The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 3, 2022, 05:11 PM   #1
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
Well, New York has wasted no time whatsoever

https://www.nysenate.gov/newsroom/pr...20a%20firearms.

New York State has wasted exactly zero time in thumbing its nose at 2A and the NYSRA ruling and passed one of the more egregious pieces of carry abridgement that exists.

Here's an interesting analysis on YT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0m1j7tcTE0
csmsss is offline  
Old July 3, 2022, 06:05 PM   #2
RETG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2009
Location: Somewhere in Idaho, near WY
Posts: 507
Did anyone expect anything less from the Dragon Lady Hochul and the Dem controlled congress?
And I'm betting this is only a start and that many if not most of these requirements will be tied up in court for years.
__________________
I give MY OPINION (not often) based on many years shooting at, other than paper targets. I will not debate my experience vs. your experience based on dreams and "what ifs." I'm 73; I'm too damn old to care.
RETG is offline  
Old July 3, 2022, 06:09 PM   #3
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 5,792
They just don’t get it. Why not just see what the demand for this crap is? Why not see if there are any lives saved or wrongful deaths. Why just freak out and pass a law preventing carry where you are exposed to high mass shooting risk daily??

Why group people by the tool instead of hoe they use the tool?
Nathan is offline  
Old July 3, 2022, 06:20 PM   #4
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
Oh, they get it. Perhaps what is confusing you is your righteous sense of justice. What federal judicial district is New York in? The 2nd, which has a completely rock solid history of anti-2A decisions. The only way this law gets reversed is via another SCOTUS ruling. Given the rather haphazard manner in which 2A cases receive cert, I think it safe to say this law will stand (and be enforced) for many years to come.

You can rest assured you will see similar if not even more draconian legislation emerge in California and other bastions of freedom.
csmsss is offline  
Old August 31, 2022, 11:41 PM   #5
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
Much in the internet news today about the new NY law going into effect, and how one of the "sensitive areas" where even permit holder's carry is not allowed is, apparently, the entirety of Times Square.

One of the things I am more than a bit sick of is how the press, and even the NY Senate state the Supreme Court ruling "invalidated" their pistol permit law.

As I understand it, the ruling DID NOT invalidate the law. ONLY the part of the law requiring permit applicants to show "good reason" (in the judgement of the state) for requesting a permit.

NY residents are still just as required to have a pistol permit in order to legally possess a pistol as they have been for the past century. The SCOTUS ruling did NOT change that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 06:13 AM   #6
mehavey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,549
Yet there is light -- tho' at the end of a deliberately long and as painful a process as the State can make:

[The federal judge], while dismissing the plaintiff’s request [the usual lack of 'standing'] for an injunction
blocking the CCIA from taking place, delivered a mixed opinion on each of the challenged counts
but seemed inclined to back the plaintiffs if the case had went the full distance.

“The undersigned is left with a strong sense of the safety that a licensed concealed handgun regularly
provides, or would provide, to the many law-abiding responsible citizens in the state too powerless
to physically defend themselves in public without a handgun,” [Judge] Suddaby wrote.

He was in favor of the plaintiff’s arguments that the “good character” requirement was based on “vague,
subjective criteria.”

The judge also disagreed with the state including a list of locations barring gun owners from carrying in
“sensitive” locations, which he said includes places that are “nonsensitive by nature.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/court...-gun-carrying/
mehavey is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 12:09 PM   #7
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
One of the things that bothers me most about their new, expanded "gun free zones" is the utter unfairness, AND the complete disregard for the wishes of private property owners.

First off the new rule prohibit people who HAVE permits from carry there. The previous NY state and NYC permit system was extensive, laborious to get through, time consuming, and expensive. Under the new rules it will be even more so, but aside from that point, now the state IS PROHIBITING the very people they APPROVED to carry from certain "sensitive" locations.

Again, the people who obey the law, who get NY permits, those are NOT the people who are doing violence. They are NOT the people putting the public at risk. BUT they are the people the law is "aimed at".

With COMPLETE disregard for the wishes of the property owners and those in the congregations, the new NY law designates "places of worship" as gun free zones.

