The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 26, 2013, 08:56 PM   #51
SauerGrapes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2009
Location: S.E.PA.
Posts: 667
Quote:
I get the spirit of this, but damn it, my gun is locked up. My doors are locked as are my windows and my ADT alarm system is engaged. I feel much more able to defend my wife and myself with my gun within relatively easy reach. Putting it in a safe back in my closet with any kind of lock on it defeats the sole purpose of my owning the gun in the first place.

If someone takes extraordinary measures to get into my home and steals my TV and my gun, I will feel no responsibility whatsoever for any subsequent ill-advised usage of my stolen property, including robbing a liquor store or watching Survivor.
I don't think your point is unreasonable. Good locks AND a security system. I would just like to see added measures for extended periods away from the home.
If you have people left at home that are not gun savvy, I think further measures are warranted. I'm not singling you out, just making an extended point.
I have no problem with people having 1 or 20 guns out loaded if they're home.
__________________
NRA member, DCF&S member, PAFOA member, USPSA member

R.I.P.____Murphy
SauerGrapes is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:01 PM   #52
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
So, Gaerek, how would you feel if your car were stolen, and in the course of a high speed pursuit the car thief or a pursuing officer caused one or more traffic deaths?

We would all feel bad, but would you feel responsible?
It would be one thing if when I parked the car I locked it and took the key with me. It would be another thing if I left the key in the car and the door open.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
...A portable lockbox will keep your small child away from the gun, but will not keep a teenaged thief from taking lockbox, gun, and all...
Our lock boxes are bolted down and no longer portable. And in any case, there's still a difference between a gun that's locked in a lock box and one that is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
...If somebody had implied, back in the 1970s, that a gun owner was morally or legally responsible for the actions of a thief, they would have been laughed at, and rightfully so...
Of course, that was then and this is now. Now there are safe storage laws and potential criminal liability in some States for the gun owner whose unsecured, loaded gun is taken by a minor who hurts someone with it.

You might not like it, but that's how it is. And if you can get enough people to agree with you, there are ways to try to change the laws.

And you might also want to consider whether some of these laws came about because there was a broad, public perception that too many gun owners were not taking sufficient care to prevent foreseeable unauthorized misuse of their guns. That is how a lot of these sorts of laws come into being.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:07 PM   #53
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Frank, this train could easily run into the politics of individual accountability vs group think. I am happy to go there, but I suspect the thread would get locked in short order.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:43 PM   #54
spacecoast
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2009
Location: Sunshine and Keystone States
Posts: 4,083
Quote:
I thought about a safe until I watched a video showing how very easy it is to break into one. Two guys were in in five minutes. I could probably come up with $1,000 for a safe, but I'm betting a $1,000 safe wouldn't keep out a couple of guys intent on getting into it for very long.
You're right about that, I've seen the same video and it was less than two minutes. But, even a $1000 safe is better than nothing, especially if it's properly bolted down so it can't be tipped over.
spacecoast is online now  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:44 PM   #55
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,763
I still think it's an individual choice, but perhaps where I've grown up and spent most of my life has a lot to do with it - we just don't bother to many people who are minding their own business. I would never require a safe to be mandatory in any way shape or form, but I would support an insurance deduction or rate reduction for having a safe - mine doesn't, darn it. That would do far more to encourage safe ownership than mandating it by legislative fiat.
__________________
http://czfirearms.us/ same original CZForum, new location.
armoredman is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 09:53 PM   #56
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Frank, this train could easily run into the politics of individual accountability vs group think. I am happy to go there, but I suspect the thread would get locked in short order.
Yes, it would get locked, because that would be a meaningless detour into theory.

