• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Difference between a rifle and pistol and how to prove it to cops who arrest you for open carrying ?

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

I'd recommend that you get a inexpensive lapel mic with a windscreen, and a 4 - 6 foot cable.

Do you goto this park often? From the audio it seems like you have and have carried there in the past.

If the reason is so that the LEO's wouldn't think it was a toy, then why not choose a different color not associated with toy guns? Like yellow? Save the personal choices/freedom response. Here's why.

I believe that most people on this forum do not have a problem with you painting your gun any color you like. I think most people on this forum have a problem with you as an adult know that toy guns are painted orange you knowingly painting the tip of your handgun in the same color asthe nationally recognized standard of toy manufacturers. Had you done this in pink, green, fusha, you would have gotten no responses, well, maybe a "what's up with fusha dude?". I cannot think of a logical reason or artistic one at that, for you to paint just the first> 1/2" verses the way it has been shown recently in it's new color scheme. You obviously have no problem coloring the entire thing.

You lament about being detained for an unreasonable amount of time. Though you were FREE TO GO and end the situation. You could have chosen to get in your car and leave the park. You didn't. That coupled with your opening comments in your audio "Ok, here we go" paints a slightly different story about what you were hoping to accomplish. I don't know what stating the date, time and location will do for you in a court of law on an audio recording either, so what was the purpose of doing that? You get detained/arrested, all that is documented already in the paperwork you get after they release you. You also get that if you submit a FIOA for the response - have you done that yet?

You had been there for a half an hour already - not that there should be a limit to how long you can be there - I am not saying that. I am saying that packing up and beating feet wouldn't have been a loss for you at this point.30 minutes of brisk walking is a pretty good workout.

At the first contact you should have gotten a feeling that being detained was certainly possible given the response the ranger gave you. You stuck around and chose to deal with the situation. That's different than if the ranger stopped your forward progress entirely, and did not let you resume. It's hard for me to feel sorry for you for chosing to stick around when you could have left.

It's easy to forget thefive most likely outcomes while opencarrying:

1) Nothing happens, LEOs are informed and leave you alone

2) Investigation happens, LEO's quickly investigate visually and don't initiate contact with you verbally, know the lawsand leave

3) Investigation happens, LEO's investigate, don't know the laws, and take time to educate you about what they think is correct, you lightly object but comply to end the ordeal and paperwhip them after the fact

4) Investigation happens, LEO's investigate, don't know the laws, and take time to educate you about what they think is correct, youstrongly object, a supervisor is called,they don't know the laws, you still strongly object, are finally let go, and follow up to paperwhip them after the fact

5) escalation/detention/death/other

In each of the five above outcomes, the one constant in all of them Kwik is YOU.

No one here has said it, but next time maybe you should just keep going and not stop. By your accounts the LEO/ranger didn't draw down on you. If stopped, once you have proven that you have a handgun via your documentation and lack of butt stock attachment points via visible inspection, ask if you are free to go or if you are being arrested/detained.

When you act and behave in an illogical manner, it's hard for people to support you. Personally, if the tip was any other colorOR the entire front end was painted orange as it is now, and you had left, then followed up with documents to correct the situation, I'd have nothing to say than way to go brother.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

Glock Fan wrote:
ixtow wrote:
Glock Fan wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
I know the chapter definition for a rifle. I told them where it was. I seriously think cops are mentally deficient sometimes. The code says a rifle has a stock. My gun had no stock.So it is clear it is a handgun right? There is no evidence it has a stockso where is their PC to say that it is a rifle?

As far as 4473's I don't ask for and never have asked for a copy of one. Maybe I'll try to get a copy from the dealer who did the transfer.

I wonder if the manufacturer will send me a letter stating the firearm is a handgun?
The bill of sale or owners manual would serve the same purpose.
If it never had a butt stock, and still doesn't; it's a pistol.

You don't need any other 'evidence' to prove your innocence...

I agree that by statute, if the gun doesn't have a butt stock, it's a pistol, however the news media reported that it was "modified". Having the "evidence" contrary to such would 1) expedite verification that it is a pistol to LE and 2) refute any news media attempts to erroneously report that it was "modified" or otherwise has any possibility of having been "questionable".

I'm all for testing the laws and limits of such laws. I'm also a fan of being detained for as little time as necessary. In the interest in having minimal detention time by LE, I plan accordingly and take steps to take steps to accomplish such. This would also limit the amount of "bad" press that the news media can give to the encounter.
You cannot counter the media. They will always tell whatever lie they please. You can only create something for them to report that requires them to report what they don't want to.

