The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 2, 2012, 11:00 PM   #126
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Like when Arnold Horshack skipped school and brought in a note the next day explaining that he was sick - and the note was sighed "Horshack's Mom"


.
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 01:05 AM   #127
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Here's a rough draft:

Notice of Supplemental Authority:

This is to inform the court that three of those other cases agree with us.

Signed,
one of their attorneys
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 08:53 AM   #128
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
First draft

Notice of Supplemental Authority:

This is to inform the court that some of those other cases agree with us.

Signed,
one of their attorneys
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 10:35 AM   #129
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
?????? hmmmm, that looks vaguely familiar.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 11:07 AM   #130
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Notice of Supplemental Authority:

This is to inform the court that some of those other cases agree with us.

Signed,
one of their attorneys
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 3, 2012, 11:10 AM   #131
C0untZer0
Junior member
 
Join Date: April 21, 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,555
Don't you think that even a paralegal would catch some of this stuff?

I wonder what kind of support staff they have. And I wonder if they are doing 2A cases and civil rights cases or if they are involved with other stuff like real estate disputes or product liability or some such unrelated activities. Maybe they weren't tuned in at all to Woolard.

And theorticaly, couldn't Gura have taken this case or just added them as plaintiffs to Moore ?

It's like I said, IMO - the NRA would be helping themselves and all gun owners by just taking the money that they spent on this and giving it to SAF instead.

Can't we all just get along?
C0untZer0 is offline  
Old April 13, 2012, 10:16 PM   #132
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
BIG NEWS at the 7th!

Tom van Dermyde, the NRA Lobbyest in IL has posted the following over at Illinois Carry: http://illinoiscarry.com/forum/index...howtopic=29698

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvandermyde
The state filed a motion to stay Shepard pending Moore at the appellate level. We objected to it. I just received word the state's motion was denied. Additionally, We filed a motion to have the two cases combined and it was granted we will now be heard with Moore we have filed our brief in the appeal and await the state's response

Good news all the way around

Now back to my regularlly scheduled vacation. . .
Now I have to log onto PACER and see what all is up!... No I don't. krucam, over at MDShooters beat me to it. I'm gonna just quote him for brevity:

Quote:
Originally Posted by krucam
]OK, here's it is...Doc 64 in the District Ct, Ordered by Chief Judge Easterbrook from CA7!

Sheppard Docket is here: http://ia600609.us.archive.org/34/it...07.docket.html

The State (Appellee/Defendant) was playing games. With the two similar cases percolating up, Appellees wanted to Stay Sheppard, pending SAF's Moore case. BS...

Chief Judge said no to it, in Doc 64 in the Sheppard District Court.
http://www.archive.org/download/gov....52207.64.0.pdf

The NRA Appellants/Plaintiffs from Sheppard objected to the State's proposal. They proposed that the Sheppard and Moore Oral Arguments be combined. That request was GRANTED.

Perhaps someone can help me uncover whether the cases are combined in entirety, or just the Oral Arguments...the Order only implies the Oral Arguments...

You can't have separate Merits leading to, and separate Opinions spawned from a single Oral Argument, can you???

Either way, I'm still happy to mix the legal expertise of SAF with Ms Sheppard as a Plaintiff...
What Mark means by that last is that Sheppard is the better plaintiff but Moore has the better legal team.

So, what we will be seeing is separate arguments on the merits, but that the orals will be combined. One decision for the two cases. Unusual, but not unheard of.

The real crux is if the two teams of attorneys can work together on this. NRA v. Gura not something we need to see, right now.
Al Norris is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 09:18 PM   #133
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
NRA v. Gura not something we need to see, right now.
+1000
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old April 14, 2012, 11:47 PM   #134
Derekc294
Member
 
Join Date: July 6, 2009
Location: ILLINOIS
Posts: 63
Come on CCW for Illinois!!!
Derekc294 is offline  
Old April 15, 2012, 03:15 PM   #135
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
There appears to be a problem uploading the brief. So I have placed it in my FTP site.

