors are initially brought through Municipal Court. At the Muni court level, he may have an opportunity to negotiate a plea to a misdemeanor. If that negotiaion breaks down however, his case would be referred to a Grand Jury where he could be indicted on the Felony. His case would then be heard in Common Pleas Court, where he could negotiate a plea, or have a trial.

Most likely scenario....he negotiates a reduction to a Misd. and he goes home with his tail between his legs.

Now, the Feds COULD still indict him....but based on what I am seeing and hearing, I would not wager that that would happen. They don't probably see him as a bad guy. Just a F**kup. (which, by the way is official legal terminology...consults Black's Legal online dictionary). The Feds will probably not want to waste there resources on him.

Of course, the guy that very well squeeze his balls the hardest is Roger Goodell.

 

 

 

I agree....the Feds aren't going to give it legs past the local level unless some bombshell is uncovered. Federal prosecutors are pretty good at spotting a potential terrorist who needs to feel the weight of the court, and the town goof.

 

[Skinny]

There absolutely is something wrong with carrying a gun in an improper manner and in improper places. And his cavalier attitude led to an illegal action.....so it is natural to ask....Why do you feel the need to carry a gun when he carried it illegally and cavalierly. Why shouldn't that question be asked? They can ask: why do you prefer vanilla over chocolate? or do you prefer briefs or boxers? are you a Republican or a Democrat? do you believe in capital punishment? etc. etc. He is a public person and can be asked those questions, and they are fully fair.

And, if he is asked the question: Why do you feel the need to carry a gun? ...and his answer is "for self protection because other Professional Athletes have been assaulted/killed/carjacked....I don't see how that could not be a satisfactory answer. Why do you feel he should be so defensive about it? If his answer is "because I want to prove what a man I am and that I want to roll with my homeys who are all also packing" well, that is an answer I think the public would have a right to know. So, I don't think these gun toters should hide behind a bare statement that "I got a right to carry one".

I got a right to say "F**K you, pussy", but if I say that to him, I think I should justify why I did. Rights can be exercised, but they are not necessarily a shield for a lack of responsibility.

Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*

 

But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.

 

I will finish with this

 

Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.

[Skinny]

Gipper do you own any guns?

 

why wouldn't you carry a semi-auto cocked and loaded. You wouldn't tell the assailant hold on I wanna load and cock my gun. No if you draw you wanna just be able to pull the trigger. Obviously you don't wanna have to draw but if you do you don't want any slow downs. I always carry my semi-auto chambered locked stocked and ready to rock

[ballpeen]

Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*

 

But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.

 

I will finish with this

 

Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.

 

 

 

 

While I agree in some ways, there should be some limits....planes aren't a good place to allow people to carry firearms, and I am a 42 year member of the NRA.

[Mr. T]

Carry a Glock....... my finger is my safety.

[playerjdd]

While I agree in some ways, there should be some limits....planes aren't a good place to allow people to carry firearms, and I am a 42 year member of the NRA.

 

I have to agree. I love my guns but there is just some places that guns shouldnt be ie schools, stadiums, planes, post offices

[Skinny]

although I do believe discretion is the better part of valor, My argument is that you don't do anything but harm law abiding citizens when you try and control guns, because the criminals don't give a damn about the laws and will use guns anyhow. I really believe that good people will you discretion But you don't force them to do something. Especially like a said before it is a fundamental right we have. Right there plack and white. Right to Bear Arms

 

Until I harm someone else I am guilty of nothing. I shouldn't feel like a god damn criminal just because I want to protect my family as well as myself.

[miktoxic]

this is classic off the topic shite. i hope we all here agree on one thing and that is we want our browns to win. having said that let me say this "at the end of the day" i will not protrude your sisters' ass. well maybe.

 

m203 grenade launcher, m16 rifle, .45 before it was .9mm (cuz i drove a dopey frickin cpt. around......pratt!!! you're riding my clutch!!) and a romanian fpk sniper rifle courtesy of my jim beam drinking buddies in the 10th special forces. nothing like seeing a watermelon explode at 400+ yards.

 

very liberal, love everyone until you step on my shit.

[The Gipper]

Your point is well taken, but I am not sure you fully have grasped what others are saying. I'm not sure I know the right or wrong of the points either way, but here is what I'm seeing from a layman's perspective...

 

One guy says that you gotta get through security before its Federal...

 

You came up with the Federal Statute...

 

My question is this... What is considered "attempting to get on an aircraft" legally?

 

Now a layman might say, that if you are buying a ticket and processing through security, that you are attempting to board an aircraft.

 

But legally, it might mean exactly what it does literally. Attempting to board an aircraft. Physically walking down the causeway and entering the hatch of an airplane.

