The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 16, 2009, 12:57 PM   #126
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
With all due respect, I don't see this as allowed by the forum posting rules.
I think Al (Antipitas) addressed that in post #111. I think as long as we stay close to topic and don't insult one another I hope the thread will stay open for contributions from others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
I have a very difficult time determining what is a discussion of law, and, what is a part and parcel of the political machine that has created the laws.
Laws are part and parcel of the political process mutually exclusive of machines or parties. Just how we govern. However, it is that process that I speak of in answer to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
What public meeting place?
This forum is one such place where we publicly exchange ideas about public policy that will impact how we vote. I am assuming we all vote? Others may read these posts and help craft there views that can be articulated to others to maybe change their minds about gun laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
Our gun rights have been limited by elected officials,
And many of those limits approved by our courts. So maybe your issue is whether our 2A RKBA may be constitutionally limited by the USSS in performing their mission to protect the President. So far, the courts say yes the USSS can prohibit you from CCW in an area they reasonably deem a restricted area.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
They have then been allowed to exist by Judges and Supreme Courts that have been put in place as VERY much of the political process.
Absolutely Poseidon! It is ALL part of the process. Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Politics IS government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
The only place our gun rights have come back from is the Supreme Court of the United States, some federal courts, and, Heller and his lawyers.
Au contraire! When I grew up in TN it was against the law to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed. Today, it still is but I can get a license (If I haven't disqualified myself or are crazy) and I CAN carry a firearm. That came from my Legislature and my Governor not the courts. In fact we in the gun rights world have won many battles in restoring our freedoms and we have done so through the political process. My hope is that those efforts will continue and reduce the restrictions against the RKBA. However, some restrictions will remain and some of those restrictions I approve of.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 01:04 PM   #127
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
So did this gentleman aid the cause or not?
I say maybe after some thought. Maybe the public seeing folk armed who cause no harm and behave in a reasonable manner will help us remove some stigma about gun ownership. Glenn, you may have some more empirical stuff on that. I do remember once reading some tripe from the antigunners who said that we gun folk were "trying to remove the stigma of gun ownership from the public conciousness." Maybe an endorsement of Mr. Kostric?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 01:56 PM   #128
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
,,,

Last edited by Poseidon28; August 17, 2009 at 08:00 PM. Reason: I'm leaning on allowing the continuation of this thread in the direction it seems to be going, but at the first sign of any i
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 02:09 PM   #129
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon28
I'm not really good at the Reagan era. Did the attempt on his life create laws limiting RKBA?
Jim Brady (Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence) was President Reagan'sPress Secretary who was shot in the head by Hinckley and permanently disabled. The Brady Bill was named for him.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 02:34 PM   #130
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
There is a lot of Law written to protect the President. Here is one place to look: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34603.pdf and you might try their website. Too much here for me to post but a LOT of Federal legislation written on their behalf.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
I believe there are such laws that allow detention and questioning of those the USSS feel might be threats to the POTUS. Whenever the President speaks at any event the attendees are checked thru magnetometers and if they are carrying they are detained for questioning. I also believe that the USSS can declare areas where the President is restricted for things like guns, aircraft overflights etc. However, you brought up the challenge and so you can go look it up, I do not wish to at this time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Leake, I think the USSS is bound by all the laws that any Federal LE Agency is bound by. They do get special authority because of the nature of their protective mission (like traffic control, moving people out of hotel rooms, counterintelligence etc) that other LE agencies do not have but they are still bound by all Federal law and SCOTUS precedent. However, they have been given a lot of power to protect the safety of the President that other agencies do not have. I beleive there are laws that authorize them to do so and I used to know them once a long time ago but don't want to look them all up again. Too lazy
TG, you have made broad assertions about the power and authority of the Secret Service. I have spent several hours today trying to confirm your claims, but my research failed to find such extraordinary Secret Service powers. Similarly, the statutes listed in the Congressional Research Service report you cited and a Senate report on "Protection of the President" contained no discussion of extraordinary Secret Service powers.

Some have suggested that the Secret Service simply acts through local law enforcement. That view is supported multiple times in the Senate report, including: "S. 2896 will not supersede any existing laws, and the Secret Service will still rely upon State and local police for most crowd control as they have done in the past." Furthermore, a 2005 4th Circuit case involving Presidential Security Areas (the only such case I was able to find before a federal court), contained the following:

Quote:
When the officers [one Secret Service agent and one state law enforcement officer] gave Bursey a final ultimatum to depart, however, the restricted area had been shut down, and the general public (including those waiting in line) had been cleared. At that point, when Bursey refused to leave, he was arrested by airport police on a state trespass charge. That charge was later dismissed because, as Bursey had believed, the property was public and not subject to the South Carolina trespass statute.