Edit... fixed.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 12-Sheppard Opening Brief.pdf (1.06 MB, 11 views)

Last edited by tyme; April 15, 2012 at 06:32 PM.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 2, 2012, 11:30 PM   #136
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
As we know, the State of Illinois has tried to get the Moore and Shepard cases, consolidated (the NRA, in Shepard, just wanted the orals to be combined, which was granted). The State even asked for an extension in time (60 days) to file, based upon having to answer two nearly identical cases... Last Thursday, the Circuit Court answered the State:

Quote:
04/26/2012 17 Order re: Motions to consolidate and extend time. The motions to consolidate are DENIED. Appellees do not need a formal order of consolidation in order to file one brief addressing two appeals. They may file one brief, or two, at their option. The motions for an extension of time is GRANTED, but only until May 9, 2012 (in both appeals). This should allow enough time to prepare a single brief covering the two cases. Appellees previously told the court that the two suits are functionally identical. There is accordingly no need for time beyond the 30-day extension already granted, and this one-week increment. The court’s last regular sitting of the current term is June 8, 2012. If the court were to delay the appellees’ briefs until June 1 or June 11 (the alternate dates appellees propose), that would postpone oral argument until next September, an unnecessary delay. Appellees must file their brief (or briefs) in both cases by May 9, and appellants their reply briefs by May 23. That will permit oral argument the last week of May or the first full week of June. [6391924-3] [16] [6391924-2] [16] JKL [6392901] [12-1269, 12-1788] (AM)
The 7th is not going to play the stalling game with the State. We will have orals in both Shepard and Moore in the first week of June, at the latest.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 3, 2012, 10:33 AM   #137
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, IA, WA
Posts: 1,288
Quote:
The 7th is not going to play the stalling game with the State.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this indicate that the 7th isn't predisposed to agree to the state's arguments?
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own personal safety; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths, Chief Instructor, Advanced Force Tactics, Inc. (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Old May 3, 2012, 11:46 AM   #138
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
I suspect that the only indication we can take, is that the CA7 wants to dispose of this case. My own personal view is that it is an indication that the CA7 does not favor the State's arguments (remembering that I've been wrong before ).
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 3, 2012, 12:16 PM   #139
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,199
Al, are you using the word "dispose" to mean reach a decision and get it up to SCOTUS?
As in, we want this case out of our court?
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old May 3, 2012, 12:44 PM   #140
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
The cases are a thorn, whichever way the circuit panel goes.

The judges at this level are well aware of the other cases at the other circuits. We have not seen this type of (speedy) action at the other circuits, so I'm guessing here that the 7th simply wants to be the first (or among the first) circuit to opine on the issue.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 11, 2012, 08:17 AM   #141
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
The appellees have elected to file a consolidated joint response brief in both Moore and Shepard. That brief is attached.

This is pretty much the standard "In the Home" only argument. Since they make no mention of Woolard, Weaver or Bateman, they are gambling that the Court doesn't know of these cases.

The reply briefs will be due on May 23rd. Expect both the SAF and NRA to mention the cases above, and that the "In the Home" argument is losing.

Quote:
05/10/2012 24 ORDER: This Court has received 1 electronic file, document no. 36, under seal from the district court. All documents filed in this Court, except those required to be sealed by statute or rule are considered public. Pursuant to 7th Circuit Operating Procedure 10(b), documents sealed in the district court will be maintained under seal in this Court for 14 days, to afford time to request the approval required by section (a) of this operating procedure. Absent a motion from a party these sealed documents will be placed in the public record on 05/25/2012. Motion shall be filed by 05/24/2012 [24] [6396592] [12-1269] (RT)

