jrm

Excellent point. Little good comes from this type of confrontation. The other drivers know they are doing something wrong and don't care... that it annoys you to the point of confronting them only provides additional reward. At worst, it can turn into a violent incident - not good if you flip them off and they decide to run you off the road. The only solution to this type of driving is more enforcement. I drive a road in the Catskills - speed limit 55 and everyone drives 55-60. Where it drops to 45, everyone drops speed with it. Occasionally there is the faster driver, but not unreasonably fast - you usually see them pulled over by a marked car a mile or so down the road. When I asked around about this "lawful driving" phenomenon, I learned the answer. Some years back a pregnant women (pedestrian) was stuck and killed by a car. After that, they stepped up enforcement of the speed limit. After people started getting tickets, they figured it out. A tragedy that it took a death to affect a change, but the enforcement did the trick. It really isn't worth it to let others "get to you" when driving. I used to be bothered to the point of saying something or flipping people off. When I realized how stressed driving was making me, I decided to let it go. Why should I let other people control me like that? (upsetting me enough to chew them out for the way they drive). On a long trip my wife actually keeps count of the number of times I drop the "F" bomb over other drivers... so I am not completely cured. Still, I don't make it personal or look to pick fights with other drivers... it changes nothing and can only create a more dangerous situation. I have been in "driving arguments" in the past and am lucky no one got hurt. These days, I do what I can to avoid stress.

That is not applicable in every county. Suffolk specifically prohibits "co-ownership." A pistol can only be on one license. They claim it is to avoid problems during divorce where SCPD were put in the middle of an ownership dispute. Other counties allow co-ownership. NYS is a mess of different rules.

No personal experience with a lawyer for this, but I have heard good things about John Murtha. http://www.murthalawfirm.com My understanding is that you (actually executor or administrator of will) have 14 days (NYS) to dispose or transfer to a valid license holder. If the pistols are not transferred, they can (likely will) be confiscated. Even if the husband decides to apply for a license, that will take months (or more than a year). Find another license holder that you trust. Transfer the guns to that person. It will give the husband time to decide whether he wants to get a license and keep them or sell them. Another option might be to transfer them to an FFL. I agree that giving them to the police for "safekeeping" is a bad option. However, after 14 days that becomes the only legal choice. edited to add: moral of story is to always have more than one license holder in the family.

Just found it but cannot paste a quote. My bad on the PL section.. It is clearly stated in PL 265.20 paragraph 7-a. See last line in that paragraph states it clearly. A long as license holder for that pistol is present, another license holder can use it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Being on a mobile device, I don't have ready access to the sections. It is all in PL 400. I don't recall the section (different paragraph), but it is in the same area where they talk about youth. Unlicensed people are covered in that area as well. Special circumstances apply, but there is still a provision for it. The wording doesn't state something as simple as "a friend can borrow your pistol." However, as I recall, it is clear that another licensed person can shoot your pistol while you are there . Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Long guns and outside NYC, it is perfectly legal to let you GF shoot the guns. I understand how the "transfer" terminology in the unsafe act can worry people, but that is not a transfer. To be extra safe, make sure you are there. Even the section quoted in the OP indicates someone who is not allowed to posses... I.e. Someone who would not pass a NICS check. There are even provisions In the law to allows others to shoot your pistol. At a range, for example, it is legal for another license holder to use your pistol. It is done all the time. Under certain circumstances, even an unlicensed person can shoot a pistol (see PL 400 law for details.) Also keep in mind that there is no way to know who owns a rifle. Who's to say that rifle isn't hers? None of this is legal advice. IANAL. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If it was by the Rt 110 Starbucks (between Northern State and LIE) it would have come from West Hills Park. There are a few deer in there (...from what I have been told. Spent plenty of time in/near that park and never saw one). Anything out of Bethpage would have to make it up through Trail View State Park and then over/under the expressway to get to that Starbucks. I would almost guarantee no deer in Bethpage State Park. Plenty of red tail hawk, fox, possum, raccoon... never saw any deer sign on those trails. South of the LIE there isn't any habitat left.

