FYI-Restaurant carry passed

#78
#78
hndog609 said:
"I can abide the "narrowly drawn to achieve a compelling state interest" standard."

Might have jumped the gun just a bit.
Click to expand...
Not my fault he chose to directly contradict his initial post on the subject. The lack of firm conviction by others isn't my problem.
 
#79
#79
hatvol96 said:
I love it when people just crap all over the plain language of the 2nd Amendment and act as if it provides a complete prohibition of any regulation on the ownership and possession of arms.
Click to expand...

How would you interpret the language?
 
#80
#80
hatvol96 said:
Not my fault he chose to directly contradict his initial post on the subject. The lack of firm conviction by others isn't my problem.
Click to expand...

Actually I could see where you could take that view given what was posted. I do however stand behind my saying you'd have to make some inferences to do so.
 
#81
#81
VolDad said:
How would you interpret the language?
Click to expand...
In a manner that would conform it to its intent. The drafters and signers of the Constitution realized a public that could not protect itself against tyrannical government activity was powerless. Thus, it chose to create a system in which citizen militias would act as a counterbalance to government might. I would interpret the Amendment to be more of a collective right than an individual one. Had the founding fathers felt differently, they would have placed the initial clause in the 2nd.
 
#82
#82
So we have an absolute right to form citizen armies that have the military capability of going to toe-to-toe with government troops?
 
#83
#83
VolunteerHillbilly said:
So we have an absolute right to form citizen armies that have the military capability of going to toe-to-toe with government troops?
Click to expand...
If someone wants to try that on a large scale, have at it. Let me know how it goes for them. It sure didn't work the first time.
 
#85
#85
hatvol96 said:
In a manner that would conform it to its intent. The drafters and signers of the Constitution realized a public that could not protect itself against tyrannical government activity was powerless. Thus, it chose to create a system in which citizen militias would act as a counterbalance to government might. I would interpret the Amendment to be more of a collective right than an individual one. Had the founding fathers felt differently, they would have placed the initial clause in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

From Heller:

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”
“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”
“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

I think they got it exactly right. The 2nd refers to the right of individuals to bear arms for self defense and other lawful uses. It is not without limits however.
 
#86
#86
Look at the history of pre-Consitution America. The colonies rebelled and formed states with separate state governments. The states carried over colonial militias - armies of citizenry who were armed for the purposes of defense of the states. The state militias were the initial forces that fought against British troops.

With what brought rebellion and defense to the table we see the same notion included in the Constitution. It was the states themselves that ratified the Constitution. It was through this state notion that militias remained. It was through each of these states and their militias that freedom was ensured. The right to bear arms was for the purposes of protecting the states. Technically this is a collective right rather than an individual right.

And it is not a guaranteed right since certain categories (felons) have that removed without this being stated in the Constitution. Regulation is also continued as well. Free speech is regulated. Assembly is regulated, etc.
 
#87
#87
CSpindizzy said:
Look at the history of pre-Consitution America. The colonies rebelled and formed states with separate state governments. The states carried over colonial militias - armies of citizenry who were armed for the purposes of defense of the states. The state militias were the initial forces that fought against British troops.

With what brought rebellion and defense to the table we see the same notion included in the Constitution. It was the states themselves that ratified the Constitution. It was through this state notion that militias remained. It was through each of these states and their militias that freedom was ensured. The right to bear arms was for the purposes of protecting the states. Technically this is a collective right rather than an individual right.

And it is not a guaranteed right since certain categories (felons) have that removed without this being stated in the Constitution. Regulation is also continued as well. Free speech is regulated. Assembly is regulated, etc.
Click to expand...

Strongly disagree with most of this. I urge you to read the Heller majority opinion on the topic (some of which I include in my post right before yours) as well as what was actually written on the subject by people like Henry, Madison and Jefferson in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere.

As to your last point don't confuse regulation and forfeiture. Felons forfeited their rights. In fact they forfeited more than any right to bear arms they literally forfeited their very freedom or, in a severe enough case, their very right to life. This should never be confused with reasonable regulation.
 