05/10/2012 25 Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney David D. Jensen for Appellants Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore and Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. Additional Parties: Illinois Carry. [25] [6396799] [12-1269]--[Edited 05/10/2012 by CD to reflect that attorney David D. Jensen has been added as counsel for the appellants] [25] [6396799] [12-1269] (Jensen, David)

05/10/2012 26 Received argument confirmation from Alan Gura for Appellants Peggy Fechter, Charles Hooks, Jon Maier, Michael Moore and Second Amendment Foundation, Incorporated. [26] [6396807] [12-1269] (Gura, Alan)
The first entry, appears to be the letter received by Judge Myerscough (Moore) last November (#36). We may or may not get to see what that was about.

The last entry was letting the Court know that Alan Gura will be making the oral argument to the Court. Um, June 8th is the date set for that.

This is fast tracking, indeed!
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Moore CA7 Appellee Response Brief.pdf (269.5 KB, 7 views)
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 18, 2012, 08:30 AM   #142
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Krucam, over at MDShooters, peaked at the docket and has reported the following activity:

Quote:
05/16/2012 27 Submitted brief by Suzanne M. Loose for amicus City of Chicago, Legal Community Against Violence, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Board of Education of the City of Chicago, Chicago Transportation Authority. Consent from all parties contained within brief. [27] [6398217] [12-1269] (Loose, Suzanne)

05/16/2012 28 Submitted brief by Todd Kim for amicus District of Columbia. Federal or state filer (consent unnecessary). [28] [6398222] [12-1269] (Kim, Todd)

05/16/2012 29 Amicus brief filed by Amici Curiae The Major Cities Chiefs Associaton, Legal Community Against Violence and City of Chicago, CTA, Board of Education of the City of Chicago by consent. Paper copies due on 05/23/2012 Electronically Transmitted. (RS)

05/16/2012 30 Amicus brief filed by Amicus Curiae District of Columbia, Washington D.C. government filing, no consent necessary. Paper copies due on 05/23/2012 Electronically Transmitted. [6398320] [12-1269] (BS)

05/16/2012 31 Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Alexander D. Marks for Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Black Police Association. Additional Parties: Police Foundation. [31] [6398610] [12-1269] (Marks, Alexander)

05/16/2012 32 Submitted brief by Alexander D. Marks for amicus Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, international Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Cheifs Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Black Police Association, and Police Foundation. Consent from all parties contained within brief. [32] [6398616] [12-1269] (Marks, Alexander)

05/16/2012 33 Amicus brief filed by Amici Curiae National Black Police Association and Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence by consent. Paper copies due on 05/24/2012 Electronically Transmitted. [6398794] [12-1269]--[Edited 05/17/2012 by RS All other parties listed in party limit entry] (RS)

05/16/2012 THIS CAUSE CONSISTS OF MORE THAN 5 AMICI: The following are those parties , yet are not reflected on the Appellate docket/caption for administrative purposes: International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Major Cities Chiefs Association, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, and Police Foundation [6398800-2] [6398800] [12-1269] (RS)
It appears that a whole bunch of "authorities" have some concerns about allowing the people their right to bear arms in public.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 18, 2012, 10:31 PM   #143
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Over at the Illinois State Rifle Association, they have a list of the more important filings in the Shepard case (of which they are a party): http://www.isra.org/lawsuits/#Shepard

So here you go (not to be read while drinking or on a full stomach):Read them or not. I wasn't about to pay money to post them.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 20, 2012, 10:17 PM   #144
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
Hah, I knew the Brady Campaign would cite Trayvon Martin. The trial hasn't even stared yet.

Last edited by Tom Servo; May 20, 2012 at 10:48 PM.
Davey is offline  
Old May 20, 2012, 10:49 PM   #145
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,389
They'll grasp at whatever straws they can at this point. Notice that most of the internal citations in support of their arguments are from VPC broadsides, or from supporters like John Donohue.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 23, 2012, 09:40 PM   #146
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Today, the appellant, Shepard and Moore, was to have filed briefs in reply to the State. Nothing has yet shown up in the docket for Moore but the attached brief did show up for Shepard.