With 4,000,000 channels to scroll through in the on-screen guide, it is difficult for me to find show on a consistent basis. Add to that a hectic schedule, and watching any show on a regular basis becomes impossible. Family Guy and South Park... both very clever and entertaining. Comedy mixed with some social commentary is always fun. They pick on _everyone_. The old shows mentioned (Honeymooners) were also fun. Not sure I would agree 100% about the old "Odd Couple" series. Fun back in the day, but pretty dated. The movie, IMO, stood the test of time better. If you want to go back to the 70s, there were plenty of funny shows - Get Smart (can't go wrong with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry). Sad thing is that most everything on TV today is not worth watching. Personally, the overuse of a "laugh track" is like nails on a chalkboard to me. It's like they know the jokes are so bad they have to tell you when to laugh. Sit-com writing today is horrible. Tired, bad and cheesy jokes that were bad when they were first written years ago. It's a vicious cycle... sit-coms are bad, so no one watches, so they don't invest money in good writing, so the sit-coms are bad.... etc. It is much less expensive to make a bad "reality" show that everyone will watch than a decent comedy show which fewer people will watch. I would not have though an animated series would cost less than a live action series, but this is apparently the case. That's probably why they can invest in quality writing on shows like "Family Guy," "South Park," "Archer" and even "The Simpsons." For recent examples of live action quality writing, look at "Seinfeld" (which was basically an update of the old Abbott and Costello series) or "Curb Your Enthusiasm" (Larry David from the original Seinfeld series) or even "Everybody Loves Raymond" (Ray Romano). I think the reason these shows were good is that it started with a quality writer who had quality ideas and was given enough creative control to make it work. Too much of "network" productions are done by committee with non-creative types sticking their noses in to micro-manage. They suck the life out in an attempt to fit things into a "formula" which the "numbers" say will be successful. Cable movie channels (HBO, etc) were doing some interesting things with comedy series for a while, but then decided sex/violence was a bigger draw. If only someone would give Bobby Collins a green light to make a series.

Looks interesting. If you really want to try something different with a bow... check out mounted archery. Nothing like sitting on a 1000# animal with a strong flight instinct and a built-in fear of just about everything - all while riding at speed and using both hands to work the bow. But at least the targets don't shoot back. http://mountedarchery.org http://mountedarchery.net

As others mentioned, look at the DEC website for info as classes are added. It might also be worthwhile to call some different gun shops in neighboring counties. They may know of, or will be hosting, classes which aren't listed yet. Campsite in Huntington usually runs classes (although I don't know if you consider that a reasonable distance from the city). The KoC in Farmingdale (Nassau County) also runs a class. Move quickly once a class is announced. I remember having trouble finding an open class. When I asked far in advance, I was told I was asking to soon - come back in a few months. When I came back in a few months I was told the class was full and I shouldn't wait so long to find a class.

I used to love that too. Nothing beat Led Zep cranked to "11." Now that I have developed some asymmetrical hearing loss and a rather bad case of Tinnitus, I regret my previous love for loud things. Turns out even frequent use of power tools can cause hearing problems over time. Note to younger self: Turn down the music. Always use _quality_ hearing protection.

Going about 5 years back... Water - just under $10k. Well was 398 ft deep if I remember correctly. That included everything - pump, pressure tank, etc. All I had to do was turn on the faucet. Well pricing is generally a set fee up to xx ft and then you pay by the foot after that. Septic - 4 BR house with 1250 gal tank. This is IN the watershed, which added to the cost - around $13k complete. Perc test will determine type of system needed. If my per rate was bad, I could have been forced to go with a system that costs twice as much. Depending on the area you are looking in, it MAY make sense to have a perc test done (based on location you plan to build) prior to closing.

I'm not sure that's why folks in the watershed have a problem with NYC/DEP. One view is that anyone buying land in some areas is a good thing. Also, the less available land on the market, the higher price. The resentment I see is the DEP coming in with some over the top - and expensive - demands. They can be very pushy and definitely don't want anyone building anything. I was talking to someone who purchased two adjacent parcels near me - about 80 acres total. DEP told them they were not permitted to build anything on one of those parcels (completely untrue). They also directed them to a very specific place on the other parcel where they could build and gave them guidelines on how big a structure was allowed. More BS. Of course, if they didn't comply with DEP demands, DEP would not sign off on the necessary septic system plan. I played that game with DEP. They held up my project for over a year. The only way I was able to build anything is because I hired a VERY expensive lawyer to fight them (and make DEP pay all my legal bills). I can see the benefit of keeping water clean, but DEP/NYC is a bully.

