Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 47

Thread: Refused to produce ID to private security at Four Queens, Got 86'd Police Involved

  1. #1
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385

    Exclamation Refused to produce ID to private security at Four Queens, Got 86'd Police Involved

    So first to preface, Open Carry is not present in this story. I just think you guys might be interested.

    Last night I went downtown to Freemont Street. I went out and about and had fun with some friends. Since I was drinking, I chose not to drive home and got a ride, leaving my vehicle at the Four Queens parking Garage. Today, I got a ride from a friend and had him drop me off at Freemont so that I could recover my car. It's been quite a while and I lost my ticket, so I pull out some cash to pay the meter people upon my exit. I get to the gate and this is where things go bad.

    When I tell them I did not have my ticket they tell me if I do not have it I must pay the maximum amount and that I must produce my drivers license and vehicle registration for them to inspect. I decline. They told me that it is required, and that they would refuse to open the gate unless I provided the information. I refused to cooperate only offer to pay the full amount of which I owed and nothing else. After holding up traffic for quite a while, I backed my car up and pulled into the parking spot.

    After talking to three different security officers, I had no luck on convincing them that they did not have the right to hold me on their property against my will. I told them if they wanted to trespass me that was fine I would be more than glad to leave the property. They came back with a rebuttal, that they were not keeping me on their property, but merely my car. Obviously this was not acceptable to me and I told them they should get Metro then because I was staying with my vehicle up until the point that they let myself and my vehicle off their property. (Of course in retrospect, I should have initiated contact with metro were they to be contacted)

    After a long wait metro finally arrives. They ask me the situation and I try to explain it the best I can, although I am extremely nervous and flustered. I was asked a rapid series of questions about if I was drunk or high and for what reason I have to not produce personal information if I had done nothing wrong. I was asked if I was carrying a firearm (I was carrying concealed) and I declined to answer.

    The discussion I had with the officer was long and drawn out. I do not think he felt I was being reasonable in my conviction to refuse to provide personal information to security staff. Eventually he asked me to identify myself. I asked him if that it was required by law that I must do so. He said that since he was conducting an investigation that I must do so. this didn't sound right to me, but I cooperated with him, and stated my full name, birthdate, place of birth and SSN as he requested of me. Presumably he went back to his cruiser and ran my information to see if I was a criminal or if I had lied to any of his questions.

    Nearing the ending of this ordeal he informed me that this was in essence a civil matter, and that if he chose too, he could drive off and that If I wanted my car back from them my only real recourse would be to sue them. While it certainly seemed to me that it was criminal that 4 Queens was detaining my property on their property without my consent, I do not think that anything in criminal law specifically stop them from doing this to me.

    At this point I realized I was more or less **** out of luck, and the best I could really do at this point is hope that this officer, as a mediator, could convince 4 Queens security to release my property. I produced my drivers license to the police officer and he told them he had every reason to believe that I was in fact the lawful owner of my car. This satisfied the private security, though unsurprisingly they trespassed me as well, and despite my will against it (at least as far as I know) my full name was provided to 4 Queens security. I payed my fare and drove home.

    Here is the questions that I have. Did the Four Queens have the right to detain my personal property? Of course they claim that by pressing the ticket button that I agreed to all the terms and conditions of the facility and than in and of itself is a contract. This is absurd of course, as it is entirely probable that the lawful owner of a car would exit the facility without had pressing the button or even seeing those signs at all. (Example: Let my friend drive my vehicle downtown. I go to pick it up. I would lawfully be trying to reclaim my property without having even engaged in their "Pseudo-contract" by pressing a button.)

    While I am pleased with the way the officer handled the situation, I am curious if I was required to produce my personal information during his initial request for it. I wasn't about to argue that right then and there.

    Anyhow if you have any feedback I would love to here it. I don't like the behave like an ******* but of course I have a strong interest in defending my rights.
    Last edited by flagellum; 03-02-2013 at 08:37 PM.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Excellent question!

    Are there any signs in the parking area about the terms of parking there?

