F&D asks for an update on my love life. It seems like I answer this one every time I ask for requests. I don't mind, but it's sometimes tough to know how much to reveal. I remember once way back in the early days of this blog, after I moaned about some love life disaster or another, a commenter wondered if I would be as good a writer about being in a relationship as I was about not being in one. I'd like to find out myself, but I don't feel comfortable writing about it yet.

And yes, the "it" I'm referring to is a relationship. I'm happy, mostly. There are issues which make it less than ideal, but they're due to the situation we're in, and not to any aspect of her nature. She really is pretty awesome. I said a few months ago that I felt "semi-optimistic" about developments in my love life, and I was referring to this situation. We're still at pretty much the same stage, and so I'll still call myself semi-optimistic. I do feel confident and hopeful about things, although some worry and frustration and doubt creep in there at times.

I think that's all I want to say now, even though I think this post sounds gloomier than I meant it to. (I'm happy. Really. I promise.) I appreciate your well-wishes, and will in fact assume you're sending them even if you don't comment. So don't feel obligated to say "good luck." Please do refrain from saying something cliche and treacly like "love conquers all" or "if it's meant to be, Fate will take care of it." First, I don't believe those sentiments are always true, and second, even if they are, I'm not trusting enough to be a slacker and let Fate do all the work. I'm trying to TCB here, and if Fate wants to get on board, that's fine with me.

In the meantime, keep those requests coming!

PG asks "Should we have a federal bar for people who want to practice specifically in securities, federal tax, bankruptcy, etc., such that the federal government could be in charge of regulating those folks, thereby avoiding the problem of federal laws conflicting with state bars' ethics? (I'm thinking of section 307 of Sarbanes-Oxley still.)

Wow. I should say that what I know about securities law could fill a thimble, and I haven't the time (or motivation, sorry, PG) to study up on this. I do know that sec. 307 requires corporate attorneys to report misconduct up the chain of command to the board of directors. I gather that the idea is to keep corporate managers from shutting attorneys up. The concern is that this federal standard, regulated by the SEC, might vary from state ethical standards, regulated by state bars.

I can see why that might bother some people. I don't presume to suggest whether their concerns are justified. But I don't see why yet another level of rules and bureaucracy is the answer. First, it seems like it would be simpler if all the states had the same rules, and the SEC just followed those. I mean, I'm fine with some federalism and this whole "laboratories of democracy" idea. But at this point, do we really need fifty different sets of rules governing lawyers? Don't we have the Model Rules for a reason? Isn't it time to have a referendum on this? I don't know how different the various state standards are on corporate lawyer ethics, but aren't the broad strokes the same everywhere? How hard would it be to settle up the details? Most states seem fine with the MPRE; how wedded could they be to their individual ethics rules if they're content with this national common denominator?

Second, instituting another "bar" would lead inexorably to another bar exam, like the patent bar. I'm okay with the patent bar because (a) it's a really specialized field; (b) it's entirely based on a discrete body of federal law; and (c) it's okay to segregate those patent dorks. But do we really need a securities bar exam, a bankruptcy bar exam, a tax bar exam? I think that's a little overboard. Plus, so much of those fields depend on knowledge of state corporation or property or contracts or family law, among others, so it's not like one could opt out of any knowledge of general state law. If we're going to single out securities law, and have the SEC regulate legal ethics within that field, though, SOX should have included some kind of pre-emption language (making it clear that the SEC's rules for lawyers practicing before it trump state laws), along with a comprehensive ethics scheme. I don't think that language would have passed, but I think that would have been a better way to go about it, for clarity's sake.

Finally, one thing I definitely support is a more liberalized approach to multi-jurisdictional practice. Naturally, that would be less of an issue if the states were less idiosyncratic and protectionist. But the practice of law has long passed the point where we can pretend that legal advice never crosses state lines or that state laws are so different that lawyers need to take a new bar exam to demonstrate minimal competence.

I know this has probably gotten pretty far afield of what PG intended, but it's the best I can offer in response to a question about securities. Coming up next, a subject I know even less about: love!

I'm not above benefitting from the misfortune of others. So in light of Vice President Cheney's shooting accident, I thought I would re-run Fitz's fall 2004 shotgun buying guide, "Shotguns: Not just for weddings anymore." Presumably, there's helpful information in there even if you can't afford Cheney's luxury custom-made shotgun. Everything after this sentence is from Fitz's original post.