My situation was explained to me differently. My subdivision has a similar deed restriction - lots may not be further subdivided. This was supposedly a condition (one of them) the town imposed for approving the subdivision. I guess the town has the power to enforce this as they would simply not grant a further subdivision. Same for other restrictions such as the inability to build more that one home on a lot (they simply don't issue the permit). However, my lawyer explained that this is not really "enforcement" per se. You are correct in that there is no "entity" to enforce this or other deed restrictions. The town could technically grant an additional sub-division or allow a second home to be built. It was explained to me that the only people with "standing" to enforce my restrictions are other property owners in the same sub-division. (i.e. those with the same deed restrictions in this sub-division). I have a neighbor (outside my subdivision) who bought his land with a "no hunting" deed restriction. From what I have been told, the only person who can call for enforcement of that is the person down the road who sold him that land. Not that I would try to stop him, but I couldn't if I wanted because I have no "standing." One deed restrictions in my sub-division is that no "single wide" trailer homes are permitted. I know of one parcel where a person has set up a trailer on his property. He is not only breaking the rules, but paying lower taxes (unimproved land) and avoiding the necessity of town and DEP permits. The problem is, most of the other owners are "absentee" landowners who never visit their property. I'm the only one who can drop a dime on him. Even at that, I may have to get a lawyer involved if the town deems it a civil matter. I have "heard" that if a violated deed restriction goes unchallenged for a certain period of time, it become unenforceable. I don't want to be that "pain in the butt" neighbor, but I also don't want to allow this guy to set a precedent. I am not usually a fan of deed restrictions, but I bought this land because I _liked_ the ones that were in place. It's cost me a fortune to build by the rules, and it irks me to see others ignoring them. The way it was explained to me... you have no standing to complain if the properties next to you were sub-divided again. Only the owners of parcels in that sub-division would have a say. If someone came along and bought all of those parcels, they could apply to change the entire subdivision without any potential opposition. The town may not allow it, but it would not be based on the deed restriction. Confusing stuff. I guess the "advantage" of a Nature Conservancy is that it is an entity which outlives the participants. This keeps an interested party around much longer to enforce the agreement.

Funny - I purchased land from one of those sub-divisions. Large farm was sold off. Development company came in, subdivided into 20-30 acre lots and sold them individually. It really worked out well for me, but I can also see the points made above. FWIW, in approving the subdivision, the town and developer agreed to several deed restrictions designed to preserve the rural aspect of the area. I am trying to wrap my head around the land trust concerns in this thread. Not sure I am getting it. From the looks of it, the property owners already sold off certain rights to the land through a conservation easement. Some governmental entity now controls that easement. The concern is that the government is selling or giving the rights to control that easement to a third party. That third party can end up being an environmental group who then uses the easement to harass the property owner. Is that the gist of it? I guess the point I am missing is that the original owner should have realized they were signing away important rights. The governmental body controlling the easement today may have a very different agenda or plan a few years down the road. No guarantee that your current interpretation of the terms will be the same as anyone else's, now or in the future. It's not like a group can come in and change the terms of the easement without all parties agreeing to it. Is this simply a concern that a different enforcement body may interpret the terms in their own way?

Interesting article. While it was prompted by Ringling Bros. retiring their circus elephants, it is more an editorial on conservation and hunting. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/05/poaching-americas-traditions-when-animal-extremists-attack0.html Worth a read.

MS Office definitely works on Yosemite. You might try a re-install. Sometimes a major OS upgrade and change/delete old files. I know Office likes to throw lots of files all over the place. Logitech should also work with Yosemite. Check out this article: http://www.gottabemobile.com/2014/10/20/how-to-logitech-keyboards-mice-os-x-yosemite/ It is an older article. I would also think that by now Logitech has updated software/drivers. I like my Samsung TV. They make some good products. Not sure you will be happy with a Samsung tablet if you are immersed into Apple gear. If you already have an iPad, you might look at some of the options to increase visibility. Apple has always been at the forefront of usability issues. I recently read an article where an organization for the blind gave them recognition for the iPad. If they can make it work for blind people, there has to be a way to increase the font size for people like you and me. Another simple solution (the one I use) is a cheap pair of reading glasses - make all computing much easier on the eyes. I believe MS Office for iOS is out or had been announced.

Were there chickens in this case, or did you mean that as a general statement? Either way, I would disagree. If the person in question had even ONE chicken that the dog attacked, a statement regarding the dog attacking his livestock would be completely true. (Whether the shooting was justified is a separate issue). Unfortunately, this is true. Much like any political scandal... if you have the money and can get media outlets on your side, you can spin an argument for or against anyone. Folks like us never get to hear the full story. We only get the pieces they dole out. If someone shot a dog of mine, there would be hell to pay. At the same time, the shooter would have to be on my land shooting the dog in my presence. Just like when my kids were young... my animals are not allowed to wander into places where they can cause a problem. On the surface, this guy is wrong. Should a 68 old guy do serious jail time for shooting a dog? I think that is a stretch. A civil suit is a better option in my opinion. Should he lose his right to own guns as a result? Hopefully a fair investigation/trial will bring out all the facts. We only know the surface of it. Just like the hoodlum who, once killed, magically becomes an "A" student with a "bright future" this dog apparently is featured in "cute" pictures online while certain groups spin the story to tell us who was wrong and who was right. We just don't know. Right or wrong, I bet this story has legs because it is popular to trash all us "red neck, gun-toting crazy people" and it helps the message of anti-gun groups. I'm not condoning the shooting of someone else's dog. Just pointing out that social media can be nothing more than an uniformed (or manipulated) mob.