#88
#88
I've read all of that and more. And again, read the history before and during the Revolutionary War as well. A militia is a state entity and a collective one. Read the state charters as well as colonial and state constitutions of that period. Don't just cherry pick one opinion as well. You do realize you can find an opinion on every side possible outcome possible in Constitutional Law.

I'm not sure why you assumed I confused regulation and forfeiture. Gun ownership is regulated among non-felons. As for felons forfeiting their rights, can you tell me where this is in the Constitution? Where does it say a felon in any regard forfeits his rights to gun ownership? Where does it say a right to life is forfeited? Inalienable right of life is not mentioned in any respect to be forfeited.
 
#89
#89
CSpindizzy said:
I've read all of that and more. And again, read the history before and during the Revolutionary War as well. A militia is a state entity and a collective one. Read the state charters as well as colonial and state constitutions of that period. Don't just cherry pick one opinion as well. You do realize you can find an opinion on every side possible outcome possible in Constitutional Law.

I'm not sure why you assumed I confused regulation and forfeiture. Gun ownership is regulated among non-felons. As for felons forfeiting their rights, can you tell me where this is in the Constitution? Where does it say a felon in any regard forfeits his rights to gun ownership? Where does it say a right to life is forfeited? Inalienable right of life is not mentioned in any respect to be forfeited.
Click to expand...

I know what a militia is and so did SCOTUS when they came down with the Heller decision affirming the individual right. In any case, why would I or anyone else care about state charters and militias as far as the US Constitution's 2nd amendment applying to the RKBA? As to cherry picking, cherry picking from what? How many 2A cases have been before SCOTUS in the last century? I can only think of US v Miller in '39 and Heller.

As to your second part this may have been a communication issue so let me clarify my part since I'm obviously not 100% sure about yours. A "right" is just that. It is not bestowed by the government but is inherent. I see the 2nd, and clearly at that, as pointing out the absolute right of an individual to be able to protect himself. This can be in the form of using arms to protect his person, his interests (family etc) or further even the rights and safety of others against those who would do ill as this would be an indivdual act but for the common good. Your militia angle comes into play when a group of individuals can assemble for a common cause of defense against threats from within or without. The idea of the latter not only superceding but somehow being the only justifiable means of accepting the former makes no sense to me whatsoever. Again, I find myself staunchly behind this quote from Heller:

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

This is bolstered even more since SCOTUS has ruled in Castle Rock v Gonzales that your happy butt is on your own and there is no actual government duty to protect any given citizen. (as if it wasn't an absurd assumption they could do so even if so charged)

So for that the RKBA is in fact a "guaranteed right" based on the most simple premise; the right to defend oneself (oneSELF, not as part of a militia) by force of arms if necessary. I used the term "forfeiture" before since "regulation" doesn't sit well with me when talking of felons losing their RKBA. The regulation of the "right" to free speech in not shouting FIRE! in an auditorium is not a forfeiture, it is a limitation. If you have, of your own volition and action, shown yourself to be a threat to the public then having your RKBA removed is in my mind a forfeiture. In the first case it was a regulated matter of what you are allowed to do by statute. In the second case it was only the individual's own actions that separated him from still being able to KBA.

This is my take on the matter.
 
Last edited:
#90
#90
Again, if you are referring to one single court's decision, you don't understand the court. You act as if this decision is etched in stone. It does not take much to find a ruling much less get one in the history of the court. A Heller decision today could be something completely different tomorrow. You can find opposing views throughout the history of the court. You can keep repeating Heller until your fingers hurt from typing it. But because this was decided in this manner doesn't make it right or permanent - same goes with any other case before the court.

You actually proved my point on the limitations. What is the definition of a 'right'? If limitations are agreed upon and you admit they can exist, where is the bar set? Who sets that bar? There is a right and you admit a limitation. But there is no established standard at how far one can limit. No one has a pure right. Your rights do have limits. Who decides those limits? The government - all three branches can limit your rights. They cannot take away this collective right. But they can limit it. DC placed limits on possession of a hand gun but not on rifles and shotguns. Government can limit types of guns and waiting periods but they cannot completely remove it.