 

I don't know what the legal definition is. But before you go off on us, you better be damn sure you understand ALL the legal implications and definitions. If I remember correctly, you are, or have been a lawyer. If so, you know that these things are important.

 

 

Actually I don't have to damn sure of anything until and unless I am getting paid to be damn sure. I am only speculating here, and providing information. Information that is general because I am not privy to the complete facts. Tell you what, YOU try to go through airport security, get arrested, then call me. Then we can work out a retainer. Then perhaps I can be more specific. Fair to say?

[Thaak]

Actually I don't have to damn sure of anything until and unless I am getting paid to be damn sure. I am only speculating here, and providing information. Information that is general because I am not privy to the complete facts. Tell you what, YOU try to go through airport security, get arrested, then call me. Then we can work out a retainer. Then perhaps I can be more specific. Fair to say?

 

Now you are just being a dick.

[The Gipper]

Why do i as a "gun toter" have to explain why I feel a need to carry a firearm. Why do you feel the need to speak freely about how you feel about guns. Its just your basic rights. That one is right next to the 2nd. amendment. You know the "rights" that we have. So xxxxYouPussy for expressing yourself. edit*

 

But seriously My question would be why is the law in place that he is guilty of. I can't pick and choose where I might need to protect my family so in my I can't pick and choose where I carry my gun. And since I have a right to bear arms, and not "a right to bear arms after you pay a bunch of money for a class and then pay more for an application fee, and you can't carry it here and here and here.(Thats so the mass murderers will no where to attack people.) You shouldn't be able to tell me where I can and cannot take it.

 

I will finish with this

 

Rights are like muscles. If you don't exercise them they go away.

 

 

No one says you HAVE to explain it. (hell, I doubt seriously that you or he or anyone can truthfully explain it to yourself) But I, or the media to a public figure are damn well free to ask you to explain it. If you don't want to, you don't have to....unless perhaps you are under arrest. (But then, don't forget about your right to remain silent.....sometimes guys like you like to spew about what rights you have, but don't want to recognize that others have equal, if not more compelling rights that they choose to exercise).

Now, if you would like to get into a Constitutional law discussion about how the government may indeed regulate certain of your rights, or how property owners, public and private, can indeed tell you what you can and cannot bring onto their property, we can do that. However, I may be more inclined to direct you to the literature on the subject. We have this thing called a Supreme Court that has had a lot to say on the subject. You can research their decisions on the matter)

[The Gipper]

Now you are just being a dick.

 

No, you were there telling me that I 'have to do this', or 'have to do that' or that I have to be "damn sure about things" before I comment. And my answer was, no, I don't have to do this or that or be damn sure of anything.

I am providing general information to a football forum on a legal situation that is of some interest to the patrons of this board. Whatever I say here is not to be relied upon for any specific purpose other than as that "general information". To make demands on me about what I must provide to you or to conclude is completely discourteous and ungrateful. I am not here to supply the deficiencies in your knowledge. I may in fact do that somewhat, but I am not obligated to do so.

Use the information for its intended purpose. If you really want a specific legal opinion, seek out your own counsel, and pay him for, quoting Abraham Lincoln "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade". You have been given a free sample. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

[Tim Couch Pulls Out]

No, you were there telling me that I 'have to do this', or 'have to do that' or that I have to be "damn sure about things" before I comment. And my answer was, no, I don't have to do this or that or be damn sure of anything.

I am providing general information to a football forum on a legal situation that is of some interest to the patrons of this board. Whatever I say here is not to be relied upon for any specific purpose other than as that "general information". To make demands on me about what I must provide to you or to conclude is completely discourteous and ungrateful. I am not here to supply the deficiencies in your knowledge. I may in fact do that somewhat, but I am not obligated to do so.

Use the information for its intended purpose. If you really want a specific legal opinion, seek out your own counsel, and pay him for, quoting Abraham Lincoln "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade". You have been given a free sample. Don't bite the hand that feeds you

.

 

 

You better be damn sure that Abraham Lincoln said that, or else.

[Thaak]

No, you were there telling me that I 'have to do this', or 'have to do that' or that I have to be "damn sure about things" before I comment. And my answer was, no, I don't have to do this or that or be damn sure of anything.

I am providing general information to a football forum on a legal situation that is of some interest to the patrons of this board. Whatever I say here is not to be relied upon for any specific purpose other than as that "general information". To make demands on me about what I must provide to you or to conclude is completely discourteous and ungrateful. I am not here to supply the deficiencies in your knowledge. I may in fact do that somewhat, but I am not obligated to do so.

Use the information for its intended purpose. If you really want a specific legal opinion, seek out your own counsel, and pay him for, quoting Abraham Lincoln "A lawyer's time and advice are his stock in trade". You have been given a free sample. Don't bite the hand that feeds you

.

 

Well, this is how I’ve seen this conversation go.