The reality is that there are a number of bases upon which a gun owner, in the real world, can be found to have liability for not taking what a judge or jury might think are adequate precautions to prevent, or at least minimize the risk of, unauthorized access to his gun. That is reality whether you think it's right or not. And if you don't think it's right, you have the opportunity to try to change that reality if you get enough others to go along and if the political climate is congenial.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Pike
I thought about a safe until I watched a video showing how very easy it is to break into one...
It's easier still to get the gun that's not locked up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by coachteet
Yeah, some jerk breaks into my home, rifles through my possessions, finds my "in-service" firearms, and somehow I am responsible for arming a criminal? This is absurd.
Maybe it's absurd to you. But if you didn't take what a judge or jury decides was reasonable care to prevent the criminal taking your gun, you indeed might well be found at least civilly liable. Welcome to the real world.

Bottom line is that in my view the responsible gun owner secures his guns against unauthorized access, and that means keeping it on his person or locking it up. Whether or not he's legally obligated to do so is beside the point. It's a matter of personal responsibility and prudence. If someone chooses not to do so, he shouldn't expect me to congratulate him on his choice; and if he winds up being legally liable, he shouldn't expect any sympathy from me.

BTW, there are ways to display guns and still secured.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 10:06 PM   #57
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Frank, I really don't. In Florida, then in Georgia, and now in Missouri I have lived in states where the law holds homeowners harmless from the results of burglaries/robberies in their homes.

Florida considered changing that, and I helped vote to stop any such change.

Things are different in CA, I am sure.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 10:12 PM   #58
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Frank, I really don't. In Florida, then in Georgia, and now in Missouri I have lived in states where the law holds homeowners harmless from the results of burglaries/robberies in their homes....
Sorry, but I'd need to see citations to accept your characterization. "Hold harmless" can mean many things in different contexts.

In any case, as I said, that's entirely beside the point. As I said in a prior post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
...Bottom line is that in my view the responsible gun owner secures his guns against unauthorized access, and that means keeping it on his person or locking it up. Whether or not he's legally obligated to do so is beside the point. It's a matter of personal responsibility and prudence. If someone chooses not to do so, he shouldn't expect me to congratulate him on his choice; and if he winds up being legally liable, he shouldn't expect any sympathy from me....
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 10:47 PM   #59
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
Frank, please review my posts, and tell me where we disagree on "shoulds."

"Shalls" and "musts" are my sticking points.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 11:13 PM   #60
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
I recently upgraded from a secure-cabinet to a good safe. Financially it was painful, but I appreciate the peace of mind (especially in today's climate where it is important to be beyond reproach).

I've been doing the same routine for years: All guns are locked in the cabinet (now safe), except for my carry gun. My carry gun gets put on when I get dressed in the morning and comes off when I go to bed at night. It sleeps in a lock-box.
win-lose is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 11:16 PM   #61
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
Frank, please review my posts, and tell me where we disagree on "shoulds."...
First, I'm not going to debate whether or not there should be legal liability. The reality is that some places, under some circumstances, there will be. You might not think there ought to be, but that won't, by itself, change anything.

Second, without considering the possibility of legal liability, I consider it irresponsible for a gun owner not to secure his guns from unauthorized access, and to me that means locking up guns, except for a gun which you might have under your immediate control, on your person. And I'm really not interested in all the rationalizations for not doing so.

Third, if folks don't want an expansion of laws requiring safe storage or imposing liability for unauthorized access to unsecured guns, a good way to head those types of laws off is to voluntarily lock up any gun not under your immediate control on your person. Laws have a way of getting passed when enough of the body politic decides that other people aren't being responsible enough. That's why we have seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, using a cell phone while driving laws, laws prohibiting working on your car on your front lawn, etc. I'm not going to argue about whether those laws are good or rationally necessary. But when enough folks get annoyed enough or scared enough by what other people are doing, they have a way of electing politicians who will enact laws against their doing those things.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 11:24 PM   #62
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
I'm fine with the idea of securing arms... But I refuse to become a prisoner to some set of mandatory security. I use a gun safe and various trigger locks and dead bolts and other things to keep my arms safe and secure.

Should someone violate my house and violate all these protections I feel I have made reasonable steps. Even the strongest safe can be broken. To say that someone braking into a house and stealing arms of the home owner is the homeowners fault is non sense. Safe or no safe a crime has been committed.

