"Steve B" wrote in message
...

I was thinking of something remote controlled, like a kill switch for
the
furnace or something similar. Something that would make staying in
the
home, not paying rent unpalatable. Would it make sense to keep the
utilities in our name and pass them through so that we could cut them
off,
or does cutting off a deadbeat's electricity boomerang back on the
landlord?

Put all utilities in the tenant name.

If they go all stupid, don't spend a bunch of money of ways to get
them out. Just take the front door off, frame and all. Explain you
have to order a custom made Mahogany door from Belize.

Or shut off the gas and call the gas company and tell them you smelled
gas.
They won't turn it back on until they thoroughly check the premises, and
at
that time, you have access as owner, and will probably have to sign off on
the work order. Most public service employees are required to report any
presence of drugs, illegal firearms, child abuse, child neglect, mostly
anything out of the ordinary that you can have them arrested for, and you,
as property owner would have probable cause to report such observances
during said inspection for the source of the gas leak.

That's the best idea so far. Good work!

--
Bobby G.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:42:24 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Yes, finding the best lease might take a while. It's also why I might be
tempted to go with a management company for the first year.

One thing not brought up yet: _Lease with Option to Buy_

You can be creative in the lease and after a set period of time the
Lessee would get financing and exercise the buy option. Someone
without a sizable down payment (first time buyer) would have a chance
to own a home. They would be more likely to care for the property.

If the renter met the requirement in the lease, you could even become
the bank - gives you power to foreclose (if it came to that).

On 2/3/2011 10:32 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That rapidly takes the profit out of the rentals.

How many electricians does it take to screw
you over, about a light bulb?


IMHO, property management companies are mainly for rich people who own
rental properties for the tax losses they provide.

--
aem sends...

"aemeijers" wrote


IMHO, property management companies are mainly for rich people who own
rental properties for the tax losses they provide.

--
aem sends...

There's something wrong when the management company makes more than you do.

Steve

Steve B wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:

What could go wrong?

As to one's initial choice of a firearm for personal protection at
home, as somewhat of a gun maven, I'd suggest a 16 (or larger)
gauge shotgun. A nice compromise is "The Judge," a revolver that
shoots .410 gauge
shotgun shells and/or .45 long colt cartridges. Your first shot
should be the shotgun shell. That stuns the assailant so he
presents a stationary target for the bowling-ball-sized bullet
that's next in line.

The Judge is a POS. It has such recoil that most people cannot
shoot it safely. It is inaccurate. It is a small hand held cannon
for people with short weenies. A real pump shotgun is a good home
defense weapon. You don't even have to aim, just point it towards
the noise. And a round over their head works wonders. The sound of
one being jacked is magnified about 7x in the dark. And shotgun
pellets don't travel far and kill someone ten blocks away. Or three
rooms away.Even if you severely screw up and hit the ground, they
will do damage to several people.
MHO, Ymmv, and all that stuff.


Heh!

A recent news report showed a 5'2" woman (weighing, at most, 110
pounds), got off several shots from a Judge at some would-be
robbers. The adrenaline surge turned her into Superwoman. - didn't
even flinch. Still,

A "round over their heads?" You're worried about killing someone "ten
blocks away?" Or "three rooms away?"

You sound like a victim waiting to happen.

You can be so stupid sometimes, yet lucid at others. Have you ever
been duck hunting, and someone put some shot over your head? The
sound gets your attention. And the shot loses velocity really
quickly, hitting you with about as much force as a common BB from an
air rifle at fifty feet. The "three rooms away" thing was in
reference to YOUR mention of using slugs in the .410, which has to be
around a 200 grain slug.
Do try to keep up.

Do you actually own any guns?

PS: Victims are at the barrel end of the gun. I'm on the trigger
end. And there ARE videos out there of little women getting a new
part in their hairline from handgun recoil.

HTH, but I doubt it.


Points to ponder:

1. NEVER fire a warning shot. You loose the advantage and mark your
location.
2. I DID NOT say anything about a .410 slug. I was referring to the .45 long
colt bullet in the next chamber (up to 1300 fps and 1200 ft-lbs of force),
which is ALMOST as powerful as a maxed-out .44 Magnum (1300 fps and 1500
ft-lbs of force).
3. I have had shots fired over my head and at my feet. And I, and about ten
other officers, returned fire on the ****er that did it. (He was easy to
pick out. We fired at his muzzle flashes.)
4. I do own guns. I qualified highly in the service, been through the Police
Pistol Program eight times and been to Top Gun three times in the past two
years. I used to be a NRA certified instructor.
5. I agree there are videos of little women trying to master something like
a .44 Magnum, often with humorous results. There are no videos of the same
woman in a fight/flight mode and in fear of her life. I have seen and
interviewed women who have fired 12 gauges from the hip, .357 Magnums
one-handed, and others. They survived - even if their assailant sometimes
did not - without a even a broken fingernail.

Bottom line: You do not shoot to kill. You do not shoot to wound. You do not
shoot to warn. The only words out of your mouth should be: "I shot to stop
the attack."

Repeat that over and over: "I shot to stop the attack... I shot to stop the
attack..."

These are the words that will acquit you at trial.

"Robert Green" wrote in message
:

We've been thinking of renting our current home rather than selling in this
down market while we rent in some of the places we're thinking of retiring
to.

How about a "rental with option to buy"?

A young couple may want to buy a home, but first they want to see if
they can make a living. So rent the home to them, and give the couple
the option to buy it out from you at some future point.

That type of couple is liable to be more motivated in preserving the
property for future purchase than a renter who plans to just pack and
leave in a year or two.



-- Steven L.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Steve B wrote:

What could go wrong?

As to one's initial choice of a firearm for personal protection at
home, as somewhat of a gun maven, I'd suggest a 16 (or larger)
gauge shotgun. A nice compromise is "The Judge," a revolver that
shoots .410 gauge
shotgun shells and/or .45 long colt cartridges. Your first shot
should be the shotgun shell. That stuns the assailant so he
presents a stationary target for the bowling-ball-sized bullet
that's next in line.

The Judge is a POS. It has such recoil that most people cannot
shoot it safely. It is inaccurate. It is a small hand held cannon
for people with short weenies. A real pump shotgun is a good home
defense weapon. You don't even have to aim, just point it towards
the noise. And a round over their head works wonders. The sound of
one being jacked is magnified about 7x in the dark. And shotgun
pellets don't travel far and kill someone ten blocks away. Or three
rooms away.Even if you severely screw up and hit the ground, they
will do damage to several people.
MHO, Ymmv, and all that stuff.


Heh!

A recent news report showed a 5'2" woman (weighing, at most, 110
pounds), got off several shots from a Judge at some would-be
robbers. The adrenaline surge turned her into Superwoman. - didn't
even flinch. Still,

A "round over their heads?" You're worried about killing someone "ten
blocks away?" Or "three rooms away?"

You sound like a victim waiting to happen.

