The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 18, 2010, 09:08 AM   #26
DG45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Posts: 904
There's a lot of corruption in North Carolina government but any Southern state that still elects Democrats is going to be portrayed as "progressive" by the liberal media, no matter what. The states gun laws don't look too onerous on paper, but there are some problems. Citizens have to apply to their county sheriff for their CCW permit, and its a pretty expensive item. Afterward, the citizen has no control over how long it takes that county sheriff to get his paperwork in to the state bureau of investigation, who must check the citizen out before the permit will be approved. If and when the citizen passes the SBI check, the state doesn't send a CCW permit directly to the citizen, it sends an ok to issue a permit back to the county sheriff, where, once again, the citizen has no control over how long it takes to get that permit back to him/her. As a result, in this age of instantaneous electronic communication, the CCW procedure in North Carolina can literally take up to four months. Of course, there may be a way to cut through the red tape. I've heard that soon after you apply for your CCW permit or a renewal of it in North Carolina, you get a letter from the sheriffs re-election committee requesting a contribution.
DG45 is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 09:44 AM   #27
andrewstorm
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 198
law soot

n.c. is pro gun as you can get,you can open carry anywhere ,even in your car.without a permit,you can purchase a handgun from an individual in most countys,charlotte has bad crime,west coast style gangs,and has purchase permits,to buy pistols,good ol boys selectively enforce gun laws on a us and them basis,most places down east they all carry hogleggers,for snakes n rats n such,on several occations in my younger days the sherrrif searched my truck and returned my pistol unloaded,and informed me to keep it on the seat in plain view,he could of messed up my whole day if he was an anti
andrewstorm is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 09:51 AM   #28
SVO
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2009
Location: Texas Gulf Coast
Posts: 692
As for carrying during a declared emergency, one only needs to look at New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. There were cases there where the LEO's entered private property to disarm citizens who were threating no one by being armed.
SVO is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 10:21 AM   #29
sixgun67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Location: New Philadelphia, Oh
Posts: 238
blume357, if I am wrong on this one, then I know first hand of quite a few that are up a creek, so to speak.


**Just called a local gunshop that I deal with a good bit and one of the owners (trustworthy man and has excellent reputation in this area) explained that, by strict word of law, Yes a permit is required. But, in this area, a bill of sale identifying both parties and make model serial and such of gun will suffice, to keep seller out of hot water.**

No offense to any members here, but this is a man that I trust also.


DG45, I've got my CCW and haven't received any 'donations wanted' calls. Maybe these were coincidences that timed well with the renewals? I hope so. My county sheriff's office certainly leaves a lot to be desired. They will not be getting money from me.

Last edited by sixgun67; July 18, 2010 at 10:34 AM.
sixgun67 is offline  
Old July 18, 2010, 10:27 PM   #30
celtgun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 17, 2008
Location: SE North Carolina
Posts: 199
NC Gun Law

A permit or valid CWP is required to purchase any handgun in NC, FFL or private sale. I do not care what your local gun store says, your are in violation of state and federal law if you don't have one or the other. Explain it to BATFE or the SBI, Oops, you can't.
The permit to purchase came about as an anti union move to prevent labor from arming itself during the struggle ro orgaize textile plants. Or so I have read several places.
The whole system is a pain, the real problem being that your are dealing with the goverment. Many sheriff's office employees are political hacks, in some counties. Some departments are very pro-gun. All depends on the high sheriff, and you get what is elected. Sometimes good, sometimes bad.


Pray and Shoot Daily.
Lee Jones(Celtgun)

We do not have government by the majority; rather; we have government by the majority who participate. Thomas Jefferson
celtgun is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 01:15 PM   #31
sixgun67
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Location: New Philadelphia, Oh
Posts: 238
celtgun, that's fair enough. I would then ask how is an individual to know, after calling an 'authority' (which is what I at least would reasonably assume a licensed dealer to be) for an answer to this question, that the said authority is giving false info?

Myself, I don't worry. I use my CCW. But, how would the general non-licensed populace know?
sixgun67 is offline  
Old July 19, 2010, 05:44 PM   #32
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixgun67
celtgun, that's fair enough. I would then ask how is an individual to know, after calling an 'authority' (which is what I at least would reasonably assume a licensed dealer to be) for an answer to this question, that the said authority is giving false info?