In order to report this event, they must also report that 'nothing happened.' In order to report their lies, they must lie. You can't force them to report the truth, they will never ever do that. So, you cannot counter it. They control the forum of information exchange, so they will not allow it to enter and give up that monopoly.

I've made 5 AK pistols myself. I AM the manufacturer. What proof need I then? Don't you get it? We can't 'refute' anything they say, becasue they are self-declared experts on everything and won't allow a voice of anyone who would dare point out what liars they are.

We can simply ride our point in quietly on the coat-tails of their inflammatory lies.

Nothing happened. No one died. No one was forced to go on a rampage by a gun. A few douche bag cops over-reacted, but they still stopped short of making themselves criminals. If he had done something wrong, they would have arrested him. Hell, they might have even arrested him for doing nothing wrong at all, like many other cops have. But they didn't. Nothing to see here, move along....

It is a Pistol. Say it isn't until your face turns blue, it's still a Pistol. I can tell you that my dining room table is an aardvark... I can report it in the news and say that I used magical powers to 'modify' my dining room table into an aardvark... It will still be a lie, and it will get more obvious the more it is told.

Being a strange color doesn't change anything about how it works or what can be done with it by any LAW ABIDING citizen. Being a funny color, in whole or in part, would only enable a criminal. Yet, as previously described, he was not arrested, and he didn't kill anyone. Sure the Gestapo pulled the 'innocent until proven guilty' game. And now the Media is following their example by telling lies and trying to make the non-violent no arrest conclusion seem inappropriate.

No amount of saying otherwise will ever change that.

Yes, some people are so amazingly stupid that they will believe what they hear in the news, but this quantity is a lot smaller than you'd think. Very few people trust the mass media anymore, specifically because of stunts like this; flat-out lying about anything and everything. People are getting smarter, if for no reason than they have no choice if they want to survive. If you believed all the crap the TV told you, you'd be dead already... Why keep it alive? Nobody needs to prove to anyone that they are innocent. Let the media lie and make themselves even more irrelevant than they already are. Give them all the rope they want to hang themselves...
 

markand

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
512
Location
VA
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
I wonder if the manufacturer will send me a letter stating the firearm is a handgun?
The manufacturer might have marketing literature that clearly describes it as a handgun. A brochure would even have pictures. Might even be able to download one from their website, if they have one, or save screen shots of their website. Carry that around with you. As a practical matter, cops can't know all the laws because they're too many of them. But they should be able to look at a picture and printout of a statute and make a reasonable decision. At least they should be able to.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Give me a free pass on this - no flames - just consider it.

The OP is doing nothing illegal. Certain LEO are responding, perhaps extra legal and too zealously. Good for OC and RKBA? Those are not the points I wish to address or debate here with this posting.

We have experienced in this country numerous acts of terrorism both by our enemies and by individuals with an axe to grind.

How do we as individuals, a state or as a nation respond to what we "perceive" to be a threat (orange or red alert) which turns out to be nothing but a legal "demonstration" or otherwise someone exercising their rights and or privileges legally?

Ignore them in the future for this individual? Wish it were that easy. Too many "signs" have been ignored before in other situations. Should we judge only what the person does with their tools - we do so frequently espouse just that and I subscribe to that myself. So do we wait until a real event occurs, then suffer the consequences of being had. Not satisfactory either.

How do we develop a warning system that works without profiling - hey, I profile - it may not be PC, but my brain/reflexes do it and I am thankful for it.

Hope that I am never faced with the situation that such an individual is sitting legally in the woods behind my daughter's house so attired and equipped late at night. That is likely not going to be a philosophical moment and I may not feel the luxury of such a noble debate.

Interesting problem and potentially expensive solution. I for one want a cheaper solution. I want my cake and be able to eat it too. Not too much to ask is it?

Yata hey

P.S. - Can we drop the personal insults and swearing - it demeans the forum and your replies greatly even forgetting that it is in violation of the rules and that is worth a lot more than you paid for it.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
Give me a free pass on this - no flames - just consider it.

The OP is doing nothing illegal. Certain LEO are responding, perhaps extra legal and too zealously. Good for OC and RKBA? Those are not the points I wish to address or debate here with this posting.

We have experienced in this country numerous acts of terrorism both by our enemies and by individuals with an axe to grind.

How do we as individuals, a state or as a nation respond to what we "perceive" to be a threat (orange or red alert) which turns out to be nothing but a legal "demonstration" or otherwise someone exercising their rights and or privileges legally?