You can be so stupid sometimes, yet lucid at others. Have you ever
been duck hunting, and someone put some shot over your head? The
sound gets your attention. And the shot loses velocity really
quickly, hitting you with about as much force as a common BB from an
air rifle at fifty feet. The "three rooms away" thing was in
reference to YOUR mention of using slugs in the .410, which has to be
around a 200 grain slug.
Do try to keep up.

Do you actually own any guns?

PS: Victims are at the barrel end of the gun. I'm on the trigger
end. And there ARE videos out there of little women getting a new
part in their hairline from handgun recoil.

HTH, but I doubt it.


Points to ponder:

1. NEVER fire a warning shot. You loose the advantage and mark your
location.
2. I DID NOT say anything about a .410 slug. I was referring to the .45
long colt bullet in the next chamber (up to 1300 fps and 1200 ft-lbs of
force), which is ALMOST as powerful as a maxed-out .44 Magnum (1300 fps
and 1500 ft-lbs of force).
3. I have had shots fired over my head and at my feet. And I, and about
ten other officers, returned fire on the ****er that did it. (He was easy
to pick out. We fired at his muzzle flashes.)
4. I do own guns. I qualified highly in the service, been through the
Police Pistol Program eight times and been to Top Gun three times in the
past two years. I used to be a NRA certified instructor.
5. I agree there are videos of little women trying to master something
like a .44 Magnum, often with humorous results. There are no videos of the
same woman in a fight/flight mode and in fear of her life. I have seen and
interviewed women who have fired 12 gauges from the hip, .357 Magnums
one-handed, and others. They survived - even if their assailant sometimes
did not - without a even a broken fingernail.

Bottom line: You do not shoot to kill. You do not shoot to wound. You do
not shoot to warn. The only words out of your mouth should be: "I shot to
stop the attack."

Repeat that over and over: "I shot to stop the attack... I shot to stop
the attack..."

These are the words that will acquit you at trial.

That was very helpful advice. Thank you. My late FIL bought a Judge.
Nothing to do but he had to have one. I shot it once, and found it
unacceptable except as a last resort weapon or a paperweight.

Steve

On Feb 2, 3:50*pm, "Robert Green" wrote:
"Evan" wrote in message

I also would not ever install any sort of remotely accessible video
surveillance equipment in a single unit rental property as that can
be considered wiretapping and trust me, you never want to be
accused of that...

Well, there are lots of things you never want to get caught at, and if I
were to install some sort of remote property protection, I would make sure
it was completely legal, and if I couldn't arrange that, then completely
undetectable. *Hmm, I could see where leaving a copper phone line active
could have its advantages, though. *Most modern alarm consoles have "listen
in" capabilities and it would take a battle of expert witnesses to prove it
had been hacked and used as a monitoring device by an unscrupulous tenant..
Having intimate access to the property before it's rented means a great deal
of ingenuity in placing illegal but useful bugs of every sort in play.


The difference there is called consent... The persons paying for
alarm monitoring service which allows an agent of the central
monitoring station to speak to them through the installed alarm
equipment grants consent for that to occur in the monitoring
agreement -- said agreement doesn't allow for the landlord or
any one else to tap into said equipment to listen to or intercept
the authorized and consented to communications or using the
installed facilities to perform any sort of snooping as the consent
for the monitoring station to use that communication channel is
only granted during an alarm event per the agreement... Discovery
of the any of the taps would be sufficient prima facie evidence that
you tapped into the system, no expert witnesses needed... Just
the testimony from the alarm installer that such devices were not
installed when the system was commissioned and the tenant
stating that you are the only other entity with unrestricted access
to the premises... Civil court is by persuasiveness of the evidence
and inferring an explanation which would favor your side of the case,
not by proving anything beyond a reasonable doubt, just by providing
more evidence than the other side which is determined reliable
by the jury (or judge if a bench trial)...


Also, if you cut off the heating to your tenant to try and entice
them to leave, you WILL LOSE the battle in court and pay at
the very least a fine... *That is a code violation, a unit without
heating is not habitable...

What if they have no heat because they've failed to pay the gas bill and are
now running on space heaters (electric if they've still got power - kerosine
if they're getting power out of the neighbor's gas tanks at night)?


In that case if they are also in non-payment mode on your rent,
the fact that they failed to pay their own gas bill is demonstrative
of a pattern of conduct of non-payment of bills... That would be
a check mark in your win column as far as evidence goes...


You can not remove water, power or heat from a rental unit...
Those facilities are required by law for a structure to be used
for human habitation as its primary non-emergency purpose...

The power and gas companies do it all the time. *Even the water company will
shut off service if you don't pay. *Why do they get a better deal than a
landlord does, the entity with the most $ at risj from a rat tenant?


Because the power company and the water company are not in the
business of renting properties... They just distribute their service
to
the community until a customer is in delinquency...

You can not collect rent on a unit which is no longer provided with
such utilities because of some action you took...



It would NOT make sense for you to keep the utilities in your
name, as you can not cut any of them off to try and entice
your unwelcome tenants to leave...

Even if they had not reimbursed me for the power? *How does my insertion
into the chain of payers confer fewer rights on me than on the power
company? *It's a bad idea, I've come to realize, because a vindictive tenant
could turn on the heat full blast, open all the windows, leave the fridge
door open and run hot water all day and stick me with the bill. *But I
really wonder what would happen if utilities were passed thru, they failed
to pay me and I didn't pay the utilities - and the heat and light got cut
off. * Obviously it takes a while for a heatless, lightless placed to become
condemned - although I wonder if a place CAN be condemned for not having
power or gas?


It is because you as the landlord are taking on the burden of
supplying
the utility service and then creating a bill for your tenant each
month for
that out of pocket cost... You can not knowingly lease a residential
unit
which does not have access to those utilities, so the moment YOU have
those utilities disconnected because your tenant fails to reimburse
you
for them, YOU are no longer entitled to rent because you no longer
have
a legally rentable unit due to an action you willfully took...

If the tenant is a deadbeat and fails to pay the utility bills in
their own
name and those services get disconnected by the utility, then that is
independent evidence from a disinterested 3rd party to the rental
contract dispute at issue in the eviction proceedings and definitely
evidence of a pattern of conduct of non-payment of their financial
commitments...


~~ Evan

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
You bought a .380 to take out a 300 pound crazy man? Do you
think that's enough gun? I doubt it.

I bought a .380 because I was applying for a carry permit and a 16 gauge
would have been awkward to carry around in a ankle holster. (-: This was
way back in the day when money (for me) was pretty scarce and it was
"either-or." I had to make do with a weapon that could be both carried
discreetly and used for home defense. A couple of well-placed shots from a
..380 will take out a fat man or a thin one unless he's wearing a bulletproof
welder's helmet. One or two shots up through the jaw will do it. Very
little bone between the barrel and the brain.

But I will agree that a .380 is not an intimidation weapon, it is a weapon
of last resort. I wouldn't shoot a 300 pound man in a leather jacket in the
center of mass and expect good results. I'd aim for the head and pray he
wasn't a relative of Joe the Boss Masseria, the man who could dodge bullets:

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Joe_Masseria

He eventually ran out of luck and died in a hail of .32 and .38 caliber
slugs. As someone else noted, the Mob has historically made very effective
use of the .22 caliber round as a murder weapon. It all depends on how you
use it.