 

People are speculating, wildly in some cases, on the ramifications of Shaun Rogers carelessness.

 

You come on with your expertise and give us what you know of the law off the top of your head.

 

Nobody—the laymen or the experts—have been able to determine where Federal jurisdiction begins and the specific legal definitions required to make an informed speculation about this case.

 

Nobody has been able to determine for me if a Michigan conceal/carry permit is valid in Ohio. The reports are saying Rogers has a Michigan conceal/carry. I’m going to guess that it is not valid in Ohio. Of course Rogers could also have one in Ohio that the media has not reported.

 

Then I see you getting condescending and a-hole-ish toward some of the laymen, for whatever reason. Perhaps because it irritates you that there are so many armchair lawyers who don’t really know what they are talking about.

 

Now I have been trying to have an interesting discussion on a topic I don’t know a ton about. I’ve thrown out what I see as common sense, or potential issues that need to be defined before I want to truly speculate on anything.

 

Then you start condescending to everyone. Rather than answering good, valid questions, you clam up behind, “You gotta pay me to do that research.” Crap. That’s why I said you were being a dick. Because you start off by condescending to me, then clam up for calling you out on it.

 

You want to have an interesting discussion? I’m all for that. But if you want to be a dick about it, then blame it on me, go F yourself.

 

[Thaak]

Interesting article I read about Chicago O'Hare and jurisdiction.

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-88642588.html

 

Didn't read the entire thing, but the first few sentences seem to indicate that TSA (Feds) Only control the security checkpoints. Otherwise local law enforcement covers the rest of the airport.

[Skinny]

sometimes guys like you like to spew about what rights you have, but don't want to recognize that others have equal, if not more compelling rights that they choose to exercise).

Dying to know which rights of yours I am ignoring. And how does anyone have any more compelling rights than another. We all have the same rights.

 

Oh and pretty sure that the supreme court is looking into the gun ban in Chi-town and are expected to make a decision in June or July. Just like the one the recently overturned in D.C. Come to think of it kinda like a good part of the country that seems to be loosening there gun laws. But your right you will tell me all about constitutional law. I Don't follow it at all

 

 

[Skinny]

While You are at it Gupper why don't you tell me more about guys like me. Since apparently you know me so well I would love for you to educate me on myself

[Skinny]

hell, I doubt seriously that you or he or anyone can truthfully explain it to yourself

And if you really think I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a gun then my friend you are a lot more ignorant than I thought

[The Gipper]

Well, this is how I’ve seen this conversation go.

 

People are speculating, wildly in some cases, on the ramifications of Shaun Rogers carelessness.

 

You come on with your expertise and give us what you know of the law off the top of your head.

 

Nobody—the laymen or the experts—have been able to determine where Federal jurisdiction begins and the specific legal definitions required to make an informed speculation about this case.

 

Nobody has been able to determine for me if a Michigan conceal/carry permit is valid in Ohio. The reports are saying Rogers has a Michigan conceal/carry. I’m going to guess that it is not valid in Ohio. Of course Rogers could also have one in Ohio that the media has not reported.

 

Then I see you getting condescending and a-hole-ish toward some of the laymen, for whatever reason. Perhaps because it irritates you that there are so many armchair lawyers who don’t really know what they are talking about.

 

Now I have been trying to have an interesting discussion on a topic I don’t know a ton about. I’ve thrown out what I see as common sense, or potential issues that need to be defined before I want to truly speculate on anything.

 

Then you start condescending to everyone. Rather than answering good, valid questions, you clam up behind, “You gotta pay me to do that research.” Crap. That’s why I said you were being a dick. Because you start off by condescending to me, then clam up for calling you out on it.

 

You want to have an interesting discussion? I’m all for that. But if you want to be a dick about it, then blame it on me, go F yourself.

 

 

Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?

[The Gipper]

Dying to know which rights of yours I am ignoring. And how does anyone have any more compelling rights than another. We all have the same rights.

 

Oh and pretty sure that the supreme court is looking into the gun ban in Chi-town and are expected to make a decision in June or July. Just like the one the recently overturned in D.C. Come to think of it kinda like a good part of the country that seems to be loosening there gun laws. But your right you will tell me all about constitutional law. I Don't follow it at all

 

Let me try to explain about the "compelling rights": If your "right to exercise your rights could cause harm to someone else who is exercizing their rights, and in the exercize of their rights they do no harm to you, then their rights are paramount to yours. It may in fact be a delicate balancing act, and that is why there is so much litigation over these things.

Just as an example which may not in fact be on point: Your so called right to bear arms does in fact stop at my doorstop if I choose to exercize either my right of privacy to not have guns on my property.