Myself, I don't worry. I use my CCW. But, how would the general non-licensed populace know?
I guess I would wonder why you would consider a shop keeper an expert on law. Your dealer guy didn't give you "false" information. I'm sure he thought it was correct. He gave you "incorrect" information ... because he's a shop owner, not a lawyer. The same applies to police officers. One might assume that they know the laws they are supposed to enforce ... but they don't.

A number of years ago I was dating a woman whose nephew is a police officer. Her son-in-law is a private detective who has a CHL and often carries when working ... but he NEVER practices. We talked about going to the range with him, and at the time I had not gotten my CHL. We encountered nephew LEO at a 4th of July family BBQ, so I asked him if it was okay for me (with no CHL) to take a pistol from home to the range to practice with [name]. He said, "Sure ... no problem."

Good thing I didn't get around to taking [name] to the range, because what nephew LEO told me was flat-out WRONG. In my state, it's a felony offense to carry a handgun, even unloaded, outside the house (even on my own property) without a CHL. The only exceptions are transporting (not "carrying") from the shop where bought or to a shop to sell; to a gunsmith for repair; or to or from MY (not my employer's) place of business.

Laws are typically not written to be clear to laymen. It ensures a need for lawyers. And it works -- if you want to know what the law says, ask a lawyer, not a shop keeper. (Or a cop.)
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 12:27 PM   #33
wmreid
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 22, 2010
Location: Candler, NC (NC Mountains)
Posts: 1
Just for your info, the "State of Emergency" statutes in here in NC were passed after the MLK riots in 60's. Laws prohibiting firearms in or near a "riot" were also passed at the sametime. So that's the frame of mind the legislatur was in when the law was passed.

Purdue has tried to say that her declaration of emergency for some hurricane did not include any prohibitation on the transportation of firearms & ammo. However, a simple reading of the declaration shows that the law containing the prohibitation was specificially included. Also, the NC criminal statutes REQUIRE the prohibitation when a declaration of emergency is issued. The Governor, the Mayor (in King) and the Chairman of the County Commission of the county being sued could not exempt the prohibitation on carrying firearms & ammo - they don't have the option.

So, even though that hurricane came no where close to the western NC mountains where I live, I could not transport my firearms legally while that declaration was in effect. To top it off, the declaration was issued just before opening day for dove season but I believe it was lifted in time.
wmreid is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 07:50 PM   #34
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
Quote:
Good thing I didn't get around to taking [name] to the range, because what nephew LEO told me was flat-out WRONG. In my state, it's a felony offense to carry a handgun, even unloaded, outside the house (even on my own property) without a CHL. The only exceptions are transporting (not "carrying") from the shop where bought or to a shop to sell; to a gunsmith for repair; or to or from MY (not my employer's) place of business.
I will not say your state does not allow it, not knowing your state, but very few states, I know of, prohibit you transporting a lawfully owned gun to a range. Usually it falls under the same exceptions you list above about shops and gunsmiths, hunting. In many states it would have to be cased and locked in a trunk or similar arrangement and would have to be cased when carrying to the car.
wally626 is offline  
Old October 22, 2010, 09:29 PM   #35
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by wally626
I will not say your state does not allow it, not knowing your state, but very few states, I know of, prohibit you transporting a lawfully owned gun to a range. Usually it falls under the same exceptions you list above about shops and gunsmiths, hunting. In many states it would have to be cased and locked in a trunk or similar arrangement and would have to be cased when carrying to the car.
I respectfully suggest that you may be extrapolating. I know with absolute, 100 percent certainty what my state law says, because I looked it up and I keep a copy next to my desk. And I also know (but with less than 100 percent certainty) that my state is not the only state to limit where you are allowed to transport a firearm. I suspect if you were to review the laws of all fifty states, you would find that there are a lot fewer than you think that allow transport to and from a range without a license. Remember, we're talking about handguns. Some states are less restrictive with regard to long guns.