39 pages, which I have yet to read.

I did catch this little gem, in the opening statements. Y'all will like it:

Quote:
The State’s primary defense of its unique law banning all carrying of operable firearms in public is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to bear a firearm outside one’s home for personal defense. State Br. at 8, 14. Rather, the Second Amendment right to bear a firearm in public is collective in nature, tied exclusively to service in the militia and arising only when necessary for the common defense against “an oppressive military force if the constitutional order [breaks] down.” State Br. 17, quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599 (2008).
And y'all thought the collective rights argument was dead!!

ETA: OK, for whatever reasons, my wires were crossed. This is the final reply brief by the appellant/Plaintiff Shepard. Still waiting for Gura's brief in Moore.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf 36-Shepard Appellee Response Brief.pdf (189.6 KB, 6 views)

Last edited by Al Norris; May 24, 2012 at 12:56 AM. Reason: got my wires crossed.
Al Norris is offline  
Old May 23, 2012, 11:13 PM   #147
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
"The State’s defense fails at the threshold, for the interest it asserts—“preventing the discharge of firearms in public,” State Br. 38—is not, standing alone, an important one."

I get the feeling this statement will be twisted and abused by the antis.
Davey is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 01:05 AM   #148
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,389
Quote:
The State’s primary defense of its unique law banning all carrying of operable firearms in public is that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to bear a firearm outside one’s home for personal defense.
Bah. Heller said the right is most acute in the home, but not that it was limited to the home.

Quote:
(...) is collective in nature, tied exclusively to service in the militia and arising only when necessary for the common defense against “an oppressive military force if the constitutional order [breaks] down.”
OK, so the...no, wait. Um. Didn't we put that one to bed back in 2008?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 07:53 AM   #149
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,199
Quote:
OK, so the...no, wait. Um. Didn't we put that one to bed back in 2008?
Yup. But perhaps someone didn't get the memo.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old May 24, 2012, 11:31 AM   #150
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Now that I've had a good nights sleep, got my first few cups of coffee down, allow me to highlight a few items from both briefs.

The brief for Moore has finally shown up. What follows is the opening summary of Alan Gura's argument.

Quote:
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Much, if not most of the material submitted by Defendants and their amici has already been anticipated—and fully addressed—in Plaintiffs’ opening brief. The remainder is clearly foreclosed by circuit and Supreme Court precedent.

At bottom, Defendants and their amici simply cannot refute the plain fact that the right to “bear” arms, as historically understood in this country, includes the right to carry handguns for defensive purposes outside one’s home. That right is the starting point of any legislative program designed to regulate the right in the interest of public safety—but it is the end of Defendants’ total prohibition on bearing arms.

Because the right to carry defensive arms outside the home is within the Second Amendment’s original public meaning, and as “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3026 (2010), Defendants’ policy choice to totally prohibit the public carrying of firearms is “off the table.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 636 (2008).

The statistical debate, though interesting, is entirely irrelevant. It does not matter whether the people’s policy choice is alleged to be unwise or outdated. This Court cannot utilize means-ends scrutiny—a mechanism for weighing a regulation against a right—to determine whether a right exists in the first place. To the extent any level of scrutiny could be applied to analyze a complete prohibition of a constitutional right, the standard of review is strict scrutiny, or the “not quite” strict scrutiny used in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).
Mr. Gura then gets to the meat of his argument by first reminding the Court that in their en banc decision in Skoien that even they noted that 2A rights outside the home were "left open" by the SCOTUS. Then he quotes Justice Alito's opening statement in McDonald.
(I)n (Heller), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.
Gura then recites what I (and many others) have said from the beginning: "Self-defense, not home possession, is the 'central component of the right itself.'"