Over four months after his arrest, on March 7, 2003, Bursey was charged by the United States Attorney in a one-count information with violating § 1752(a)(1)(ii) of Title 18 (the "Statute").
gc70 is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 03:03 PM   #131
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,846
I'm wading into this a bit late so forgive me if I overlook anything. It seems that the core of the debate here is whether Mr. Kostric helped, hurt, or had no effect on RKBA. In order to find the answer to this question, I think we need to examine the facts of what happened. Mr. Kostric broke no laws and was never even particularly close to President Obama, he was apparently left unmolested by the Secret Service, he made no overt threats (his sign and shirt could possibly be construed as one but I think that's stretching things a bit), and he managed to remain calm and controlled during what I consider to be a grilling by an obviously irate Chris Mathews. So, what messages were sent by these events? I see two, the first and most obvious is that firearms and the people who carry them can be present without leading to violence. In watching the interview with Mathews, it appears to me that his was the main message that Mr. Kostric was attempting to send and, because there was no violence, it would appear that this message was sent successfully. The second message that was sent was a bit more subtle, given the recent acts of intimidation and outright violence carried out against people who oppose the government at town hall meetings, I think Mr. Kostric sent a message telling those who would carry out such acts that not everyone is as easy a target as they might think. In essence, Mr. Kostric's gun served as a deterrent.

So, are these messages helpful, harmful, or indifferent to RKBA? To answer this question, one must look at this incident from the standpoint of the casual observer. Obviously, Mr. Kostric's actions aren't going to change the minds of those on opposed ends of the spectrum regarding this issue. Someone who is frightened by Mr. Kostric's actions is acting on the basis of emotion rather than logic. An outright fear of firearms is, IMHO, irrational and thusly no logical argument can change it. Such people are arleady unlikely to be supportive of our cause and thusly Mr. Kostric's actions regarding them make no difference. Likewise, people on our end of things are unlikely to be made into anti's by Mr. Kostric. They will argue that even if Mr. Kostric's actions were ill-advised, counter-productive, or inappropriate, the actions of one person do not justify an infringement upon the rights of everyone else. Therefore, the only people who can really be impacted by Mr. Kostric's actions are the fence-sitters: those who have no opinion or who are still formulating one. To these people, I think the fact that Mr. Kostric did what he did without an act of violence occuring may mildly influence their opinions.

What I think will probably influence opinions more than anything is the way the Mr. Kostric handled himself during the Mathews interview. The fact that the supposed "gun nut" remained calm and rational while the supposedly impartial journalist lost his temper doesn't really jive with the steriotype of gun owners as a bunch of looney, anarchist, Rambo-wannabes that the anti's have been promoting for years. Through their own attempts to spin and outright bias, the slanted journalists (namely Mathews) as MSNBC have actually helped our cause by discrediting their own. That, I think, is more powerful that the event itself.

As to the second message that Kostric sent, I kind of doubt that most people outside of government will pick up on it. However, for those that do, I think the message is quite powerful: You don't have to just roll over and take it, you have both a means and right to defend your freedom.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 03:11 PM   #132
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
+1 WebleyMkV

Excellent analysis. I can't find fault with anything in that post. Thanks.
MLeake is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 03:37 PM   #133
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
...

Last edited by Poseidon28; August 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM. Reason: moderation
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 03:52 PM   #134
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,303
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
With all due respect, I don't see this as allowed by the forum posting rules.
I think Al (Antipitas) addressed that in post #111. I think as long as we stay close to topic and don't insult one another I hope the thread will stay open for contributions from others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG
Laws are part and parcel of the political process mutually exclusive of machines or parties. Just how we govern. However, it is that process that I speak of in answer to:
I would also add, that as much as we seek to avoid purely political discussions, any discussion oriented around Law and Civil Rights is in fact political. It's the degree of the political that we delve into, that is (mostly) restricted at TFL, for reasons already stated.

It is precisely since the inception of this new discussion forum, that the members of TFL have used restraint in expressing themselves (again, mostly), that some purely political discussion is allowed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I'm wading into this a bit late so forgive me if I overlook anything.
You didn't.

