Comments on: More Legal Wrangling in Front Sight Lawsuit

By: Idetrorce

Idetrorce — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:49:16 +0000

very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce

By: William Rios

William Rios — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:58:40 +0000

So much for the “information age” I log in to see the latest news on the Front Sight settlement issue and what I see is postings from almost one year ago. I thought people would be posting on a daily basis on the topic. Oh well, guess I should give it another six months to check on what happened last month?

By: Steve W

Steve W — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 06:27:15 +0000

I think it is a very good law why should secondhand smoke kill people that don’t smoke, I am sorry that the Judge ruined the new law by making it a civil penalty but as he will soon find out the people on Nevada have spoken. I beleive the bar’s that uphold the ban will do more bussines then the ones that do not comply. I refuse to patronize a bar that does not uphold the ban.

By: Olivia Calandra

Olivia Calandra — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:48:56 +0000

Don’t expect anything regarding Front Sight to go away anytime soon. Piazza is engaged in duplicitous sales practices, promising all kinds of unnamed “exchanges in abundance” if you buy into his latest membership offering. Think Ponzi scheme.

Take the money, tear it up, and deposit it into your toilet instead. It’ll do you as much good as giving it to Piazza.

By: NEL

NEL — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 22:18:55 +0000

Front Sight IS permitted to continue selling memberships that do not entail acquisition of property on the Front Sight range. You kind-of have to read the legal documentation in order to figure that out as the media in not an all-inclusive source.

By: D. Mumper

D. Mumper — Mon, 01 Jan 2007 16:37:31 +0000

In the last two weeks I have been blitzed with advertising by Piazza with a series of offers for Front Sight memberships. I’m guessing that he is not following the judge’s orders and he continues to lie to potential customers. Shameless.

By: Hortense Weinblatt

Hortense Weinblatt — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:04:08 +0000

I’m a big fan of Front Sight, and I do hope that some up-to-date coverage of this issue will continue. Front Sight is (as of this writing, Dec/22/2006) offering memberships for sale, and I have been tempted a number of times to plunk down for it, so I would like to know when this lawsuit is finally *off* the radar.

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 17:29:04 +0000

I have been open carrying a firearm for over a year now. I have had no problems what so ever. I understand that it makes some people nervous to see a holstered weapon being openly carried by a regular citizen. However, I doubt they would feel that way if their safety was threatened and I was able to stop the situation with my training. As far as our schools go, I think that allowing educators to carry concealed (on their person) would be a great way to reduce incidents. They are already doing this in UT and haven’t had a problem. Like Albert Einstein said, “The world is a dangerous place, not because of those that do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.”

By: Walter Schwenk

Walter Schwenk — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 18:19:29 +0000

Several wrong turns have been taken in the relm of public education. One was to turn it, essentially, into a state-sponsored monopoly. Another has been to turn the schools into gun-free killing zones for the convenience of any loser with a grudge but no conscience. We need to make “More guns,Less Crime” ,by John R. Lott, Jr. required reading in all high school and college statistics classes. Firearms in schools is a topic that government should never have tried to infringe it’s will upon in the first place, according to the 2nd amendment of the US constitution. It is not too late to admit and correct our error. Welcome to reality.

By: C. Norris

C. Norris — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 15:58:16 +0000

With so many retired police officer in this great country, why don’t we employ them with in the schools (and also as Federal Air Marshalls)?

A wealth of experience going to waste.

Being a Retired LEO (Law Enforcement Officer), I know of many officers who no longer want to work the “streets” but would be interested in employment within the schools and/or as air marshalls.

Since congress implemented HR 218 (A National CCW Permit, [Carring Concealed Weapons] for Active and Retired LEOs) with the thought that an Officer could respond to critical situations on behalf of citizens, it make logical sense to the retired officers to guard schools and our airlines.