Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 45

Thread: The next block we should chip away at after Peruta:

  1. #1
    Regular Member Superlite27's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    God's Country, Missouri
    Posts
    1,279

    The next block we should chip away at after Peruta:

    These are just my ramblings and wisps of thought after the 9th circuit's decision on Peruta and may issue, so please withold judgement on the validity of my idea, and simply assist on perfecting the rough idea I'm beginning to develop instead of simply dismissing it as a complete lark at the outset. When I say, "This might" or "probably", it would be beneficial to receive input on why the idea is, or is not sound.

    "What a load of crap", or "You don't know what you're talking about" do not serve to develop my rudimentary ideas and form them into something more coherent.

    Now that the 9th circuit has confirmed that we, the people don't need to provide a good reason to exercise our rights outside our home I suspect this will be headed for SCOTUS to rectify it with other Federal Court's decisions that we do, and settle the issue once and for all.

    I predict that it will probably result in the demise of "may issue" entirely, as the opposite would throw a monkey wrench in the gears of everything and result in more questions rather than settling the issue. (Convince me that this fact doesn't play a role in SCOTUS' decisions. When making a decision to resolve a problem, you can't tell me that the court doesn't take simplicity into account. If someone asks you a question, don't you often answer them with a reply that will make them shut up instead of giving them something that will inevitably result in being asked 1000 more questions?)

    So, if we don't need an arbitrary "good cause" to exercise our rights outside of our homes.......

    How big does this circle of freedom extend?

    After all, SCOTUS answered the question of 2A applicability in our home. This left the question of whether or not rights exist past the threshold of our front door in limbo.

    A decision stating that I retain the right to bear arms outside my house makes me wonder:

    How far outside my house?

    After all, this bubble of freedom just grew from my doorstep to beyond......

    Does it stop at California's border now? After all, they don't have reciprocity with Missouri, therefore my rights must stop at the edge of the bubble of California's border, right? But this seems rather odd...why is there this strange bubble when the folks on the inside of it have the same right as those on the outside? After all, Californian's have the right to carry outside, I have the right to carry outside.....why can't I carry in California when the exact same right exists on both sides of this strange little bubble?

    We need to swing the hammer at reciprocity issues next. National reciprocity should be our goal based on the expansion of this "freedom limit" that has just spread from our doorsteps....and now stops at state borders.

    After all, now that I, as an American, don't need a good reason to carry outside my home, how is it permissible to limit this to various states, and not others? Where's the border of this freedom?

    Any input will be appreciated. Ideas on how we can expand both this idea, and our rights would be great.
    Last edited by Superlite27; 02-15-2014 at 11:26 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    IMO the case and opinions refer to privileges, not a right. This only gives the gov more time until the scope of SCOTUS changes, and it will change. We need to fast track to rights before that happens.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  3. #3
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    IMO the case and opinions refer to privileges, not a right. This only gives the gov more time until the scope of SCOTUS changes, and it will change. We need to fast track to rights before that happens.
    Yea I read the decision and am dismayed at the tortured constitutional wrangling they did to leave so much open for future restrictions.

    They state too that OC isn't necessarily a right and can be banned as long as there is CC. CC requires a permit so they don't get that rights don't need permission.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    OP national reciprocity should be done at the state level. I would like to see my state a shall accept state, much how it was done with Drivers License.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by Superlite27 View Post
    T...So, if we don't need an arbitrary "good cause" to exercise our rights outside of our homes...
    As WW and SVG have stated, getting a license in order to carry (OC or CC) has nothing to do with exercising a RIGHT, despite the 9th Circuit's tortured "logic".

    Bearing arms is not a RIGHT if one needs a license to legally do it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    OP national reciprocity should be done at the state level. I would like to see my state a shall accept state, much how it was done with Drivers License.
    Do you think that would work? Some states have stricter requirements. So you'd have to get all the states agree on the requirements.

    Maybe the way should push for states to give out of state permits more often. That way the citizen chooses what States they want a permit for.

    I understand the shall accept part but that basically takes the power of the citizens in that state away. So if you have a state that citizens want some requirement then its null and void because guys will go to a different state where there are no requirements.

    My point is MA citizens should have a right as a state to determine their own process and procedure. If a Texan wants to come here then let them apply (and get, maybe a shall issue license?) Go through the process MA determines.

    Kind of like the Utah license. You still have to take a Utah course but you just apply in the mail and you get the out of state license. I don't know what or how many states do this, but if they all did then it'd basically be reciprocity while still leaving the power to the citizens of a state.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    As WW and SVG have stated, getting a license in order to carry (OC or CC) has nothing to do with exercising a RIGHT, despite the 9th Circuit's tortured "logic".

