The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old May 12, 2009, 05:24 PM   #1
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
National Parks Carry update

I just saw this mentioned on the news, currently attached to, of all things a credit card bill. Any chance of this working, or maybe they don't want the credit card bill to pass?

http://washingtonindependent.com/426...reform-bill-is
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old May 12, 2009, 07:04 PM   #2
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
It's now being reported that the Senate passed the credit card bill, 67 to 29, with the Coburn amendment in it.

The bill will now go to conference to resolve the differences between the two houses.

The Republicans really don't want finance reform, or we would have seen such during all those years that Bush and the republican party held the majority. So this very well could be a "poison pill" amendment.

It should also be noted that the Dems have used this very tactic to get gun-control measures passed. Now the other side of the aisle is using many of the same tactics.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 12, 2009, 07:26 PM   #3
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Well it's good...but it strikes me that the two are so unrelated seemingly, it's definately fast and loose with legislation games and political payback these days.

I did read that the President wants his credit card legislation on his desk by memorial day to avert the crisis.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old May 12, 2009, 11:02 PM   #4
jfrey123
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2006
Location: Reno, NV.
Posts: 1,026
I think it's one of those "If you damn Dems want the credit card reform, we gun totin' Right Wing Extremists want our CCW's in National Parks" type deals....




I'm strangely comfortable with this one.
__________________
Rock out with your Glock out!
jfrey123 is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 06:53 AM   #5
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,645
Well, if you want to buy guns & ammo on credit, I would do it now because they are going to be pulling back (actually they have already been pulling back) credit card debt before that bill takes effect. It will be interesting to see how bad they want it though
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 02:04 PM   #6
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,371
Something we should take heart in, is the numbers, 67 yeas, 29 naes.

That tells me dems are gonna have a hard time passing any anti - gun legislation.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 02:25 PM   #7
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,067
I agree with kraigwy - the numbers certainly seem important. Hopefully those 67 yeas are a strong indication that the leanings in the Senate are more in favor of gun ownership and less inclined to pass new anti gun legislation.

I find it interesting that the press considers the ammendment a poison pill for the credit card legislation rather than a move to get the concealed carry in National Parks bill passed by attaching it to a bill dear to the hearts of the liberal senators.
JWT is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 02:30 PM   #8
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
Well it's good...but it strikes me that the two are so unrelated seemingly, it's definately fast and loose with legislation games and political payback these days.
Well, they announced they wanted to play dirty with their bought and paid for judge so I guess Mr. Coburn decided it was time for the gloves to come off.

I, for one, am tired of being the political punching bag and I think this was an extremely well placed thorn!
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 03:00 PM   #9
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,072
Can the legislative branch override the injunction of the judicial branch?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 03:03 PM   #10
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
I don't believe so, but it does change the rules of the game. Right now the basis of the injunction is that the "rules change" didn't follow one of the guidelines (that of an "environmental impact study") A change in legislature blows that right out of the water since an EIS isn't required for the proposed law.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 03:26 PM   #11
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
I, for one, am tired of being the political punching bag and I think this was an extremely well placed thorn!
Don't get me wrong i'm all for it, but i get a little worried when they pass a massive bill with no time to read them, in spite of the new era of the teleprompter's 5 day online transparency policy. Out of it comes things like the AIG bonuses shoved thru by Giethner and Dodd at the eleventh hour.(I'm not/wasn't against the bonuses, just the shell game). Unless of course they go my way, and then i'm all for it.

Don't wanna wake up tomorrow and find they snuck a total EBR ban into a healthcare bill while nobody was lookin'.

Strange days...
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; May 13, 2009 at 03:34 PM.
alloy is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 04:35 PM   #12
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,306
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Can the legislative branch override the injunction of the judicial branch?
Short answer, Yes.

The injunction is against a regulation, not a legislated law. In this case, it makes no difference why the injunction was in place. Change the actual law, and the injunction is a moot point.

Does anyone have a link to the bill, as amended?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 13, 2009, 04:41 PM   #13
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
the link to it is on this first page of amendments,(1068) but im not good at navigating the site

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...1:HR00627:@@@S

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c1116MtsoE::
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old May 14, 2009, 01:22 AM   #14
Yellowfin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: West Upstate NY
Posts: 2,303
Can they sneak in "repeal 922(o) " somewhere? That's a mere 13 characters in what's likely to be over a 100 page bill, as they all are.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org
New York gun owners unite! Join now! http://www.nyshooters.net
May Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Yellowfin is offline  
Old May 19, 2009, 11:54 PM   #15
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
WSJ editorial: Democrats and Guns

This from a Wall Street Journal editorial entitled "Democrats and Guns":

Quote:
Amid so much other news, a Senate vote last week to allow loaded guns in national parks slipped under the media radar. The vote shows how the political cause of gun control is as dead as a mounted moose.