And that is my point. The 2A had the original intent to ensure the same means that were used to give us a free nation were constitutionally guaranteed. The point was a collective right for citizens to possess arms for the purposes of militias to collectively protect themselves from tyranny of government. The same history that put the founders in a position to create the Constitution was ensured for that purpose. This as well as other aspects of the Constitution were to place checks or pure limits on the power of government. The threat was a standing national army under the same conditions as the British Army - a national force well trained and armed to enforce its will and even tyranny on the people. The only check on that is through the collective militias. David Koresh and a few cultists learned their right to bear arms meant spit when faced with overwhelming force. Where we are on original intent and current conditions are far apart. Even a 'militia' would not matter since clearly what was feared in a standing national and permanent army is well established. If Obama declared martial law today and used the power of the military, what exists in people's homes would not matter.
 
#91
#91
I don't believe the Founders intended the 2nd Amendment to be a "collective" right. The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th all pertain to an individual, why would the 2nd be excluded?
 
#92
#92
Those actually refer to limiting the power of government. "Congress shall make no law", etc. are all spelled out limits of the power of the federal government regarding, soldiers quartering, searches and seizures, etc.

As far as collective with 2A there is the "well regulated militia", "a free state", and "right of the people" which indicate a collective group as opposed to a person/individual. Add that to other references to not only historical events but speeches, etc. referencing the need of the people as a whole needing a militia as a collective force to protect against tyranny of government.
 
#93
#93
CSpindizzy said:
Again, if you are referring to one single court's decision, you don't understand the court. You act as if this decision is etched in stone. It does not take much to find a ruling much less get one in the history of the court. A Heller decision today could be something completely different tomorrow. You can find opposing views throughout the history of the court. You can keep repeating Heller until your fingers hurt from typing it. But because this was decided in this manner doesn't make it right or permanent - same goes with any other case before the court.

You actually proved my point on the limitations. What is the definition of a 'right'? If limitations are agreed upon and you admit they can exist, where is the bar set? Who sets that bar? There is a right and you admit a limitation. But there is no established standard at how far one can limit. No one has a pure right. Your rights do have limits. Who decides those limits? The government - all three branches can limit your rights. They cannot take away this collective right. But they can limit it. DC placed limits on possession of a hand gun but not on rifles and shotguns. Government can limit types of guns and waiting periods but they cannot completely remove it.

And that is my point. The 2A had the original intent to ensure the same means that were used to give us a free nation were constitutionally guaranteed. The point was a collective right for citizens to possess arms for the purposes of militias to collectively protect themselves from tyranny of government. The same history that put the founders in a position to create the Constitution was ensured for that purpose. This as well as other aspects of the Constitution were to place checks or pure limits on the power of government. The threat was a standing national army under the same conditions as the British Army - a national force well trained and armed to enforce its will and even tyranny on the people. The only check on that is through the collective militias. David Koresh and a few cultists learned their right to bear arms meant spit when faced with overwhelming force. Where we are on original intent and current conditions are far apart. Even a 'militia' would not matter since clearly what was feared in a standing national and permanent army is well established. If Obama declared martial law today and used the power of the military, what exists in people's homes would not matter.
Click to expand...

I would have thought the reason I cite Heller would be obvious, it's a Supreme Court ruling. You make it sould like Heller is some lower court decision. Not only that but the part about bearing personal arms for personal use was explicit. It's not like there's a great big stack of reversed SCOTUS opinions, much less those that explicit on a subject and about a Bill of Rights amendment at that.

A "right" is something you have, not what is bestowed. That a "right" can be limited does not conflict with it being a right. If that's something you can't reconcile in your own mind I can't help that. That the extent and implementation of these limitations has, is and will be a hotly contested subject is something I've neither ignored nor denied.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT MILITIAS. The individual right of SELF defense is the most basic right available to anyone. If a large group of dudes started busting down my door at this very moment my Glock is the only thing between them and me. The cops are not here and won't be here before they get through the door. I'm not a small man but I don't think I could take more than two, and THAT'S assuming they don't have weapons themselves. And I live alone, God help me if I had a wife or children I couldn't protect. A militia won't help me. I either have a personal right to arm myself for the purpose of protection or I accept the fact that it's tragic but sometimes bad things happen to good people and hey, feces happens. To that end I reject, wholly and with malice, the idea that my right to be armed for defense of myself or loved ones is predicated on some historical concept of a militia.

