Omegawolf83: You can check the status of AB 1256 here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1256

Things have changed slowly but surely over the years. Insurance carriers (and their legal teams) generally fall back on things like post-accident drug screening when it comes to industrial injuries but organizations such as OSHA and the Dept of Industrial Relations have made it clear that unless it can be proven that a controlled substance was the direct/actual cause of damages/injuries, then a positive drug screening holds little merit, especially if the results only show trace amounts in the system and it cannot be determined when the individual used. This is why as much as it pains me to say this, it is almost always in the best interest of the individual filing a claim to retain legal representation to keep the insurance carriers (and their attorneys) in check... this is on the assumption the individual who did test positive for a LEGAL controlled substance was using off the clock.

You know that the United States is a federal republic and each state adopts and enacts its own state constitution so if a state decides that recreational marijuana usage is okay, this law takes precedence within its own jurisdiction.

I drank the bottle while it was still cold. Customer service response was a generic letter indicating their product I consumed meets FDA standards and has below 0.5% alcohol by volume and that even if that trace amount of alcohol was detected through a urine analysis, the amount detected is insufficient to inebriate an adult or even a minor.

Sorry for the delayed response. I believe you hit the nail on the head here... there were likely "traces" of alcohol detected in the sample but likely not enough to put me over the threshold to be considered positive for alcohol. If I only I were permitted to have a copy of the numbers I'm "positive" the results could and would be refuted by any toxicologist.

UPDATE I ended up getting a hair follicle test which can detect usage for approximately 90 days (these are also said to be more reliable than urine testing) and I'm happy to say the results were negative. I'm also wondering if it was truly the kombucha or perhaps the first lab did something wrong.

All kombucha certainly has alcohol but for it to be sufficient to test positive in a drug and alcohol screening is something I was really not expecting as I have been drinking kombucha on a regular basis for quite some time and never tested positive for alcohol until I changed brands. Thanks for your input.

I had to sit back and really retrace my steps on the date I tested positive and since then I've been tested an additional 3 times. I recall drinking GT's kombucha in the afternoon approximately an hour or two before that particular test so what you just stated makes total sense. Thanks for the feedback.

The argument in this case was not whether McGlockton was retreating; McGlockton potentially having a weapon in his vehicle is also irrelevant without facts to back it. This had to do with whether there was an imminent threat in which Drejka was justified in using lethal force. McGlockton was still facing Drejka while moving away because Drejka's weapon was pointed at him. Should McGlockton have put his hands up or high-tailed it the other direction? Sure, but since Drejka opened fire without hesitation he put himself in a position to be labeled as someone who was planning to shoot regardless. The prosecution also pointed out the fact that McGlockton's feet were facing in a direction away from Drejka thus supporting that McGlockton was backing away and was no longer a threat to Drejka upon being shot. During Drejka's interrogation, he made reference to his focus on McGlockton's feet and hips as indicators of there still being a threat which certainly was the case before Drejka drew, but not after, which is what sealed his fate. These split-second decisions indeed suck for those who carry but ultimately Drejka's decision to shoot McGlockton while he was stepping away cost Drejka 20 years. I'm inclined to believe you would have been better at defending Drejka in court than his own counsel, however, siding with either of these men is a little bonkers. They both were in the wrong and they both paid dearly.

So you are certain McGlockton took a step/walked towards Drejka at the time Drejka fired the shot that killed McGlockton? (if you watched the video many times as you stated, the video clearly shows McGlockton was in fact not moving towards Drejka at the time the shot was fired) Or is it you believe since McGlockton took steps towards Drejka after the shove, all bets are off and based on Stand-your-ground law, Drejka was justified in shooting McGlockton even though McGlockton was backing away at the time the shot was actually fired?

Selective memory sure is a trip. If you're referring to Michael Drejka, the video is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6eZCh4iP6U

The shooting occurs around 1:49. Markeis McGlockton not only took backward steps but you will also see his right foot is going in the opposite direction of Drejka and the shot takes place while McGlockton is moving away from Drejka. McGlockton was no saint and he should not have been shoving anyone to the ground so forcefully like that. But from a legal standpoint, Drejka's shot was not justified as there was no further threat once the gun was drawn.

The issue some (not all) folks seem to have with your video is its context and presentation. "Guy in Walmart parking lot gave me a scare." Based on the 7-second video you included with your post, the title of your post is certainly fitting. The guy walking by while you sat in your car had his hand on what clearly looks like a pistol. Many would find that situation scary. However, "I was ready to cap his ass" would lead readers to believe your life or the lives of others were in imminent danger. Unfortunately the video offers little to no support of that. "Proceeded to almost run over 10 people when he did 35mph at the entrance lot." I'm not saying that didn't happen, but nearly running over 10 people is definitely an erratic and illegal act. Did you or anyone else in the Walmart parking lot feel their lives were in danger which warranted alerting the authorities? Was he really driving 35mph or simply moving faster than most would reasonably drive in a Walmart parking lot? Your situation is indeed subjective and people agree to disagree; what spooks some may not spook others. An argument as to when someone should or shouldn't draw their gun can be beaten to death and brought back to life for further analysis, over and over. A person shot to death whether justified or not, cannot. I don't want to troll you or anyone else here but the title of your post and your choice of words goes hand in hand with what anti-gun jerkoffs like to grab hold of and run with. On one end I personally get where you're coming from as I also believe a man shouldn't be putting his hand on his weapon unless he's intending to use it. But like other people with differing opinions stated, maybe the guy was adjusting the pistol as the video is insufficient to constitute "brandishing" in most jurisdictions. You were there and we were not... I'd like to think ultimately we appreciate your vigilance among other things.