    Bearing arms is not a RIGHT if one needs a license to legally do it.
    And follow the money to (get) the license to discover Privileges For Paid Permitees - P4P - as a too common tyrant's business model.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  8. #8
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Do you think that would work? Some states have stricter requirements. So you'd have to get all the states agree on the requirements.

    Maybe the way should push for states to give out of state permits more often. That way the citizen chooses what States they want a permit for.

    I understand the shall accept part but that basically takes the power of the citizens in that state away. So if you have a state that citizens want some requirement then its null and void because guys will go to a different state where there are no requirements.

    My point is MA citizens should have a right as a state to determine their own process and procedure. If a Texan wants to come here then let them apply (and get, maybe a shall issue license?) Go through the process MA determines.

    Kind of like the Utah license. You still have to take a Utah course but you just apply in the mail and you get the out of state license. I don't know what or how many states do this, but if they all did then it'd basically be reciprocity while still leaving the power to the citizens of a state.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

    It's done with driver's licences, some states allow licenses to be issued at 15 my state doesn't , while in my state you will get in trouble if caught operating a car alone at 15.

    The state rules and regs don't disappear because one state is more lax, those rules and regs are expected to be followed.

    I personally don't like it all but would think that is a better way to go than a unconstitutional federal interference for state licenses.

    With my state all they care about really is the background check, so I think it would be a perfect state for a shall accept policy, as long as people who are 18 from states that allow them to conceal realize that's a no no in Washington.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    Bearing arms is not a RIGHT if one needs a license to legally do it.
    No, bearing arms is a right regardless of what aggressions government might commit against those who exercise it

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    why?
    Posts
    432
    Last edited by scott58dh; 06-27-2014 at 02:13 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Ffld co.
    Posts
    337
    Peruta recognized "keep" and "bear" as separate...and declared both to be RIGHTS.

    The 9th Circuit covers several states...though it was only deciding a California statute's validity. I'd be interested to see whether the 9th's recognition of the "right to bear" can be used by a non-resident of California applying for a license to carry while in CA.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    OP national reciprocity should be done at the state level. I would like to see my state a shall accept state, much how it was done with Drivers License.
    I am a believer in states rights, so I won't argue reciprocity should be nationally enforced.

    What I will argue is what there should be no need for reciprocity to travel our nation armed without need for license and without fear of arrest or harassment. The 2nd amendment demands that every single citizen who is not justifiably unable to lawfully carry a firearm must be allowed to carry a firearm in some reasonable manner, without license, in every State, County, and City of our nation.

    The only valid reason to disallow any expression of our rights, as layed out in the Bill of Rights, is justified public policy. For instance, the regulation of large protest parades through city streets is a valid public policy violation of the 1st amendment to ensure the safety of all involved and affected. Therefore any regulation at ALL of our right to keep, and to bear, arms must have similarly valid public policy justification behind it, and this goes to every state of the nation because the Bill of Rights are the law of the land, period. A state that has no RKBA law of its own still has the 2nd, and no state can have an RKBA more restrictive than the 2nd. States that don't want to live by the Bill of Rights shouldn't have become part of the USA.

    Valid public policy? Select fire weapons registered. Weapons that don't look like firearms registered. Supressors registered. Violent felons disallowed from owning firearms. Mentally unstable individuals disallowed from owning firearms. Individual states allowed to disallow any of the above registered items entirely. And a few other more minor things like airplanes and courtroom restrictions.

    What can't be disallowed because absolutely no public policy could sufficiently justify it is a simple unlicensed method for carrying a firearm by any State, County, or City. According to the 2nd amendment all responsible adults should be able to walk out their door with a handgun and be able to travel anywhere in the US they like without concern that they are breaking any laws.

    What the OP is getting at is as close to the above as possible within the screwed framework currently available to us after many incorrect SCOTUS decisions. So national reciprocity is not about restricting states rights, it would be about bringing states in alignment with the Bill of Rights through the only method currently available us.

    This is all just my opinion of course.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    I am a believer in states rights, so I won't argue reciprocity should be nationally enforced.
    The RKBA belongs to the people, not states. States do not have any rights when it comes to firearms. I, on the other hand, do.

  14. #14
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    According to the 2nd amendment all responsible adults should be able to walk out their door with a handgun
    NO the 2nd amendment does not, there is absolutely nothing in the 2nd about the people being responsible adults.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    The RKBA belongs to the people, not states. States do not have any rights when it comes to firearms. I, on the other hand, do.
    I didn't say that the RKBA belongs to the states. I said I believe in states rights. As in the right to do what they please as long as it doesn't violate the rights of the people or the powers duly allotted to the federal government by the collective will of said people.



