Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: How does the law view the Gun Grab/Attempted Firearm Theft scenario?

  1. #1
    Regular Member darkego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    11

    How does the law view the Gun Grab/Attempted Firearm Theft scenario?

    Hello, I'm quite new here so sorry if this topic has been discussed at some length.

    My question essentially is how does the law view the act of someone attempting to remove someones personal firearm without consent , either by force or by surprise? I suppose it might depend on state, but is there a general consensus? Note, I'm not including LEO or other types of legal authority based disarming.

    The reason i ask is quite obvious to most, i would think, but just to be clear. The actual attempt to take the firearm by surprise (in and of itself) is theft, but it could be argued is not a direct threat of life. However, if that person manages to take that firearm, its anyone's guess how they plan to use. It and could very potentially become an immediate threat to me and everyone around me. However, again, I'm sure someone could ague that the event is nothing more then a theft scenario until i am explicitly threatened by the individual in some fashion.

    Since Minnesota still has "duty to retreat" provision, its very important to understand what kind of "reasonable force" is allowed given a situation.

    Does a "gun grab" constitute the use of physical force? deadly force?
    Q: Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol in Minnesota?
    A: Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driverís license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.

    Source: http://tiny.cc/Minnesota

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    , New Hampshire, USA
    Posts
    20
    I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary599 View Post
    I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yes, I believe this is the case and the proper stance to take. I seem to recall this being discussed in deadly force seminars I have attended. A sudden attempt by someone to remove your gun should be viewed as a threat of deadly force and constitutes an appropriate response.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary599
    I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.
    Yes, I believe this is the case and the proper stance to take. I seem to recall this being discussed in deadly force seminars I have attended. A sudden attempt by someone to remove your gun should be viewed as a threat of deadly force and constitutes an appropriate response.
    Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on circumstances. There was a recent thread started by sigrscu:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...this-situation

    which detailed a gun grab (possibly just a "gun touch") by a 13-14 year old kid. The kid was definitely NOT "a threat of deadly force."

    As such, it would have been quite inappropriate to treat the kid as a threat to life and/or limb.

    There are other instances, of course, where someone (non-LEO) taking a gun away from a (non-LEO) gun carrier is NOT "a threat of deadly force."

    It really depends on the circumstances. So, proper reaction requires . . . discriimination. And judgment.

  5. #5
    Regular Member darkego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Gary599 View Post
    I would consider anyone who trys to take my gun an act of deadly force. If they get the gun they will use it. Even if it's not on you, it allows them to conduct a crime with the use of deadly force.
    And i agree with you 100%. But as i often find out, what i consider to be obvious, the state has found some way not see it differently, potentially. This type of event seems like one of those situations that, regardless of potential repercussions, someone would react based on instinct... And i know myself well enough to know that i would see it as a very real threat.


    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on circumstances. There was a recent thread started by sigrscu:
    ...

    As such, it would have been quite inappropriate to treat the kid as a threat to life and/or limb.

    There are other instances, of course, where someone (non-LEO) taking a gun away from a (non-LEO) gun carrier is NOT "a threat of deadly force."

    It really depends on the circumstances. So, proper reaction requires . . . discriimination. And judgment.
    This is true. Its never happened to me, or anyone i know, but i would assume that ill intent would be obvious (most theft on the street is). I could be wrong, but i hope i never find out.

    My problem is, what if it happens when you are out on a walk. And along the way someone who you have never seen before walking the opposite direction makes a move and happens to get a grip on your firearm. (assume for this example that lack of situational awareness was not a factor). Anything you do from this point on is he said she said. Lethal force results in a a gun owner, and a body of a potentially unarmed person. Or perhaps a degree of "lesser" lethal force, and used a knife on the attackers arm to force him to disengage.

    Both of those options result in what could very easily appear to be an assault (or murder) of an unarmed individual, at the hands of an evil gun toting extremest.