Ignore them in the future for this individual? Wish it were that easy. Too many "signs" have been ignored before in other situations. Should we judge only what the person does with their tools - we do so frequently espouse just that and I subscribe to that myself. So do we wait until a real event occurs, then suffer the consequences of being had. Not satisfactory either.

How do we develop a warning system that works without profiling - hey, I profile - it may not be PC, but my brain/reflexes do it and I am thankful for it.

Hope that I am never faced with the situation that such an individual is sitting legally in the woods behind my daughter's house so attired and equipped late at night. That is likely not going to be a philosophical moment and I may not feel the luxury of such a noble debate.

Interesting problem and potentially expensive solution. I for one want a cheaper solution. I want my cake and be able to eat it too. Not too much to ask is it?

Yata hey

P.S. - Can we drop the personal insults and swearing - it demeans the forum and your replies greatly even forgetting that it is in violation of the rules and that is worth a lot more than you paid for it.
Good post...
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

RussP wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Hope that I am never faced with the situation that such an individual is sitting legally in the woods behind my daughter's house so attired and equipped late at night. That is likely not going to be a philosophical moment and I may not feel the luxury of such a noble debate.
Good post...
Aye, but the part I quoted isn't apples to apples.

Kwik was not stalking or peeping on anyone. If he were, that would be a crime... Adding this to the totality of circumstances would certainly justify the same attention and detention he already garnered. Probably more. I'd call it probable cause for an arrest.... But being a doofus isn't a crime, and that's all he was ACTUALLY doing. He WAS NOT stalking your daughter, or hiding in the woods anywhere, much less behinde her house....

And if he were doing such a thing, you can be sure he wouldn't be doing it with a bright orange gun.... It just doesn't make sense. if you want to get away with ding something that requires stealth, do you defeat stealth in a really obvious way?

Aw crap, I wear camo every day... I must be dangerous... How dare I go anywhere or do anything, ever.... If I wore a bright orange [fill in the blank] the whole idea of 'he is all militant and scarry cuz of teh cammoz!! I haz teh scaredz for no reasoningzorz!!!' is an absolute failure of an argument. I can't hide in the woods and shoot at someone, or snap nekkid pics of them in the shower, if I'm compromising my camoflage with bright orange sh!t.... DUH!
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

ixtow wrote:
is an absolute failure of an argument. I can't hide in the woods and shoot at someone, or snap nekkid pics of them in the shower, if I'm compromising my camoflage with bright orange sh!t.... DUH!
Not really. You'd be surprised what you can pull off if people aren't paying attention.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
imported post

ixtow wrote:
RussP wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Hope that I am never faced with the situation that such an individual is sitting legally in the woods behind my daughter's house so attired and equipped late at night. That is likely not going to be a philosophical moment and I may not feel the luxury of such a noble debate.
Good post...
Aye, but the part I quoted isn't apples to apples.

Kwik was not stalking or peeping on anyone. If he were, that would be a crime......... snip
Never said the hypothetical individual was "stalking or peeping" - even stated that he was "legally" there.

Primary difference with the OP's general situation is that I interject my daughter and myself into the picture in the "hope I am never faced with" situation.

No free pass on OCDO, not today at least. :)

Yata hey
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

Grapeshot wrote:
ixtow wrote:
RussP wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
Hope that I am never faced with the situation that such an individual is sitting legally in the woods behind my daughter's house so attired and equipped late at night. That is likely not going to be a philosophical moment and I may not feel the luxury of such a noble debate.
Good post...
Aye, but the part I quoted isn't apples to apples.

Kwik was not stalking or peeping on anyone. If he were, that would be a crime......... snip
Never said the hypothetical individual was "stalking or peeping" - even stated that he was "legally" there.

Primary difference with the OP's general situation is that I interject my daughter and myself into the picture in the "hope I am never faced with" situation.

No free pass on OCDO, not today at least. :)

Yata hey
I'm really wanting to know how someone can be hiding in the bushes outside of someone's house with an AK-47 and describe it as 'legally there.' At the least, this is a Terry Stop....

You know, just to split hairs...
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

If you are going to split hairs, at least put the question into context. Grape said woods, not bushes...

"Hope that I am never faced with the situation that such an individual is sitting legally in the woods behind my daughter's house so attired and equipped late at night."

So the LEO's would have to "see" the guy in the woods behind the house....for there to be a terry stop.