    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by arentol; 02-18-2014 at 01:19 AM.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    NO the 2nd amendment does not, there is absolutely nothing in the 2nd about the people being responsible adults.
    You are reading things into my statement that aren't there and ignoring prior statements that clearly indicate that "responsible adults" was intended to be inclusive of all people that are not justifiably banned from firearm possession due to valid public policy concerns.

    But even if you didn't get that, it is obvious I didn't say only responsible adults should have that ability. I merely said responsible adults should have that ability. This statement does not preclude any other group of people from also having that ability. 3rd grade English. You sound just like one of those people that throws a fit every time someone uses the word "mankind" instead of "humankind".

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

  17. #17
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    You are reading things into my statement that aren't there and ignoring prior statements that clearly indicate that "responsible adults" was intended to be inclusive of all people that are not justifiably banned from firearm possession due to valid public policy concerns.

    But even if you didn't get that, it is obvious I didn't say only responsible adults should have that ability. I merely said responsible adults should have that ability. This statement does not preclude any other group of people from also having that ability. 3rd grade English. You sound just like one of those people that throws a fit every time someone uses the word "mankind" instead of "humankind".

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    NO I didn't I pulled the section directly from your post.

    According to the 2nd amendment all responsible adults should be able to walk out their door with a handgun
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 02-18-2014 at 01:40 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    I am a believer in states rights, so I won't argue reciprocity should be nationally enforced.

    What I will argue is what there should be no need for reciprocity to travel our nation armed without need for license and without fear of arrest or harassment. The 2nd amendment demands that every single citizen who is not justifiably unable to lawfully carry a firearm must be allowed to carry a firearm in some reasonable manner, without license, in every State, County, and City of our nation.

    The only valid reason to disallow any expression of our rights, as layed out in the Bill of Rights, is justified public policy. For instance, the regulation of large protest parades through city streets is a valid public policy violation of the 1st amendment to ensure the safety of all involved and affected. Therefore any regulation at ALL of our right to keep, and to bear, arms must have similarly valid public policy justification behind it, and this goes to every state of the nation because the Bill of Rights are the law of the land, period. A state that has no RKBA law of its own still has the 2nd, and no state can have an RKBA more restrictive than the 2nd. States that don't want to live by the Bill of Rights shouldn't have become part of the USA.

    Valid public policy? Select fire weapons registered. Weapons that don't look like firearms registered. Supressors registered. Violent felons disallowed from owning firearms. Mentally unstable individuals disallowed from owning firearms. Individual states allowed to disallow any of the above registered items entirely. And a few other more minor things like airplanes and courtroom restrictions.

    What can't be disallowed because absolutely no public policy could sufficiently justify it is a simple unlicensed method for carrying a firearm by any State, County, or City. According to the 2nd amendment all responsible adults should be able to walk out their door with a handgun and be able to travel anywhere in the US they like without concern that they are breaking any laws.

    What the OP is getting at is as close to the above as possible within the screwed framework currently available to us after many incorrect SCOTUS decisions. So national reciprocity is not about restricting states rights, it would be about bringing states in alignment with the Bill of Rights through the only method currently available us.

    This is all just my opinion of course.

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    The BOR is the restriction on the federal government. These rights are secured as natural rights. Reciprocity is a licensing scheme that would turn a natural right into a permitted one granted by government.

    The argument by the courts should be that it is wrong for any government to infringe upon our natural rights. This bugs them because it leaves them out of the loop so they will develop complex case law and political schemes to keep them in the loop.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Do you think that would work? Some states have stricter requirements......

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    The above from a fella who has a LEOSA "permit", or can get one. Jealous? No, disgusted that "former cops" are more valuable, in the eyes of the "state", after they leave the cop business than I am.

    Anyway,

    I categorically reject the premise that "adults" have a right to keep and bear arms. It is written "the right of the people", not "the right of adults." Another thing, there can be no reasonable "good public policy" consideration(s), that is anti-liberty speak.....gibberish that the liberals spew forth every time they get a wild hair to try and portray themselves as "reasonable" people.

    A nation of laws, if one exists anywhere, anymore, is not proactive in the punishment of its citizens before a violation occurs. As is evident by the vast number of proactive laws that exist. "Good public policy" must be limited, extremely so, to public roads (tax payer financed spaces/structures), equitable water usage, a few narrowly worded environmental "considerations", and tax policy, that is it.

    Liberty demands that we, and the state, do nothing until someone harms another by their acts. I refer you to TJ's famous quote about too much liberty vs. too little of it.

