<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Prince Law Offices, P.C.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.princelaw.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.princelaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:09:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on My Landlord Will Not Make Repairs! What Can I Do? (PART I) by Press Release: Attorney Hovey to be Featured on Tonight&#8217;s WFMZ-69&#8242;s 6:00pm Newscast Concerning Tenants Rights and Absentee Landlords &#171; Prince Law Offices, P.C.</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2010/08/02/my-landlord-will-not-make-repairs-what-can-i-do-part-i/#comment-693</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Press Release: Attorney Hovey to be Featured on Tonight&#8217;s WFMZ-69&#8242;s 6:00pm Newscast Concerning Tenants Rights and Absentee Landlords &#171; Prince Law Offices, P.C.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://princelaw.wordpress.com/?p=357#comment-693</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] amount of time, the tenant has a right to self-help remedies.  Please see our blog article on the Implied Warranty of Habitability for more [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] amount of time, the tenant has a right to self-help remedies.  Please see our blog article on the Implied Warranty of Habitability for more [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Does a 3rd DUI Prevent You from Being Able to Purchase, Possess and Own a Firearm? by Jennifer Sun The Insurance Expert</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2011/12/02/does-a-3rd-dui-prevent-you-from-being-able-to-purchase-possess-and-own-a-firearm-2/#comment-673</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jennifer Sun The Insurance Expert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 09:49:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/?p=667#comment-673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Interesting, I never thought that 3 DUIs could prevent someone from getting a firearm. Well with 3 DUIs your auto insurance would probably be close to about $200 a month. That would make difficult to just buy a firearm.  Good to know how multiple DUIs can affect your purchasing habits.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, I never thought that 3 DUIs could prevent someone from getting a firearm. Well with 3 DUIs your auto insurance would probably be close to about $200 a month. That would make difficult to just buy a firearm.  Good to know how multiple DUIs can affect your purchasing habits.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on PA&#8217;s New Castle Doctrine (HB40) &#8211; The Good by Greg Carl</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2011/07/29/pas-new-castle-doctrine-hb40-the-good/#comment-668</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Greg Carl]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 01:55:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://princelaw.wordpress.com/?p=256#comment-668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I appreciate the explanations and thoughts on the Castle Doctrine.  I also appreciated the extreme example of the hunter not knowing his home was being broken into as I was wondering what situations the extra verbiage would be necessary.  I wanted to share a thought I had as to another reason where the seemingly duplicative verbiage would be necessary.  In the case where a home owner decides to rig up a device that would shoot a perpetrator upon unlawful or unauthorized entry into his or her dwelling.  In that case, like the hunter, the homeowner would have met criteria one in that his or her home was being unlawfully entered, however he or she does not meet criteria 2 where he or she actually knew the event was taking place.  Just a though.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I appreciate the explanations and thoughts on the Castle Doctrine.  I also appreciated the extreme example of the hunter not knowing his home was being broken into as I was wondering what situations the extra verbiage would be necessary.  I wanted to share a thought I had as to another reason where the seemingly duplicative verbiage would be necessary.  In the case where a home owner decides to rig up a device that would shoot a perpetrator upon unlawful or unauthorized entry into his or her dwelling.  In that case, like the hunter, the homeowner would have met criteria one in that his or her home was being unlawfully entered, however he or she does not meet criteria 2 where he or she actually knew the event was taking place.  Just a though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The SHOT Show &#8211; Media Day 2012 by Brandon</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2012/01/16/the-shot-show-media-day-2012/#comment-654</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 01:13:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/2012/01/16/the-shot-show-media-day-2012/#comment-654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Wow, thanks for the info. I&#039;ve been very happy with the CM9, but am pretty excited to try out the Nano.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, thanks for the info. I&#8217;ve been very happy with the CM9, but am pretty excited to try out the Nano.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The SHOT Show &#8211; Media Day 2012 by joshuaplo</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2012/01/16/the-shot-show-media-day-2012/#comment-653</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[joshuaplo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/2012/01/16/the-shot-show-media-day-2012/#comment-653</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wasn&#039;t able to try out the new Springfield Armory XDs, but the Kahr CM9 is not even in the same ballpark as the Nano. The Kahr&#039;s recoil is far more and wasn&#039;t as accurate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wasn&#8217;t able to try out the new Springfield Armory XDs, but the Kahr CM9 is not even in the same ballpark as the Nano. The Kahr&#8217;s recoil is far more and wasn&#8217;t as accurate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on The SHOT Show &#8211; Media Day 2012 by Brandon</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2012/01/16/the-shot-show-media-day-2012/#comment-652</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brandon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 18:33:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/2012/01/16/the-shot-show-media-day-2012/#comment-652</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Nice, love the Nano, we&#039;re trying to get one now for review. Can&#039;t wait to see how it stacks up against the also excellent Kahr CM9 that we reviewed. Here&#039;s our review if you&#039;re interested:

http://monderno.com/2011/gun-reviews/kahr-cm9/

Did you get a chance to try out the Springfield Armory XDs? That one looks like a winner in the CCW market too.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice, love the Nano, we&#8217;re trying to get one now for review. Can&#8217;t wait to see how it stacks up against the also excellent Kahr CM9 that we reviewed. Here&#8217;s our review if you&#8217;re interested:</p>
<p><a href="http://monderno.com/2011/gun-reviews/kahr-cm9/" rel="nofollow">http://monderno.com/2011/gun-reviews/kahr-cm9/</a></p>
<p>Did you get a chance to try out the Springfield Armory XDs? That one looks like a winner in the CCW market too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Merry Christmas &#8211; Merry Machinegun &#8211; What&#8217;s a Guy to Do? by gunrightsattorneys</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2011/12/23/merry-christmas-merry-machinegun-whats-a-guy-to-do/#comment-635</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[gunrightsattorneys]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 15:52:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/?p=717#comment-635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Noting says Merry more than Full Auto.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Noting says Merry more than Full Auto.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR by New guy here - SP89 related questions</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/09/01/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/#comment-633</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[New guy here - SP89 related questions]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 16:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/?p=571#comment-633</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...]  [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Florida Man Arrested for Constructive Possession of an SBR by seth manzel</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/09/01/florida-man-arrested-for-constructive-possession-of-an-sbr/#comment-615</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[seth manzel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Dec 2011 17:59:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/?p=571#comment-615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I thought that Thompson Center v. BATFE did away with the doctrine of Constructive Possession.  Were the implications of that decision more narrow than that or is the DOJ just ignoring it?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought that Thompson Center v. BATFE did away with the doctrine of Constructive Possession.  Were the implications of that decision more narrow than that or is the DOJ just ignoring it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on NFA and Constructive Possession: Myth or Reality? by JimmyD (@j1mmyd)</title>
		<link>http://blog.princelaw.com/2009/07/08/nfa-and-constructive-possession-myth-or-reality/#comment-590</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[JimmyD (@j1mmyd)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:30:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.princelaw.com/?p=566#comment-590</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the term &quot;constructive possession&quot;. The case law seem to refer to *a combination of factors or circumstances that, combined, constitute (or construct) possession* and NOT that a person possesses the items required to construct a particular class of firearm.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding the term &#8220;constructive possession&#8221;. The case law seem to refer to *a combination of factors or circumstances that, combined, constitute (or construct) possession* and NOT that a person possesses the items required to construct a particular class of firearm.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