As for federal martial law or a large move to disarm regular citizens there's going to be plenty of those meant to enforce that idea going to be changing sides. Not to mention it's becoming a real question if many states would even recognize it. TN just joined the ranks of states with legislation bucking up the 10th Amendment as well as recently passing legislation that SPECIFICALLY protects gun owners under state martial law. Obama and federal martial law would find a very chilly reception in many states, including this one.
 
#94
#94
CSpindizzy said:
Where does it say a right to life is forfeited? Inalienable right of life is not mentioned in any respect to be forfeited.
Click to expand...

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of Tennessee. I did only quote the part of your post that seemed to be asking the question to which I thought I'd try to respond.
 
#95
#95
lawgator1 said:
Or, you could require that people that own guns keep them much more secure than a glove compartment or a console. That might help, too.




For petty criminals, a gun they can steal and then sell (or use themselves) is as valuable as cash or jewelry.


I defended a case a few years back. A 16 year old kid and his buddies like to break into cars and steal CDs and what not. They do this recreationally, just kids getting into mischief. They aren't career criminals. They are in high school together.

One weekend they go on one of their little sprees and this time they find a handgun.

The next Monday, the kid brings it to school to show off. Long story short he is driving away from the school and his friend is in the back seat looking at it, it goes off, bullet goes through the front seat and into the driver, killing him.

Gun was legal on Saturday. On Monday it killed someone.
Click to expand...


So because some F,ing idiot might steal my gun and shoot smoeone, I should not be able to carry one? Please tell me you are not an attorney making this BS argument!!!!
 
#96
#96
hndog609 said:
I would have thought the reason I cite Heller would be obvious, it's a Supreme Court ruling. You make it sould like Heller is some lower court decision. Not only that but the part about bearing personal arms for personal use was explicit. It's not like there's a great big stack of reversed SCOTUS opinions, much less those that explicit on a subject and about a Bill of Rights amendment at that.

A "right" is something you have, not what is bestowed. That a "right" can be limited does not conflict with it being a right. If that's something you can't reconcile in your own mind I can't help that. That the extent and implementation of these limitations has, is and will be a hotly contested subject is something I've neither ignored nor denied.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT MILITIAS. The individual right of SELF defense is the most basic right available to anyone. If a large group of dudes started busting down my door at this very moment my Glock is the only thing between them and me. The cops are not here and won't be here before they get through the door. I'm not a small man but I don't think I could take more than two, and THAT'S assuming they don't have weapons themselves. And I live alone, God help me if I had a wife or children I couldn't protect. A militia won't help me. I either have a personal right to arm myself for the purpose of protection or I accept the fact that it's tragic but sometimes bad things happen to good people and hey, feces happens. To that end I reject, wholly and with malice, the idea that my right to be armed for defense of myself or loved ones is predicated on some historical concept of a militia.

As for federal martial law or a large move to disarm regular citizens there's going to be plenty of those meant to enforce that idea going to be changing sides. Not to mention it's becoming a real question if many states would even recognize it. TN just joined the ranks of states with legislation bucking up the 10th Amendment as well as recently passing legislation that SPECIFICALLY protects gun owners under state martial law. Obama and federal martial law would find a very chilly reception in many states, including this one.
Click to expand...

You're right. It is ONE SCOTUS ruling. But one ruling does not make it right or permanent as I said before. One ruling can be overturned or picked apart. And there are numerous changes on rulings in the history of SCOTUS. The death penalty is one where it went from constitutional, to unconstitutional, to constitutional with a strict test. This period was all in a very short amount of time. If you use one ruling as basis of something truly being right or permanent, you do not understand the court.

You say a right is something you have and not something bestowed. But earlier you mentioned a forfeiture of that right. Where is 'forfeiture' constitutional? Who has that right to take away another's rights? Who determines the standard being crossed? You cannot have it both ways.