Ironically, the only time I had to depend on my .380, displaying it was
enough. The guy on the other end weaved his head from side to side to try
to determine if it was a real gun (it's pretty damn small) and ran away when
he concluded it was. It was good for him that he just moved side to side
because I had already decided he was close enough to grab it from me and if
he moved forward even an inch, I would have shot him. And emptied the clip.

Eventually I graduated from the Beretta to a Browning 9mm HiPower. There's
no way that the Browning was anywhere near as conceable as the Beretta,
although it had tremendously greater power as well as a 13 round clip v. the
Beretta's 7. It had substantially greater intimidation power as well. Now
I have a .40 Glock, a Ruger mini 14 and a few others around the house.

I still prefer a pistol to a shotgun for really tight quarters but for carry
purposes, a Baby Browning .25 with 7 rounds of steel-tipped ammo is enough
gun for most situations. At least for me. As someone else said a while
back, a powerful gun that's too big to take everywhere is no better than a
small caliber gun than can go anywhere. Escape is still preferable to a
shootout, at least for me. The Baby is for when escape is not an option.
Even a justifiable shooting is going to cost big bucks, especially if you're
arrested as a result. But being arrested is still a lot better than being
dead.

--
Bobby G.

On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 19:25:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You bought a .380 to take out a 300 pound crazy man? Do you
think that's enough gun? I doubt it.

Don't be silly Chris. I've yet to meet a 300 pound man that can catch
a .380 between his teeth, nor one that can stop a .22 behind the ear
lobe.

Now think about it!

Simple as some "strategery" placement of the round.

"Evan" wrote in message
...
On Feb 2, 3:50 pm, "Robert Green" wrote:

stuff snipped

Civil court is by persuasiveness of the evidence . . .

I believe that it's the preponderance of evidence, as in "more likely than
not" whereas criminal court requires guilt to be established beyond
reasonable doubt. In any event, it's moot. We've decided renting is not
worth the hassle in our jurisdiction because the deck is stacked against
landlords in a number of ways. We're going to arrange for a house-sitter
instead. Thanks for all your input. Most enlightening.

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:59:26 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

We're going to arrange for a house-sitter
instead. Thanks for all your input. Most enlightening.

Smart move. Some tenants can make you wish you had eaten a 50# box of
framing nails (grin).

Robert Green wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
You bought a .380 to take out a 300 pound crazy man? Do you
think that's enough gun? I doubt it.

I bought a .380 because I was applying for a carry permit and a 16
gauge would have been awkward to carry around in a ankle holster.
(-: This was way back in the day when money (for me) was pretty
scarce and it was "either-or." I had to make do with a weapon that
could be both carried discreetly and used for home defense. A couple
of well-placed shots from a .380 will take out a fat man or a thin
one unless he's wearing a bulletproof welder's helmet. One or two
shots up through the jaw will do it. Very little bone between the
barrel and the brain.

But I will agree that a .380 is not an intimidation weapon, it is a
weapon of last resort. I wouldn't shoot a 300 pound man in a leather
jacket in the center of mass and expect good results. I'd aim for
the head and pray he wasn't a relative of Joe the Boss Masseria, the
man who could dodge bullets:

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Joe_Masseria

He eventually ran out of luck and died in a hail of .32 and .38
caliber slugs. As someone else noted, the Mob has historically made
very effective use of the .22 caliber round as a murder weapon. It
all depends on how you use it.

Ironically, the only time I had to depend on my .380, displaying it
was enough. The guy on the other end weaved his head from side to
side to try to determine if it was a real gun (it's pretty damn
small) and ran away when he concluded it was. It was good for him
that he just moved side to side because I had already decided he was
close enough to grab it from me and if he moved forward even an inch,
I would have shot him. And emptied the clip.

Eventually I graduated from the Beretta to a Browning 9mm HiPower.
There's no way that the Browning was anywhere near as conceable as
the Beretta, although it had tremendously greater power as well as a
13 round clip v. the Beretta's 7. It had substantially greater
intimidation power as well. Now I have a .40 Glock, a Ruger mini 14
and a few others around the house.

I still prefer a pistol to a shotgun for really tight quarters but
for carry purposes, a Baby Browning .25 with 7 rounds of steel-tipped
ammo is enough gun for most situations. At least for me. As someone
else said a while back, a powerful gun that's too big to take
everywhere is no better than a small caliber gun than can go
anywhere. Escape is still preferable to a shootout, at least for me.
The Baby is for when escape is not an option. Even a justifiable
shooting is going to cost big bucks, especially if you're arrested as
a result. But being arrested is still a lot better than being dead.

Your points are all excellent.

I carry two guns. In addition to my regular concealed gun (a CZ-82), I have
a fold-up .22, five-shot, single action revolver that I keep in my back
pocket. It's a "Back Up Gun (BUG)". Our local range has BUG matches, and
you'd be surprised at the devastation some of these BUGs can cause to a
paper target!

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 16:42:24 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

Yes, finding the best lease might take a while. It's also why I might be
tempted to go with a management company for the first year.

One thing not brought up yet: _Lease with Option to Buy_

You can be creative in the lease and after a set period of time the
Lessee would get financing and exercise the buy option. Someone
without a sizable down payment (first time buyer) would have a chance
to own a home. They would be more likely to care for the property.

If the renter met the requirement in the lease, you could even become
the bank - gives you power to foreclose (if it came to that).

Yes, that's an interesting way to do things. But I worry that the incentive
to not destroy the property would disappear if the tenants discover you're
selling it to someone else. From what little I know of such situations,
"rent to buy" tenants always believe they've built up equity, even if they
haven't been able to bring their FICO score up enough to qualify for a
mortgage or save enough to cover down payments and closing costs.

--
Bobby G.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

"aemeijers" wrote


IMHO, property management companies are mainly for rich people who own
rental properties for the tax losses they provide.

--
aem sends...

There's something wrong when the management company makes more than you
do.

You've noticed. (-: The tax system in America is part of the problem. We
pay people not to grow food, we pay oil companies incentives to do what they
would be doing anyway, the personal income tax forms get more complex each
year . . . you get the picture. And now we have a health bill that
essentially feeds more victims into the badly broken health insurance system
under threat of fines. It makes me wonder just "Who runs Bartertown?"

--
Bobby G.

"Steve B" wrote in message
...

stuff snipped

Bottom line: You do not shoot to kill. You do not shoot to wound. You do
not shoot to warn. The only words out of your mouth should be: "I shot
to
stop the attack."

Repeat that over and over: "I shot to stop the attack... I shot to stop
the attack..."

These are the words that will acquit you at trial.

That was very helpful advice. Thank you. My late FIL bought a Judge.
Nothing to do but he had to have one. I shot it once, and found it
unacceptable except as a last resort weapon or a paperweight.