Fact of the matter is that between your response and the reasoned responses by OuTcAsT and maestro pistolero, my own position (or viewpoint) has changed.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 04:14 PM   #135
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
I really wonder if this wasn't an attempt to create an incident, with bad facts, for the government? As Webley has posted, there is a message to government agencies in this action. What if the SS had arrested the guy? They would have been violating a bunch of NH laws, and, the controlling law on this issue?

He was nowhere near the cordoned off area that would fall under the Federal law discussed above.

Would that have worked for or against RKBA?
If the action had resulted in a government over-reaction, it would probably have been positive from a legal perspective and neutral or negative from a public perception perspective.

Winning in court against a government over-reaction establishes good legal precedent, but you have to be prosecuted by the government (not assured - they can always drop charges) or sue the government (an expensive proposition) to get to court. However, if the man had been arrested, there would have been many more "man with a gun arrested" stories than "questionable basis for man's arrest" stories. The incident would certainly not have received the sympathetic coverage that the arrest of free speech advocates generates. The press coverage would have been shrill and heavily anti-gun, so the public view of the incident would probably not have been positive.
gc70 is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 04:16 PM   #136
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
Fact of the matter is that between your response and the reasoned responses by OuTcAsT and maestro pistolero, my own position (or viewpoint) has changed.
Have to agree here with you Al. The comments, especially Webleymkv's were very well done. I am not sure however, that I would wear a open carry firearm near a Presidential Event but I am not sure Mr. Kostric did us any real harm by doing so and he did do pretty well against Chris Matthews in a very difficult position as he is not a media type.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
TG, you have made broad assertions about the power and authority of the Secret Service.
That is true and

Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
I have spent several hours today
I really didn't want to do that today just before my friend's Birthday Party. Two things. First, take a look at the source I gave you here http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL34603.pdf and read footnote 3 which says:

Quote:
Of the 43 statutes referenced in this report, 26 were directly related to USSS’s protection mission.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. I know this from personal experience in a prior worklife I had once which is not gun related.

Second, you are correct in that they rely in very large part upon local LE and I can tell you personally that the local LEs do virtually anything they ask and what they ask is always reasonable and related to protecting the President and others they are assigned to. My bias is somewhat showing and maybe later on I can dig up the legislation I used to use that is out there but trust me it would boogle your mind what law has been written for them. They are BTW the most professional competent individuals I have ever worked with IMO.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 04:49 PM   #137
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,475
Quote:
I really didn't want to do that today just before my friend's Birthday Party.
No need to disrupt your plans; you have proven yourself a capable research scholar in your prior posts. I do hope you can provide some leads at a later date, as I find this topic very interesting.
gc70 is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 05:28 PM   #138
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
My problem is I remember what happened in Florida back in 1987. When Florida's new "Shall Issue" CCW law came into effect, there was no provision for open carry, so technically it was legal. Immediately there were several "in your face" incidents of people doing open carry and the news media was all over it. Naturally, the State acted quickly to ban all open carry in the state. At the time, Pro-gunners owned the state. We had just passed the first ever "shall issue" law. We had just stripped all cities and counties of their abilities to pass guns laws. I feel that if it had been handled differently, Florida may actually be an open carry state today. Unfortunately we could not compete with the flood of fear the media was able to cast over the state.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it. MSNBC/Chris Matthews wasn't the only news outlet to cover this incident, so not everyone got a chance to see how Kostric handled himself. I have seen several references to this in the media and you can rest assured they do not cast a good image over the 2nd Amendment.

I still believe the overall effect of this incident is negative.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 16, 2009, 08:20 PM   #139
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,846
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
Fact of the matter is that between your response and the reasoned responses by OuTcAsT and maestro pistolero, my own position (or viewpoint) has changed.

Have to agree here with you Al. The comments, especially Webleymkv's were very well done. I am not sure however, that I would wear a open carry firearm near a Presidential Event but I am not sure Mr. Kostric did us any real harm by doing so and he did do pretty well against Chris Matthews in a very difficult position as he is not a media type.
I agree and I would not OC near a Presidential event either (though I would CC as legal). My reasons for this, however, are not political but rather out of self-interest. I think that Mr. Kostric is lucky that the Secret Service did not overreact. Personally, I think I'd have investigated less risky means of making a statement. However, I will not condemn Kostric as what he did turned out to be both effective and courageous.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 02:38 PM   #140
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,070
AR15s at the Presidential rally in AZ

An African American was one of two citizens demonstrating their 2A rights at a rally in AZ today. When ask why he was carrying an Assault rifle, he said "because I can".