In case you are not aware, the Brady's have filed 2 amici briefs for various groups; LCAV has filed 2 amici briefs for various groups; the City of Chicago has filed an amicus brief as did the District of Columbia.

Gura, in his final reply, deals with them all, by refuting each and every one of these briefs and their claims.

While Gura dealt majorly with all the bogus stats, thrown about by the defendants and their amici, or that the State was merely regulating and not prohibiting the exercise of the right, in the home, NRA attorney Charles Cooper in his reply brief (Shepard), deals with the (once again) raised spectre of the collective militia theory or that the right was not a right to self defense.

This two-pronged defense makes it absolutely clear that the two sides (NRA v. SAF) have in fact collaborated.

Just as Alan Gura has gone into explicit detail on the idea that the right to bear arms for self defense in public, is not outside the core of the right, Cooper goes into explicit detail showing that regulation does not mean the total prohibition of the right, or that the right was limited only to the confines of one's property.

Speaking to the interests of the State, Cooper says this:

Quote:
The State’s defense fails at the threshold, for the interest it asserts—“preventing the discharge of firearms in public,” State Br. 38—is not, standing alone, an important one. Whether or not gun-fire is harmful or beneficial depends on the circumstances. By seeking to prevent public discharge of firearms regardless of the circumstances, the State equates criminal, malicious discharges with discharges that are responsible and justified and perhaps life saving. It essentially values the health and safety of criminals, whose firearm discharges are highly unlikely to be prevented by the State’s carriage ban, over that of innocent victims, whose are.
It is finally written: State bans on carry are no more than the State saying that either the entire public is criminal in nature, or that it values the criminal element more than its law abiding citizens.

Charles Cooper goes into great detail on this aspect of "public safety" and the erroneous conclusions of disarming its citizens. The only "blood in the streets" will be that of the citizens. Protecting the criminal, at the expense of the law abiding citizen, is not a "public safety" issue.

Both briefs overlap in some areas, but the overall thrust is to use both briefs to refute the contentions all of the various amici of the State and the State itself.

Alan Gura makes his final conclusion:

Quote:
The judgment below should be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to enter a permanent injunction consistent with Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief.
This is shorthand for what Charles Cooper asks:

Quote:
IV. THIS CASE IS RIPE FOR FINAL ADJUDICATION.

In the alternative, the State asks for a “remand to permit the district courts in the first instance to make the factual findings necessary to determine whether the State can demonstrate a sufficient fit between the challenged statutes and their public-safety purpose.” State Br. 52. No remand is necessary. “A fact that goes to the reasonableness of a rule or other enactment is a classic example of a legislative fact.” Menora v. Illinois High Sch. Ass’n, 683 F.2d 1030, 1036 (7th Cir. 1982). Judicial consideration of legislative facts is not limited by “any formal requirements of notice other than those already inherent in affording opportunity to hear and be heard and exchanging briefs,” nor by “any requirement of formal findings at any level.” FED. R. EVID. 201, 1972 advisory committee note. The State has had an opportunity to be heard, and it does not suggest that it has held anything back in its presentation to this Court. The practical result of a remand for further proceedings would be to delay resolution both of this case and the Moore case to allow for proceedings before two different district courts, only to end up back before this Court exercising “plenary” review of any findings of legislative facts entered below. See Free v. Peters, 12 F.3d 700, 706 (7th Cir. 1993). This Court should forego such a pointless exercise and decide this case now.

CONCLUSION

This Court should REVERSE the judgment below granting the State’s motion to dismiss, and REMAND with instructions to grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and to enter a permanent injunction against enforcement of the challenged statutes. Alternatively, should the Court decide to remand the case for further proceedings, it should order the district court to enter a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the challenged statutes pending final judgment.
Both briefs are excellent reads.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Moore CA7 Appellant Reply Brief.pdf (294.1 KB, 4 views)
Al Norris 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 02:07 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 0.19847 seconds with 8 queries