Steve

It's sad that in some states you have to add "and I had no means of escape."

My buddy just had to have one of the Cop .357 four barrel derringer pistols.
Apparently it's a close cousin to the Judge in the "better than nothing"
category of personal sidearms. Accurate to within a foot from a foot away.
The ultimate belly gun for someone with incredibly strong hands. Pulling
the trigger rotates the internal hammer to strike each barrel's firing pin
in turn, so the action is already stiff. The shape of the pistol is such
that it puts your finger at the worst position possible to apply strong
pressure.

Like a lot of backup guns, it was just too small. Nice stainless finish but
at 20 feet the accuracy was abysmal and nowhere near that of a smaller
automatic pistol. It did have an interesting buzzing noise that it made
with some types of ammo when the bullet tumbled in flight (not enough barrel
length to insure a spinning flight, I would imagine).

He was fortunately able to sell it to another guy who also "had to have" one
for almost what he paid for it. His has a disturbing tendency to misfire
with the hammer not striking the round hard enough and that made it pretty
useless as a backup gun. The guy who bought it was happy to have it,
misfires and all because they've stopped making them. Some people swear by
them. It's likely to be able to take down a drug crazed 300 pounder, too.
Deceptively heavy. He threw his out of a fairly sturdy ankle holster when
running at a good clip. The COP .357 owed most of its success to being a
prop in Blade Runner. I'll bet it's like The Judge. If it's saved your
life in a bad situation, it's your friend for life. Otherwise, get a real
gun.

--
Bobby G.

"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 2/2/2011 4:48 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Steve wrote in message
...

"Robert wrote in message
...
We've been thinking of renting our current home rather than selling in
this
down market while we rent in some of the places we're thinking of
retiring
to. Unfortunately, movies like "Pacific Heights" where a bad tenant
who
knows all the tricks of staying in a place without paying rent, haunt
us.

Yesterday I saw a 'People's Court' episode where a deadbeat had
managed
to
stay, rent-free, in a Section 8 rental for three years by using a
loophole
that says a tenant can't be evicted from Section 8 housing if there
are
code
violations. Every time he was about to get evicted, he just broke
something
to forestall the eviction process, eventually plugging all the sinks
with
rags and flooding the place.

How can you drive a bad tenant out from a rental in such situations?
How
do
you prevent them from completely trashing the place on their way out?
I
know that tenants should be checked out thoroughly beforehand, but
even
so,
people can have no record of evil behavior but still turn evil. While
I'd
probably NOT rent to any Section 8 tenants, I could easily see someone
losing their job or some other such tragedy and so decide they wanted
to
live in my house rent-free for as long as they could get away with it.

I'll entertain all solutions, even extra-legal ones (as long as I can
implement them without getting caught!).

--
Bobby G.

There's not really a hell of a lot you can do, and it depends on the
locality, so you may be better or worse.

If a person even has one piece of mail addressed to them at an address,
they
have proof of legal tenancy even if they are not on the lease.

Yes, in watching these cases play out on TV, it's clear that once a
tenancy
has been established, even tenuously, all sorts of "protections" for the
tenant come into play.

It then
becomes a legal matter, and that process is lengthy and costly. I own
vacation rentals, and the laws are a little better, but not too much.
What
I did with one was to pull the AC breaker, claiming it was inoperative
and
that I didn't have the money to pay to have it fixed, and they left
without
trashing the place. We get $1,000 deposit, so have a little leverage.

Yes, I would assume the thought of losing $1,000 makes even the most
determined house trasher stop and think whether it's worth it. The AC
breaker idea is an interesting one, and since it's outside the house, I
wouldn't have to enter to deactivate it. I'll keep that in mind.

A
house has to be habitable, and that is the responsibility of the owner,
but
who knows how long repairs take. It is purely a civil matter, so the
police
won't do anything. And if they take you to court because there isn't
any
water or heat, you can counter that they aren't paying rent so you have
the
money to fix it. And if they aren't paying rent, what are you going to
lose? If the house is nice, in a nice neighborhood, or close to
business
or
conventions or other attractions, you may want to consider it as a
vacation
rental. You get a month's mortgage or more for a week's stay. Contact
me
if you need further information.

It's in Maryland, just outside of DC, so there's potential for vacation
rentals as it's close to the Metrorail. Unfortunately, from what I've
been
able to tell from the County website, they are oriented toward tenant,
not
landlord, protection. It may turn out that the political climate is
just so
unfavorable to landlords that we'll either get a house sitter or leave
it
empty as we travel.

--
Bobby G.



Talk to your insurance company before you leave it empty. A lot of
policies may not cover on an 'empty' (ie, longer than a 2 week vacation)
house.

--
aem sends...

"HeyBub" wrote in message

stuff snipped from the threadlet (threddy?) that's spun off from the
tenancy question

5. I agree there are videos of little women trying to master something
like
a .44 Magnum, often with humorous results.

I saw a great snippet on AFHV where a woman fires a big hog leg pistol and
the recoil brings the gun up to her forehead and knocks her down. There's
much sadder recoil video floating around of the kid who killed himself
firing an Uzi at a gun show in New England. Too small a kid for that much
recoil. Gun ran up and over and shot him in the head.

Repeat that over and over: "I shot to stop the attack... I shot to stop
the
attack..."

The one time I was cornered (but unarmed) I shouted out (to the neighbors
looking out their windows) "I have no avenue of retreat and have no choice
but to use deadly force" as I reached into my (empty) jacket where a
shoulder rig would be. Did the trick. The asshole with the tire iron
retreated back into his building (he was irate that I took his parking
space - they were open to all, of course, but not according to him!). It
probably helped that he knew I had once had a carry permit (which lapsed
when I changed jobs - which I don't think he knew). Afterwards, I sent the
sheriffs to arrest him for assault (didn't help him that he was smoking
crack when they came for him). Assault charges got dropped but the drug
charges stuck. I put it in the win column. (-; FWIW, he was the local VP
for Common Cause.

All my cop friends are of the same mind as you regarding warning shots,
although I have fired them twice in my lifetime with good results when
displaying a pistol wasn't convincing enough. They also insisted on killing
anyone who has tried to kill you for two reasons. One, to prevent him from
trying again and two to make sure there's only one side to the story -
yours - in any ensuing civil litigation. A dead creep is worth far less
than a crippled one for some reason.

--
Bobby G.

"Colbyt" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
"Colbyt" wrote in message
m...

"Robert Green" wrote in message
...
We've been thinking of renting our current home rather than selling
in
this
down market while we rent in some of the places we're thinking of
retiring
to. Unfortunately, movies like "Pacific Heights" where a bad tenant
who
knows all the tricks of staying in a place without paying rent, haunt
us.

Yesterday I saw a 'People's Court' episode where a deadbeat had
managed
to
stay, rent-free, in a Section 8 rental for three years by using a
loophole
that says a tenant can't be evicted from Section 8 housing if there
are
code
violations. Every time he was about to get evicted, he just broke
something
to forestall the eviction process, eventually plugging all the sinks
with
rags and flooding the place.