What I wrote was exactly correct -- if a resident of this state sets foot outside his/her own house with a handgun, and doesn't have a permit, they are committing a felony offense. The only exception is transport to and from a range for participation in an organized competition, or for formal training.

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; October 22, 2010 at 09:35 PM.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 09:42 AM   #36
tet4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2009
Posts: 232
In states like that, how do you get the hand gun from the store to your house when you buy it? (I'm honestly curious because I've always wondered how that works).
tet4 is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 09:52 AM   #37
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila Blanca
I suspect if you were to review the laws of all fifty states, you would find that there are a lot fewer than you think that allow transport to and from a range without a license. Remember, we're talking about handguns. Some states are less restrictive with regard to long guns.

What I wrote was exactly correct -- if a resident of this state sets foot outside his/her own house with a handgun, and doesn't have a permit, they are committing a felony offense. The only exception is transport to and from a range for participation in an organized competition, or for formal training.
I get the impression that in a majority of states, being in possession of a handgun in ANY location without having a permit would be a felony offense, possibly with the exceptions that you list.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tet4
In states like that, how do you get the hand gun from the store to your house when you buy it? (I'm honestly curious because I've always wondered how that works).
There are situations where it is not technically legal to do so. NY state issues (rarely) a "premises" permit for handguns. That permit only allows for legal possession of the handgun at the EXACT location listed on the permit and absolutely NO WHERE ELSE. It is technically against the law to transport the handgun from the dealer where it was purchased to premises listed. I have been told so by DAs, lawyers and judges.

Fortunately, at least in this area, those permits are virtually never issued and virtually anyone can at least get a hunting/recreation permit and almost everyone can get concealed carry and, when those permits are issued, everyone involved understands that there must be SOME way of getting the gun home, so the technicality that the law does not provide for such a method is ignored by all involved.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 08:33 PM   #38
wally626
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 31, 2009
Posts: 635
As I said I do not know what state you are in Aguila Blanca, but your state, as you said, does have an exception for shooting ranges but it is more restrictive than my state of VA. VAs is listed below:

Quote:
3. Any regularly enrolled member of a target shooting organization who is at, or going to or from, an established shooting range, provided that the weapons are unloaded and securely wrapped while being transported;
Note: this applies only to concealed carry, open carry is fine. I may pick a few states at random to check, but I expect there is a range exemption for transport of weapons in most states for those otherwise legally able to posses them. Some, like your state may only apply to official ranges and organized events.
wally626 is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 08:39 PM   #39
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,341
Wouldn't the FOPA have some relevance to transporting legally owned firearms from one legal location to another?
raimius is offline  
Old October 26, 2010, 08:39 PM   #40
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Gentlemen, isn't this a little off topic for this particular thread? Did I miss something?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 10, 2011, 11:03 PM   #41
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
For those following the case, Bateman v. Perdue, an exciting (to me, at least) brief was filed today.

Today, 01-10-2011, Alan Gura has filed his Opposition to the States Motion for Summary Judgment. Go to the docket and scroll down to item #73 to read it.

As you may remember, the 4th Circuit very recently came out with their opinion in U.S. v Chester, in which they sent back to the district court with instructions to look at 922(9) with intermediate scrutiny and demanded the government to justify the Lautenberg Act. Albeit dicta, the Circuit strongly implied that laws that conflict with the RKBA, as regards law-abiding people, the standard would be strict scrutiny. Their opinion is included as an exhibit, here.

With that background in mind, this pleading is priceless! Here are some of the pearls, as I read them...

Quote:
Whatever else the Defendants might do to regulate the right to carry firearms, they cannot ban the carrying of firearms by law abiding people for the purpose of self-defense when social order has broken down—the absolute core of the Second Amendment’s guarantee.
That was to the State.

Quote:
To groups like the Brady Center, who believe that even the possession of guns inside the home may be banned, every armed individual is an incipient criminal or at least too unaccountably irresponsible to use firearms. But the Constitution requires the government to make a distinction between law-abiding individuals, who may have guns, and criminals, who may not. And that distinction must be honored wherever the right of self-defense is implicated, even, and indeed especially, during times of public emergency.
Nail? Meet Coffin!