    Are there any cases of this that would present a history of rulings?
    Last edited by darkego; 11-19-2010 at 11:07 AM.
    Q: Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol in Minnesota?
    A: Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driverís license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.

    Source: http://tiny.cc/Minnesota

  6. #6
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by darkego View Post
    Hello, I'm quite new here so sorry if this topic has been discussed at some length.

    My question essentially is how does the law view the act of someone attempting to remove someones personal firearm without consent , either by force or by surprise? I suppose it might depend on state, but is there a general consensus? Note, I'm not including LEO or other types of legal authority based disarming.
    The reason i ask is quite obvious to most, i would think, but just to be clear. The actual attempt to take the firearm by surprise (in and of itself) is theft, but it could be argued is not a direct threat of life. However, if that person manages to take that firearm, its anyone's guess how they plan to use. It and could very potentially become an immediate threat to me and everyone around me. However, again, I'm sure someone could ague that the event is nothing more then a theft scenario until i am explicitly threatened by the individual in some fashion.

    Since Minnesota still has "duty to retreat" provision, its very important to understand what kind of "reasonable force" is allowed given a situation.

    Does a "gun grab" constitute the use of physical force? deadly force?
    I'm not sure what the laws are like in your state, but in GA, LEO's have NO legal right to disarm someone unless a crime has been commited while in possesion of said firearm. If an LEO performs a traffic stop and asks you to render your firearm for a serial number check, your rights are being violated.
    Proud GeorgiaCarry.org Member
    The only government control I need, is a good set of grips on my 1911.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by COMMANDER1911 View Post
    I'm not sure what the laws are like in your state, but in GA, LEO's have NO legal right to disarm someone unless a crime has been commited while in possesion of said firearm. If an LEO performs a traffic stop and asks you to render your firearm for a serial number check, your rights are being violated.
    What about asking you to surrender it for "officer safety" during a lawful stop (such as a traffic stop)?

  8. #8
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    What about asking you to surrender it for "officer safety" during a lawful stop (such as a traffic stop)?
    He has no more right to take my firearm than I do his. Unless my firearm was used in the commision of a crime, or I am commiting a crime while carrying, My sidearm will not leave my body. See amendment number 4.
    Proud GeorgiaCarry.org Member
    The only government control I need, is a good set of grips on my 1911.

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by HankT View Post
    Actually, that's not always the case. It really depends on circumstances. There was a recent thread started by sigrscu:

    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...this-situation

    which detailed a gun grab (possibly just a "gun touch") by a 13-14 year old kid. The kid was definitely NOT "a threat of deadly force."

    As such, it would have been quite inappropriate to treat the kid as a threat to life and/or limb.

    There are other instances, of course, where someone (non-LEO) taking a gun away from a (non-LEO) gun carrier is NOT "a threat of deadly force."

    It really depends on the circumstances. So, proper reaction requires . . . discriimination. And judgment.
    Your points are correct. I must rest my response upon the context of the thread. However, a 14-year old could be a deadly threat.. but like you mentioned, it would depend upon the circumstances at the time.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member darkego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    11

    Don't derail the topic, please...

    Quote Originally Posted by darkego View Post
    Note, I'm not including LEO or other types of legal authority based disarming.
    Quote Originally Posted by COMMANDER1911 View Post
    LEO's have NO legal right to disarm someone unless a crime has been commited
    I think i made it quite clear that that issue, and my scenario, are not related within the context of the question. While i agree that police searching and Innocent and seizing their property based on their own twisted agenda (or out of shear ignorance) is a HUGE problem, its not this problem.

    I would appreciate it if you would leave law enforcement out of the initial assailant role. I don't think a LEO disarming you illegally serve the same IMMEDIATE risks to your lively hood as my scenario, IE: Murdered yourself, or guilty of Murder for death of another, in the eyes of the courts. And if you disagree with that, then this is not the place for it.