Provoked by Steve's post a couple of weeks ago on his trip to the Lake Oconee Shooting Club, and spurred into action by a conversation I've had over the last couple of days, I decided to offer my opinions on shotguns. Specifically, hunting shotguns for the first-time buyer or for the buyer on a budget. I'm not going to delve into the Cadillac lines of shotguns. If you want to pick up a Benelli or a Franchi, for several thousand dollars, be my guest. But for entry-level shotguns, I'll try to focus on guns priced under $1,000. That doesn't mean that Steve should be dissuaded from purchasing this lovely Beretta, though. Nor will it dissuade me from lusting after this Citori Superlight Feather 12. I'll also try to focus on hunting guns, not sport-shooting guns. I'm not going to get into trap and skeet guns, because that is really beyond my level of experience. I have shot trap twice and 5-stand once. On the other hand, I've hunted turkeys, ducks, quail and doves for almost 20 years. Thus, I'll try to confine my opinions to my area of experience.

First, a quick primer on shotguns for Milbarge and the Karate Kid. There are 3 basic styles of shotguns: (1) single-barrel, single-shot guns that must be reloaded after each shot (which we will ignore for the purposes of this post); (2) double-barreled guns that must be reloaded after each barrel is fired; and (3) single-barrel guns that hold multiple shells in a fixed magazine.

The double-barreled guns ("doubles") are further subdivided into guns with the barrels mounted side-by-side and guns with one barrel mounted on top of the other (known as "over-under" or "o/u"). The single-barreled guns with multi-round magazines are further divided between guns that are loaded by manually pulling the slide (the reloading mechanism) to the rear and then sliding it forward - commonly known as the "pump action." Another type are guns that use the gas expelled by the firing of one shell and the force of the recoil to power a mechanism that automatically loads another shell into the chamber - known as "autoloaders" or "semi-automatics." The advantage of autoloaders is that they cycle through to the second and third round faster than most people can manually operate a pump-action gun or reload a double. The disadvantage is that they are usually heavier than pumps and because of the complexity of the reloading mechanism they are more expensive to manufacture than pumps. Doubles, because of the extra cost of the second barrel, tend to be the most expensive. The second barrel can make them heavier, too. Doubles have 2 primary advantages: (1) the ability to have 2 different chokes, one in each barrel, in the same gun (the chokes are fittings in the muzzle end of the barrel that determine the pattern of the pellets - a topic that is beyond the scope of this post), and (2) it is obvious to other people when a double is unloaded, because the gun breaks open at the breach (the gun is hinged in front of the trigger and the barrels swing open on the hinge so that the gun can be loaded) - a good safety feature in the field or on the range.

The shells fired by shotguns are classified by "gauge." This is a measurement of the inside diameter of the barrel and very roughly translates into the power of a particular gun. The .410 is the smallest shell (it is actually a caliber measurement, not a gauge), and, in increasing size, come the 28, 20, 16, 14, 12 and finally the 10-gauge. The larger the number, the smaller the gauge. The 12-gauge is the most common size in America, but the 20-gauge is very popular among some hunters and competitive shooters. The 10-gauge is, from my understanding, primarily used for goose hunting because of the need for power and range to hit (relatively) high flying birds.

There are many other finer points to the distinctions between shotguns, but I think this should give you an idea of what I'm talking about in this post. If you have any questions, raise them in the comments and I'll try to address them. Moving on. . .

The Remington Model 870 Express - the best selling shotgun of all time - is a great pump-action gun. I own one that's over 20 years old and I love it. It is a simple and reliable gun. It's an inexpensive gun, too. You can find them for around $350. I also have a Remington Model 11-87 autoloader with interchangeable chokes that I really, really like. It comes in a wood stock or in a matte black synthetic stock for around $600 - $900 depending on the stock and grip you select. Both of the Remington shotguns I own are 12-gauge guns. I'd like to get a Model 1100 in 16-gauge for wing shooting, but I haven't been in the field enough in recent years to justify buying another shotgun.

I really like the Ruger Red Label 12-gauge. It is arguably the best double on the market for the price. They run between $1300 - $1600 depending on where you look. I've shot them before and I really enjoyed the experience. They get high marks from just about everyone. If you are going to buy a double, and you don't have $2000 to spend, then this is the gun to get.