    Signs or no, there very well may be implied waivers involved if you CHOOSE to park in their secured area.

    While cops are most certainly not experts on the law, his stating to you that your recourse was to sue them, and they he could not force them to release your property until their terms were met may very well be correct.

    PLEASE keep us posted.

    So, when you refused to answer whether or not you were armed, how exactly did that go?
    Last edited by MAC702; 03-02-2013 at 08:57 PM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Excellent question!

    Are there any signs in the parking area about the terms of parking there?

    Signs or no, there very well may be implied waivers involved if you CHOOSE to park in their secured area.

    While cops are most certainly not experts on the law, his stating to you that your recourse was to sue them, and they he could not force them to release your property until their terms were met may very well be correct.

    PLEASE keep us posted.

    So, when you refused to answer whether or not you were armed, how exactly did that go?
    Does anyone know of any guidance of what legally constitute a contract? I would be surprised to find that being in the presence of a sign would fulfill the requirements.

    As for the first contact, it went something like this:
    Police Officer, as well as posse of 4 security guards walk towards me as I stand beside my car. For one of the first few questions he asked he said, "Do you have any weapons on you"(Or some variation of this) and I replied with, "I am declining to answer that question." Immediately after that he said "Come with me" and walked me to the street outside the presence of the security guards. He knew I was not required to answer that question and I think for him he became aware at that point what my intentions were. While initially he may have thought I was a thief or on drugs or something I think it was then he knew my disobedience was because of my willingness to defend my rights to the fullest extent that I could. He never requested to search or disarm. Since he ran my info he must have known I had a CCW at least and that I was likely carrying, if not certain by identifying traces of my weapon printing through my clothes.
    Last edited by flagellum; 03-02-2013 at 09:20 PM.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    pay and sue .. but I think you have no case

  5. #5
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    pay and sue .. but I think you have no case
    I agree... but why would you recommend I sue then? That would be foolish.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
    I agree... but why would you recommend I sue then? That would be foolish.
    eh, its a free country ... maybe get a default .. guys seems to think he deserves $$

  7. #7
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    eh, its a free country ... maybe get a default .. guys seems to think he deserves $$
    Dude, I'm the OP. Where did you get the idea that I want to get money from people? Nothing in my post says or implies that, only that it is to be understood that this is solely a civil issue.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Stevens Wa
    Posts
    26
    IMHO they were actually doing you a good turn by requiring you to produce ID.
    You can write any scenario of events that could justify the security to ask for ID.
    Here is one.
    I'm a car thief, I watch you enter the parking lot with your car (I do that).
    The next morning I see your car is there, I gain access to the lot, take your car, tell the gate I lost my ticket, pay the price and drive off with your car.
    You probably didn't consider this because you are not a criminal so you don't think like one.
    I say good call in your best interest by security.

  9. #9
    Regular Member The Big Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Waco, TX
    Posts
    1,950
    What is sad is that we live in a world where this is even and issue.

    TBG
    Life member GOA and NRA. Member of SAF, NAGR, TXGR and Cast Bullet Assoc.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    927
    Quote Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
    I was asked if I was carrying a firearm (I was carrying concealed) and I declined to answer.
    NRS 202.3667  Permittee to carry permit and proper identification when in possession of concealed firearm; penalty.
    1.  Each permittee shall carry the permit, or a duplicate issued pursuant to the provisions of NRS 202.367, together with proper identification whenever the permittee is in actual possession of a concealed firearm. Both the permit and proper identification must be presented if requested by a peace officer.
    2.  A permittee who violates the provisions of this section is subject to a civil penalty of $25 for each violation.
    So, apparently it is lawful to decline to answer??? I've never given that question much thought.