    Last question asked: Are there any cases of this type of event happening that would present a history of rulings or decisions? Just curious what angle they might have taken in court and how they fought any charges.
    Last edited by darkego; 11-19-2010 at 02:50 PM. Reason: Spelling/Update
    Q: Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol in Minnesota?
    A: Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driverís license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.

    Source: http://tiny.cc/Minnesota

  11. #11
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by darkego View Post
    I think i made it quite clear that that issue, and my scenario, are not related within the context of the question. While i agree that police searching and Innocent and seizing their property based on their own twisted agenda (or out of shear ignorance) is a HUGE problem, its not this problem.

    I would appreciate it if you would leave law enforcement out of the initial assailant role. I don't think a LEO disarming you illegally serve the same IMMEDIATE risks to your lively hood as my scenario, IE: Murdered yourself, or guilty of Murder for death of another, in the eyes of the courts. And if you disagree with that, then this is not the place for it.

    Last question asked: Are there any cases of this type of event happening that would present a history of rulings or decisions? Just curious what angle they might have taken in court and how they fought any charges.
    I was merely responding to eye95, and to make a point that an LEO disarming you could also put your life in danger. Anyway, sorry for not answering your question.
    Last edited by COMMANDER1911; 11-19-2010 at 02:58 PM.
    Proud GeorgiaCarry.org Member
    The only government control I need, is a good set of grips on my 1911.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by COMMANDER1911 View Post
    He has no more right to take my firearm than I do his. Unless my firearm was used in the commision of a crime, or I am commiting a crime while carrying, My sidearm will not leave my body. See amendment number 4.
    I thought that court rulings specifically allowed for an officer, during a lawful stop, to take your weapon for his safety. Am I wrong?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Renton, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,201
    eye95, as the OP stated, this thread is NOT about that scenario. Quit trying to hijack the thread! Start your own if you want to discuss the LEO angle and leave this thread alone. To do otherwise is rude.
    Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; it's the only thing that ever does.- Margaret Mead


    Those who will not fight for justice today will fight for their lives in the future,

    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote. Benjamin Franklin

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby View Post
    eye95, as the OP stated, this thread is NOT about that scenario. Quit trying to hijack the thread! Start your own if you want to discuss the LEO angle and leave this thread alone. To do otherwise is rude.
    Someone has made a statement that I believe to be false. I will challenge him on it, lest some poor schlub think he is right and tell a LEO that he cannot disarm the schlub during a lawful stop, getting the schlub's butt arrested.

    I think correcting dangerous misinformation trumps trying not to be rude.

  15. #15
    Regular Member COMMANDER1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Flintstone, GA
    Posts
    129
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I thought that court rulings specifically allowed for an officer, during a lawful stop, to take your weapon for his safety. Am I wrong?
    I never said it was unlawful. I said he has no RIGHT. Just because something is lawful doesn't mean it's constitutional. Unless I'm being suspected of a crime, don't disarm me. Sorry for putting this thread off track.
    Last edited by COMMANDER1911; 11-20-2010 at 12:22 AM.
    Proud GeorgiaCarry.org Member
    The only government control I need, is a good set of grips on my 1911.

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Has anyone ever actually been able to document a gun grab from an OC-er?

    No, not the BG getting the drop on you and taking it away at gunpoint.

    Actually walking by, past, up to, around an OC-er and grabbing the gun (or attempting to) out of the holster.

    Anybody?

    Last I heard there was a cash reward out there for the first verified report.

    stay safe.

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Has anyone ever actually been able to document a gun grab from an OC-er?
    I've read about one, but only one. I couldn't find a reference.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I've read about one, but only one. I couldn't find a reference.
    Are you sure it was a gun-grab? Several stories have been posted here purporting to be a gun-grab, but turned out to be something entirely different.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    279
    I am not a lawyer.

    Has this ever come up in court? I'm certainly not aware of any civilian cases on this issue, but there are plenty of LEO cases on the issue.

    From the LEO standpoint a gun-grab IS deadly force assault (at least it is with most use of force continuums) which warrants the use of deadly force by the LEO. At least that's what has been my experience from having been military police and talking with local LEOs.

    So the question to be asked is this: If it's Deadly Force Assault if someone attempts the gun-grab on a LEO, then why should the same action upon a lawfully carrying civilian be treated any different? The intent to remove that firearm from the individual is clear, the intent to do harm or kill with that same firearm is clear...if it weren't the intent they wouldn't go for the gun-grab.

    Gun-grab occurs and I'm going to put someone down immediately either by physical force or by deadly force. The deadly force side of the issue means you had better be 100% sure of your intended target and clearly be able to identify and dictate that individual(s) as a threat. Of course, I have the advantage of having had weapon retention training, so my reactions will be dramatically different than the general carrying populous.

    Head-on, you can prevent the gun-grab in most cases. From the rear, it's an impossible thing to prevent. Of course, if they want it bad enough they'll find a way to get it.
    Last edited by heresyourdipstickjimmy; 11-21-2010 at 06:58 PM.

  20. #20
    Regular Member darkego's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by heresyourdipstickjimmy View Post
    So the question to be asked is this: If it's Deadly Force Assault if someone attempts the gun-grab on a LEO, then why should the same action upon a lawfully carrying civilian be treated any different? The intent to remove that firearm from the individual is clear, the intent to do harm or kill with that same firearm is clear...if it weren't the intent they wouldn't go for the gun-grab.
    This kinda reflects one of the reasons i question this issue and that's that law enforcement personnel will always have an easier time defending their actions then any joe-schmo off the street who happens to be packing.

    Whenever i have gone onto police forms to ask defense related questions, somehow the conversation leads to if I as a civilian end up in a situation that should have been avoided in the first place "I.E. why are you in a bad place in town at night" then the law is going to look unfavorable upon any actions, however a police officer never come under such observations, and has his law enforcement history to defend him in court.

    And since it looks like there is no legal history of this yet, i would like to see how the first case involving such a reaction will be treated. Murphy's can guarantee its only a matter of time.
    Q: Do I need to have my permit with me when carrying my pistol in Minnesota?
    A: Yes, the permit holder must have the permit card and a valid driverís license, state identification card, or other government-issued photo identification in immediate possession at all times when carrying a pistol and must display the permit card and identification document when requested by a peace officer.

    Source: http://tiny.cc/Minnesota

  21. #21
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by darkego View Post
    Snip...

    Whenever i have gone onto police forms to ask defense related questions, somehow the conversation leads to if I as a civilian end up in a situation that should have been avoided in the first place "I.E. why are you in a bad place in town at night" then the law is going to look unfavorable upon any actions, however a police officer never come under such observations, and has his law enforcement history to defend him in court.

    And since it looks like there is no legal history of this yet, i would like to see how the first case involving such a reaction will be treated. Murphy's can guarantee its only a matter of time.

    Regarding the questions referenced in the paragraph above.... isn't the mentality of making a victim justify their presence at the scene of a crime the same as BLAMING THE RAPE VICTIM?

    Now, back to the original question.... Is a gun grab a lethal threat? OK, not the exact wording but close enough I think.

    The answer depends upon the specific circumstances. Is the "grabber" a 10-14 year old kid in the grocery store line with his parent? Probably NOT a lethal threat, but it IS STILL A THREAT that needs to be dealt with from as simple as a loud reprimand while protecting the firearm from leaving your control up to some level of physical resistance or force applied to the "grabber."

    Now, if I am in other circumstances and someone sees me with my firearm and even knowing that I am armed commits assault/battery and attempts to remove my firearm from my control.... the fight is on. The "grabber" is committing a crime against me, is attempting to forcibly arm themselves with my firearm and it is time for me to do what ever is needed to stop the threat and that means ANY METHOD OR MECHANISM UP TO AND INCLUDING ACTIONS THAT MAY POSSIBLY RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE CRIMINAL.

    There is a difference in response based upon the circumstances from some curious youngster doing something unwise WHO STOPS UPON A REPRIMAND and / or my use of limited force to remove his hand from my weapon and the obvious attempt by someone who intends to forcibly remove my firearm from my control.

    I would hope that my situational awareness is never so blind that I don't see something like this developing BUT if I am so prideful to boast that it would never happen to me, well I am certainly at INCREASED RISK OF IT OCCURRING.

    My comments above are based upon my understanding of the laws in the location (UTAH) in which I live, YOUR locations laws may differ... and in order to be legal in your location, YOU NEED TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THOSE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS.

    In Utah, I have absolutely NO NEED TO RETREAT from any location in which I am legally located. I am able to legally defend myself and those in my presence from harm or injury and depending upon the severity of the threat (as understood by a reasonable man) I may use what ever force is necessary up to and including that level of force that may result in death.

    In those other states where the victims of crime have a legal duty to retreat, please accept my sincere apologies and I encourage you to do what ever you can legally to CHANGE THE LAWS in your location so that you may legally defend yourself from what ever threat you find yourself facing in any location in which you are legally present!

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Mo.
    Posts
    279
    Quote Originally Posted by darkego View Post
    This kinda reflects one of the reasons i question this issue and that's that law enforcement personnel will always have an easier time defending their actions then any joe-schmo off the street who happens to be packing.

    Whenever i have gone onto police forms to ask defense related questions, somehow the conversation leads to if I as a civilian end up in a situation that should have been avoided in the first place "I.E. why are you in a bad place in town at night" then the law is going to look unfavorable upon any actions, however a police officer never come under such observations, and has his law enforcement history to defend him in court.

    And since it looks like there is no legal history of this yet, i would like to see how the first case involving such a reaction will be treated. Murphy's can guarantee its only a matter of time.
    Perhaps it's time some of us get in touch with our legislators and point out that just such an issue may not be properly covered under the law and MUST be treated as Deadly Force Assault (DFA) just the same as if it happened to a LEO. I've yet to see Missouri address this issue, fortunately it hasn't come up in a civilian shooting. (let's pray it never does)
    Last edited by heresyourdipstickjimmy; 11-22-2010 at 04:49 PM.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Are you sure it was a gun-grab? Several stories have been posted here purporting to be a gun-grab, but turned out to be something entirely different.
    I hear you. Yes, it was a gun grab. It was on Officer.com, but included link to an article or two. I just couldn't begin to know where to find it. I recall someone mentioning, "wow, that's a first," or something similar. I searched for others at the time, but my Google-foo was not strong that day (and apparently, my memory even weaker).
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  24. #24
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I hear you. Yes, it was a gun grab. It was on Officer.com, but included link to an article or two. I just couldn't begin to know where to find it. I recall someone mentioning, "wow, that's a first," or something similar. I searched for others at the time, but my Google-foo was not strong that day (and apparently, my memory even weaker).
    I faintly remember something in Washington State, I think about a CC being robbed at gunpoint and the BG did get the victims firearm... but I don't read this as a legitimate gun grab in this context.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    A gun-grab is an automatic threat to life and limb and any force required to stop the grabber from accomplishing their goal is justifiable. I am of course not an attorney and have not been able to find any court rulings about law-abiding citizen responding by force to a gun-grab.

    Consider:

    You don't know the gun-grabber (maybe you do and the gun-grabber is mentally ill or on drugs)
    You don't know their intent, but they are grabbing your gun

    It seems a reasonable person would conclude that the gun-grabber would only grab the gun or it can be interpreted that their grabbing your gun is for the commission of an unlawful act that could include potentially using the sidearm to gravely injure or murder you.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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