The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 14, 2019, 03:24 PM   #1
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,211
Universal Background Check and Universal Gun Registration-Breitbart

It's no surprise 'Breitbart' is a seriously conservative place (okay, I didn't know this until somebody told me but everybody else already knows this) but one of the really BIG pushes going on right now is "Universal Background Checks" (UBC) even for private, face to face sales among individuals who aren't dealers. (Did I qualify that enough?)

https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendm...earm-registry/

It's been discussed here before that the UBC requires gun registration to work and Breitbart points this out in a very clear, easy to understand article.

But the 'big push' is on to pass into law UBC's WITHOUT gun registration.

So, should we say 'whatever' and save our determined resistance for when they come back for gun registration or should we show determined resistance for the UBC's even though there's no registration in the current proposal.

Two proverbs come to mind:
Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile and the old tale of "the camel's nose under the tent".
DaleA is offline  
Old January 14, 2019, 05:08 PM   #2
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
It's been discussed here before that the UBC requires gun registration to work...
Except that they don't, as has been mentioned in previous discussions. UBC do not require gun registration, or any information about the gun, AT ALL. The check is on a person, and the person can be determined to be eligible or prohibited based on existing records without any specific gun information at all.

HOWEVER, every version of the UBC that we are being offered (by the usual suspects) includes specific gun information being required as part of the process. This is because the sponsors WANT it there, not because it is needed for the check. This is so that the UBC check records can either function as registration, or provide the information for a registration database.

It is by design, NOT need!!

Quote:
So, should we say 'whatever' and save our determined resistance for when they come back for gun registration or should we show determined resistance for the UBC's even though there's no registration in the current proposal.
the devil is in the details, and our "determined resistance" should be based on what the proposed law actually says. Not against the concept of background checks, that won't fly to the general public, but on the specific law proposed. It will be flawed, count on that, what we need to do if identify those flaws and make them the focus of our fight.

The public has been trained and accepts the idea that doing a background check to stop a criminal from legally getting a gun is a good thing. And it is, and would be, if it actually worked. We can't win fighting that idea. What we can do is show how this specific law fails, and where, and how it puts an unnecessary burden on innocent citizens to no benefit.

In 2016, Washington state passed a background check law. Passed by initiative after being defeated in the legislature three consecutive election cycles. The law requires a background check to be done, by an FFL on all "transfers". The law is written so badly that it is unclear what is and is not a transfer covered under the law. SO badly that all state law enforcement agencies have refused to enforce the law, without further clarification. TO date, such clarification has not been provided.

That law requires the owner, the gun, and the person it is to be transferred to, to present themselves to an FFL for the check to be run. That law also limits the fee the FFL can charge for the check.
That law does contain a couple of exceptions, which include loaning a gun to someone on a "certified range" (not defined) or while hunting, or transfer to certain family members can be done without going to an FFL for a background check.

ALL other situations, could, under that law, require a FFL check, there is no guidance on that, so, possibly, you visiting a friend at his home, him handing you one of his guns to look at, you taking it, and then handing it back to him, COULD be crimes under the law, because you didn't go to an FFL and have the check done on you, to receive the gun, and another crime because you didn't get an FFL check to give the owner back his own gun.

That law uses the term "transfer" and does cover more than purchase transactions. As written it is not just a bad idea, it is a bad law, and when not only the Sheriffs, but the State Patrol AND the Conservation Dept all say "we're not enforcing this until you explain it better" that ought to be a clue.

However, there is a downside to this, no enforcement means no trial cases that can be used to overturn the law. So it stays on the books.

The idea that a background check will stop a person committed to doing violence carries the same weight in the real world as the paper Chamberlin got in Munich in 1938, giving us "peace in our time!" the world found out how much that was worth in 1939.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 08:48 AM   #3
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 577
11 states have universal background checks for all gun sales, including those between private citizens(essentially unenforceable tho), without gun registry.
Quote:
Eleven states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) and the District of Columbia require universal background checks at the point of sale for all sales and transfers of all classes of firearms, whether they are purchased from a licensed dealer or an unlicensed seller.
BTW-Most adults surveyed, including NRA members, favored UBC..altho probably w/o gun registry.
https://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...man-said-70-8/
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 10:05 AM   #4
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,815
The idea of being able to have a NICS check on a stranger buying your gun is not without merit. Keeping permanent government records is problematic.