How can you drive a bad tenant out from a rental in such situations?
How
do
you prevent them from completely trashing the place on their way out?
I
know that tenants should be checked out thoroughly beforehand, but
even
so,
people can have no record of evil behavior but still turn evil.
While
I'd
probably NOT rent to any Section 8 tenants, I could easily see
someone
losing their job or some other such tragedy and so decide they wanted
to
live in my house rent-free for as long as they could get away with
it.

I'll entertain all solutions, even extra-legal ones (as long as I can
implement them without getting caught!).

--
Bobby G.



I don't do section 8.

Some have suggested that's not legal. Can you shed any light on how you
refuse Section 8 and whether it's legal to do so?

If they don't pay their rent it takes 23 days to get
them out. If they are paying and I don't want them there anymore it
takes
33 days to get them out.

That's how it's supposed to work, but this A88hole on the People's Court
apparently found that if the unit is not in good repair (i.e., he simply
broke out a window) that the eviction process is put on hold until the
repairs are made.

Here you simply serve them with a notice to pay or vacate or a notice
to
vacate. The judge does the rest. There are no valid reasons for not
paying
your rent. The judge doesn't even listen to the excuses.

Colbyt

If I am not mistaken, you live in Lexington KY where the judges are
probably
a tad more sympathetic to landlords then they are here. The more I
research, the less I find I like about being a landlord, at least in
suburban MD.

--
Bobby G.



I do live in Lexington and the judges simply enforce the law as it is
written. Sympathy does not enter into it. If you are not happy with the
laws in your state, lobby for change. Personally I would not be a landlord
in the northeast or the peoples republic of California.

There's a very definite geographical pattern to where it's good to be a
landlord.

There is no legal requirement, at least in this state, to accept section 8
or any other form of subsidized housing; so it is not a Federal law. I
have
accepted it in the past. I am an authorized Landlord. For your area a
simple call to the section 8 office will get you an answer to your
question
as it applies to you.

That's a good idea. I know that we have some section 8 rentals in my
neighborhood already, but I don't know any of the terms of the deals. I'll
search out some answers . . .

--
Bobby G.

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 22:59:26 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

We're going to arrange for a house-sitter
instead. Thanks for all your input. Most enlightening.

Smart move. Some tenants can make you wish you had eaten a 50# box of
framing nails (grin).

With hot sauce!

This thread has convinced me that renting houses is for a certain type of
person whom I don't resemble in the least. I don't cope with "agita" very
well, particularly from deadbeats trying to play me.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:
"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
You bought a .380 to take out a 300 pound crazy man? Do you
think that's enough gun? I doubt it.

I bought a .380 because I was applying for a carry permit and a 16
gauge would have been awkward to carry around in a ankle holster.
(-: This was way back in the day when money (for me) was pretty
scarce and it was "either-or." I had to make do with a weapon that
could be both carried discreetly and used for home defense. A couple
of well-placed shots from a .380 will take out a fat man or a thin
one unless he's wearing a bulletproof welder's helmet. One or two
shots up through the jaw will do it. Very little bone between the
barrel and the brain.

But I will agree that a .380 is not an intimidation weapon, it is a
weapon of last resort. I wouldn't shoot a 300 pound man in a leather
jacket in the center of mass and expect good results. I'd aim for
the head and pray he wasn't a relative of Joe the Boss Masseria, the
man who could dodge bullets:

http://www.worldlingo.com/ma/enwiki/en/Joe_Masseria

He eventually ran out of luck and died in a hail of .32 and .38
caliber slugs. As someone else noted, the Mob has historically made
very effective use of the .22 caliber round as a murder weapon. It
all depends on how you use it.

Ironically, the only time I had to depend on my .380, displaying it
was enough. The guy on the other end weaved his head from side to
side to try to determine if it was a real gun (it's pretty damn
small) and ran away when he concluded it was. It was good for him
that he just moved side to side because I had already decided he was
close enough to grab it from me and if he moved forward even an inch,
I would have shot him. And emptied the clip.

Eventually I graduated from the Beretta to a Browning 9mm HiPower.
There's no way that the Browning was anywhere near as conceable as
the Beretta, although it had tremendously greater power as well as a
13 round clip v. the Beretta's 7. It had substantially greater
intimidation power as well. Now I have a .40 Glock, a Ruger mini 14
and a few others around the house.

I still prefer a pistol to a shotgun for really tight quarters but
for carry purposes, a Baby Browning .25 with 7 rounds of steel-tipped
ammo is enough gun for most situations. At least for me. As someone
else said a while back, a powerful gun that's too big to take
everywhere is no better than a small caliber gun than can go
anywhere. Escape is still preferable to a shootout, at least for me.
The Baby is for when escape is not an option. Even a justifiable
shooting is going to cost big bucks, especially if you're arrested as
a result. But being arrested is still a lot better than being dead.

Your points are all excellent.

I carry two guns. In addition to my regular concealed gun (a CZ-82),

I say now, ain't that a commie gun, son? (-:

I have a fold-up .22, five-shot, single action revolver

I've never seen a folding revolver. Got any pix?

that I keep in my back
pocket. It's a "Back Up Gun (BUG)". Our local range has BUG matches, and
you'd be surprised at the devastation some of these BUGs can cause to a
paper target!

I look at it this way. If you're in serious trouble, what would you rather
have: Your schvantz in your hand or a .22 "ladies gun?" I'm sure I posted
this before, but I had a good cop buddy who kept a 32 in his back pocket and
who shot himself in the butt when he took it out somewhat carelessly. He was
on rubber donut detail for quite some time. His co-workers NEVER let him
forget it, either - they even went so far as to make a paper target out of a
photocopy of someone's butt. That was 20 years ago and I'll bet he's still
getting grief over it. I'll bet they bring it up at his funeral.

I was lucky to find a mint condition Baby Browning while helping a neighbor
buy a .357 Python to use if her ex-husband came around violating her
protection order (after bashing her head in with a hammer - only netting him
4 years in prison). Derringers are illegal to sell new in Maryland (AFAIK)
but old guns are grandfathered in. Got it for a steal. It had no marks
whatsoever - apparently never even been fired. The only problem is that
it's SO damn small that if you don't hold it exactly right you'll skin
yourself but good. Happened the first time I fired it and I didn't realize
I had been cut until I saw the puddle of blood on the range rest/shelf. The
damn slide edge is razor sharp and slit me open quite cleanly. My first
reaction was "what idiot bled all over the damn shelf!?" (-: Oops!

Same thing happened with the Beretta, but never with the Glock or the
Browning HP. They're both hefty enough to keep big hands like mine away
from rapidly moving pistol slides.