By 67-29, the Senate passed Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn's amendment to let law-abiding visitors carry legal firearms into national parks. This overturns a 1983 federal rule requiring that firearms be kept unloaded and in an inaccessible place such as a trunk of a car. The provision (now part of credit-card legislation) protects Second Amendment rights, and it preserves the right of states to pass firearm laws that apply consistently, even on federal lands.

As recently as the 1990s, guns in parks legislation would have provoked a Congressional uproar. But gun control has proven to be a consistent political loser, and last year the Supreme Court cast doubt on state gun bans. No fewer than 27 Democrats voted for Mr. Coburn's amendment, and the ayes included Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is up for re-election in Nevada next year.

Congressional liberals are furious, and are threatening to hold up the credit-card bill, much as they have held up Washington, D.C. voting-rights legislation to which Republicans attached gun-owner protections. Holding up both bad bills forever would be fine with us, but in any case it's clear liberals have lost the gun control debate even within their own party.
The credit card bill passed the Senate. According to an AP article, it still has intact the Coburn amendment. Of course, it has to pass in the House too, but according to the chairman of a national parks subcommittee in the House, it is likely to pass in the House, given the pro-gun rights majorities in both the House and Senate. Democratic leaders said there was not enough time to send the bill to a House-Senate conference committee — where presumably it could be removed without a vote — and still get it to Obama by Memorial Day as he has requested.
Ricky B is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 09:25 AM   #16
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
It'd be a great way to start Memorial weekend! <wishful thinking>.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 12:40 PM   #17
Ricky B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 3, 2002
Posts: 251
According to an article I read, many of the new Dems in Congress come from western states, and they don't have the anti-gun attitude of their eastern confreres.
Ricky B is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 01:30 PM   #18
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
It's THROUGH!

Now we see about "resolving the differences" and then to Mr. O's desk it goes.


Govtrack
H.R.627
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-627
Current status
Occurred: Introduced Jan 22, 2009
Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments
Occurred: Reported by Committee Apr 22, 2009
Occurred: Amendments (89 proposed) View Amendments
Occurred: Passed House Apr 30, 2009
Occurred: Passed Senate May 19, 2009
Not Yet Occurred: Differences Resolved ...
Not Yet Occurred: Signed by President ...

With "Section 512" still intact and reading as follows
Quote:
SEC. 512. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

(a) Congressional Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the Constitution provides that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’.

(2) Section 2.4(a)(1) of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that ‘except as otherwise provided in this section and parts 7 (special regulations) and 13 (Alaska regulations), the following are prohibited: (i) Possessing a weapon, trap or net (ii) Carrying a weapon, trap or net (iii) Using a weapon, trap or net’.

(3) Section 27.42 of title 50, Code of Federal Regulations, provides that, except in special circumstances, citizens of the United States may not ‘possess, use, or transport firearms on national wildlife refuges’ of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(4) The regulations described in paragraphs (2) and (3) prevent individuals complying with Federal and State laws from exercising the second amendment rights of the individuals while at units of--

(A) the National Park System; and

(B) the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(5) The existence of different laws relating to the transportation and possession of firearms at different units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System entrapped law-abiding gun owners while at units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

(6) Although the Bush administration issued new regulations relating to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in units of the National Park System and National Wildlife Refuge System that went into effect on January 9, 2009--

(A) on March 19, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction with respect to the implementation and enforcement of the new regulations; and

(B) the new regulations--

(i) are under review by the administration; and

(ii) may be altered.

(7) Congress needs to weigh in on the new regulations to ensure that unelected bureaucrats and judges cannot again override the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens on 83,600,000 acres of National Park System land and 90,790,000 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(8) The Federal laws should make it clear that the second amendment rights of an individual at a unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System should not be infringed.

(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Last edited by ZeSpectre; May 20, 2009 at 01:38 PM.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 01:49 PM   #19
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
Another Update

Washington Post
House Passes Credit Card Bill, Sending It to President
http://tinyurl.com/qptvtc

Quote:
By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 20, 2009; 2:29 PM

The House today gave final approval to a bill that would prohibit credit card companies from arbritarily raising interest rates on existing balances and charging certain fees.