Weatherby makes some nice shotguns. Their over/under is the Orion Upland which starts at around $1300. These guns get consistently superior marks. Weatherby's autoloader, the SAS Field runs $850 - $950, depending on the finish. I cannot say I know much about the gun in particular, but the Orion guns are nice, Weatherby's rifles are family favorites, and so I'd trust that the SAS line are good guns, too.

The Browning BPS line of pump-action guns looks good, too. The Gold label are preferred by many of my father-in-law's rich quail-hunting friends. I've handled some of theses guns, but I've never used them. However, they are Brownings and I would trust them to be good guns. They range in price from $500 for pumps to around $1200 for the autoloaders.

Finally, in the entry-level category, Mossberg shotguns are hard (impossible) to beat for the price. The Model 500 goes for around $300 and the Model 835 goes for around $500 (both are pump-action guns). The Model 935 autoloader goes for between $500 and $600 depending on the exact features. You cannot go wrong with a Mossberg.

When you start looking at guns in the $1,500 to $2,000 price range, let me say that Browning shotguns are top notch. The Browning Citori over / under doubles ("o/u") are superb guns, but they run in the $1600 - $2000 range, which may be beyond what a first time buyer will want to spend. They perform well, they look so good, they're light, they're classic in every way.

Winchester makes the well-reviewed Super X2 autoloaders. They run in the $1,000 to $1,500 range. They look nice, as do the Winchester Select doubles. Winchester makes some great rifles, but I don't know enough about their shotguns to offer any specific opinions.

Beretta makes some fine guns, as Steve can attest. Though, like Plainsman, I wish Beretta would stay away from attempts at futuristic styling. Make beautiful guns, please, not props for the new Governator movie. Anyway, the Beretta guns start in the price range $1200 - $1500 and can quickly escalate to the $3000 to $5000 range. These are guns for lawyers, not law students.

In my opinion, if you're only going to own one shotgun for hunting, go with a 12-gauge in a 28" barrel for singles (30" if you're only going to be shooting clays), or 26" barrels for doubles (the defaults on most models). The 12-gauge is a versatile gun, powerful enough for deer and waterfowl, yet you could use it for dove, quail, pheasants and turkeys without any problems. If you are going to think about a second gun, I'd suggest a 16-gauge if you can find one - or if you are very lucky, a 14-gauge. The 16-gauge guns are not as easy to come by as they once were, but they are classy and evoke a certain nostalgia. The 16-gauge has the power of a 12, but the weight of a 20, so the saying goes. They are probably a little underpowered for deer, ducks, or geese, but great for upland shooting. Twenty gauge guns are lighter still, but I just don't see the point. They are less powerful, with correspondingly shorter range, and, thus, less probability of a clean kill. Some people would argue that's not the case, but ballistics tests and the overwhelming popularity of the 12-gauge would seem to indicate otherwise. Still, there are people who love 20-gauge, and they'll be happy to point out how stupid I am to prefer the 12 and the 16. It's one man's opinion and all, but I can only counter with the fact that I have never been in a hunting situation and wished I was carrying a 20-gauge rather than a 12-gauge.

In summary, I would say that the first time buyer or the budget-conscious hunter should seriously consider either the Remington 870 or the Mossberg 500 in 12-gauge. They are both great guns and extraordinary values. For the buyer who insists on a double as his first or only shotgun, I would recommend the Ruger Red Label series. If you want to send me a thoughtful Christmas gift, I'll take the Citori. Don't bother with the gift wrap.

In honor of Valentine's Day, and since I &hearts my readers so very much, I thought I'd make let you help me out with some content. So I'm making this an ALL-REQUEST WEEK. I have a couple of posts in the hopper, but let me know what you'd like me to post about. I think I'll turn down any basketball-related requests for now, but pretty much anything else is fair game. So fire away!

A germophobe friend, perhaps upset that I've been talking so much about ice -- what with my post about hockey and interest in the Olympic "Curl Girls" -- sends me this appetizing story about a student's science fair project involving ice dispensers at fast food restaurants. Big surprise: the ice was swarming with bacteria, and in some cases had more bacteria than the restaurant's toilet water. Were they getting their ice from Uga?! And via the Sports Law Blog, news of a Massachusetts Dunkin Donuts where the coffee came with some, shall we say, off-menu additives. I don't drink coffee, so at least I can dodge that one. And I'm not going to start carrying my own ice to fast food restaurants. (Didn't Harrison Ford's character go nuts about ice in the underrated Mosquito Coast?) I guess my only option, like Puddy, is to learn to live with it "for the most part."