Quote:
Brady’s proposition of a “reasonable regulation” test is based on the manner in which state courts have allegedly applied analogous state right to arms provisions. ... But having federal courts defer to state authorities on the question of how to best secure a federal constitutional right contradicts the very logic of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified precisely because state courts were not upholding basic civil rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
Coffin? Meet another nail!
Al Norris is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 07:53 AM   #42
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,594
Attorney Gura is a shining example, but I can't avoid the random thought that he is probably thankful on a daily basis that his opposing counsel are so inept that they seem to consistently hand him "gimmes" on a regular basis. It helps, of course, that he is on the side of the Constitution and that his opponents are trying to circumvent the very document that is the cornerstone of the United States of America.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 11, 2011, 09:14 PM   #43
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
In Heller was it not stateded that the Second Amendment allowed citizens to own firearms for self defense? The same reasoning was present in the McDonald case.

If the state is saying that they are not allowing firearms to be transported outside the home or property because there is limited law enforcment available. That seems be at odds with both these decisions since the basis for having a firearm is self defense and now the state is saying we will not be able to provide protection to some citizens and we are not going to let you be able to defend yourself.

The argument by Chicago was that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. The Supreme Court said it applies to the federal government and the States. I do not see any wiggle room for the state there.

So how can the state argue that we are going to limit your right to self defense when we can not provide protection to you in the case of a emergency caused by nature.

That is not an argument I would want to defend in front of the court in light of Heller and McDonald.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old February 6, 2011, 12:49 PM   #44
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
The States court ordered response and MTD is in (see the current 2A cases thread for links).

Quote:
Chester states that the State bears the burden of showing that the challenged law is constitutional “unless the conduct at issue is not protected by the Second Amendment at all[.]” Chester at * 18 (emphasis added). The obvious implication of this statement is that it is Plaintiffs, not the State Defendants, who bear the burden of satisfying the first prong of the test set out in Chester – that is, proving that a recognized right to carry guns off of one’s property during a state of emergency existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification. Plaintiffs’ Response Brief fails to meet this burden, offering no historical evidence of their own on this question and, instead, incorrectly implying that it is the State Defendants’ burden to do so.
Note the part I underlined. That is twisting the facts to suit your own agenda (that we've never seen before... ).

No... The plaintiffs need only establish that carry, outside the home was recognized at the time of ratification. It is the very act of the statute that offends the right.

But the State does not stop there.

The defendants go on to conflate the English right (predecessor to our own 2A) with its various restrictions, to our own version of the right, "This notion that the right to bear arms was subject to governmental restriction carried over into the common law in America." The State then ignores that the English right to arms was subject to the absolute discretion of the Parliament, while ours was went much stronger in character with the words, "shall not be infringed."

Having set up this straw man, the State quickly knocks it down with, "Not only does the ability to possess a firearm outside of one’s home during a state of emergency not lie at the “core” of the Second Amendment but, in fact, it does not even reside within the Amendment’s outer limits ... that is, the right to possess a gun in one’s home."

Forgive me if I restate the core holding of Heller, the right to possess a gun for self-defense is the "core" holding. The "in the home" portion only answered the question that was asked in that particular case.

Once again, we see (what has become) the standard argument by the various defendants, that your right to self-defense stops at the door to your home.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 02:07 PM   #45
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Another win!

In Bateman v. Perdue (NC Emergency Powers firarms prohibition), Judge Howard, Eastern District of North Carolina, has struck down NC's ban on possession of firearms outside during a state of emergency.

Opinion here: http://www.archive.org/download/gov....07258.87.0.pdf

First, the Court held that the 2A claerly applies outside the home when addressing the As Applied challenge:
Quote:
It cannot be seriously questioned that the emergency declaration laws at issue here burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment. Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home. In Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment includes ~the right to 'protect [] [onself] against both public and private violence,' thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence."
And then this court said this:
Quote:
Applying the Fourth Circuit ' s reasoning in Masciandaro, the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny.