Years ago, a friend of mine wanted to sell his Sigma pistol. So he was on line to enter the gun show, a unknown person comes up and asks what he has. The dude offers more than my friend expected. My friend sells it and the gun goes off to ... I would never do that.

An interesting statistic - if a gun is sold NIB and it ends up in a crime, it takes about 10 years. If the sale is person to person, the time to crime (as it is called) is about 5 years.

Anyway, if you sell a gun to an individual, you do not know well, what info would you ask for, if not required by law.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 11:48 AM   #5
Skans
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 10,782
Quote:
The idea of being able to have a NICS check on a stranger buying your gun is not without merit. Keeping permanent government records is problematic.

Years ago, a friend of mine wanted to sell his Sigma pistol. So he was on line to enter the gun show, a unknown person comes up and asks what he has. The dude offers more than my friend expected. My friend sells it and the gun goes off to ... I would never do that.

An interesting statistic - if a gun is sold NIB and it ends up in a crime, it takes about 10 years. If the sale is person to person, the time to crime (as it is called) is about 5 years.

Anyway, if you sell a gun to an individual, you do not know well, what info would you ask for, if not required by law.
Just make NICS available to EVERYONE rather than only FFL's, and make it illegal to use NICS for anything other than checking someone's background for the purpose of purchasing a firearm. BATFE can make a short FTF form for firearms purchasers to fill out and sign which would authorize the seller to do the NICS check. IMHO, the solution is so simple and would use the same NICS system in place today.
Skans is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 12:39 PM   #6
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 134
Quote:
BTW-Most adults surveyed, including NRA members, favored UBC..altho probably w/o gun registry.
While it is widely quoted that a large majority, up to as high as 94%, of citizens support universal background checks, voting results on ballot initiatives do not approach the numbers claimed by pollsters. Washington, Nevada and Maine have had ballot initiatives on background checks. Washington had the highest margin at 59%, Nevada passed by less than 1% and in Maine the initiative was defeated. These elections involved millions of voters, far more than were involved in these polls.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation!
LeverGunFan is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 01:17 PM   #7
Armed_Chicagoan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2013
Location: Albany Park, Chicago
Posts: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skans
Just make NICS available to EVERYONE
I have a lot of privacy concerns with that. I'd tweak it a bit, so that a buyer does a NICS check on themselves. The buyer is then given a confirmation number (good for 30 days) which the seller can then verify is valid. And I think this system should be free to buyer and seller.
Armed_Chicagoan is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 02:15 PM   #8
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
Washington, Nevada and Maine have had ballot initiatives on background checks. Washington had the highest margin at 59%...
Let me add a bit of background on the Washington initiative's passage. It passed ONLY in the 5 counties comprising the metro Sea-Tac (I-5 corridor) area. The rest of the state's 39 counties voted it down.

There was a summer long campaign of tv ads (largely funded by out of state interests) which (falsely) claimed the law was needed to keep domestic abusers from getting guns. (domestic abusers are already prohibited by law from owning guns, and have been for a long time)

The ad campaign was a lie. But, an effective one, enough people in that metro area voted to pass it, overriding the rest of the state.

This kind of thing happens often in many states with many issues where the concentration of the population is in a single, relatively small geographic area or two. The "masses" get spoon fed misinformation, and vote on it as if it were the actual facts, and their numbers overwhelm everyone else.

This is democracy. The will of the people rules (no matter who manipulates it, or how). 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner is democracy. Not so good for the sheep, though. Possibly why the Founders set up a democratic Republic, not a democracy. A distinction that seems lost on a lot of people these days.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 03:31 PM   #9
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,211
In Minnesota one of the plans is, if someone wants to purchase a gun, any type of gun, they have to get a "permit-to-purchase".

If you're selling a gun you ask to see the permit-to-purchase, if they have the permit-to-purchase then you proceed with the sale, if they don't, you don't. No need to go to the police station or an FFL dealer.

In MN you have to have the permit-to-purchase RIGHT NOW if you want to buy a handgun or an "assault weapon". It's been this way for years.

Note: in MN the Remington 597 .22LR with the AR-like tacticool stock requires a permit-to-purchase. The Remington 597 .22LR with the wood stock does not require a permit-to-purchase.