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/liv...bama-event.php
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 03:11 PM   #141
ThomasPaine
Member
 
Join Date: August 4, 2009
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 38
cute but...

I really doubt he was doing it to proclaim his 2nd Amendment rights. He was attempting to be a media hog and hoped to somehow get into the spotlight and benefit himself by doing so.

Looking at the video and those two groups of people yelling and screaming at each other truly makes me sad. The fact is people are being motivated by questionable means. I guess the people that run the country have come to the conclusion that people can no longer handle the truth. I am willing to bet that newspeak won't be too far off if this is not stopped. I get the feeling that this concept of lying to the masses was started by the Brady Campaign, yet I bet it goes back farther.
__________________
"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. "

--Thomas Paine--
ThomasPaine is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 03:19 PM   #142
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,070
Quote:
I really doubt he was doing it to proclaim his 2nd Amendment rights. He was attempting to be a media hog and hoped to somehow get into the spotlight and benefit himself by doing so.
You got all that from watching the video?
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 03:24 PM   #143
THEZACHARIAS
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 537
The guy came off as an attention hog. Think college age female walking around town in a bikini, but in a more modest, middle aged male sort of way.

If you want to really be active about your rights, thats awesome, but make sure thats the priority instead of your own ego.
THEZACHARIAS is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 03:50 PM   #144
Poseidon28
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2009
Posts: 212
...

Last edited by Poseidon28; August 18, 2009 at 12:07 AM. Reason: Moderation...
Poseidon28 is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 04:10 PM   #145
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hkmp5sd
My problem is I remember what happened in Florida back in 1987. When Florida's new "Shall Issue" CCW law came into effect, there was no provision for open carry, so technically it was legal.
I remember this and was in FL at the time in grad school. However, wasn't the issue that the law allowed open carry without a permit thru some laegal wording loophole? I think that was the issue as I remember it and so lots of folk were walking around a' la Duke Wayne strapped. I recall a sing posted at Publix that stated "Please leave your guns outside". It was funny to me at the time but I neverthought to carry about for the several months it was in place. Can you open carry in FL today if you have a CCW Permit? You can in TN.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 04:13 PM   #146
azredhawk44
Junior member
 
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
LOL...

I know chris (guy with the rifle). Good guy. Very active with the Libertarian crowd. The guy interviewing him is Ernie Hancock of Freedom's Phoenix and is extremely politically active here in town.

Two very upstanding gentlemen out protecting our rights today.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 05:03 PM   #147
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,167
This is Outstanding !

Just as I predicted in the other "man with a gun" thread, people are beginning to catch on to the idea that it is a good thing to remind our representatives from time to time that we still hold the wheel.


I will also predict that we will see more of this type of activism ! True patriots.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 05:10 PM   #148
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
wasn't the issue that the law allowed open carry without a permit thru some laegal wording loophole? I think that was the issue as I remember it and so lots of folk were walking around a' la Duke Wayne strapped.
Yep, that is what happened. As a result, the state banned open carry across the board. Doesn't matter what license you have. If most of these folks hadn't went off the deep end and carried everywhere ("The law says I can carry my gun and I'm gonna carry my gun!"), we may have come up with some type of open carry law.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 06:00 PM   #149
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Pro or Con....it looks like it is catching on.....

Quote:

Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest

Aug 17 05:44 PM US/Eastern
By AMANDA LEE MYERS and TERRY TANG
Associated Press Writers

PHOENIX (AP) - About a dozen people carrying guns, including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a speech Monday—the latest incidents in which protesters have openly displayed firearms near the president.

Gun-rights advocates say they're exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest, while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.


Phoenix police said the gun-toters at Monday's event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle slung over his shoulder, didn't need permits. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.

The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms," he said.

Phoenix police Detective J. Oliver, who was monitoring the man at the downtown protest, said police also wanted to make sure no one decided to harm him.

"Just by his presence and people seeing the rifle and people knowing the president was in town, it sparked a lot of emotions," Oliver said. "We were keeping peace on both ends."
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 17, 2009, 06:13 PM   #150
Jofaba
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 2009
Posts: 322
I've declined to further comment in this thread because I don't want to edge it towards demise.

I will say this; I have been swayed a certain degree. I'd even say a healthy degree.

And while I haven't been active in the conversation since my last post, I will say that I greatly appreciate the conversation and this particular conversation has even further grown my respect of this community.

- Joshua
Jofaba is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:33 AM.


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 0.15841 seconds with 7 queries