The only thing bad about BUGs is that you can almost never count on them to
work through intimidation alone. Racking the slide back on my .25 makes
less noise than flipping a Zippo lighter. The Browning HP has a much more
authorative "snap" to it. Of course, for intimidating pistols, nothing
beats the SW.500. Useful for putting down rogue grizzly bears, werewolves,
elephants, blue whales, dinosaurs, zombies and Mack trucks:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/outd...eation/1277336

"With its 8-3/8-in. barrel, the overall length of the Model 500 is 15 in.
and the empty weight is 4.5 pounds. The cylinder alone is almost 2 in. in
diameter and approaches 2.25 in. in length. Thumb the cylinder open and five
charge holes await. Each is 1/2 in. in diameter, and the .50-cal. cartridges
they hold are almost 2 in. long. Load five of them and the total weight of
the handgun climbs to 5 pounds."

Now *that's* intimidation. I guess I won't be strapping that puppy to my
ankle, either. I have a bad feeling that some psycho will one day take a
..500 to Red Lobster on a Saturday night to see how many people he can shoot
through with one bullet. At 2600 ft-lbs, it's gotta to be at least four or
five. They used to make it with a short barrel for carrying but it wasn't
very popular so they discontinued it.

Maybe next Christmas if I can convice SWMBO that we need another gun.
That's gonna be a hard sell, even though she's a retired Army colonel.
She's a crack shot with a .45 but it's just a qualification thing with her,
not a passion. There's clearly a gender component to gun love. (-:

Now that I've read the specs again, I really, really want one. Just for
bragging rights. And for keeping escaped circus animals under control.
(Shades of an old Gahan Wilson cartoon.)

--
Bobby G.

On 2/3/2011 8:08 AM, George wrote:
On 2/3/2011 12:16 AM, Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

You're joking, I am sure, but you did remind me of why I bought my
first gun and moved from my first apartment. It was a 300 pound guy
slamming himself against the front door, breaking a hinge, shouting
out "I am going to GET you Joe!" (My name's not Joe, FWIW.) It took
the police 30 minutes to respond as I wondered how long the door
would hold. The next day I bought a .380 Beretta I nicknamed
"Sergeant."

I suppose I could advertise via nym on Craigslist that I looked like
Jennifer Lopez and I loved having simulated break-in sex . . . nah,
that could backfire in any number of horrible ways . . . (-:

What could go wrong?

As to one's initial choice of a firearm for personal protection at home,
as somewhat of a gun maven, I'd suggest a 16 (or larger) gauge shotgun.

A nice compromise is "The Judge," a revolver that shoots .410 gauge
shotgun shells and/or .45 long colt cartridges. Your first shot
should be
the shotgun shell. That stuns the assailant so he presents a stationary
target for the bowling-ball-sized bullet that's next in line.

The Judge is a POS. It has such recoil that most people cannot shoot it
safely. It is inaccurate. It is a small hand held cannon for people with
short weenies. A real pump shotgun is a good home defense weapon. You
don't even have to aim, just point it towards the noise. And a round over
their head works wonders. The sound of one being jacked is magnified
about
7x in the dark. And shotgun pellets don't travel far and kill someone ten
blocks away. Or three rooms away.Even if you severely screw up and hit
the
ground, they will do damage to several people.


Consider who recommended it...

Anyone who has contemplated having the proper tools on hand (or has
attended training from a competent instructor) will tell you that a
shotgun is what you want. I have a pump shotgun with a 18 1/8" barrel
for personal protection in the home.


MHO, Ymmv, and all that stuff.

My favorite intimidation weapon is my Ithaca Featherlight sawed off 16
ga.
18.5 inch barrel, of course. Lanyard to the pistol grip, hung around the
neck, and easily concealed in a coat. #2 pellets.

Steve




i agree here about the 18" shotgun. I do have a Judge, but i bought it
for the pasture and snakes. I always grab the pump shotgun when i hear
a bump in the night.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

"Oren" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Feb 2011 19:25:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You bought a .380 to take out a 300 pound crazy man? Do you
think that's enough gun? I doubt it.

Don't be silly Chris. I've yet to meet a 300 pound man that can catch
a .380 between his teeth, nor one that can stop a .22 behind the ear
lobe.

Now think about it!

Simple as some "strategery" placement of the round.

Under the chin. The jawbone is shaped so that a gun barrel will "center"
itself if pushed hard enough. Also a good place to stick an icepick or a
long-bladed cabinet screwdriver. (AHR topicality!) (-: There was a mobster
whose name escapes me (something to do with tooth) who managed to avoid
being murdered by deflecting a .22 round with his front tooth. So yes, you
have to know where to put it. The secret to so many things in life.

I was reading last night about gangster Roy DeMeo who perfected what became
known as the "Gemini" system for mob hits. He would invite the victim to
his nightclub, the Gemini, which was connected to an apartment building in
the back. As they walked into the apartment, someone would be waiting with
a .22 and would shoot the victim in the head. They immediately wrapped his
head in a towel and then stuck a kitchen knife in the victim's heart to stop
the blood from gushing. Then they would dismember the victim in a kiddie
pool and take the various pieces to restaurant garbage dumpsters. Some
estimates place the number of people who were completely "disappeared" at
close to 200. But as HeyBub has said, they were mostly other gangsters
whom not many people missed. IIRC, it was Paul Castellano who eventually
put DeMeo through his own murder assembly line. Poetic justice. A short
while later, Castellano was gunned down by a small army of Gotti button men
outside of Spark's Steakhouse in NYC at the height of the Christmas shopping
season. As you might expect, "Big Paulie got shot, but nobody seen
nothing!"

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

Your points are all excellent.

I carry two guns. In addition to my regular concealed gun (a CZ-82),

I say now, ain't that a commie gun, son? (-:

Yes. And a most excellent gun for killing Communists (they like to get up
close, as in "in your face").


I have a fold-up .22, five-shot, single action revolver

I've never seen a folding revolver. Got any pix?


Sure. Look he
http://www.naaminis.com/lrifle.html

The folding grip I have doesn't have the clip to attach to your belt, but
otherwise similar.


Same thing happened with the Beretta, but never with the Glock or the
Browning HP. They're both hefty enough to keep big hands like mine
away from rapidly moving pistol slides.

Heh! At the range three weeks ago, my Glock 19 fired out of battery. Blew
the **** out of both sides of the weapon!

Glock says they'll fix/replace the gun under their lifetime warranty. I've
had it with guns made of Bakelite. Soon as this one gets fixed, I'm trading
it for about a dozen CZ-82s.

Search for "Glock+Kaboom" and you'll get, oh, 26,000 results. Here's the
search with pictures:
http://www.google.com/search?q=glock...rlz=1I7GGLL_en

And no, I didn't get hurt. My current squeeze was firing the weapon, but
thanks for your concern.


The only thing bad about BUGs is that you can almost never count on
them to work through intimidation alone. Racking the slide back on
my .25 makes less noise than flipping a Zippo lighter. The Browning
HP has a much more authorative "snap" to it.

Why would you be racking the slide on a pistol? That's pure Hollywood.


Maybe next Christmas if I can convice SWMBO that we need another gun.
That's gonna be a hard sell, even though she's a retired Army colonel.
She's a crack shot with a .45 but it's just a qualification thing
with her, not a passion. There's clearly a gender component to gun
love. (-:

Love, possibly. Practicality can make a difference though. My current
squeeze is a mental health diagnostician at a psychiatric hospital and works
the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift. It didn't take much convincing that a CHL
was in her best interests.