You want to stop mass murder. Find a way to out law evil. Any driven individual willing to die to accomplish murder is essentially unstoppable.

Do I recommend a safe and security measures, of course... But what I really recommend is a lawfully carried weapon.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old January 26, 2013, 11:43 PM   #63
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
So, Frank, I see you are going to take my responses out of context. This is unusual for you.

In multiple posts, I have said I am all for safes; that I use a safe; that I have lockboxes when I travel; and that I like to have my home defense gun on my person. I have further recommended such actions as good policy - but NOT as mandatory policy.

I have also pointed out that some people who may have real need of a gun may not be able to afford a serious securing system, and that I do not think this should disqualify poor people from firearm ownership - but it could if people try to make safe ownership a requirement for gun ownership.

You then said I should push for legislation supporting my views, at which point I said where I live, and where I have lived, there is not a legal requirement for locking systems.

So, now that we have some context, if we really disagree does that mean you are for mandatory ownership of security systems as a prerequisite for gun ownership? Or are you and I actually on the same page?
MLeake is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 02:52 AM   #64
therealdeal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 627
still a good thread from the last time I was here

my "uncle" is a retired NY state trooper and decorated WWII Veteran. The guy has never smoked and he doesn't drink(OK, it really doesn't matter). the point is he is of sound mind and judgement, old-school(from a time way before me), and he doesn't cut corners on safety.

for whatever it is worth:
he claims the kids KNEW to never touch his service weapon

....

there are others too who believe in locking up firearms, but if they leave the house(locked and empty) might just leave the firearm out until they get back. I can't blame a person if their house is robbed. He might down some rum and die too; it's the perp's fault. I recommend knowing the serial numbers so you can report said weapon stolen asap.

I have never done this and I might be wrong, but forget about cars....I heard of at least one case where someone would leave a firearm on the backporch. Personally I would disagree w/this but I am not sure if it is legal or not? I know the consensus from anti states is inbred guns should be locked up. Most think it is a law and just common sense. When I talk to my buddies from where I grew up they all assume it is a law and responsibility to lock guns up. The truth is these laws are a minority. I choose to do so myself and do agree with the notion that "something is better than nothing". at least this way it isn't an accidental or negligent discharge...someone actually had to conive or resort to out right theivery to steal a small safe and open it later(only one example)
__________________
NRA Distinguished Life Member

"Abraham Lincoln freed all men, but Sam Colt made them all equal." (post Civil War slogan)
therealdeal is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 04:05 AM   #65
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 2,755
MLeake

In response to your point about safes and their costs. As others have said since I went to bed last night, it is about dissuading the opportunist.

No safe is unbreakable, but it is still going to put off the guy who'd initially come in looking for TV, DVDs and other household valuables.

If someone comes to ones home planning to open a gun safe, then they know about it already.

I also believe if you can afford several guns, you can afford a safe. If you only have a couple of hand-guns a small document safe, well-placed and well-secured, is plenty big enough and cheaper to boot.

Still if it became a requirement, I think we can "safely" rely on the American market to provide cheaper alternatives for the less well-off.

I notice that you've asked Frank where you and he disagree, explaining how you have spoken in support of safes.
I also notice I had done the same, especially as I have not said that there must be a law to cover this.
All the same I've been challenged on a desire for a law you seem to think I hold.

I've only said that if people don't take precautions and further shootings may arise, then the likelihood of law increases, and I've also said that if I had a choice of legislation on storage and on what I could buy, I'd choose storage as it seems the more effective prevention for people using guns in criminal ways...
__________________
You cannot wake someone who is pretending to sleep. Stop pretending. Wake up.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; January 27, 2013 at 04:20 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 04:35 AM   #66
youngunz4life
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2010
Location: United States of America
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
I recently upgraded from a secure-cabinet to a good safe. Financially it was painful, but I appreciate the peace of mind (especially in today's climate where it is important to be beyond reproach).