Of course set up like this it is unenforceable.

If Joe Felon is found with a gun and he won't say who sold it to them there is no gun registry for John Law to go to to find out who the last owner of the gun was.

Note: I should add that in MN if you have a concealed carry permit then you don't need a permit-to-purchase. A permit-to-purchase only requires you to fill out a form and hand it in to local law enforcement, takes about 20 minutes and it's free they run their checks and it usually takes about two weeks.
DaleA is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 03:43 PM   #10
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,789
This is also being discussed in THR with a lot of vim and vigor. Recap from there is the UBC is designed to deliberately fail so that registration (and ultimately confiscation) comes to the fore. Some of those posts seems to make a lot of sense in that regard. Without registration it doesn't work; and like all of the other gun control attempts, when it does fail there will be a cry for , "well we just to add this aspect" tot he new law.Slowly, death by a thousand cuts becomes a reality.........and they have been cutting on us for quite some time.
They want to eliminate FTF sales, except this does nothing to stop criminals, but it does make it harder for those of us who distrust our government to keep our business to ourselves.

Just say NO to any more laws until the thousands of existing ones are eliminated, enforced or revised.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 04:43 PM   #11
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93 View Post
11 states have universal background checks for all gun sales, including those between private citizens(essentially unenforceable tho), without gun registry.


BTW-Most adults surveyed, including NRA members, favored UBC..altho probably w/o gun registry.
https://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...man-said-70-8/
One poll funded by pro gun control organizations is hardly definitive. Politifact also has a strong leftist bias.

From Politifact:
Quote:
According to the poll, 24 percent of the respondents identified themselves as NRA members. That means of the total of 816 gun owners, 196 self-identified as NRA members.
Of all 816 gun owners, 83 percent responded that they supported a criminal background check for everyone who wants to buy a firearm.
For the 196 who said they were NRA members, the poll showed that 72 percent supported background checks.
So of the small sampling of people who CLAIMED to be gun owners, slightly under a quarter of them CLAIMED to be NRA members of which 72 percent supported some UNDEFINED background check. Those being polled might have been dishonest about NRA affiliation in order to skew the results.


Again from Politifact:

Quote:
Janine Parry, director of the Arkansas Poll and a professor at the University of Arkansas, said that the polls do not reflect a large enough sample of NRA members to reach the conclusion that 70 to 80 percent of NRA members support background checks.
Quote:
Polling expert Steven Smith, a professor of social sciences and political science at Washington University in St. Louis, told PolitiFact that the smaller the actual subgroup in the national population, the lower the precision and the larger the margin of error.
Quote:
Andrew Smith, director of the University of New Hampshire Polling Center, said he is dubious of any Interactive Voice Response (IVR) polling as the one done by Public Policy Polling.
"They have incredibly low response rates and there is evidence that only the most politically motivated people really want to talk to a computer about their opinions," he said.

In spite of all this, Politifact still rates the poll results as "mostly true", because, well, that is the result they wanted.
JN01 is offline  
Old January 15, 2019, 06:17 PM   #12
unclejack37
Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2014
Location: Delaware
Posts: 94
Delaware requires a FFL for all sales of guns except WHEN A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER SELLS TO ANOTHER CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT HOLDER. In some of the red states long guns do not require a FFL to buy or sell and you can be under 21 years old.
__________________
Blessed by the BEST
unclejack37 is offline  
Old January 16, 2019, 01:23 AM   #13
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 11,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaleA
If Joe Felon is found with a gun and he won't say who sold it to them there is no gun registry for John Law to go to to find out who the last owner of the gun was.
Are you reporting this as a feature, or as a bug?

If it's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm, and the cops have caught Joe Felon with a firearm -- what difference does it make who the last [legal] owner was, and from whom Joe felon bought it? (Or stole it.)
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old January 16, 2019, 03:24 AM   #14
DaleA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2002
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 4,211
Quote:
If it's illegal for a felon to possess a firearm, and the cops have caught Joe Felon with a firearm -- what difference does it make who the last [legal] owner was, and from whom Joe felon bought it? (Or stole it.)
True enough. Joe Felon is legal toast. I'm thinking that law enforcement would make the case that they want to bust the person that sold/gave the gun to Joe Felon too. Selling or giving a gun to a felon is already a crime everywhere but law enforcement would have a tough time figuring out who had the gun before Joe Felon without the gun registry. With the gun registry they look up who last had the gun legally and go arrest them for selling the gun to a felon or for not reporting a gun stolen.