Now, I have no issue with the govt deciding that for GOVT buildings, such as courts schools, etc. BUT, for churches mosques and synagogue's, I think that a HUGE overreach. IF those places don't want LEGAL gun carry there. that's their choice, and the law already backs that up. BUT, if they choose to allow it, the new law PREVENTS that, DENYING their freedom of choice.

I read some comments from a fellow who was rather upset about that, at his place of worship, they rely on the rabbi and members of the congregation being legally armed to provide for their own security.

The new law, apparently, now prohibits this.

I see some very worrysome parallells with some things done in Germany in the 1930s, legally barring possession of arms by certain people, and in certain places, under the claim of "public safety" and we know how that worked out in the end.....

thoughts??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 01:20 PM   #8
Quigs37
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 26, 2020
Posts: 5
Common sense

If I stop a mass killing then arrested so be it.
I’m sure the outcry against being arrested but stopping a mass killing will negatively affect our government’s decision against our right to carry a ccw for me my family and others. Vote against our current politicians with those intellectuals who realize it’s not the ccw who are problems but those who are in possession of illegal gun and use them in committing crime including murder!
Quigs37 is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 03:39 PM   #9
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,068
So, it would seem to me that if a resident of New York applied for a carry license, was turned down and then decides to carry a gun (contrary to the State's law) and use it in self defense, the Supreme Court decision could be used as a defense if the shooter is prosecuted.
Skans is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 04:30 PM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
Quote:
So, it would seem to me that if a resident of New York applied for a carry license, was turned down and then decides to carry a gun (contrary to the State's law) and use it in self defense, the Supreme Court decision could be used as a defense if the shooter is prosecuted.
No, I don't think that would work.

The SCOTUS ruling struck down the NYS requirement that permit applicants provide a specific (and in the eyes of the state, valid) reason for applying for the permit.

Despite constant media repetition that it struck down the entire permit law, it did not do that. Only one segment of the law was found unconstitutional and vacated.

SO, since that specific segment of the law, the NY requrement for "good cause" no longer exists, anyone applying for a permit and being turned down, will have been turned down for some OTHER reason, so trying to use the SCOTUS ruling as a defense for breaking NY law by having a pistol without a permit simply does not apply.

There are numerous reasons within the still valid NY law that allow for denial of the permit. ONE of those is the still existing requirement that the applicant must be "of good moral character" and NY officials still have complete discretion as to what that means to them, and if you get a permit, or not. Don't think for a minute its anything otherwise.

ALL the SCOTUS ruling did was tell NY that they cannot ask for a specific reason for applying for a permit, and turn people down if they did not provide an acceptable one.

As I understand it, it is still entirely up to the issuing agent (most places a county judge) to approve or deny a permit for any reason they feel valid.

Though it was decades ago, I know of one case where a guy was denied due to speeding tickets. Like a couple dozen speeding tickets... the judge turned his permit down. Although (at the time) the guy had committed no actual criminal offenses sufficient to sutomatically deny him, the judge ruled that his behavior was indicative of a pattern of disrespect and disregard for lawful behavior and that expecting him to behave with a pistol was asking too much.

Turned out the Judge wasn't wrong as that fellow later on did commit some real crimes.

Point here is that NY is stll a "may issue" state not a "shall issue" state and they can decide to issue or not for a great many different reasons, not all of which need be criminal misconduct on the part of the applicant.
Its the law, there, has been for generations, the SCOTUS ruling didn't change that.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 07:42 PM   #11
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
From post #7--AMP 44--
""Now, I have no issue with the govt deciding that for GOVT buildings, such as courts schools, etc. BUT, for churches mosques and synagogue's, I think that a HUGE overreach. IF those places don't want LEGAL gun carry there. that's their choice, and the law already backs that up. BUT, if they choose to allow it, the new law PREVENTS that, DENYING their freedom of choice.""

What about 'separation of church and state'?? Only applies when they want it to--pastor speaking against/for some politician or ruling!! Unless you are certain "reverends"!! they seem to appear/speak where ever they want and owe millions to the IRS!!
langenc is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 08:41 PM   #12
csmsss
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
Case dismissed for "lack of standing" by a federal judge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYllAv_aL-E
csmsss is offline  
Old September 1, 2022, 11:23 PM   #13
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
Quote:
What about 'separation of church and state'?? Only applies when they want it to--....
"Separation of church and state" is a phrase found nowhere in the Constitution, and the concept only applies to the state creating or sanctioning one religion above others. The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion".