With a 367-61 vote, the House ensured that President Obama will be able to sign the bill into law by Memorial Day, as he requested.

The House had approved a more diluted credit card reform bill last month but chose to send the stonger Senate version to the president instead. The Senate overwhelmingly passed its bill, written by Banking Committee Chairman Christoper Dodd (D-Conn.), on Tuesday.

>>>SNIP<<<<< (see online article for full text)

The House's passage of the bill came after an unrelated amendment allowing visitors to national parks to carry guns passed on a separate vote of 279-147. This morning, White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama would sign the legislation even if the amendment, introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), were included.

>>>SNIP<<<<< (see online article for full text)

The legislation passed today, which goes farther than the Fed's new rules, would become effective nine months after signing.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 02:02 PM   #20
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,558
The NY Times has been having hissy fits about the amendment for awhile. Why doesn't Obama stand up to the evil gun lobby? Oh, dear - he is misbehaving.

__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 02:06 PM   #21
dcludwig
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Posts: 21
I think this is great news for more than one reason. Now, I am FAR from being an Obama supporter (and would need a lobotomy to become one), but this is one piece of legislation he has pushed for that I agree with. I am extremely glad that the National Parks carry permission was tacked on, but even moreso because it wasn't some huge tax and/or spend bill that it was attached to. I am a capitalist through and through, but the credit card industry has royally screwed its card-holders over and over. And sadly the worse victims are those who can least afford the rate change from 12% to 29% at the whim of the CC companies.

On a side note, I've skimmed through the legislation, but didn't see how this would affect those facilities maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. Anyone able to shed some light on this?
dcludwig is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 02:12 PM   #22
dcludwig
Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2005
Posts: 21
Quote:
The NY Times has been having hissy fits about the amendment for awhile. Why doesn't Obama stand up to the evil gun lobby? Oh, dear - he is misbehaving.
<---hands hanky to the NY Times. Actually, I love this. Puts the big O between a rock and a hard place. He' going to sign it, I'd be shocked if he doesn't. Maybe the love affair with the leftist press won't be quite so slobbery now.
dcludwig is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 02:25 PM   #23
ZeSpectre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2007
Location: Shenandoah Valley
Posts: 3,276
I'm sure the NY Times and other groups are off having a drink with Justice CKK over having their legislative posterior handed to them.
ZeSpectre is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 02:51 PM   #24
HKuser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2008
Location: PA
Posts: 625
The House agreed to the Senate Amendment in two votes. The first vote was all but Sec. 512. The second vote (Roll Call 277), on agreeing to Sec. 512, passed with a lesser Democratic margin than the rest of the Amd. As the House agreed to the Amd, the bill is final and goes to the President.

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 277
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)

H R 627 YEA-AND-NAY 20-May-2009 2:24 PM
QUESTION: Concur In Sec. 512 of Sen Amdt.
BILL TITLE: Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009

Yeas Nays PRES NV
Democratic 105 145 5
Republican 174 2 2
Independent
TOTALS 279 147 7


---- YEAS 279 ---

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Driehaus
Duncan
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Etheridge
Fallin
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gordon (TN)
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Heinrich
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Kline (MN)
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Oberstar
Obey
Olson
Ortiz
Pallone
Paul
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pomeroy
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Scalise
Schauer
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Walden
Walz
Wamp
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

---- NAYS 147 ---

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castle
Castor (FL)
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maloney
Markey (MA)
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Olver
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Slaughter
Snyder
Sutton
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

---- NOT VOTING 7 ---

Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Braley (IA)
Polis (CO)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Speier
Stark
HKuser is offline  
Old May 20, 2009, 04:06 PM   #25
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,422
Quote:
According to an article I read, many of the new Dems in Congress come from western states, and they don't have the anti-gun attitude of their eastern confreres.
The Roll Call 277 tally seems to back this up... over 40% of House Dems voted "Yea". What was that about legislative posteriors?
Quote:
On a side note, I've skimmed through the legislation, but didn't see how this would affect those facilities maintained by the Army Corp of Engineers. Anyone able to shed some light on this?
Unfortunately, after reading the section myself, I don't think it has any effect on property overseen by the USACE. That stinks- we will still be prohibited from CCW at the numerous USACE-maintained parks located near TX lakes. I had my hopes up.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Reply

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 06:40 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 0.15476 seconds with 7 queries