The 9th Circuit declined to hear this lawsuit in the full judge panel (En Banc).  So the ruling the 3 judge panel made is now in effect.

This means the only place you can carry besides the sidewalk is in a bank.  The default ban on private property open to the public is in effect, so is the ban in restaurants that serve booze, parks and beaches.

Alan and Kevin filed a motion to dispute the above, but it's a long shot.  Next is to see if SCOTUS will take the case due to this going against what another circuit ruled.  This will cause additional cost to file to SCOTUS.

Donate what ever you can spare in the link below:

https://www.givesendgo.com/GAXTH?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=GAXTH&fbclid=IwY2xjawH1EVhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHWtUXhLSxS8XcYaQIMhngSydi9NZVsAsRob3AOMJ8BiiBZV_3TOEMBbhVw_aem_IH6GVyDhoWhgqB3aTTeXsQ

I find it hypocritical for the Dems in Congress to demand promises from GOP nominees for anything they might do years in the future.

When faced with an obvious conflict of interest over the money taken in by the Clinton Foundation from foreign entities -- governments and individuals -- Hillary promised as Secretary of State her foundation would not accept any foreign-sourced donations.

She broke that promise more than once while she was Secretary, but nothing was ever done about it.  The foundation admitted after they were called out to breaking the rules at least once -- not asking the ethics watchdogs permission before accepting $500K from a new donor.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

Add in no matter what he says, there is no way Pochanatas or Crazy Maizie will support him.

if that's a direct quote, she's intentionally using "the private sector" as a gotcha.  Every job that's not government is in the private sector. 

What Pete said was "...  implement a 10-year ban on generals working for defense contractors after retiring from the military."

He specifically said defense contractors, not the private sector.  He also said "10-year ban," so that the programs and contacts the generals cultivate on active duty would have had time to evolve or dissipate prior to the retirees being able to benefit from them in their new career.

Conflicts of interest do exist, and i would expect a SECDEF to abide by the same 10-year ban.  As a former SECDEF, I'm sure Fox will be glad to give him is old job back!!

I believe even though she said private sector, she meant to what you referred to.  Hegseth also said that he never thought about it and she was asking him for his "promise" now.

Since Trump will be in charge, I can see that if Hegseth doesn't do a good job, he gets fired.  Or like how Trump ran his businesses, people are brought in to fix 1 thing, then they resign after it's done.  See Gen Mattis story. So it would be unfare if Hegseth was in the job for 6 months and then resigned.  Plus add in that he's much younger and cannot retire as easily as say a general can who gets $1 million a year for life.

SRO places last on the tacticool factor.

When the government and the media repeat the "34 felonies" in every story but almost never include the underlying felony he was never convicted of, it's for a purpose.  Anyone with a brain would ask, "Why not convict on that one felony instead of manufacturing 34 more felonies that should have been misdemeanors?"

They wanted this prosecution to become a barrier to Trump winning the election.  If you want an example of actual election interference, which was the supposed never-tried underlying felony, this case is a perfect example.  It would be perfect if the DOJ convicted Bragg of election interference.

The fact you know campaign finance violations are usually punished with a fine (plus giving back any illegal donations) is important.  What makes this case different?  Why did Trump get tried on 34 felony counts based on one count of election interference for PAYING someone to be quiet -- the exact opposite of what most campaign finance violations entail, i.e. receiving money?

It would not be difficult for Trump to perform 30 hours of community service.  in fact, he would love being out with people cleaning up a park, serving the needy in a soup kitchen or visiting the very ill in a hospital or hospice.  Probation is a problem because he has to be able to travel.  Same problem with having an ankle bracelet.  He could have also been fined a few million to pay back a portion of the money NYC wasted trying to keep him from winning the race.

There's also something called deferred sentencing.  He could have been sentenced to 2 years probation deferred for 6 months (or some other probationary period). After 6 months of probation, if he's not brought up on any more charges in that jurisdiction, the sentence is replaced with a dismissal of any conviction or plea deal, so as to not have a conviction on his record.https://www.mylawquestions.com/what-is-a-deferred-sentence.htm

By choosing unconditional discharge, they are basically saying, "Game's over.  We quit."  They keep his felony convictions on his criminal record so they can use them against him in the future.  Hopefully the next president has the good sense to grant him a full pardon for these charges that never should have been filed against him, much less convicted and sentenced.

Who in the history if the US is convicted of 34 felonies in one trial and not sentenced to any punishment at all?  Felonies are pretty serious charges.  If they were really conerned about it impacting his ability to perform his presidential duties, they would have dismissed the entire thing with prejudice.  Jury verdicts get set aside all the time.  But when the DA and judge are going after a political target, they can't see the damage they are doing.  They only see the chance to bag a big trophy.

U stating facts. It's like someone here who claims to use logic, cannot make this same determination.

I remember reading that the reason the flood protection is often a national program is because the private insurance companies were refusing to sell it to customers in high risk areas so the feds took over. Problem is now all the houses that get flooded in the high risk areas end up costing the government (aka taxpayers) a lot of money because the government doesn't set the premiums high enough to cover the actual cost when a disaster strikes.

That and they weren't able to increase the premiums to keep the carriers in business. So same like State Farm in CA, but different cause of loss.

The national flood program also has a cap. Which might work in cheaper cost of living states, but not in Hawaii if there's a total loss.  Another thing the government can mess up.

You are under the false impression that me taking a break somehow means you actually won the debate. That would explain why you are so upset over me "reviving a dead thread"

Annnddd he's back to revive a moot thread.

I heard on the radio someone (I think whoever was advocating for this "program") mention to the effect that CA is very similar to HI.  Where he'd trust CA would extend same support if/when Hawaii was in need. .  GFTO. . .

That said, it's that kind of statements that local liberals seem to immediately buy into and start thinking it's a good thing. . . until those folks add to the homeless population. . .

Has CA offered to re-location for Maui?

Yeah, because the majority of players play the right side, the dark side is not looked to well amongst the majority.

I like when I play alone at the table.  Fun because I try all sorts of things like dark side and other strategies that require a lot of work for the dealers.

On a busy table some strategies that require the dealer to set up across then take it all down is frowned upon.

Many years ago, before I knew how to bet to maximize my profits (play place #s), I was at NYNY and on an empty table. I was only betting like $10 on pass and 1-2X odds.  I had already made 2 points. THen this guy comes and bets $600 in DP. I made my point. He then bet $800 on DP and I made that point too. He then left.  The dealers all laughed when he left.

So I had someone from AOR call me after I emailed them yesterday.

1) They will cover for civil defense, which means your lawyer fees. But they won't cover if you lose and the other party is awarded any money for damages. Or any settlement.

2) They have lawyers in HI and in AZ who can practice in HI.  There is no way that you won't be able to not have a lawyer assigned to you.  I asked about retainer limit of say $50K for a Rittenhouse type cost and lawyers may decline your case due to it's heavy cost.

3) If you go to NV/live in , they have to apply to practice there pro hac or something.  Compared to #2 above, they're already g2g in HI.

4) They do not cover for red flag charges.  USCCA does and will pay up to $15,000 for a lawyer.


In the next 2 months, they will be adjusting their program, but adding stuff. Not removing things.