What you wrote and what Grape wrote are two different situations. Ya know, if you want to split hairs. Stay on topic, lol.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

ixtow wrote:
I'm really wanting to know how someone can be hiding in the bushes outside of someone's house with an AK-47 and describe it as 'legally there.' At the least, this is a Terry Stop....

You know, just to split hairs...


The first Ranger was a Terry Stop. He has reasonable articulable suspicion. He sees the handgun is real. He demands and I show him my carry permit. He acknowleges the handgun is real. He sees I am not a threat to him or anyone else. He lets me go.

The second stop wasn't a Terry Stop, IMO. There was no reasonable suspicion I had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime.I assume thefirst ranger was in contact with the second, who was the park manager. The second knew I had a permit before I was held at gun point. Then I was held 2.5 hours for an investigation.

It would be something for lawyers to decide.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

ODA 226 wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:

Police have been known to shoot innocent people. Hopefully if they see my gun they will not shoot me.
**ASSHAT PHOTO POSTED BY ODA 226 IMPLYING THE ABSURDITY OF kwikrnu's CLAIM**

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/23/Family_Says_911_Tape_Caught_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm?=protectandserve

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/29/local/me-officer29

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27337041@N00/367251505/

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/10/officer_mistake.php



turbodog, thanks for the appropriate debate style. It is appreciated. I am only stopping in shortly while my daughters naps, before getting back to setting up all her birthday stuff, so rest easy and know a well thought out response will come with time.

Hope everyones week is starting off well!
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
ixtow wrote:
I'm really wanting to know how someone can be hiding in the bushes outside of someone's house with an AK-47 and describe it as 'legally there.'  At the least, this is a Terry Stop....

You know, just to split hairs...
 

The first Ranger was a Terry Stop. He has reasonable articulable suspicion. He sees the handgun is real. He demands and I show him my carry permit. He acknowleges the handgun is real. He sees I am not a threat to him or anyone else. He lets me go.

The second stop wasn't a Terry Stop, IMO. There was no reasonable suspicion I had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime. I assume the first ranger was in contact with the second, who was the park manager. The second knew I had a permit before I was held at gun point. Then I was held 2.5 hours for an investigation.

It would be something for lawyers to decide.

Actually the second stop would also qualify as there was no settlement in the first stop as to the Rifle verses handgun question. Based on your posts, the issue was "Is this a rifle or a handgun?" I think in fact that is why you were stopped the second time.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

bohdi wrote:
ixtow wrote:
is an absolute failure of an argument.  I can't hide in the woods and shoot at someone, or snap nekkid pics of them in the shower, if I'm compromising my camoflage with bright orange sh!t....  DUH!
Not really. You'd be surprised what you can pull off if people aren't paying attention.

Ever seen the woods in the fall? Can you say fall colors? Lots of orange there too.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:
hawkflyer, you HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR ARGUMENT, IF YOU DISCOUNT THE TYPE OF FIREARM AND THE CLOTHES HE WORE. You seriously so xxxxxxxxxx stupid you don't understand that?

There is no hypocrisy whatsoever in my commentary, and every time you even think of posting here,I will reiterate the following.



YOU, are good for nothing but attacks. My favorite act of idiocy being where YOU (hawkflyer), told ME (combat veteran, formerly stationed at Fort Hood, with closefriends who were present during the shooting), that I was likened to the Fort Hood shooter, in attempt to incriminate me or somehow associate my ideology with various tragic incidents. You are disgusting.

I can think of a way to quantify your commentary, bur exhibit "A" is not present because I flush my toilet. Every time I see one of your posts, I am inclined to generate an image combining an uncapped fire hydrant, and diahrrea.

I didn't attack you AT ALL for 6-7 posts. However, every post after mine you responded to, you tried to infer some position of superiority, by being a big brave man, and insulting me vulgarly over a series of posts while over the internet.

Any other horrenouds "points" you don't want to make? Want to accuse anybody else you don't agree with fundamentally, to be zealots in support of mass killings?

Hypocritical idiot....



WHO CARES if he says he is not "supporting any movement"? You too stupid to get that? Not smart enough to decipher that he may even BE an anti, but it is YOUR RESPONSES HAWKFLYER, and OTHERS, that are MAKING THE CASE FOR HIM.

No smartass comments about the other painted guns that highly resemble toys pal?
No smartass comments about how you're focusing on the orange tip, and "not the weapon itself", when in fact it has been what you have done this entire time?
Not "big enough" of a man to admit you are senilely focused on a singular facet of this ordeal, and blindly ignorant?