My question is, do we protest the toothless UBC that has no gun registry component claiming that we see in the future that there will be a demand for universal gun registration or do we let the toothless UBC go through and save our efforts for when the universal gun registration is proposed.

Thanks FITASC for pointing out the similar discussion over at "thehighroad.org"
DaleA is offline  
Old January 16, 2019, 07:14 AM   #15
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 577
Quote:
In spite of all this, Politifact still rates the poll results as "mostly true", because, well, that is the result they wanted.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...ools_less_safe

Hardly a liberal 'bias'...
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 16, 2019, 04:36 PM   #16
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93 View Post

I can't speak to whether or not Rasmussen has a bias, but if you examine Politifact much at all, their bias is obvious.


The Rasmussen poll you referred to was taken a week after a school shooting when emotion might play into a response much more than normal.


Depending on how they are worded and/or conducted, a poll can be crafted to produce a desired outcome. You can't really give a lot of weight to most polls of any type- as often seen with pre-election polls, they are often proven to be far from reality.


They do have some utility if the same poll is used annually to give a hint toward trends.
JN01 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 09:56 AM   #17
USNRet93
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2018
Location: Republic of Boulder, USA
Posts: 577
Not keen on arguing bias and various media outlets but the bias exhibited by Rasmussen is as glaring as the 'other side' bias by other outlets. Rasmussen often limits their polling to only those who have a landline..that alone produces bias.

BUT, fact remains, albeit w/o specifics, that UBC is favored by a majority of adult Americans..Including a majority of NRA members. As structured, in CO, I just don't see how it's any problem and certainly prevents those who cannot pass the very rudimentary BGC here on Colorado, from buying handgun..BUT, of course, gun shows up in Wyoming are pretty dern close.
__________________
PhormerPhantomPhlyer

"Tools not Trophies”
USNRet93 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 11:39 AM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
.BUT, of course, gun shows up in Wyoming are pretty dern close
Yep, and buying a gun in another state is regulated by Federal law. And has been for a LONG time.

I'll say this for the benefit of any new folks reading it, ALL gun control laws apply to gunshow and internet purchases EXACTLY the same as they apply to everyone everywhere else. Period.

It is a popular fiction that one can buy anything without complying with the law at gunshows. likewise, the Internet. Now, maybe you can find someone willing to break the law to sell you a gun, but you can find those types anywhere, if you look in the right way. Criminals don't care about the laws, and aren't limited to given locations.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 11:43 AM   #19
LeverGunFan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 25, 2007
Location: Indiana
Posts: 134
Quote:
BUT, fact remains, albeit w/o specifics, that UBC is favored by a majority of adult Americans..Including a majority of NRA members.
We don't have any credible data that the majority of NRA members do or do not support universal background checks. There are no opinion polls that have verified NRA membership status. The Politico article that was linked earlier discussed the limitations of the polling data, so it's questionable to describe this as fact.
__________________
Support the Second Amendment Foundation!
LeverGunFan is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 12:55 PM   #20
kmw1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,185
I have tried following this topic and there have been very good comments made in both directions Some of the discussion gets confusing and hard to understand just where the speaker is going.

I am going to offer this, instead of UBC why make Mandatory Background Checks? Make it so everyone has to do it , gun owners and non-gun owners alike. Issue a number to each person, Then if someone wants to purchase or sell they can show the number and be done with it. Then make the parties to the transaction responsible for maintaining the records of who they bought or sold to.

Guess it could be like a drivers license with a physical card. Then if you are arrested or taken to court for a violation they confiscate your card. I think that could be refined to work without having to have a registry.
kmw1954 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 04:29 PM   #21
JN01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 759
Quote:
Originally Posted by USNRet93 View Post
Not keen on arguing bias and various media outlets but the bias exhibited by Rasmussen is as glaring as the 'other side' bias by other outlets. Rasmussen often limits their polling to only those who have a landline..that alone produces bias.