Pastors and other religious leaders are citizens with the same rights to hold any political opinion and advocate for any position the same as anyone else. That has nothing to do with "separation of church and state". Not one bit.

The NY state government unilaterally declaring "places of worship" as gun free zones where no one, INCLUDING state licensed permit holders can have a gun, also has nothing to do with separation of church and state, it has to do with private property rights and governmental authority over property they do not own.

I looked at as much as I could stand of the linked video, and its opinion about the judge's ruling with some actual fact.

Do note the case was dismissed without prejudice, which means there is nothing preventing it from being filed again.

also note that one of the requirements to have "standing" is that you are harmed or would be harmed by the law you are filing against.

and while its not something we would like, I can see where it might be entirely within a judge's discretion to determine that until a law goes into effect, no one has standing. I believe it is also within their power to allow a suit to proceed and grant standing when the harm is still potential, but they are not obligated to do that.

I'm not a legal expert, if you are, please correct me if I am in error. about this.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 2, 2022, 07:38 AM   #14
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skans View Post
So, it would seem to me that if a resident of New York applied for a carry license, was turned down and then decides to carry a gun (contrary to the State's law) and use it in self defense, the Supreme Court decision could be used as a defense if the shooter is prosecuted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44AMP
No, I don't think that would work....
As often as 44AMP gets the legal issues right, I have to disagree with him on this one. While Bruen specifically dealt with the "proper cause" requirement for licensing, it also laid out a whole new test for analyzing 2A challenges. And one defense to a criminal charge is a claim that the statute under which one is being prosecuted is unconstitutional. To paraphrase that test: "If one is engaged in a 2A activity, then the gov't has to show that its restrictions have historical precedent." At this stage, carrying a gun for defense of self is unquestionably a 2A activity, so the burden shifts to the gov't to show that its restriction is constitutional. In most cases, the burden (almost) always remains with the challenger to show that a law is unconstitutional, not the other way around. But Bruen turned that on its head. Do not underestimate the effect of this burden shift.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old September 2, 2022, 09:57 AM   #15
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
Thank you for the clarification, Spats, and the information about how the ruling also set a new "framework" for considering 2A laws.

I believe I understand about the burden shift for 2A cases and I can see how lack of valid historical precedent could certainly be applied against some of the features of the new NY law, particularly the huge expansion of "gun free zones".

What I'm not sure of is it would even apply to the situation given here...

Quote:
So, it would seem to me that if a resident of New York applied for a carry license, was turned down and then decides to carry a gun (contrary to the State's law) and use it in self defense, the Supreme Court decision could be used as a defense if the shooter is prosecuted.
I can see the Bruen ruling being used in defense if one were a legal permit holder, and were charged with a crime for carrying in one of the new "gun free zones" but in the given situation, the crime is carry without a permit, isn't it?? The poster stated so, specifically, and I don't see how the SCOTUS ruling could be applied to that.

IF the ruling were that the entire permit process were unconstitutional, then yes, but that isn't what the Bruen ruling did.

I think if would take another, different case and SCOTUS ruling to void the entire permit requirement system, wouldn't it??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 2, 2022, 12:57 PM   #16
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 17,567
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Quote:
So, it would seem to me that if a resident of New York applied for a carry license, was turned down and then decides to carry a gun (contrary to the State's law) and use it in self defense, the Supreme Court decision could be used as a defense if the shooter is prosecuted.
I can see the Bruen ruling being used in defense if one were a legal permit holder, and were charged with a crime for carrying in one of the new "gun free zones" but in the given situation, the crime is carry without a permit, isn't it?? The poster stated so, specifically, and I don't see how the SCOTUS ruling could be applied to that.

IF the ruling were that the entire permit process were unconstitutional, then yes, but that isn't what the Bruen ruling did.

I think if would take another, different case and SCOTUS ruling to void the entire permit requirement system, wouldn't it??
What better way to get a case about the constitutionality of carry permits than to have a case about the constitutionality of carry permits?
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 2, 2022, 06:02 PM   #17
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,030
Hmmm. Agreed.