I've been doing the same routine for years: All guns are locked in the cabinet (now safe), except for my carry gun. My carry gun gets put on when I get dressed in the morning and comes off when I go to bed at night. It sleeps in a lock-box.
Sir, i am surprised you lock the weapon up during the wee hours in case of a home invasion(or night-time prowler), but i'm guessing you keep the lockbox close?
__________________
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" -Admiral Farragut @ Battle of Mobile Bay 05AUG1864
youngunz4life is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 06:15 AM   #67
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,775
How can my gun left inside my locked home considered to be 'reckless'?
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 08:34 AM   #68
Hansam
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 763
Having only read the thread up to this point I'd like to chime in now.

First off I have 5 kids ranging from 1 yr old to 14yrs old. Second I have multiple firearms in both long arms (shotguns and ARs) and handguns (various models). Third while I have the majority of them secured I do have four handguns and two long guns that are not secured in a safe. These firearms are for home and personal protection and as such are loaded and left in areas around the house such as atop book cases, in the nightstand drawer, beneath my bed, behind my coat rack etc.

My kids have grown up knowing these firearms are there and loaded. They do KNOW not to touch them. Aside from the 1 yr old my kids have been to the range with me and they have shot with me. They are fully aware of the power of a firearm and know they are not toys to be played with. I am disgusted when people use the excuse that they're parents and are afraid of their kids getting to the firearms. My kids are perfect examples of that excuse being a fallacy. If you're afraid of your kids getting to the firearms then it isn't the kids that's the problem - its YOU as a parent that are the problem and YOU haven't properly instructed your kids. Just because YOU failed as a parent in that aspect don't project your own failure and feelings of inadequacy upon those of us who haven't failed our kids in that area.

That said I don't believe that having these firearms out means that they aren't secured. I have good strong steel outer doors with deadbolts and sturdy windows too. Of course glass can be broken but then I also have dogs - a little one now that seems to know when ANYONE is within 100 ft of the house and a larger dog that puts on a good show of being protective and aggressive to intruders that haven't been welcomed in but I don't know how he'd do in the event of an actual break-in. I also have motion activated lights set up so that they provide a good visible perimeter all around the house out to a few hundred feet (at least).

If my family has gone somewhere for the evening and someone still approaches the house, breaks in, bypasses the dogs and finds my guns that aren't locked in a safe... its not my fault nor am I going to feel guilty if this person uses the gun in further crimes (even killing someone). I don't believe that it is upon me to ensure all my firearms are locked up in a safe. In fact I only lock my other guns up in a safe so that IF this does happen I don't have to replace all of them not because I feel responsible if a crook steals them and uses them in other crimes.

When has it been the liability of the owner if their property is used in a crime by a criminal? Are we condemning law abiding citizens simply because their property was stolen by a criminal and then used in another crime? Is that morally correct regardless of what religion you practice? Its as stupid as the laws in some cities that makes it illegal to start your car and leave it idling without a driver to either cool or heat it before you start driving - punishable by a fine. The official reasoning for most of these laws is to protect us from having our cars stolen. These laws DO exist - they're going to punish the owner for a crime that hasn't been perpetrated yet. In Wisconsin at least 3 cities have laws like these - LaCross, Sheboygan and Milwaukee. I'm sure there are other cities too.

Instead of demonizing law abiding gun owners and putting more and more pressure on us why not demonize the right group of people - the criminals - and put the pressure on them? Let's toughen our laws on criminals - bring back the death penalty in states that don't have them (for murderers) and let's increase the penalties for people who commit crimes. As it is I believe we as a society have become too lenient on criminals. There are even those who would rationalize a burglar's actions as while being illegal still being acceptable because that burglar was poor - or that illegal aliens, while still illegal, should be allowed to be here because they were simply trying to find a better life for themselves. By the way I'm an immigrant - a naturalized citizen - and having gone through all the necessary steps to get into the country legally and become a citizen I despise illegal aliens for cheating those of us who did this properly.
__________________
This is who we are, what we do.
Hansam is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 09:33 AM   #69
alreds
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2
gun owners