  11. #11
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by 40S&W View Post
    IMHO they were actually doing you a good turn by requiring you to produce ID.
    You can write any scenario of events that could justify the security to ask for ID.
    Here is one.
    I'm a car thief, I watch you enter the parking lot with your car (I do that).
    The next morning I see your car is there, I gain access to the lot, take your car, tell the gate I lost my ticket, pay the price and drive off with your car.
    You probably didn't consider this because you are not a criminal so you don't think like one.
    I say good call in your best interest by security.
    I'm aware of the reasoning behind the policy. In no way am I implying that it doesn't make practical sense. Checkpoints, wire-taps and domestic surveillance are also in everyone's "best interest", the argument is whether or not they are lawful. My purpose is to question whether or not that have the authority to enforce this policy, good intentions or not. If I invite guests to my home or business, Do I have the right to keep control of property they brought with them if I feel they haven't met my terms, that they did not explicitly agree too? That is the underlying question of which I am unaware of the answer.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    60
    I don't think they have the authority to just let someone leave in a car without them at least showing that they own the vehicle. Let's say if you had provided proof that the car belonged to you, then maybe the entire situation could have been avoided. Could it be that by asking for an identity they were tying to ascertain ownership of the vehicle? As to the amount they tried to charge you, I think it is common for one to pay max unless they can prove otherwise.
    Just my two cents worth.
    Crazy cant be stopped with gun registration or control. These guys will continue until Americans admit we have a real mental health and crime issue in this country. Go after the gangs full force and keep the crazies off the streets, and leave me and my gun alone.

    Frederick Douglass said, ďA manís rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    So, apparently it is lawful to decline to answer??? I've never given that question much thought.
    Thank you for posting the law. Yes, I would agree that it was lawful to decline to answer, at least certainly in the manner in which he did so.

    But if the officer had reason to believe that he was carrying concealed, and asked to see his permission slip and ID, then he would have been required to produce them.

    I think the officer was pretty decent. He didn't push the issue, and once he identified him, there was no longer a need to ask for a carry permit even if he then knew he was carrying.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  14. #14
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Bmeierholtz View Post
    I don't think they have the authority to just let someone leave in a car without them at least showing that they own the vehicle. Let's say if you had provided proof that the car belonged to you, then maybe the entire situation could have been avoided. Could it be that by asking for an identity they were tying to ascertain ownership of the vehicle? As to the amount they tried to charge you, I think it is common for one to pay max unless they can prove otherwise.
    Just my two cents worth.
    I do appreciate your input but I think a lot of people are missing the point of this post. Obviously, if I had done what they wanted me too they would have let me go. The point of any form of disobedience isn't to make things more convenient, its to press the issue on what authority is legitimate.

    It is without question understood by all parties this policy is to help ensure that the people driving cars are the lawful owners.

    Perhaps to put this in perspective, I will use an example that is similar to what has happened around here. Say someone goes and purchases a microwave from Walmart. The item belongs to him. Upon walking out the door, an employee demands that the man produce his receipt. The man refuses. Would it be right for the employee to take the microwave(That belongs to the man) because he will not prove ownership of it? No. The man has the right to leave with his property as he has done nothing wrong. He does not have to prove innocence of a supposed crime that there is no evidence of or no suspicion to think one has occurred. And before anyone says "Costco" know that when shopping as a member you do of course sign a legitimate contract, which is unlike this scenario.
    Last edited by flagellum; 03-02-2013 at 11:39 PM.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Las Vegas NV, ,
    Posts
    1,763
    Quote Originally Posted by varminter22 View Post
    So, apparently it is lawful to decline to answer??? I've never given that question much thought.
    Seems of the officer knew he was concealed then that law comes into play.