But I would not want to be the concealed carry permit holder whose case would be the test case in NY so long as Hochul is governor. She seems irrational on this topic.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Old September 2, 2022, 08:09 PM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
for those who grew up in other places, here's a bit of background on the NY pistol permit, from my personal experience. It is a bit dated, but I am confident the majority of things that existed then have not been done away with, only that further requirements have been added in the years since.

I grew up in NY, in Saratoga county, about 50 miles north of Albany. I got my pistol permit at age 18 in 1975. The permit was required to possess a handgun, and allowed for open carry. But not any handgun, ONLY the handgun(s) listed on the permit. Guns were listed by make, caliber, barrel length, and serial number. Those guns, and only those guns were legal for you to possess.
The NY state permit was not valid in New York City.

5 sets of fingerprints, 4 "passport" type photographs, 3 character references (who were not family) investigation by the Sherriff dept (and I don't know who else for certain, but I believe one set of prints went to the FBI) then, the application went before a judge.

I no longer remember the fee at the time, $20 I think but no longer sure. THe final stage getting the permit approved by the judge was the tricksy part. Each judge had their own likes and dislikes and any reason or none was enough for disapproval.

One of the questions on the application was reason for applying. Note that this is NOT the section of the law struck down by the recent SCOTUS ruling, this is just a general, "what do you want the permit for" question The usual answers were Hunting, target, sporting use, or self protection.

TO be relatively sure of approval, you had to know what the judge would approve. At the time, the judge in Saratoga country would approve Hunting, and sporting purpose, but would deny any application for self defense use.

The judge in Albany county would only approve "self defense" use and denied everything else.

also note that the permit was NOT for concealed carry. Everyone "knew" that concealed permits were not for us common folks, that one needed a special reason in order to get one. NOW, I can see this was the part of the law that the Bruen ruling has now struck down, in action, but at the time, it was just the way things were. A PI, or a jeweler or businessman who carried a lot of cash might get a concealed carry permit (especially if some of that cash went to the right people) but ordinary folks, n those days, no, ain't happening.
Possibly, if you were under a verified threat, but otherwise, no. Again and always at the sole choice of the judge.

The permit was valid FOR LIFE, unless revoked, and revocation could happen for any reason, again, totally up to the judge. Any criminal act, automatic, anything else, totally what they felt was the right thing to do. They were (and I believe still are) the sole authority.

I know some of the changes they made since then, the fee increased (last I heard it was $100 but its probably more, now) and the lifetime permit is gone. The new law just going into effect Sep 1 includes many more changes requiring reapplication every 3 years (down from 5), conducting face to face interviews with your character references, additions to the training requirement, and access to your online social media accounts. Probably more, I don't know what else, but that much has been publicly announced.

If you're in NY, please correct me on anything I got wrong about the new rules.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 4, 2022, 08:43 AM   #19
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,655
44 amp, your post pretty much summarizes the current conditions in NYS, with one exception. Open carry is not allowed. All non restricted pistol permits are concealed carry only.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old September 4, 2022, 12:45 PM   #20
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 26,121
Thanks Mike, for the information, but are you saying open carry, such as while hunting is no longer allowed???

I know open carry like downtown Albany in june freaks people out, and while technically legal was "discouraged" strongly, but back in the 70s, it was no big deal for us to stop into a diner in any Adirondack town during deer season with a pistol on your belt. The only reaction it ever produced was "Did you have any luck??" and "what can I get you folks today?"

Most people, in most of the country, who never lived in NY (or the other states with similar laws) simply have no concept of how obsessive the govt there is about gun control, particularly handguns.

I moved out of NY in Jan 79, and sometimes around 2001-02 (don't recall exactly, now) Saratoga country (apparently finally tracked me down) sent me a letter, in which they informed me that, since I was no longer a NY resident, my pistol permit was no longer valid. Mind you, I hadn't been a NY resident for over 20 years, so the permit being invalid wasn't unexpected.

But what tripped me out was their request that they wanted the permit BACK!. That's right, the little wallet sized, non laminated piece of paper they issued in 75 (and that I hadn't even seen for decades) the wanted it back!

AND, they also wanted to know where the guns listed on the permit were!