    The Constitution must be read in conjunction with the Federalist Papers and their counterparts' works, the Anti-Federalist Papers. Toss in a few private letters and transcripts form Congressional debates, back in the day, and learn what liberty is, not regurgitate what you think liberty should be.

    A bunch of anti-liberty crap....."good public policy".....



    .

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    What I will argue is what there should be no need for reciprocity to travel our nation armed without need for license and without fear of arrest or harassment.
    Correct. This is the way it should be. No licenses.

    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    The 2nd amendment demands that every single citizen who is not justifiably unable to lawfully carry a firearm must be allowed to carry a firearm in some reasonable manner, without license, in every State, County, and City of our nation.
    Wrong. You are interjecting your own bias in defining the 2A. The right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Itchy Ian and Responsible Ron have the same rights. If we stuck to the intent of the 2A, I guarantee you our gene pool would be improved.

    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    The only valid reason to disallow any expression of our rights, as layed out in the Bill of Rights, is justified public policy. For instance, the regulation of large protest parades through city streets is a valid public policy violation of the 1st amendment to ensure the safety of all involved and affected. Therefore any regulation at ALL of our right to keep, and to bear, arms must have similarly valid public policy justification behind it, and this goes to every state of the nation because the Bill of Rights are the law of the land, period. A state that has no RKBA law of its own still has the 2nd, and no state can have an RKBA more restrictive than the 2nd. States that don't want to live by the Bill of Rights shouldn't have become part of the USA.
    That kind of thinking got us to where we are now. Crappy laws and lots and lots of infringement. The Court has declared rights can be removed from criminals. That action is taken after the crime, not before it. The current laws today are pre-crime and unconstitutional. And "justified public policy" is determined by whom? It's already been proven that public policy isn't created by the public (see: Colorado, Connecticut).

    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    Valid public policy? Select fire weapons registered. Weapons that don't look like firearms registered. Supressors registered. Violent felons disallowed from owning firearms. Mentally unstable individuals disallowed from owning firearms. Individual states allowed to disallow any of the above registered items entirely. And a few other more minor things like airplanes and courtroom restrictions.
    Why? Why do any of these things need to be registered? What's the point of registration? The only thing I agree with here is the restriction on violent (or repeat) offenders and mentally unstable.

    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    What can't be disallowed because absolutely no public policy could sufficiently justify it is a simple unlicensed method for carrying a firearm by any State, County, or City. According to the 2nd amendment all responsible adults should be able to walk out their door with a handgun and be able to travel anywhere in the US they like without concern that they are breaking any laws.
    Again, incorrect and unneeded defining commentary. You know, I wish responsible adults could exercise their 1A right to free speech, but alas, Facebook, texts, online forums, and Twitter show that this is impossible. Should we require people to pass a D.S.G. test before engaging in the 1A? BTW, D.S.G. is decency, spelling, and grammar.
    Last edited by mikeyb; 02-19-2014 at 11:13 AM.

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    <snip> Again, incorrect and unneeded defining commentary. You know, I wish responsible adults could exercise their 1A right to free speech, but alas, Facebook, texts, online forums, and Twitter show that this is impossible. Should we require people to pass a D.S.G. test before engaging in the 1A? BTW, D.S.G. is decency, spelling, and grammar.
    I would advocate that lies be heavily restricted in normal conversation.....except when your wife (if your are married) asks you why you are late coming home. I usually fall back on "the Taliban got me" defense.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by arentol View Post
    You are reading things into my statement that aren't there and ignoring prior statements that clearly indicate that "responsible adults" was intended to be inclusive of all people that are not justifiably banned from firearm possession due to valid public policy concerns.

    But even if you didn't get that, it is obvious I didn't say only responsible adults should have that ability. I merely said responsible adults should have that ability. This statement does not preclude any other group of people from also having that ability. 3rd grade English. You sound just like one of those people that throws a fit every time someone uses the word "mankind" instead of "humankind".

    Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk
    Can you read the 2A again? It seems that you are confused in what that amendment states. What you are claiming as "intended" is actually "interpreted" by the SCOTUS, decades and decades removed from the establishment of our government.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    I would advocate that lies be heavily restricted in normal conversation.....except when your wife (if your are married) asks you why you are late coming home. I usually fall back on "the Taliban got me" defense.
    Really? I just go with "busy day at the range."

  24. #24
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    Really? I just go with "busy day at the range."
    Uh, I'm only allowed to go to the range when she has time (two boys) to go to the range also. Can't use that one, tried once.....once, was not pretty.


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Uh, I'm only allowed to go to the range when she has time (two boys) to go to the range also. Can't use that one, tried once.....once, was not pretty.

    True. I'm lucky(or smart) enough to have a wife who enjoys guns.

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
  •