In fact, she's going for the mandatory class and range qualifications today.
With two master's degrees, she won't have any trouble with the classroom
part. Earlier in the week she shot a 225 out of a possible 250 on a
qualification simulation.*

--------
* This is not a particularily outstanding score. Our BUG matches often
include shooting the course blindfolded! 200+ is typical - out of 50 shots,
20 are at SEVEN FEET against a man-sized target (20 shots are at 75 feet,
but we usually turn the targets around inasmuch as your typical bad guy, at
that distance, is running away).

And yes, in Texas, you can use deadly force against a squint, mope, 'roided
up primate, or any other malefactor who is departing the scene at high
speed.

Robert Green wrote:

Repeat that over and over: "I shot to stop the attack... I shot to
stop the attack..."

The one time I was cornered (but unarmed) I shouted out (to the
neighbors looking out their windows) "I have no avenue of retreat and
have no choice but to use deadly force" as I reached into my (empty)
jacket where a shoulder rig would be. Did the trick.

It's regrettable that you live in a jurisdiction that mandates retreat.

Pressure your legislators for a true "Castle Doctrine" statute that
incorporates a "stand your ground" provision. In our last legislative
session here in Texas such a statute was incorporated. It says that you may
use deadly force to repel an attack, without retreating, at any place you
have a right to be: in your home or place of business, on the street, at a
movie, riding a bus, anywhere.

The following states have "No duty to retreat" statutes:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Robert Green wrote:

Repeat that over and over: "I shot to stop the attack... I shot to
stop the attack..."

The one time I was cornered (but unarmed) I shouted out (to the
neighbors looking out their windows) "I have no avenue of retreat and
have no choice but to use deadly force" as I reached into my (empty)
jacket where a shoulder rig would be. Did the trick.

It's regrettable that you live in a jurisdiction that mandates retreat.

Yeah. Blame the Great Crash that we're stuck here. It sucks, but what can
you do?

Pressure your legislators for a true "Castle Doctrine" statute that
incorporates a "stand your ground" provision. In our last legislative
session here in Texas such a statute was incorporated. It says that you
may
use deadly force to repel an attack, without retreating, at any place you
have a right to be: in your home or place of business, on the street, at a
movie, riding a bus, anywhere.

Sadly, the state is moving in the opposite direction and the recent Tuscon
shooting is going to accelerate that trend. Still, there *are* some ways
around the limitations. Always keep a deadly weapon thoroughly cleansed of
DNA and prints handy, for one thing. Make sure to insert it into the hand
of your dead attacker (or drop it nearby if there are witnesses!). We have
an "apprehended danger" statute that while not as strong as "castle
doctrine" does allow you to defend yourself if you can prove that escaping
was as likely to get you killed as standing your ground. It's even been
used successfully by people without a carry permit, as in having to take an
unusually large amount of cash somewhere and having someone try to rob you.
CHL's are hard to come by here and now cost about $5,000 and a lot of luck
to acquire. Across the river in VA, almost anyone can get a permit to
carry. And in nearby DC, no one can get a CHL although the Supreme Court
put the kibash on that BS. The Congress got all excited about guns in DC
when Rep. Stennis was shot many years ago.

The following states have "No duty to retreat" statutes:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.

But at least half of those states have enough *other* stuff wrong with them
that we wouldn't want to move there.

--
Bobby G.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Robert Green wrote:

Your points are all excellent.

I carry two guns. In addition to my regular concealed gun (a CZ-82),

I say now, ain't that a commie gun, son? (-:

Yes. And a most excellent gun for killing Communists (they like to get up
close, as in "in your face").

Well, I've got a commie starlight scope for my Ruger and it's pretty
serviceable except the rubberized coating is now as sticky as if it had been
honey-coated. Cheap too, just like the CZ's. No auto-shutter so one aim at
a bright light will likely kill it, but so far, so good.

I have a fold-up .22, five-shot, single action revolver

I've never seen a folding revolver. Got any pix?


Sure. Look he
http://www.naaminis.com/lrifle.html

The folding grip I have doesn't have the clip to attach to your belt, but
otherwise similar.

Looks sweet but it's probably illegal in Maryland unless I come across a
used one. What f''ing sense such a law makes is beyond me, but that's what
my gunsmith said. Of course, he also said the S&W .500 was just an urban
legend about two hours after I had handled one at a gun store up the road.
Since I've never seen small guns and derringers new in the display cases, I
assume he's right on this one.

Maryland has a "bullet database" which means all new guns sold have to be
test fired and a bullet sent to the State Police for logging. AFAIK, not
one prosecution has resulted from the massive and intrusive effort. It just
means remembering to use an older gun or a shotgun if you're going to kill
someone. (-: In a case we had here a while back, someone killed a two
people with bullets that had no identifying barrel marks. Turned out they
were firing 9mm shells from a .40 gun and the bullet didn't contact the
barrel completely, although it clearly had enough oomph to be lethal.
Someday I will build a ballistic water tank to check it out.

Same thing happened with the Beretta, but never with the Glock or the
Browning HP. They're both hefty enough to keep big hands like mine
away from rapidly moving pistol slides.

Heh! At the range three weeks ago, my Glock 19 fired out of battery. Blew
the **** out of both sides of the weapon!

Gack! That's certainly not what you want to have happen in a showdown with
a psycho. How old is the Glock? I know they were plagued with problems
early on but I thought they had eliminated them. From what I recall, Glock
blamed a lot of KB's on reloaded and/or non-jacketed ammo and lead buildup
in the barrel leading to overpressuring. It's why both ranges I use will
ban shooters that bring their own ammo (50 year old Korean War era surplus
was what one guy tried to sneak in!) What were you running through it?

Glock says they'll fix/replace the gun under their lifetime warranty. I've
had it with guns made of Bakelite. Soon as this one gets fixed, I'm
trading
it for about a dozen CZ-82s.

(-: I have to admit that the Glock and the Taurus (both with a lot of
plastic) are a hell of a lot easier to lug around than the all steel and
wood Browning HP. I'll have to weigh them all later today when I clean them
all.

Search for "Glock+Kaboom" and you'll get, oh, 26,000 results. Here's the
search with pictures:

http://www.google.com/search?q=glock...rlz=1I7GGLL_en

Yes, I've seen exploded Glocks but the most impressive display I've seen is
at the local skeet range where they have a display board with the sawed off
ends of shotgun barrels that were fired after the shooter managed to plug
them with dirt. Unless you see it close up, it's hard to believe that
hardened steel would shatter, bulge, ribbon and bend that way. There are at
least 20 barrels ends on the board now. A testament to stupidity.

And no, I didn't get hurt. My current squeeze was firing the weapon, but
thanks for your concern.

Jeez. If that happened to my wife I could never get her to the range again.