You're a child espousing the very rhetoric you claim to abhorr.

Grow up.

QFT

Wow. So much pent up hostility and prepubescent angst.

Like I told you, you are just going to have to live with the disappointment of not winning this discussion. I could not care less at this point what your views on any topic might be, and I certainly do not care what you think of me. I am very sorry if not falling into lock step with your ideas aggravates you, but as I told you before, you are not the first or last socialist I will aggravate. I still suspect that your Kalifornia education is the root of the problem and why you still keep saying your rights have been granted by the government.

While I have tried to explain this so you can understand it, and you keep complaining that I am talking over your head, the fact is that you are supporting precisely the same kinds of behavior that were ignored and sanctioned that led up to a number of mass shooting incidents including Fort Hood. Your blindness to that fact and willingness to overlook the ENTIRE picture in this case is exactly the problem that caused the failures to prevent these other incidents. This guy may be nothing, or he may well be the next shooting incident.

If you can't see that ... well that is the way it goes. I am afraid I know a little more about what was and was not overlooked in these incidents than you do. Not ego, just fact.

I am through with you now, because trying to teach a pig to dance is wasting my time and it is clearly irritating the pig.

Now you may go back to the children's table.
006-%5BLaughing%5D-%5BEmoticonKing.com%5D.gif
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
ixtow wrote:
I'm really wanting to know how someone can be hiding in the bushes outside of someone's house with an AK-47 and describe it as 'legally there.' At the least, this is a Terry Stop....

You know, just to split hairs...


The first Ranger was a Terry Stop. He has reasonable articulable suspicion. He sees the handgun is real. He demands and I show him my carry permit. He acknowleges the handgun is real. He sees I am not a threat to him or anyone else. He lets me go.

The second stop wasn't a Terry Stop, IMO. There was no reasonable suspicion I had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime.I assume thefirst ranger was in contact with the second, who was the park manager. The second knew I had a permit before I was held at gun point. Then I was held 2.5 hours for an investigation.

It would be something for lawyers to decide.
Kwick - you still haven't answered what the logic was between you hanging out and you leaving was. I mean, you COULD have settled this another way and achieved the same results. Did you learn anything and how will you handle future encounters?
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

bohdi wrote:
Kwick - you still haven't answered what the logic was between you hanging out and you leaving was. I mean, you COULD have settled this another way and achieved the same results. Did you learn anything and how will you handle future encounters?

I wasn't "hanging out". I was detained and could not leave.

I believe I handled the encounter very well. There was nothing I could have done better other than maybe having a witness, someone to video tape, and having more batteries for my voice recorder.
 

ixtow

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Messages
5,038
Location
Suwannee County, FL
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
ixtow wrote:
I'm really wanting to know how someone can be hiding in the bushes outside of someone's house with an AK-47 and describe it as 'legally there.' At the least, this is a Terry Stop....

You know, just to split hairs...
The first Ranger was a Terry Stop. He has reasonable articulable suspicion. He sees the handgun is real. He demands and I show him my carry permit. He acknowleges the handgun is real. He sees I am not a threat to him or anyone else. He lets me go.

The second stop wasn't a Terry Stop, IMO. There was no reasonable suspicion I had committed a crime or was about to commit a crime.I assume thefirst ranger was in contact with the second, who was the park manager. The second knew I had a permit before I was held at gun point. Then I was held 2.5 hours for an investigation.

It would be something for lawyers to decide.
Citing the 2.5 hours when you requested the presence of another officer is extraneous. The detention occurring at all, is the issue. For someone knee deep in it, you seem to bring up irrelevant stuff, instead of getting to the meat of it, quite often...
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

WOW. The world must have stopped spinning. Ixtow and I agree on this Kwik. You weren't detained. At least you haven't provided proof you were. You volunteered to goto your car and stay there - per your own voice on the audio you provided. Nothing in that audio tape suggests you are detained. NOTHING. You could have left and dealt with this incident another way. You chose not to.

Am I wrong? Maybe, but there is no proof. Conveiently your batteries died. So I guess we have to trust you that what you say is true. Though coming from a guy who purposely paints the tip of a real gun in the same fashion as a toy gun, I have a hard time believing that. I think most reasonable and logically thinking people will too. It think that is why Ixtow answered the way he did - not that I speak for him by any means and Ix- correct me if I am wrong.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Hey, I hate going backwards and all, but I've read through lots on this nonsense and I seem to be confused on something. Why was the tip of the pistol painted orange?
 
Top