The guns listed on my permit were my Dad's pistols, which I had not seen since a brief visit home in the 80s. My response to their demand wouldn't pass TFL language filters, so I won't repeat it here, suffice to say "go pound sand" should give you an idea....

As a result of my parents being involved in a bad car wreck in the late 60s, we learned that had Dad died, if no one else in the household had a permit listing his pistols on it, the guns would have to be surrendered to the state.

IF they were turned in to the Sheriff dept, AND a permit was applied for, then they would be held until the permit application was either approved or denied. If they were turned in to the State Police, they would be held for a period of time (I think 30 days, no longer remember for sure) and then DESTROYED. If I remember right, even taking them to an FFL to be sold was not a legal option. If no one in the family had a permit (and remember, the guns were listed on the permit by serial number) they would be gone, and the family would not see one penny of their value.

back then, if the estate executor did intend to sell them, the local authorities (in the more rural areas, anyway) would often allow it, but that was their option, the law did not require it. Today, I would expect everything to be seized and I expect the estate would have to go to court to get any bit of their value returned.

SO, Mom immediately applied for her permit, and my brother and I both applied for ours when we turned 18, with ALL of Dad's pistols listed on all our permits.

Dad passed in '03 and I went back to NY to bury him. Things sure had changed. When I left there were 3 gun shops within bicycle range of our home. In 2003, I had to travel 80 miles to find one. Dad's pistols were still legal, because my brother still lived there, and they were listed on his permit. HE had to take them to the gunshop (I could not legally posses them in NY state) so we could ship them to an FFL in my home state, and I have them now.

If you own handguns in NY, I strongly urge you to put a plan in place so that if something happens to you, the state does not get them, and your heirs do, or get the value they represent.

IF you live somewhere else, I urge you to look at what NY does, as a lesson, at the very least.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 4, 2022, 02:27 PM   #21
Limnophile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,014
NYSRPA v Bruen, Round 2, filed in Northern NY Federal District Court:

NYSRPA v. Bruen 2: https://storage.courtlistener.com/re...134455.1.0.pdf
Limnophile is offline  
Old September 4, 2022, 02:34 PM   #22
Limnophile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2015
Location: Issaquah, Washington
Posts: 1,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
I see some very worrysome parallells with some things done in Germany in the 1930s, legally barring possession of arms by certain people, and in certain places, under the claim of "public safety" and we know how that worked out in the end.....

thoughts??
The Nazis barred a minority of their citizens from bearing arms. NY politicians are barring the overwhelming majority of their citizens from bearing arms. Let that sink in: compared to NY politicians, German Nazis were progressive liberals (in terms of gun control).
Limnophile is offline  
Old September 4, 2022, 07:37 PM   #23
mikejonestkd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2006
Location: Brockport, NY
Posts: 3,655
44 Amp,
Open carrying while hunting is one of the very few exceptions to the concealed carry law. Also, you have to be very careful to not run afoul of the hunting regs while doing so.
For example open carrying a fully loaded 1911 in .45 on your hip during deer season is allowed as long as you have followed all other hunting regs- blaze orange, tags, daylight hours....., but a ruger autoloader in .22lr is not. Carrying the same 1911 fully loaded in the woods after dark on your hike back to the truck is a violation.
__________________
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
mikejonestkd is offline  
Old September 4, 2022, 08:10 PM   #24
ammo.crafter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 1,900
What did you expect...

I have such fond memories of growing up in Brooklyn NY and riding my bile thru the streets going to a wooded area to shoot my .22 that I carried on the handle bars.

When I would come in contact with police they would make a big deal over my single shot Marlin and saying what a great rifle I had.

How things have changed.
__________________
"Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".
--Thomas Jefferson
ammo.crafter is offline  
Old September 5, 2022, 09:38 PM   #25
Doc Intrepid
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,030
@44 AMP --

Thanks for the lessons learned and the suggestion to put a plan in place for passing your firearms on to heirs or successors when the time comes.

In more and more states gun laws are starting to impact on how guns can be legally passed from one generation to the next.

It would behoove many of us to review laws our legislators are attempting to pass, if they haven't already, that would prevent family members inheriting our firearms. First rule is have a will, and second rule is ensure the will remains consistent with the laws in the state we live in as they evolve.
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case.
Doc Intrepid is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 09:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.13654 seconds with 8 queries