You don't care about militias? So you're cherry picking the Constitution? You're ignoring the basis of the 2A. You're ignoring the history behind it and what caused it to be included in the Bill of Rights. As for busting down your door, do you think that group cares about your rights? By that point they could care less. But the militia is something that group would have to fear or have a concern about. It would make them think twice about busting down your door. This is the concept facing the colonists. British troops cared less about some single individual farmer with his musket. But the militias they faced in response were something to be feared. The potential response of a local militia well armed and trained gave them concern over tyrannical use of power. The well regulated, armed, and trained local militias held power in check. It held the standing army and the power behind it in check. Right after Concord and Lexington, the British tended to remain holed up in cities to avoid skirmishes with building up militias.

Read the concept of creating standing armies. Most of the founders absolutely despised the notion of standing, especially permanent armies. Since states were the entities of focus and collective voices of liberty, their only checks were militias.

I am not arguing my own current opinion on the matter. I am only spelling out original intent and where the 2A saw its origins from. I know the word 'collective' has become a current boogey word but the whole notion of arms and the 2A is a collective notion of protecting the people, especially the states, against the potential for abuse of power from the government. It is a collective power held in check by the mention of militias. Each personal reference in the 2A is a collective plural reference and is intended as a check against the power of the federal government.

I think we have plenty of history where what was intended in the original design and what has been settled over the years in the court's decisions are two different things. Using one opinion proves nothing except the opinion of one court on one issue. If this one opinion was truly permanent and the gospel truth, why worry about ANY court appointment? Why look into Sotomayor's background to see what she feels?
 
#97
#97
VolDad said:
Which party were you defending (i.e., kid who accidentally shot his friend, original gun owner who left the gun in the car, other)?

I assume, based upon your comments that it was the kid. If you defended the original gun owner (i.e., negligence) what was your defense or what would it have been?
Click to expand...


The Sheriff had a deputy assigned to the school. There had been a rumor floating around about the gun during the day at the school, the deputy had taken certain steps to investigate. The family of the kid sued the school and the Sheriff for failing to investigate better or intervene. I represented the Sheriff.


volfanatic74 said:
So because some F,ing idiot might steal my gun and shoot smoeone, I should not be able to carry one? Please tell me you are not an attorney making this BS argument!!!!
Click to expand...


Yes, and yes.
 
#98
#98
CSpindizzy said:
You're right. It is ONE SCOTUS ruling. But one ruling does not make it right or permanent as I said before. One ruling can be overturned or picked apart. And there are numerous changes on rulings in the history of SCOTUS. The death penalty is one where it went from constitutional, to unconstitutional, to constitutional with a strict test. This period was all in a very short amount of time. If you use one ruling as basis of something truly being right or permanent, you do not understand the court.

You say a right is something you have and not something bestowed. But earlier you mentioned a forfeiture of that right. Where is 'forfeiture' constitutional? Who has that right to take away another's rights? Who determines the standard being crossed? You cannot have it both ways.

You don't care about militias? So you're cherry picking the Constitution? You're ignoring the basis of the 2A. You're ignoring the history behind it and what caused it to be included in the Bill of Rights. As for busting down your door, do you think that group cares about your rights? By that point they could care less. But the militia is something that group would have to fear or have a concern about. It would make them think twice about busting down your door. This is the concept facing the colonists. British troops cared less about some single individual farmer with his musket. But the militias they faced in response were something to be feared. The potential response of a local militia well armed and trained gave them concern over tyrannical use of power. The well regulated, armed, and trained local militias held power in check. It held the standing army and the power behind it in check. Right after Concord and Lexington, the British tended to remain holed up in cities to avoid skirmishes with building up militias.

Read the concept of creating standing armies. Most of the founders absolutely despised the notion of standing, especially permanent armies. Since states were the entities of focus and collective voices of liberty, their only checks were militias.

I am not arguing my own current opinion on the matter. I am only spelling out original intent and where the 2A saw its origins from. I know the word 'collective' has become a current boogey word but the whole notion of arms and the 2A is a collective notion of protecting the people, especially the states, against the potential for abuse of power from the government. It is a collective power held in check by the mention of militias. Each personal reference in the 2A is a collective plural reference and is intended as a check against the power of the federal government.

I think we have plenty of history where what was intended in the original design and what has been settled over the years in the court's decisions are two different things. Using one opinion proves nothing except the opinion of one court on one issue. If this one opinion was truly permanent and the gospel truth, why worry about ANY court appointment? Why look into Sotomayor's background to see what she feels?
Click to expand...