While the bans imposed pursuant to these statutes may be limited in duration, it cannot be overlooked that the statutes strip peaceable, law abiding citizens of the right to arm themselves in defense of hearth and home, striking at the very core of the Second Amendment. As such, these laws, much like those involved in Heller, are at the "far end of the spectrum of infringement on protected Second Amendment rights." Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 97.

That being the case, the emergency declaration statutes are presumed invalid, and defendants bear the burden of rebutting that presumption by showing that the laws are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. This[,] defendants have failed to do.
This is the third court to correctly read the 2A protections and the first court to apply Strict Scrutiny.

Having addressed the Plaintiffs "As Applied" challenge and invalidating the laws, the Court does not consider the Facial challenge.

Quote:
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment [DE #44] and hereby DECLARES N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.7, 14-288.12(b), 14-288.13(b), 14-288.14(a) and 14-288.15(d) unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs. The court DENIES defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment [DE #52]. The clerk is directed to close this case.
This is a big win for Alan Gura and the SAF!

The ruling is pretty tight and should survive appeal, should N.C. decide to go to the 4th Circuit.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 02:38 PM   #46
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,799
Good news! Thanks for the update, Al.
__________________
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 March 29, 2012, 07:30 PM   #47
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
This decision is not as broad or as clear as I might have wished, but it does have interesting ramifications.

The decision explicitly recognizes that the scope of the 2nd Amendment extends beyond the home.

Quote:
It cannot be seriously questioned that the emergency declaration laws at issue here burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment. Although considerable uncertainty exists regarding the scope of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, it undoubtedly is not limited to the confines of the home. In Heller, the Supreme Court found that the Second Amendment includes "the right to 'protect [] [onself] against both public and private violence,' thus extending the right in some form to wherever a person could become exposed to public or private violence."
Different locales have different levels of scrutiny, as per Masciandaro.

Quote:
Therefore, a law that burdens the "fundamental" or "core" Second Amendment right -a law abiding citizen's right to self-defense in the home- is subject to strict scrutiny.
...
So, a law that burdens only the right to keep and bear arms outside of the home will survive constitutional challenge upon a lesser showing by the government. (intermediate scrutiny)
The decision is particularly intriguing in the manner in which it arrives at strict scrutiny.

Quote:
Applying the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Masciandaro, the court finds that the statutes at issue here are subject to strict scrutiny. North Carolina General Statute § 14-288.7 prohibits the transportation or possession of both "deadly weapons" and ammunition off one's own premises. This prohibition applies equally to all individuals and to all classes of firearms, not just handguns. It is not limited to a certain manner of carrying weapons or to particular times of the day. Most significantly, it prohibits law abiding citizens from purchasing and transporting to their homes firearms and ammunition needed for self-defense.
While it may not be glaringly apparent, this decision recognizes that ammunition -not just guns- falls within the scope of the 2nd Amendment. I would think that this decision would dash the hopes of anti-gunners to tax or regulate ammunition beyond reach.
gc70 is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 08:04 PM   #48
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Glad you caught all of that, gc70.

Did you also catch that this is an as-applied challenge? This means that for these plaintiffs in these specific circumstances, the law is void.

It will probably take a few other claims in State Courts to completely dissolve these laws (facially). But those are other cases. The legal groundwork has been laid, and it shouldn't too terribly difficult for any others to challenge those statutes.

It also means that the NC legislature can moot further adverse decisions by excising the bans from the law.

Was it all we wanted? No. But it is what we expected.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 08:39 PM   #49
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Al, the ruling was more than I expected, even if it was less than I wished for.

It is doubtful that the NC legislature would moot the case. The NC legislature holds its regular session in odd-numbered years (2011); only budget issues and regular session bills passed in one house can be considered in the legislature's short session in even-numbered years (2012). The only way to change the offending laws before the 2013 regular session is for the Governor to call a special session of the legislature. The prospects of a special session are remote because nobody wants one in an election year and the Republican-controlled legislature would not be well-disposed to helping the Democratic Governor and Attorney General pull their irons out of the fire on this issue.
gc70 is offline  
Old March 29, 2012, 09:26 PM   #50
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,524
This should bolster Woollard quite nicely as well.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
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 07:32 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 0.16008 seconds with 8 queries