I totally agree with the premise of securing firearms when they are not being used. I typically don’t have any guns in obvious places where they would be easy to be picked up by anyone other than me. Rather than having a gun in every room, I keep one gun concealed in a secure and readily available place and the rest locked away. That way if suddenly needed it will be there where I know it is.
alreds is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 09:36 AM   #70
Skadoosh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,775
alreds wrote:
Quote:
I keep one gun concealed in a secure and readily available place and the rest locked away.
I am not sure what you meant by 'secure'...when in the next part of your sentence you say the rest are locked away. Is that concealed gun of yours not locked away?
__________________
NRA Life Member (2003)
USN Retired
I think that one of the notions common to the anti-gunner is the idea that being a victim is 'noble'; as if it is better to be noble in your suffering than disruptive in your own defense.
Skadoosh is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 10:00 AM   #71
win-lose
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 3, 2009
Posts: 451
Quote:
Sir, i am surprised you lock the weapon up during the wee hours in case of a home invasion(or night-time prowler), but i'm guessing you keep the lockbox close?
Yup, the lock-box is in the bedroom. We have two large dogs which should provide enough warning/time for me to get to the firearm.
win-lose is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 12:37 PM   #72
srtolly1
Member
 
Join Date: May 19, 2012
Location: Southern Minnesota
Posts: 47
Takes 2 keys to get to my guns after you get past my 2 large dogs (Mastif and a German Shepherd). Then there is a security system to get past as well that is cellular. All hard wired (including the cabinet) steel conduit where not in the walls. Firearms are locked up when not with me and keys in my pocket.
srtolly1 is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 01:18 PM   #73
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
So, Frank, I see you are going to take my responses out of context. This is unusual for you....
Sorry you feel that way. I'm really not trying to have a head-to-head, point-by-point debate.

I think that I've stated my views on this subject and that they're pretty straight forward:
  • Post 56:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
    ...in my view the responsible gun owner secures his guns against unauthorized access, and that means keeping it on his person or locking it up. Whether or not he's legally obligated to do so is beside the point. It's a matter of personal responsibility and prudence...
  • Post 61:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
    ....without considering the possibility of legal liability, I consider it irresponsible for a gun owner not to secure his guns from unauthorized access, and to me that means locking up guns, except for a gun which you might have under your immediate control, on your person...
  • Post 56:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
    ...The reality is that there are a number of bases upon which a gun owner, in the real world, can be found to have liability for not taking what a judge or jury might think are adequate precautions to prevent, or at least minimize the risk of, unauthorized access to his gun....
  • Post 61:
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
    ...if folks don't want an expansion of laws requiring safe storage or imposing liability for unauthorized access to unsecured guns, a good way to head those types of laws off is to voluntarily lock up any gun not under your immediate control on your person....
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 06:13 PM   #74
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake View Post
So, Gaerek, how would you feel if your car were stolen, and in the course of a high speed pursuit the car thief or a pursuing officer caused one or more traffic deaths?

We would all feel bad, but would you feel responsible?
You're missing the point. I lock my car. I take all the precautions I can. I lock my guns. I take all the precautions I can. If I could put my car in a safe, I would, but I can't, feasibly. If I've taken every reasonable precaution, there's really nothing I can do if someone wants to do something stupid with my property. I however, will not be an accessory to a crime (not legally of course, only in my own conscience) because I'm too cheap or lazy to lock my guns up when they're not in use. A safe is a relatively cheap, and reasonable precaution. Will it stop all thieves? Probably not, but most criminals only go for easy targets. Breaking into a house is incredibly easy. Breaking into a gun safe if much harder.

Criminals don't get guns from gun stores. They get them from the law abiding. The easier you make it for them, the more guns they have.
Gaerek is offline  
Old January 27, 2013, 06:22 PM   #75
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Criminals don't get guns from gun stores. They get them from the law abiding. The easier you make it for them, the more guns they have.
Please post a source... Id like to read the specifics and who claims it to be such. Im not saying its not true but I have never seen a credible source on it.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Reply

Tags
lock , safe

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15271 seconds with 10 queries