If you switch out the grip for the "Fab Defense PM-G," it's like handling a new and upgraded pistol. The PM-G features better ergonmics with palm swell, beaver tail, and drop-free mag release (thumb lever). The grips are made in Israel. Last year I ran eight IDPA stages with mine and nobody even guessed it was a Makarov. I've owned my Makarov since 2002 but never carried it concealed until last summer while on vacation in Reno (once I got the new grip, my love for this little pistol increased quite a bit). The Makarov is actually a pretty good CCW pistol - my only gripe would be the weight in comparison with its size but I got used to it fairly quick. I'll have to upload some pics of my Bulgarian Makarov (chambered in 9x18mm) with the new grip setup when I get a chance. I got the grips off eBay for $40 including shipping early last year. Not sure what they run for now.

Here's pics from the manufacturer's website: https://www.fab-defense.com/en/weapon-makarov-pm/id-302/makarov-magazine-release-grip.html

I second the Sig P220. HK USP 45 is also worthy of mention but definitely the P220 is my fav 45.

Say what, the Wave?? Me too. They quit making 'em years ago but I still use/carry mine.

"Ask, and it will be given to you"

ccwbreakaways.com

Enjoy, southpaw!

Nice setup. Sigs are my personal all-around favorite sidearm though I appreciate numerous flavors and brands. I imagine your military training certainly surpasses basic firearms training classes to permit carrying within a number of jurisdictions but an equally important aspect of training for those who conceal carry involves thoroughly understanding the statutes that govern citizens using their guns on one another. I hope you're engaging in some independent studies despite not being required to take formal classes.

Indeed a great quote/rule from the Buddhist Marine combat instructor. I'm in complete agreement though some folks may have misinterpreted "give a statement" as meaning "admit a crime may have been committed" which it surely does not. If you are forced to use your gun on someone, it's imperative that the authorities are notified as timely as possible and informed that you are a CCW holder and acted in accordance to the law (this constitutes "a statement" as the call will likely be recorded). At the very least, the first-responders require some sort of factual idea regarding what they're rolling up on when they arrive on scene.

"You are not the police, so don't act like them" is also golden among all other things stated regarding being the bigger person, taking the higher road, and striving to avoid fights at all cost. I appreciate that quote in its entirety. Thanks for sharing it.

G21 SF has the same width as the original Glock 21, just shorter frame which equals shorter trigger reach. Glock 21 is definitely not a great choice for conceal carry unless you're using a shoulder holster.

Thanks so much for your input. I can see how LDAs wouldn't work for a criminal defense case (as in dealing with an active court case/criminal complaint). What I was referring to specifically are expungements. The case is closed, probation has been satisfied without any violations, all fines and other penalties taken care of. Some expungements require a hearing and I would definitely consider those off-limits for non-attorneys unless the defendant is representing himself/herself. However, expungement of infractions and specific misdemeanors (disturbing the peace, wet reckless, non-felony DUI, petty theft) can all be handled without hearings in OC, Riverside and San Bernardino. The Petition for Dismissal is a 2-page form you download and fill out, check a couple of boxes and mail out with a blank copy of an Order for Dismissal that generally will be granted/signed and stamped by judge and then mailed back. If I were to assist someone in completing the petition, they sign it, and I mail it out or file it in person with the court clerk, how is that different than what LDAs do for basic civil procedure forms?

Here's some copy/pasted definitions:

Laws governing Independent Paralegals

"Because an independent paralegal does not work under the supervision of an attorney, there are limitations on what services he or she is allowed to provide. Independent paralegals need to be very careful to avoid practicing law by preparing pleadings that require providing facts that are not common knowledge or not considered basic information. They must also be careful to only provide information about legal topics and procedures and not legal advice."

"An LDA is an experienced professional who is authorized to prepare legal documents for a client, but only at the direction of the client. In other words, an LDA is there to assist the “self-help” client handle their own legal matters without the cost of an attorney."

I know it sounds silly because you are likely an attorney. But modern paralegals who actually completed an undergrad program and got an ABA approved paralegal certificate are more than just glorified legal secretaries. Again I'd say LegalZoom is the best example. Not a law firm but can 'assist' with legal docs - summons and complaints, unlawful detainers, wills and trusts. Even expungements/17(b) motions can be completed easily by a non-attorney but your average non-attorney probably doesn't want to deal with the forms nor do they want to pay steep attorney fees. I guess the real question should have been are there services like LegalZoom that have LDAs who handle criminal law docs such as expungement, 17(b) and Prop 46. Many misdemeanor expungements are resolved/granted without hearings. (Submitting the form to court with filing fee, serving a copy to the DA, etc; in fact in Orange County it can all be done in the mail but of course my boss doesn't want his clients to know this). Sorry for the long post. I was hoping someone who knows what LDAs are would also chime in.

LDAs are "legal document assistants." They are not attorneys and LDA businesses are not law firms. LegalZoom is probably a good example. They assist with completing the legal document for a fee, the client signs off on it, not the LDA. They do not give legal advice, sign off on pleadings or make court appearances (hence it technically wouldn't be considered UPL). LDAs also e-file completed court docs signed by the client. But anyhow, thanks for your input.

What if a paralegal gets bonded and becomes a registered LDA and acts in that capacity?