Also, a person's right to the free exercize of religion, which religion involves the ritual exposure to rattlesnake bite does NOT allow you to expose your children to the potentially deadly activity. The state's pre-eminent right to protect the health and welfare of minor's supercedes your religious rites. You, as an adult, may be allowed to make the free choice to expose yourself, but you cannont make that same choice for your kids. Same with the sects that refuse medical care for themselves, choosing to allow "God to protect me". All fine and good for yourself as an adult, but if you refuse appropriate medical care for your children, and they die, you can be prosecuted for manslaughter. So, you see, there are definitely restrictions. If you want to go into a building where the President is, or a candidate for President, you ain't getting in there toting a gun, and you can cry about the right to bear arms all you want.

[Thaak]

Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?

 

Yes, I can see that with the enormity of your Ego, you just don’t get why I might be upset at the way you’ve handled this conversation.

[Thaak]

Let me try to explain about the "compelling rights": If your "right to exercise your rights could cause harm to someone else who is exercizing their rights, and in the exercize of their rights they do no harm to you, then their rights are paramount to yours. It may in fact be a delicate balancing act, and that is why there is so much litigation over these things.

Just as an example which may not in fact be on point: Your so called right to bear arms does in fact stop at my doorstop if I choose to exercize either my right of privacy to not have guns on my property.

Also, a person's right to the free exercize of religion, which religion involves the ritual exposure to rattlesnake bite does NOT allow you to expose your children to the potentially deadly activity. The state's pre-eminent right to protect the health and welfare of minor's supercedes your religious rites. You, as an adult, may be allowed to make the free choice to expose yourself, but you cannont make that same choice for your kids. Same with the sects that refuse medical care for themselves, choosing to allow "God to protect me". All fine and good for yourself as an adult, but if you refuse appropriate medical care for your children, and they die, you can be prosecuted for manslaughter. So, you see, there are definitely restrictions. If you want to go into a building where the President is, or a candidate for President, you ain't getting in there toting a gun, and you can cry about the right to bear arms all you want.

 

Interesting points. I agree with all of what you’ve just said (accept you used the word “rites” in a couple places, and while perhaps appropriate for actions or ceremonies of particular religions, I think you meant the word “rights”.)

 

However, it is no longer a right of every American to refuse medical insurance.

 

[ruban2]

Well now, here is the interesting part of the conversation. You say go F myself. I say that is a physical impossibility. Even though I have a legendarily big dick, it is still not big enough to utilize to F myself. First off, I do not possess a xxxx. If you say do it anally, well, I say, notwithstanding my enormity, I am still human, and it is impossible. Now, if you say, OK, don't F yourself, get Fed, then my reply is..."how thoughtful that you are interested my personal sexual satisfaction. I would love to get Fed. Do you have a particular young lady in mind"?

 

Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.

[playerjdd]

Gipper, weren't you a court clerk or something. After reading the above bantar from you I see why your sitting home married to a message board. I feel embarrassed for you.

 

 

Stop being a Ducher. If you dont like this forum then hit the road jack.

[Skinny]

gipper first of all we were talking about public property and if you don't want guns on your property I get that. ie.. no weapons stickers. And I can patronize other places or go to buddies houses that don't care. apples and oranges my friend. Original conversation is about an airport/ public places.

 

Second of all I would say that just because the govt. oversteps its bounds and allows frivolous law suits doesn't mean that this country was set up in a more libertarian stance of (If I am not infringing upon your rights our harming[actually harming not possibility of]you than I should be able to do what I please. Until we get rid of the nanny state that wants to be our mother and protect us, and get back to what the founding fathers intended, then I guess you are correct. Like I said though that isn't how it is supposed to be and doesn't mean you are right

 

Oh and i still can't believe that you think that I cant explain to myself why I feel the need to carry a firearm

or understand what rights I was ignoring that are more important than mine for that matter, and most of all dying to more about guys like me .

ttyl buddy

[Skinny]

which Glock Mr. T

 

I have shot a 21...not my favorite but oh well

 

I have a springfield xd 45 4" with the dark earth finish I love it man it is so smooth.

[The Gipper]

Yes, I can see that with the enormity of your Ego, you just don’t get why I might be upset at the way you’ve handled this conversation.

 

 

What I see is you demanding that I provide answers to you to on questions that you have on this subject. And I see when I perhaps don't have those answers on the tip of my tongue, where the answers you want would take anyone a significant amount of time to properly research, time that I cannot afford to spend, you get snippy about it.

I have provided you and everyone else on here with loads and loads of data that may apply to this situation. If that is not satisfactory to you, well, I am sorry. You are free to build on the data I have provided, to research these questions further, and to come up with your own answers to your own questions. Law is an art, not a science. There is no hard and fast rules to it. (There is another free lesson for you).

[bonedawg]

GUNZ! F'CK YEAH!

 

 

Just thought I would lighten things up a little.