    Edit. Never mind I see Mac said the same thing. Broke my own rule of not reading all the way.
    Last edited by Vegassteve; 03-02-2013 at 11:34 PM.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by flagellum View Post
    ...Perhaps to put this in perspective, I will use an example that is similar to what has happened around here. Say someone goes and purchases a microwave from Walmart. The item belongs to him. Upon walking out the door, an employee demands that the man produce his receipt. The man refuses. Would it be right for the employee to take the microwave(That belongs to the man) because he will not prove ownership of it? No. The man has the right to leave with his property as he has done nothing wrong. He does not have to prove innocence of a supposed crime that there is no evidence of or no suspicion to think one has occurred. And before anyone says "Costco" know that when shopping as a member you do of course sign a legitimate contract, which is unlike this scenario.
    Actually, I might disagree. For a parking lot with free public access, like the one at Wal-Mart, your point applies. But for a parking lot with a guarded entrance/exit, perhaps not. When you entered the parking lot, did you have to stop at the gate and get an entrance ticket? This may have expressly or implicitly (depending on signage and laws) been the same as your Costco scenario.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    Thank you for posting the law. Yes, I would agree that it was lawful to decline to answer, at least certainly in the manner in which he did so.

    But if the officer had reason to believe that he was carrying concealed, and asked to see his permission slip and ID, then he would have been required to produce them.

    I think the officer was pretty decent. He didn't push the issue, and once he identified him, there was no longer a need to ask for a carry permit even if he then knew he was carrying.
    It appears, only to avoid a civil infraction.


    Concealment is a crime. A valid permit provides exception. Having the permit invalidates the crime, but not presenting it (or not having it with you) isn't a crime. It is a civil infraction, if I am reading the statute correctly.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
    It appears, only to avoid a civil infraction.


    Concealment is a crime. A valid permit provides exception. Having the permit invalidates the crime, but not presenting it (or not having it with you) isn't a crime. It is a civil infraction, if I am reading the statute correctly.
    I see your point.

    I'd not thought of it in terms of refusal to cooperate before, only in terms of losing one's wallet for the day or something like that.

    In a matter of refusal (at this point we are assuming the police officer has a lawful order), might there be a more serious charge involved?
    Last edited by MAC702; 03-03-2013 at 12:32 AM.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I see your point.

    I'd not thought of it in terms of refusal to cooperate before, only in terms of losing one's wallet for the day or something like that.

    In a matter of refusal (at this point we are assuming the police officer has a lawful order), might there be a more serious charge involved?
    Good question. Given that failure to present id and permit isn't a criminal act, how can there be a more serious charge?


    Now, specifically, if not replying to an 'are you armed' question, what would lead to the question of 'permit and id.'
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member turborich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    175
    Since you didn't have the parking ticket then why didn't you just show your ID and registration to the parking attendant? They would have made sure it was in fact your vehicle and you would have simply been on your way.

    If someone had stolen your vehicle and was attempting to leave the property would you be OK with the staff not checking for any identification? I think you made a big deal out of something that was designed to protect the patrons of this property.

  21. #21
    Regular Member carolina guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Concord, NC
    Posts
    1,790

    Might want to read up on Bailment

    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b005.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment


    Then I guess a search of Nevada laws and perhaps even looking at the ticket at the garage and any posted signs for what the terms of your contract with the garage would have been.
    If something is wrong for ONE person to do to another, it is still wrong if a BILLION people do it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528
    A somewhat relevant scenario:

    Back when I was throwing my house parties, it was widely known that for everyone's safety, all car keys were to be put in a certain box, which in turn was locked securely away. Only I had the key to that. If a person had driven there and was going to imbibe any alcohol, they were there until at least the following morning. Period, full stop, end of story. Use this as an example of an implied contract.

    This was done to protect against the possibility of anyone from my place driving under the influence. Therefore, it was done in everyone's "best interest". Sure a couple of people complained, and they were told that if they didn't like it, they didn't have to be there (unless they were already drinking), or simply stay sober the entire time. In the several years I threw those parties only one person broke that rule (they had a second set of keys I didn't know about until it was too late), and the parties happened every weekend.

    One caveat: The cars were not parked on private property, so I could not prevent people from going to their cars if they wanted to. They also did not have to provide ID and registration before leaving, as I already knew who was who and who drove what.