What do you want me to say? Let me turn it around then; please point me to any SCOTUS decision that expressly stated that to KBA is NOT an individual right, overturned or otherwise. In fact, if you look at Heller (and quit crying about Heller, it's the only 2A SCOTUS opinion in what, 70 years?) much of the dissent was based more on fears of what may happen in terms of regulation than trying to deny the existence of an individual right to have weapons for self defense. Not to mention the fact that Heller was actually upholding a COA ruling.

Forget my use of forfeiture. I have no problem in my head in how I delineate regulation as statutory and forfeiture as something you have and lose entirely by your own actions. Your brain apparently doesn't translate this and honestly I don't really care because it isn't that germane to the real issue anyway as far as I'm concerned. Leave it.

"You're ignoring the basis of the 2A." And I'M the one cherrypicking? Says who, you? I'll make it simple, I reject that premise entirely. There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING conflicting with the idea that the individual right is already there and that said right segues nicely into the militia concept

I can't even comprehend your take on the home invasion part of my post. I mean, did you read it after you typed it? That the people in question aren't concerned about my rights is MY point, so...? They don't care about a militia either. (or cops or courts for that matter) If they did, and pay attention now, they wouldn't be breaking down my door. At best it's nice to know that after they've killed me and taken what they wanted maybe, just maybe, they'll get caught and punished for it later. (yeah!) And I'll again reiterate it is in fact the law that no government entity (or militia) is expressly charged with defending my safety or property. They work for the "common good" and that's it. If me or my loved ones get captured, tortured and killed all while yelling into the phone to the 911 operator "They're breaking down the door! They're coming in!" that's just, you know, really unfortunate.

Look dude, glad you've actually got some history chops. No really, too many people, especially the youth, are astonishingly ignorant on the subject. You actually have a lot of factual knowledge on militias and their purpose at the time. What I again adamantly dismiss is the notion that the sole intent of the 2A is to have people armed for the express purpose of militia (or any aspect of “common good”) and therefore have no actual right to be armed for self defense/hunting or whatever other lawful uses. The idea of being able to defend oneself as a basic right preexists the Constitution. In truth I think one of the downfalls of the framers was they considered the idea of being able to defend oneself through force of arms if need be so self-evident and ubiquitous it's gravity was lost. One assumed you would be able to defend yourself while it was indeed a matter of scrutiny for many that there should checks in place against government tyranny. That these concepts cannot be separated by some who read the 2A has confounded a great many people, myself included. About the 2 clauses in the amendment Scalia had this to say (with which I enthusiastically concur):

"The two clauses go together beautifully"

The one thing that has me most confused with your doing your best to impress upon me the history of this and the intent of that is it's almost like Heller came about in a vacuum. I don't exactly feel like I'm going out on a limb when I say SCOTUS had a little history and precedent taken into consideration.

While we're at it if you really want to visit on "intent" find some quiet time and ponder this little scenario. You walk into a room with Thomas Jefferson, Samual Adams, Patrick Henry and James Madison. You explain to them you think there should be no potection for an individual to keep and maintain weapons for personal protection or other lawful use and that the only means by which a man can be lawfully armed is as a member of a militia. I would sincerely hope they were in a good mood and only laughed you out of there.

Since Sotomayor is replacing Souter, a dissenter, it would have made no difference even if one assumes the former would have been of the same mind as the latter. As to any fears about appointments there is, as we have already hashed out, much conflict about limitations even if one accepts the individual right concept. In that regard, what is "reasonable regulation" is going to be a topic argued, quite frankly, into any forseeable future. In fact, expect this one to show up soon as an example of what I'm talking about.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awIn1M4tWxi8&refer=worldwide

 
#99
#99
lawgator1 said:
Yes, and yes.
Click to expand...


So because I could steal your pocket full of cash and buy drugs and/or a gun and kill someone, it should be illegal for you to walk around with money in your pocket. Stupid idea I know, but it is utter BS that my rights should be curtailed because the justice system sucks at keeping criminals/dumb asses where they belong. Please tell me you agree??????????????
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top