The only thing bad about BUGs is that you can almost never count on
them to work through intimidation alone. Racking the slide back on
my .25 makes less noise than flipping a Zippo lighter. The Browning
HP has a much more authoritative "snap" to it.

Why would you be racking the slide on a pistol? That's pure Hollywood.

The HP is single action and after my bud shot himself in the ass, I got
hinky about keeping a round in the chamber. Thus the need to rack it. Now
I trust it enough to keep one in the chamber and the hammer back with the
safety on.

Maybe next Christmas if I can convince SWMBO that we need another gun.
That's gonna be a hard sell, even though she's a retired Army colonel.
She's a crack shot with a .45 but it's just a qualification thing
with her, not a passion. There's clearly a gender component to gun
love. (-:

Love, possibly. Practicality can make a difference though.

A lot of women are preprogrammed to fear firearms but once you get some of
them down to the range and they do well, that reticence tends to disappear.

My current
squeeze is a mental health diagnostician at a psychiatric hospital and
works
the 4:00 p.m. to midnight shift. It didn't take much convincing that a CHL
was in her best interests.

The only problem I see with that is that some patients now know where to get
a gun. I hope she's "strapped" and doesn't keep it in her purse.

In fact, she's going for the mandatory class and range qualifications
today.
With two master's degrees, she won't have any trouble with the classroom
part. Earlier in the week she shot a 225 out of a possible 250 on a
qualification simulation.*

--------
* This is not a particularly outstanding score. Our BUG matches often
include shooting the course blindfolded! 200+ is typical - out of 50
shots,
20 are at SEVEN FEET against a man-sized target (20 shots are at 75 feet,
but we usually turn the targets around inasmuch as your typical bad guy,
at
that distance, is running away).

Here in Maryland, if someone shoots a fleeing perp (even a cop!) bad things
happen. It's already happened twice to Baltimore cops. There was even a
big stink raised because a cop shot someone armed with a Bowie knife as if
it were a foul in a jousting contest instead of a life or death situation.
People are stupid and this state attracts them like a magnet.

And yes, in Texas, you can use deadly force against a squint, mope,
'roided
up primate, or any other malefactor who is departing the scene at high
speed.

That's definitely not the rule here. We have lots of wealthy enclaves where
people lead lives so sheltered that they have no idea what it's like on the
streets. Five years as a police reporter gave me the typical cop's outlook
on the world: "Trust no one and you'll stay among the living." As a
reporter I mostly interacted with the "white shirts" (Lt's and above) and we
would always laugh at how green and naive rookies could be for the first few
years. That changed after enough exposure to the scum of the earth or when
they got their first serious service wound. That's when they grew eyes in
the back of their heads.

--
Bobby G.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 09:14:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
wrote:

We've been thinking of renting our current home rather than selling in this
down market while we rent in some of the places we're thinking of retiring
to. Unfortunately, movies like "Pacific Heights" where a bad tenant who
knows all the tricks of staying in a place without paying rent, haunt us.

Yesterday I saw a 'People's Court' episode where a deadbeat had managed to
stay, rent-free, in a Section 8 rental for three years by using a loophole
that says a tenant can't be evicted from Section 8 housing if there are code
violations. Every time he was about to get evicted, he just broke something
to forestall the eviction process, eventually plugging all the sinks with
rags and flooding the place.

How can you drive a bad tenant out from a rental in such situations? How do
you prevent them from completely trashing the place on their way out? I
know that tenants should be checked out thoroughly beforehand, but even so,
people can have no record of evil behavior but still turn evil. While I'd
probably NOT rent to any Section 8 tenants, I could easily see someone
losing their job or some other such tragedy and so decide they wanted to
live in my house rent-free for as long as they could get away with it.

I'll entertain all solutions, even extra-legal ones (as long as I can
implement them without getting caught!).


I can only speak for the laws here in AZ but if you are worried about
being able to get rid of them just rent on month to month leases. If
you start to see problems, either in them paying the rent on time, or
in keeping up the place, just give them their "30-day" notice. If
they stay past that you'll have to take them to court for eviction,
not much you can do about that part, no matter what you do you can't
physically throw people out, only the court can authorize it and then
you have to have the sheriff or constable do it.

Note - 30 day notices can take as long as 60 days, you have to give
them the notice BEFORE the start of the "next rental period". So if
you wait till the 2nd of Jan you have to give them notice to be out by
the end of Feb., not Jan, which will be almost 60 days.

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

I can only speak for the laws here in AZ but if you are worried about
being able to get rid of them just rent on month to month leases. If
you start to see problems, either in them paying the rent on time, or
in keeping up the place, just give them their "30-day" notice. If
they stay past that you'll have to take them to court for eviction,
not much you can do about that part, no matter what you do you can't
physically throw people out, only the court can authorize it and then
you have to have the sheriff or constable do it.

A landlord in a city in which I own a rental house offered that when he
has trouble with tenants, he would go to the house while they were home,
and remove all the exterior doors and drive away with them, saying that
he was going to repaint them. Tenants usually vacated promptly.

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:51:05 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

I can only speak for the laws here in AZ but if you are worried about
being able to get rid of them just rent on month to month leases. If
you start to see problems, either in them paying the rent on time, or
in keeping up the place, just give them their "30-day" notice. If
they stay past that you'll have to take them to court for eviction,
not much you can do about that part, no matter what you do you can't
physically throw people out, only the court can authorize it and then
you have to have the sheriff or constable do it.

A landlord in a city in which I own a rental house offered that when he
has trouble with tenants, he would go to the house while they were home,
and remove all the exterior doors and drive away with them, saying that
he was going to repaint them. Tenants usually vacated promptly.

That's risky. If they had stuff stolen he could wind up on the hook.
Most tenants have no idea of their rights. But every once in a while
you run into one who knows every part of the law AND is malicious in
applying it. We had a guy like that in our town for a while making
life miserable for the apt complex he was living in. He'd go around
looking for problems and if he couldn't find any he'd create some.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:03:27 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 04:51:05 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote:

In article ,
Ashton Crusher wrote:

I can only speak for the laws here in AZ but if you are worried about
being able to get rid of them just rent on month to month leases. If
you start to see problems, either in them paying the rent on time, or
in keeping up the place, just give them their "30-day" notice. If
they stay past that you'll have to take them to court for eviction,
not much you can do about that part, no matter what you do you can't
physically throw people out, only the court can authorize it and then
you have to have the sheriff or constable do it.

A landlord in a city in which I own a rental house offered that when he
has trouble with tenants, he would go to the house while they were home,
and remove all the exterior doors and drive away with them, saying that
he was going to repaint them. Tenants usually vacated promptly.

That's risky. If they had stuff stolen he could wind up on the hook.
Most tenants have no idea of their rights. But every once in a while
you run into one who knows every part of the law AND is malicious in
applying it. We had a guy like that in our town for a while making
life miserable for the apt complex he was living in. He'd go around
looking for problems and if he couldn't find any he'd create some.

Did he soon have a problem finding a place to live? Any landlord who doesn't
do background checks is lawyer bait.