Interesting. Not sure a bipod will work in my situation. I do like the two flashlight idea. Thinking flashlight instead of spotlight it makes more sense. Originally I pictured one of those large searchlights. With a small flashlight in your off-hand you can still maintain a good grip on the fore stock. It also makes sense that this is better for sweeping than a head mounted light. Again, thanks everyone for the great info.

How do you manage that... handheld light + rifle?

Thanks for all the great info. First off - I FULLY understand the importance of knowing what is behind the target. I would be hunting on my own land and know it - as well as the surrounding area - very well. I have a few locations picked where to hunt from. At those points, there are clear shooting lanes in a maximum number of directions. If something comes in from one of the few "bad" lanes, I simply pass on the shot. I have thought that part through quite a bit. Any direction I would shoot has a natural berm as a backstop. Excellent point as I am sure some people don't fully consider that. From the responses, it seems that a lighted reticle is not the best idea... the flashlight apparently provides enough illumination to make a standard reticle work. Cool. That makes one part of this simpler. Truglo sights... aren't they the fiber optic type used on bows? Is the flashlight enough to make them visible? Or do you mean a tridium type of sight? Scopes... so low power is fine (I though so) but a higher objective is better for light gathering (I know nothing about scopes). Great. That will definitely help to narrow things down. It's a little intimidating to walk into a store and see 50-60 different scopes to choose from. Hadn't thought of a headlamp. Sounds like a good idea. Would you use that in lieu of or in addition to a rail mounted flashlight? Do you scan with the headlamp (always on) and then just turn on the gun light (pressure switch) when you have a target? All that light doesn't spook the coyotes? Everything I have read says the green or red light doesn't bother them, but it seems like all those lumens should have some effect. Shotgun - Hadn't considered that. I have a SxS, but it has a polished chrome barrel which may cause a problem for night hunting. My rifle can easily mount a light and scope. It also has a matte black barrel which should eliminate reflections. Green vs Red light - I knew green was brighter. Didn't realize about the light snow problem. I may get a light with interchangeable red/green LEDs just in case. Can you use red and green at the same time? (i.e. red headlamp and green gun light?) Thanks again for the help. edited to add... any thoughts on red dot sights in the application?

Not disagreeing with the above point - I agree. Still wonder about something: When the government makes laws/rules/policies and these are put into practice... and the courts uphold their "legality"... At what point do they go from illegal to legal? In theory or in practice. You could argue that the BP stops have become de-facto legal because the government is conducting them and no one has been able to stop them. 2A says "shall not be infringed." Yet, there are a myriad of laws which clearly infringe. The courts still rule in favor of the infringing laws, and the infringement continues. We do something "wrong" and end up in jail. Government does something wrong and the courts back them up (after dragging the argument out for years in the system). I think the problem is collusion... the checks and balances system is broken.

I am thinking about night hunting for coyotes when season comes around again. Plenty in the area and they are very active at night. I have done some homework on the topic. Most information seems to be based on hunting in much different terrain than upstate NY. Where I would be hunting a _daytime_ shot would not likely exceed 100yds. At night, range would obviously be less. Proper gear has me a little confused. Specifically lights and scopes. Thinking along the lines of a green LED light attached to the rifle. Spending big bucks on a night-vision setup doesn't make sense for me. For a scope, what is recommended? Illuminated recticle seems the way to go for night shooting. What about magnification and other features? I don't know much about scopes at all. For such a short range, would iron sights or a red dot sight do the trick? I realize it would be dark out, but it the light is enough to illuminate the target, it should be enough to use the sight. Seems like these options would also provide a better field of view.

Timing on this is interesting. I am helping my son with a real estate transaction. The standard sale contract legal form has a specific provision stating the property must not be landlocked. Odd that I read that just a few days ago and saw this topic. While off topic, the comment about perpetuities make me wonder. (I ran into it when working on a project a year or so back). How does that reconcile with deed restrictions? I have alway understood that a deed restriction has no expiration date... it stays on the deed indefinitely. For that matter, the easement the power company has also seems to be in perpetuity. Anyone know how that works?

You could have stopped right there and I would have know his position on unSafe. All the Long Island "crew" are nothing more then Skelos's puppets. Putting any one of them in charge simply insures business as usual. The fix is in.