BUT, fact remains, albeit w/o specifics, that UBC is favored by a majority of adult Americans..Including a majority of NRA members. As structured, in CO, I just don't see how it's any problem and certainly prevents those who cannot pass the very rudimentary BGC here on Colorado, from buying handgun..BUT, of course, gun shows up in Wyoming are pretty dern close.

Aside from possible bias of the pollster, another problem is that the person being polled may not understand or have a different understanding of what is being asked. On the subject of UBCs, one person may think of it as a simple NICS check, someone else might think it includes a complete psych evaluation, gun registration, etc.

Another frequently asked question is: Do you think we need more gun control laws? If the person being polled is completely ignorant of the current laws, his answer may not be an accurate picture of how many restrictions he thinks are the right balance.

As LeverGunFan pointed out, we really don't know how many NRA members do or do not support UBCs

At any rate, basing public policy on polls is a really bad idea.

On the subject of the UBCs themselves, as others have pointed out, they can form the basis of gun registration which serves no legitimate purpose. They will have zero impact on criminals obtaining them, as they can either buy on the black market or (illegally) have someone do a straw purchase for them. Prohibited persons who currently attempt to buy them from FFLs are almost never prosecuted. What is the point of adding more expense, bureaucracy and potential for abuse to law abiding gun owners with no corresponding benefit for crime reduction?
JN01 is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 04:57 PM   #22
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,128
Quote:
Make it so everyone has to do it , gun owners and non-gun owners alike.
This idea has been brought up before, and seems, to me, to be a better idea than the crap currently being proposed. BUT, because it is, because it could be done without a gun registration, those pushing the current offering will not consider accepting it. They want their system, and only their system to become law.

And, they want it to be a uniform FEDERAL standard. They want a system that can answer the question "did you get a background check done when you bought that gun? (and by "that gun" they mean that specific individual gun, by ser#)

That question can only be answered by a system that keeps a record connecting your personal information with a specific firearm, by serial number. That is the definition of registration.

We could (and I think, should) create a system that runs the check on every person who applies for a government issued ID. Driver's license, or ID card, or Passport, what ever it is, we could use that, adding a block or box or icon identifying that the bearer is or is not a prohibited person. All a dealer would have to do is check THAT ID # to determine current status. NO information about what gun is needed. A system could be created so that if you become a prohibited person, your ID (s) would be altered to reflect that.

It would, of course, require some effort to set up and keep updated, but it would be at least as accurate as what we do today, and possibly simpler.

Polls showing what people "are in favor of" are mostly so much swamp gas. They have more holes in them than good Swiss cheese. Mostly because of two reasons, the first is the idea that a few hundred, or even a few thousand people accurately represent the will of the more than 330 MILLION people in this country today.

The second is that when asked "are you in favor of....?" people respond to what they think is being asked, the general subject, and not the details of actual law or proposed law. Think for a moment about taxes...If you ask people if they are in favor of everyone having to pay their fair share, you will most likely get an overwhelming yes from the majority.

HOWEVER, you aren't telling people what their fair share actually is. Their "yes" answer to the general idea might change to a "no" if you tell them that your idea of the "fair share" is 80% of their income.

probably not a no, but a "Hell No!!"

Simply put, polls often ask open ended very general questions, then treat the responses as if they applied to very specific things.

And, that assumes that the pollsters don't go out of their way to cherry pick the data to fit their predetermined agenda. That also happens, all too often.

I
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 17, 2019, 08:51 PM   #23
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,007
I’m all in if you had to submit to a rigorous background check to exercise all of your constitutional rights.
rickyrick is online now  
Old January 17, 2019, 09:43 PM   #24
kmw1954
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2016
Location: SE Wisconsin
Posts: 1,185
A background check to buy a gun but not to enter the country? Alright then.
kmw1954 is offline  
Old January 18, 2019, 11:33 AM   #25
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,815
Given the recent presidential election and revelation that pollsters can be bribed, I don't trust them at all. Also, the way you ask the question is obviously important.

The best analysis I've seen of general gun attitudes in the USA is that:

1. Most folks support the right to own firearms for self-defense and sport.
2. Most folks support measures to keep them from criminals and those who are not safe due to mental health concerns.

The devil is in the details. The extremes of no restrictions or no guns are not supported.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11312 seconds with 9 queries