  23. #23
    Regular Member john-in-reno's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    238
    Quote Originally Posted by 40S&W View Post
    IMHO they were actually doing you a good turn by requiring you to produce ID.
    You can write any scenario of events that could justify the security to ask for ID.
    Here is one.
    I'm a car thief, I watch you enter the parking lot with your car (I do that).
    The next morning I see your car is there, I gain access to the lot, take your car, tell the gate I lost my ticket, pay the price and drive off with your car.
    You probably didn't consider this because you are not a criminal so you don't think like one.
    I say good call in your best interest by security.
    here let me reword part of this for you
    Here is one.
    I'm a car thief, I watch you enter the parking lot with your car (I do that).
    The next morning I see your car is there, I gain access to the lot, take your car, find the ticket or a ticket someplace, pay the price and drive off with your car.
    You probably didn't consider this because you are not a criminal so you don't think like one. I always think like a criminal and that's why i was a great security guard
    I say security had no reason to ask for the documents and no reason to hold the car and most casinos and other parking facility's state that items left in the car are not there problem and probably goes the same for the car too.
    http://washoecountygunrights.blogspot.com/

    *** I am NOT a Lawyer, and I DO NOT have any LEGAL EXPERIENCE OR QUALIFICATIONS ***

    MOLON LABE

  24. #24
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by turborich View Post
    Since you didn't have the parking ticket then why didn't you just show your ID and registration to the parking attendant? They would have made sure it was in fact your vehicle and you would have simply been on your way.

    If someone had stolen your vehicle and was attempting to leave the property would you be OK with the staff not checking for any identification? I think you made a big deal out of something that was designed to protect the patrons of this property.
    If you read the other posts in this thread you would know the answer to these questions.

    Quote Originally Posted by carolina guy View Post
    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/b005.htm

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailment


    Then I guess a search of Nevada laws and perhaps even looking at the ticket at the garage and any posted signs for what the terms of your contract with the garage would have been.
    Thank you for this post, this is mainly more towards what I was getting at.

    Quote Originally Posted by b0neZ View Post
    A somewhat relevant scenario:

    Back when I was throwing my house parties, it was widely known that for everyone's safety, all car keys were to be put in a certain box, which in turn was locked securely away. Only I had the key to that. If a person had driven there and was going to imbibe any alcohol, they were there until at least the following morning. Period, full stop, end of story. Use this as an example of an implied contract.

    This was done to protect against the possibility of anyone from my place driving under the influence. Therefore, it was done in everyone's "best interest". Sure a couple of people complained, and they were told that if they didn't like it, they didn't have to be there (unless they were already drinking), or simply stay sober the entire time. In the several years I threw those parties only one person broke that rule (they had a second set of keys I didn't know about until it was too late), and the parties happened every weekend.

    One caveat: The cars were not parked on private property, so I could not prevent people from going to their cars if they wanted to. They also did not have to provide ID and registration before leaving, as I already knew who was who and who drove what.
    This is a good example. Though I am curious why you said that the contract was implied. Does that mean that you did not tell them the terms before taking their keys? If you told them the terms and they verbally agreed I would say that goes beyond merely being implied.
    As we can see, there are many types of contract.

    Summary of them might be:
    Written, signed, notarized contract.
    Written signed contract.
    Written Contract.
    Verbal Contract. (The keys example)
    And apparently lastly, a sign.

    I still question the ability of a sign to establish a contract, but I doubt I will find the answer any time soon. I would hope to run into some case law that establishes it one way or another.

    I have not been down there, but I am also quite curious if this sign actually even exists. Has anyone in Las Vegas seen it? In the past I had parked at the Four Queens many times and I have no memory of ever reading anything regarding these terms. I do not think I have ever seen the policy publicly posted.
    Last edited by flagellum; 03-03-2013 at 05:09 PM.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

  25. #25
    Regular Member flagellum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    North Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    385
    Quote Originally Posted by Devin Hutchison View Post
    I didn't bother to read anything in this thread.
    Thank you for your valued opinion
    Last edited by flagellum; 03-03-2013 at 05:11 PM.
    "You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence."
    -- Charles A. Beard
    XD(m) 9mm

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •