Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: GOA's Larry Pratt Makes Comments Against LEGAL Non-Citizens Carrying

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Burke/Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    998

    GOA's Larry Pratt Makes Comments Against LEGAL Non-Citizens Carrying

    I know that this isn't strictly Virginia related, but since GOA and Larry Pratt are VA based and some here might know Larry personally, I thought that this would be a good place to post a discussion of thoughts on this matter.

    I have already posted a thread regarding the specific case of a legal, non-citizen, U.S. perminate resident who was denied renewal of his South Dakota CC permit, and it can be found here:
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...71#post1437071

    What I found troubling was Larry Pratt's comments to Fox News regarding this case.

    From Foxnews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/06...est=latestnews

    But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens.

    "If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

    Pratt says the only reason the ACLU brought the suit is to pave the way for illegal aliens to have conceal carry permits.

    "They want to make it so illegal aliens have the same rights as everybody else...every little bit chipping away," he said.

    I have been a GOA supporter for a long time, and Larry has been a guest speaker at several VCDL meetings and events, but I can't help but feel that his arguing that this will lead to illegal immigrants getting CC permits is just as bad as Paul Helmke saying that surplus M1s and M1 Carbines will be used by terrorists.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    How about we do this:

    The gun laws of a person's nation of citizenship shall apply to legal resident aliens of the US.

    I bet that might influence the way some of these people view their citizenship situation...
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  3. #3
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    There are grounds for his and SD's argument if one wishes to be strict in their reading of the Constitution. I hope I am not opening a can of worms here and I do NOT wish to start any other heated arguments or be flamed for my suggestion. I am only offering this as a consideration and to get other members' takes on it.

    The first seven words of the Constitution are, "We the People of the United States". With this opening, everything which follows is for "We the People of the United States", not We the People of Canada or We the People of Central America or We the People of the world. It specifically and distinctly states, "We the People of the United States". If we were to keep a strict reading and follow strict adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then Mr. Pratt has a valid argument. Alas, we know this is not about to happen because of the concept of interpretation along with that of precedence and the historical record of the plundering of these documents.

    Again, I do not wish to enter into any heated arguments or discussions with this and will not entertain same. My intent is only to get the comments (civil comments) from others about this issue.
    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
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    How about we do this:

    The gun laws of a person's nation of citizenship shall apply to legal resident aliens of the US.

    I bet that might influence the way some of these people view their citizenship situation...
    Instead, why don't we stick with what the Constitution and the courts have already said? That the laws of the land shall be applied equally to all persons (did you note that citizenship is not mentioned) residing in the United States?

    There are many laws that have been passed that restrict the things that non-citizens can do. Those laws were supposed to protect the United States and the citizens of the United States. I do not see how restricting a non-citizen from obtaining a permit/license to carry concealed protects me or the country.

    And BTW - if the guy has been a resident alien for 30+ years there is probably a good reason he has not become a citizen. It might be nice to find out why before dumping on him for not seeking citizenship. As far as I care, as long as he pays taxes as required and obeys the laws he's welcome because our government said so - and they really do make it difficult to be welcomed.

    stay safe.

  5. #5
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896
    Larry Pratt lost my confidence years ago when he made some bogus claims while speaking at a VCDL meeting to tarnish an AG candidate he didn't support, which I later verified to be bogus and anyone (Pratt included) would have known were bogus with some simple web research. SAF is who I stand behind these days.

  6. #6
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    For the record, my own personal take on this is not exactly what I posed in my above post (#3) as I was only offering a different take on the issue. I tend to go along with what skidmark wrote in his subsequent post regarding legal residence, etc. I would prefer that a long term legal immigrant in good standing become a citizen, but I know a number who have not, for whatever reason, and have no problem with them owning arms. Of course, illegals..... most definitely not.
    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!

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201
    If someone is here legally they should be able to enjoy the same Constitutional protections enjoyed by anyone else.

  8. #8
    Regular Member crazydude6030's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fairfax, va
    Posts
    512
    Quote Originally Posted by jmelvin View Post
    If someone is here legally they should be able to enjoy the same Constitutional protections enjoyed by anyone else.
    This is where I am conflicted about this case. On one hand we have a state who makes a condition for issuing the permit, this to me is the states right. On the other hand I think everyone should be allowed to carry as they want

    This isn't a constitutional protection, if it where he wouldn't need the permit. No one is denying his right to own a gun, just to carry said gun. Currently (and I don't agree with it), you have to have a permit in most places to conceal and in some states to even OC. This is a case of a state making a condition to issue the permit. The only hope I have out of this case is if it somehow it forces constitutional carry.
    Last edited by crazydude6030; 01-07-2011 at 09:29 AM.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Instead, why don't we stick with what the Constitution and the courts have already said? That the laws of the land shall be applied equally to all persons (did you note that citizenship is not mentioned) residing in the United States?
    There are many laws that have been passed that restrict the things that non-citizens can do. Those laws were supposed to protect the United States and the citizens of the United States. I do not see how restricting a non-citizen from obtaining a permit/license to carry concealed protects me or the country.

    And BTW - if the guy has been a resident alien for 30+ years there is probably a good reason he has not become a citizen. It might be nice to find out why before dumping on him for not seeking citizenship. As far as I care, as long as he pays taxes as required and obeys the laws he's welcome because our government said so - and they really do make it difficult to be welcomed.

    stay safe.
    That is the reality.


    As an aside, given the nature of the BoR, there is a much stronger case for "BoR applies to all who reside..." The US Constitution and BoR does not grant those Rights, it simply annotates them as belonging to the People.
    Last edited by wrightme; 01-07-2011 at 10:09 AM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  10. #10
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    How about we do this:

    The gun laws of a person's nation of citizenship shall apply to legal resident aliens of the US.

    I bet that might influence the way some of these people view their citizenship situation...
    So people fromSwitzerland, could carry full auto, no problem!
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  11. #11
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Well SCOTUS rejected P&I Incorpration, so.....

    In McDonald, the Priveledges and Immunities clause of the 14th was rejected as the means of incorporation, even though Alan Gura's logic was flawless.

    The rejection would seem to indicate that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is God given to all people, and not a priveledge that attatches with American citizenship.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    $
    Posts
    187
    Everyone is born with the same inalienable rights, whether they are born in Virginia or China. Because the Chinese government denies people their rights doesn't mean the American government should deny the rights of the Chinese born.

  13. #13
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by WhatTimeIsIt? View Post
    Everyone is born with the same inalienable rights, whether they are born in Virginia or China. Because the Chinese government denies people their rights doesn't mean the American government should deny the rights of the Chinese born.
    That's the best perspective I've seen yet.

    We would do well to remember that the Second Amendment only recognizes what we consider to be among those "certain unalienable Rights" which were granted to all, by the Creator of all mankind.

    The only reason we can and do ever support the suppression of that right is when it has been shown that such a person will do harm to themselves or to others.

    Obviously the implementation of that exception is not perfect, and we object to much of that poor implementation, but that is the intent of those who genuinely support the founding principles.

    TFred

  14. #14
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Thundar View Post
    So people fromSwitzerland, could carry full auto, no problem!

    Switzerland is not the Firearms Freedom dreamland that some purport it to be.


    In fact, the laws regarding ownership of ammo, firearms, and carry are just as strict as most other European nations. If you're not in the militia, owning full-auto is nearly impossible (when you reach an age where you are no longer required to be in the militia, you turn in your Service Rifle, and it is modified by an armorer to be semi-auto only).

    To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

    Ammo for military-issued weapons must be registered when purchased at a retail outlet. Ammo sold at ranges is not registered but by law, it must be used at the range and NOT leave the range.

    All guns must be registered. Individual (private) sales require a "weapons acquisition permit".

    Switzerland is NOT the gun haven that some have touted it to be.
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreamer View Post
    Switzerland is not the Firearms Freedom dreamland that some purport it to be.

    In fact, the laws regarding ownership of ammo, firearms, and carry are just as strict as most other European nations. If you're not in the militia, owning full-auto is nearly impossible (when you reach an age where you are no longer required to be in the militia, you turn in your Service Rifle, and it is modified by an armorer to be semi-auto only).

    To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

    Ammo for military-issued weapons must be registered when purchased at a retail outlet. Ammo sold at ranges is not registered but by law, it must be used at the range and NOT leave the range.

    All guns must be registered. Individual (private) sales require a "weapons acquisition permit".

    Switzerland is NOT the gun haven that some have touted it to be.

    There you go with your facts again messing up a good rumor that is spread all over the Internet. I don't know why you want to keep throwing reality into a perfectly good discussion based on hearsay.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    For the record, my own personal take on this is not exactly what I posed in my above post (#3) as I was only offering a different take on the issue. I tend to go along with what skidmark wrote in his subsequent post regarding legal residence, etc. I would prefer that a long term legal immigrant in good standing become a citizen, but I know a number who have not, for whatever reason, and have no problem with them owning arms. Of course, illegals..... most definitely not.
    I used to think along the same lines.

    Over time, though, my thinking has shifted.

    Self-defense is a fundamental human-right.

    The really dangerous illegal aliens are going to get guns anyway. The non-violent illegal aliens are not going to mis-use them.

    I'm not excited about illegal aliens, violent or non-violent. I have no sympathy for sanctuary cities.

    On the other hand, I concluded that certain basic human rights transcend political boundaries. Man's history these last few millenia has been a trend toward more freedom, aquiring more and more concessions (rights) from the ruling elites. We've got billions of people to go, yet.

    And, there is no sense giving misgovernment a little bit more power over a fundamental human right. We all know how that tends to turn out. Plus, we just give misgovernment a wedge issue to divide people, using anti-immigration sentiment against self-defense rights.

    Regarding legal resident aliens, I'm inclined for the moment to insist the misgovernment give permits to resident aliens same as a citizen. One more permittee is one more step towards recovering/expanding/normalizing armed self-defense.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-07-2011 at 11:03 PM.

  17. #17
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    The first seven words of the Constitution are, "We the People of the United States". With this opening, everything which follows is for "We the People of the United States", not We the People of Canada or We the People of Central America or We the People of the world. It specifically and distinctly states, "We the People of the United States". If we were to keep a strict reading and follow strict adherence to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, then Mr. Pratt has a valid argument.
    The "people of the United States" were all illegals by today's standards.

  18. #18
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by nuc65 View Post
    The "people of the United States" were all illegals by today's standards.
    If you prefer to look at it this way, nearly all people down throughout history would fall into this bucket.
    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!

  19. #19
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I used to think along the same lines.

    Over time, though, my thinking has shifted.

    Self-defense is a fundamental human-right.

    The really dangerous illegal aliens are going to get guns anyway. The non-violent illegal aliens are not going to mis-use them.

    I'm not excited about illegal aliens, violent or non-violent. I have no sympathy for sanctuary cities.

    On the other hand, I concluded that certain basic human rights transcend political boundaries. Man's history these last few millenia has been a trend toward more freedom, aquiring more and more concessions (rights) from the ruling elites. We've got billions of people to go, yet.

    And, there is no sense giving misgovernment a little bit more power over a fundamental human right. We all know how that tends to turn out. Plus, we just give misgovernment a wedge issue to divide people, using anti-immigration sentiment against self-defense rights.

    Regarding legal resident aliens, I'm inclined for the moment to insist the misgovernment give permits to resident aliens same as a citizen. One more permittee is one more step towards recovering/expanding/normalizing armed self-defense.
    While I agree that self-defense IS a fundamental human right, I do not want to see illegal aliens be given that right within our borders. Let their native countries do as they see fit. Illegal aliens are here illegally and are therefore by definition, criminals. And we don't support Second Amendment rights for criminals... at least not in whole part yet.
    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!

  20. #20
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    If you prefer to look at it this way, nearly all people down throughout history would fall into this bucket.
    Many people would. With what you are suggesting I'm not sure the government hasn't already set a precedent. A couple of years ago the government gave carte-blanch for interpol to operate in the borders of the US for the first time ever. No liason, or oversight required (I can't find the cite). No VISA, no respect for the laws of the US.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    While I agree that self-defense IS a fundamental human right, I do not want to see illegal aliens be given that right within our borders. Let their native countries do as they see fit. Illegal aliens are here illegally and are therefore by definition, criminals. And we don't support Second Amendment rights for criminals... at least not in whole part yet.
    Oh, I see.

    I think the distinction between our positions is subtle, but important.

    I assume they already have the right by virtue of being alive, and that misgovernment has no power to interfer with it. I would not support granting misgovernment the power to deny the right, which is another way of saying I would not support government criminalizing gun possession by illegals.

    Your position seems to say government should not openly recognize such a right. I'm basing this on the assumption you were speaking figuratively about granting a right, meaning, I'm assuming you as an experienced 2Aer fully understand government does not grant rights, thus it can only recognize them.

    I would tend more towards something like this: if an illegal alien is caught, and he possesses a firearm, handle him as an illegal alien. And, ignore the gun legally speaking. Seize the gun as part of the arrest and deportation if arrest and deportation are the correct handling for that exact alien, but do not treat the gun possession as an offense. Put it right up there with breathing air and drinking water. Unless the gun was used illegally, meaning for a robbery, kidnapping, or murder. Then treat the gun the same as any other gun used in a crime, and treat the criminal misuse of the gun the same as a citizen criminal.

    As a tangent, I have little support any longer for criminalizing gun use separate from the crime. For example, additional time in prison for using a gun in a robbery, as opposed to a knife. Such serves only helps vilify guns. Robbery is robbery--knife, gun, or bludgeon. Murder is murder--knife, gun, or poison. "Oh my god! He used a gun!" Oh, for Pete's sake. It was a robbery! Of course, he used a weapon! Criminalize the criminal act, not the damn weapon. This is really just an off-shoot of the idea that a gun cannot act by itself. Its just an implement.

    Edited to Add the word "not" in the third section above. The underline is to call attention to which "not" was added, rather than to emphasize disagreement.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-08-2011 at 06:29 PM.

  22. #22
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Your position seems to say government should not openly recognize such a right. I'm basing this on the assumption you were speaking figuratively about granting a right, meaning, I'm assuming you as an experienced 2Aer fully understand government does not grant rights, thus it can only recognize them.
    Yes, I clearly misused my native tongue and stepped on all of my former postings about this topic by suggesting that rights are created and conveyed by government. I no more believe that rights are instruments of any ruling entity to be parsed among those of favor than I believe the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. You caught me on that mistake.... thanks for the yield you offered.
    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!

  23. #23
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernBoy View Post
    Yes, I clearly misused my native tongue and stepped on all of my former postings about this topic by suggesting that rights are created and conveyed by government. I no more believe that rights are instruments of any ruling entity to be parsed among those of favor than I believe the sun rises in the west and sets in the east. You caught me on that mistake.... thanks for the yield you offered.
    I understand.

    I wasn't doing much better. () I left out a really important word. Changed the whole tone of the third section of that post.

  24. #24
    Activist Member nuc65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Oh, I see.

    I think the distinction between our positions is subtle, but important.

    I assume they already have the right by virtue of being alive, and that misgovernment has no power to interfer with it. I would not support granting misgovernment the power to deny the right, which is another way of saying I would not support government criminalizing gun possession by illegals.

    Your position seems to say government should not openly recognize such a right. I'm basing this on the assumption you were speaking figuratively about granting a right, meaning, I'm assuming you as an experienced 2Aer fully understand government does not grant rights, thus it can only recognize them.

    I would tend more towards something like this: if an illegal alien is caught, and he possesses a firearm, handle him as an illegal alien. And, ignore the gun legally speaking. Seize the gun as part of the arrest and deportation if arrest and deportation are the correct handling for that exact alien, but do not treat the gun possession as an offense. Put it right up there with breathing air and drinking water. Unless the gun was used illegally, meaning for a robbery, kidnapping, or murder. Then treat the gun the same as any other gun used in a crime, and treat the criminal misuse of the gun the same as a citizen criminal.

    As a tangent, I have little support any longer for criminalizing gun use separate from the crime. For example, additional time in prison for using a gun in a robbery, as opposed to a knife. Such serves only helps vilify guns. Robbery is robbery--knife, gun, or bludgeon. Murder is murder--knife, gun, or poison. "Oh my god! He used a gun!" Oh, for Pete's sake. It was a robbery! Of course, he used a weapon! Criminalize the criminal act, not the damn weapon. This is really just an off-shoot of the idea that a gun cannot act by itself. Its just an implement.

    Edited to Add the word "not" in the third section above. The underline is to call attention to which "not" was added, rather than to emphasize disagreement.
    +1

    Robbery is robbery--knife, gun, or bludgeon. Murder is murder

    Rights are rights unless 'granted' then they are privileges.

  25. #25
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I used to think along the same lines.

    Over time, though, my thinking has shifted.

    Self-defense is a fundamental human-right.

    The really dangerous illegal aliens are going to get guns anyway. The non-violent illegal aliens are not going to mis-use them.

    I'm not excited about illegal aliens, violent or non-violent. I have no sympathy for sanctuary cities.

    On the other hand, I concluded that certain basic human rights transcend political boundaries. Man's history these last few millenia has been a trend toward more freedom, aquiring more and more concessions (rights) from the ruling elites. We've got billions of people to go, yet.

    And, there is no sense giving misgovernment a little bit more power over a fundamental human right. We all know how that tends to turn out. Plus, we just give misgovernment a wedge issue to divide people, using anti-immigration sentiment against self-defense rights.

    Regarding legal resident aliens, I'm inclined for the moment to insist the misgovernment give permits to resident aliens same as a citizen. One more permittee is one more step towards recovering/expanding/normalizing armed self-defense.
    Illegal aliens have already proven their willingness to break American laws, however. While past performance may not always predict future actions, a person who has broken one law - even if he has obeyed every one since, though I'd find it hard to believe an illegal alien in America could perform such a feat - has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is more concerned about himself than he is in following the law.

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
  •