Wapsi Square Forum

Poison Ivy is bad juju. You can't even burn it, because the smoke from it carries the toxins in the oil, making it a very deadly miasma that can cause damage to the lungs at the very least.

Similarly for its relatives, poison oak and poison sumac.

Some years ago, a San Francisco firefighter I know was called out to help deal with a fire on Angel Island, out on the Bay. The fire was burning through a dense stand of feral eucalyptus (it's not native) and poison oak (native).

They were all instructed to keep well back from the fire, and stay away from downwind. All they could do was clear out some firebreaks around buildings, keep people out of the danger zone, and let the fire burn itself out naturally.

They just didn't have the sort of hazmat suits, SCUBA gear, and after-use decontamination equipment that would allow them to operate safely in clouds of toxic smoke. Urushiol-induced pneumonia can certainly kill.

A nice step backwards on my efforts to live a peaceful life and fit into society: I managed to send one of my nominal superiors at work to the hospital after the idiot startled me (after my having warned him on several occasions that doing so wasn't a good idea). Yay. So now there gets to be an investigation and all that. Double yay.

On the better news front, that adopted girls now gets to spend time with her brother when they want to do so, at school or with him going to visit her or with them both going out somewhere. Just not at his home.

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:Poison Ivy is bad juju. You can't even burn it, because the smoke from it carries the toxins in the oil, making it a very deadly miasma that can cause damage to the lungs at the very least.

Eh, just burn the smoke!

Dave wrote:Similarly for its relatives, poison oak and poison sumac.

Cashew nuts are bad for that, too.

I found out today that the company doesn't start taking out the payments for the insurance until I've been there for three months. What that means is that I can make my car payment early, and on the check I get at the end of the month, I can get an entire lower kit for an AR-10 from Spike's Tactical, which runs at about $520.

However, in light of some information I'd learned earlier tonight, I can go with 6.5 Creedmoor instead of .308 Winchester. The ammo is cheaper, apparently, but it has slightly more energy, and lighter recoil. And, as a bonus, the bases of the two cartridges are different by only .01 inches while having roughly the same length, so I don't need to look for special magazines for it.

Alkarii wrote:I found out today that the company doesn't start taking out the payments for the insurance until I've been there for three months. What that means is that I can make my car payment early, and on the check I get at the end of the month, I can get an entire lower kit for an AR-10 from Spike's Tactical, which runs at about $520.

I'd bet it also means that you don't have the insurance in question for three months. You get to decide whether that's a problem.

Based on the Sargent's recommendations recently I've been looking at that Ruger Mini-30 long gun... (bigger version of the mini-14...), gotta start a new Piggy Bank.

Well, I have a card that SAYS I'm covered. But I don't go to the doctor for even a check up or anything like that.

TazManiac wrote:Based on the Sargent's recommendations recently I've been looking at that Ruger Mini-30 long gun... (bigger version of the mini-14...), gotta start a new Piggy Bank.

You'd best hurry before old 'Moonbeam' makes them illegal, along with the magazines. The paperwork on that bill gives the law the right to go door to door in search of any magazine over ten rounds.

Sgt. Howard wrote:

TazManiac wrote:Based on the Sargent's recommendations recently I've been looking at that Ruger Mini-30 long gun... (bigger version of the mini-14...), gotta start a new Piggy Bank.

You'd best hurry before old 'Moonbeam' makes them illegal, along with the magazines. The paperwork on that bill gives the law the right to go door to door in search of any magazine over ten rounds.

Citation/reference, please? Which "paperwork" on which bill?

If you're referring to California SB-1446 "Firearms: magazine capacity", which outlaws the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, I don't see any such language. Neither the bill as passed, or the language of the law as amended by the bill, contains the word "search" or "door" (or "seize" for that matter).

Perhaps a different bill/law?

There's no question that the various bills Gov. Brown signed this summer do add some substantial restrictions on some types of gun ownership (in particular, "bullet buttons" no longer qualify as legal "tools" for magazine change), and I know that a lot of gun owners are upset by this, but I don't see anything in any of these laws which authorizes unconstitutional searches.

(To pick nits: as far as I can tell, police have always had the right to "go door to door" to ask about whatever they want. You don't have to answer. They do not, however, have the right to go through the doors and search private property, unless they have either the property owner's permission, or a warrant. Don't see anything in SB-1446 that changes that.)

He has publicly stated that he intends to see 'assault rifles' banned... but he cannot define one. The bill you just mentioned would outlaw my 1860 Henry, as it has a 12 round magazine as part of the rifle (cannot be separated).

Sgt. Howard wrote:He has publicly stated that he intends to see 'assault rifles' banned... but he cannot define one. The bill you just mentioned would outlaw my 1860 Henry, as it has a 12 round magazine as part of the rifle (cannot be separated).

Possibly true... other sections of the law do distinguish between fixed magazines, and those which can be detached, but this new amendment seems to apply to both, and doesn't exempt historical weapons. It looks as if you'd have to have a special weapons permit or be otherwise specially exempted to possess the Henry in California (or permanently alter it to limit its magazine capacity).

That wasn't what I was asking, through. I'm asking whether what you said about how the new bill "gives the law the right to go door to door in search of any magazine over ten rounds" is actually true, or just a rumor on the street. I've run some searches of the text of all of California law as currently amended, and the bill in question, and I can't find anything written which resembles what you're saying.

So, can you please point me to the language in the bill/law or other legislative "paperwork" which authorizes door-to-door searches for high-capacity magazines?

I think that's a meaningful question, independent of how a person feels about Gov. Brown or about weapon ownership limits. I don't like warrantless searches by law enforcement, they're clearly unconstitutional, and if the California legislature has tried to sneak one through I want to know about it!

Where's the beef?

I'd like to know, also - just on general principles - and if i lived in CA i'd want to know even more urgently, even though the hypothetical matter underdiscussion wouldn't affect me.

Even if i thought that such a ban was a good idea.

Pastor Niemoller was right.

Her chiropractor must love her...

lake_wrangler wrote:Her chiropractor must love her...

She's not expected to survive her first day on the force.

In response to seeing that larger version of the character, I must agree with my former comment that she reminds me of the former 'She Who Must Be Obeyed', but with a different anime face and general colouring.

She had a waist, at it's narrowest, I could just get fingertip to fingertip, thumb to thumb around.

Now I seem to want to hum Frank Sinatra under my breath...

Just ran across this touching video of Red Skelton explaining and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

High thin clouds, moon slightly past full, 200 mm lens (320 mm equivalent for 35 mm camera), ISO 1600, various exposures (hand held - the first was 1/1600 @ F 8, others were slower):
 

I get to attend a three-hour seminar on "feelings". My feelings on the situation do not include eager anticipation and excitement.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:High thin clouds, moon slightly past full, 200 mm lens (320 mm equivalent for 35 mm camera), ISO 1600, various exposures (hand held - the first was 1/1600 @ F 8, others were slower):

I managed to snap a quick picture in the morning.

Oh i like that.

A while back (i posted this once before, i think) i came home in the early evening and spotted this opportunity: