Putting limits on concealed carry
Jun 19, 2016 16:39:39 #
California’s restrictions fit America’s long history of establishing gun laws and maintaining gun rights.
By Robert J. Spitzer
CALIFORNIA’S concealed gun carry law — which imposes a series of restrictions on the ability of civilians to carry concealed weapons — was upheld in federal court on June 9, a decision that won predictable plaudits from gun safety advocates and scorn from 2nd Amendment absolutists.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Peruta vs. County of San Diego was notable for two reasons. First, it was consistent with rulings in four other federal appellate courts that supported restrictive state concealed-carry laws, and second, the decision was heavily grounded in a historical analysis of gun laws. Such a reliance on past laws was a key tenet set out by the Supreme Court in its 2008 2nd Amendment ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which for the first time established a personal right to own handguns for self-defense in the home. Though the court’s reading of history in Heller was, to say the least, open to debate, the decision made clear that history would be crucial in determining what gun laws could pass constitutional muster.
Taking its cue from Heller, the 9th Circuit supported its findings with its own intensive historical research. The Peruta decision noted early colonial and state laws that barred or restricted concealed carry, as well as various state court rulings in cases challenging those laws, all of which (with a single exception that was later reversed) upheld state restrictions.
Yet the evidence for limiting gun carry in general and concealed carry in particular is even greater than what was cited in the Peruta decision. Anti-concealed carry laws not only existed but were ubiquitous from the Colonial period through the start of the 20th century. Forty-five states adopted such laws, with most enacted in the early 19th century. They were a reaction to rising crime and interpersonal violence, especially in the South and the so-called Wild West, where anti-gun carry laws were rapidly put in place when cities and towns were established.
The laws often clearly stated what had motivated their passage. For example, New Jersey’s 1686 law imposed concealed carry restrictions by saying that “no person or persons … shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol … or other unusual or unlawful weapons within this Province” because the practice induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” An 1821 Tennessee law sought to punish anyone “so degrading himself” by carrying prohibited weapons including pistols. Georgia’s 1837 law began: “An Act to guard and protect the citizens of this State, against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” Alabama’s 1839 anti-concealed carry law was titled “An Act to Suppress the Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly.” Delaware’s 1852 law targeted “all who go armed offensively to the terror of the people.” The point was unmistakable: Anyone who carried a concealed gun was probably up to no good.
These laws persisted. As late as 1981, getting a permit for concealed gun carry was, for civilians, difficult to impossible: 19 states plus the District of Columbia barred concealed carry entirely; 29 states had “may issue” laws like the just-upheld California statute, meaning the government retained discretion as to under what circumstances it would grant permits; only two states had “shall issue” laws, where the state had to issue the applicant a permit unless the individual was barred by a criminal record or similar limitation; one state (Vermont) had no system of permitting .
Then came gun advocates’ long political push to spread concealed carry. Now no states bar concealed carry absolutely (the last to do so, Illinois, was ordered to allow it in a federal court ruling in 2012). Only nine states plus D.C. are “may issue”; 33 states are “shall issue,” and eight states have eliminated permitting entirely.
These laws were almost all enacted before 2008; they weren’t a response to Heller’s finding for a personal right to gun ownership. The primary justification for most of them was fear of crime. However virtually all the evidence explaining the decline in crime in the last two decades indicates that liberalized gun carry laws played no part in it. In fact, the existence of these statutes, coupled with the spread of “stand your ground” self-defense laws, are identified as a cause for a rise in gun deaths compared with states that haven’t adopted such measures. Even in active shooter situations — such as the Orlando massacre — the chaos, uncertainty and fear make it unlikely that an armed amateur could end the carnage.
The Peruta decision stands squarely with an American past where gun laws and gun rights were perfectly compatible. It also reminds us that, as our forebears well knew, civilians carrying concealed weapons in public were more likely to cause mayhem than promote safety.
ROBERT J. SPITZER is a professor of political science at the State
University of New York at
Cortland. He is the author of five books on gun policy, most recently, “Guns Across America: Reconciling Gun Rules and
Rights.”
ROGELIO V. SOLIS Associated Press
A COURT upheld the state’s concealed gun carry law.
By Robert J. Spitzer
CALIFORNIA’S concealed gun carry law — which imposes a series of restrictions on the ability of civilians to carry concealed weapons — was upheld in federal court on June 9, a decision that won predictable plaudits from gun safety advocates and scorn from 2nd Amendment absolutists.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Peruta vs. County of San Diego was notable for two reasons. First, it was consistent with rulings in four other federal appellate courts that supported restrictive state concealed-carry laws, and second, the decision was heavily grounded in a historical analysis of gun laws. Such a reliance on past laws was a key tenet set out by the Supreme Court in its 2008 2nd Amendment ruling in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which for the first time established a personal right to own handguns for self-defense in the home. Though the court’s reading of history in Heller was, to say the least, open to debate, the decision made clear that history would be crucial in determining what gun laws could pass constitutional muster.
Taking its cue from Heller, the 9th Circuit supported its findings with its own intensive historical research. The Peruta decision noted early colonial and state laws that barred or restricted concealed carry, as well as various state court rulings in cases challenging those laws, all of which (with a single exception that was later reversed) upheld state restrictions.
Yet the evidence for limiting gun carry in general and concealed carry in particular is even greater than what was cited in the Peruta decision. Anti-concealed carry laws not only existed but were ubiquitous from the Colonial period through the start of the 20th century. Forty-five states adopted such laws, with most enacted in the early 19th century. They were a reaction to rising crime and interpersonal violence, especially in the South and the so-called Wild West, where anti-gun carry laws were rapidly put in place when cities and towns were established.
The laws often clearly stated what had motivated their passage. For example, New Jersey’s 1686 law imposed concealed carry restrictions by saying that “no person or persons … shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol … or other unusual or unlawful weapons within this Province” because the practice induced “great Fear and Quarrels.” An 1821 Tennessee law sought to punish anyone “so degrading himself” by carrying prohibited weapons including pistols. Georgia’s 1837 law began: “An Act to guard and protect the citizens of this State, against the unwarrantable and too prevalent use of deadly weapons.” Alabama’s 1839 anti-concealed carry law was titled “An Act to Suppress the Evil Practice of Carrying Weapons Secretly.” Delaware’s 1852 law targeted “all who go armed offensively to the terror of the people.” The point was unmistakable: Anyone who carried a concealed gun was probably up to no good.
These laws persisted. As late as 1981, getting a permit for concealed gun carry was, for civilians, difficult to impossible: 19 states plus the District of Columbia barred concealed carry entirely; 29 states had “may issue” laws like the just-upheld California statute, meaning the government retained discretion as to under what circumstances it would grant permits; only two states had “shall issue” laws, where the state had to issue the applicant a permit unless the individual was barred by a criminal record or similar limitation; one state (Vermont) had no system of permitting .
Then came gun advocates’ long political push to spread concealed carry. Now no states bar concealed carry absolutely (the last to do so, Illinois, was ordered to allow it in a federal court ruling in 2012). Only nine states plus D.C. are “may issue”; 33 states are “shall issue,” and eight states have eliminated permitting entirely.
These laws were almost all enacted before 2008; they weren’t a response to Heller’s finding for a personal right to gun ownership. The primary justification for most of them was fear of crime. However virtually all the evidence explaining the decline in crime in the last two decades indicates that liberalized gun carry laws played no part in it. In fact, the existence of these statutes, coupled with the spread of “stand your ground” self-defense laws, are identified as a cause for a rise in gun deaths compared with states that haven’t adopted such measures. Even in active shooter situations — such as the Orlando massacre — the chaos, uncertainty and fear make it unlikely that an armed amateur could end the carnage.
The Peruta decision stands squarely with an American past where gun laws and gun rights were perfectly compatible. It also reminds us that, as our forebears well knew, civilians carrying concealed weapons in public were more likely to cause mayhem than promote safety.
ROBERT J. SPITZER is a professor of political science at the State
University of New York at
Cortland. He is the author of five books on gun policy, most recently, “Guns Across America: Reconciling Gun Rules and
Rights.”
ROGELIO V. SOLIS Associated Press
A COURT upheld the state’s concealed gun carry law.
Jun 19, 2016 16:40:47 #
NO-FLY, NO-BUY?
We should close the ‘terror gap’ and stop fetishizing the 2nd Amendment.
By Timothy Edgar
OUR LAWS PREVENT many dangerous people from buying firearms or explosives — even if they have never been arrested or convicted of a crime. We bar habitual drug users, people under restraining orders for stalking and domestic violence, and dishonorably discharged veterans. Suspected terrorists, however, are allowed to buy as many guns as they want.
That makes no sense. When law enforcement and intelligence agencies say they have specific and credible information that a prospective gun buyer may be a terrorist, we should listen to them and block the sale. National security often requires hard choices. This is not one of them.
The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, is perhaps the government’s most important information-sharing tool for preventing terrorist attacks. It was created by order of President Bush in 2003. Names of known or suspected terrorists might come from a police raid in Brussels, a terrorist safe house in Yemen, an NSA intercept or an FBI investigation. Agencies are required to share such intelligence by nominating suspects to the watch list.
At the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, analysts vet the intelligence to see if it is specific enough to meet a standard of “reasonable suspicion.” If so, the suspect goes on the list. If there is a threat the suspect will carry out a violent attack, he is placed on the smaller no-fly list, a subset of the TSDB. The list is then shared with agency systems that screen travelers and with the FBI’s information system for state and local law enforcement.
How does a police officer on the beat know if she encounters a suspected terrorist? The TSDB is the answer. If an officer runs a check during a routine stop, she will be alerted of a hit and will be directed to call the FBI.
Because the background check system for firearms is the same as the one used by the police, it includes names from the TSDB. In the past decade, there have been thousands of matches. Because there was no other reason to bar the purchase, the vast majority of these sales were approved. We have no idea how many of these weapons have been used in crimes, terrorist or otherwise, in the United States or elsewhere.
In 2007, the Bush administration urged passage of a law giving the government authority to block suspected terrorists from buying guns. Congress rejected Bush’s sensible “terror gap” proposal, bowing to the National Rifle Assn. President Obama has fared no better. “Right now, people on the ‘no fly’ list can walk into a store and buy a gun,” he said after the San Bernardino attacks. “That is insane.”
Today’s terrorists have shifted from planning spectacular attacks involving airplanes. They prefer to radicalize followers on the Internet, encouraging easily planned carnage. We knew of this trend long before San Bernadino and Orlando. In a video in 2011, an American-born spokesman for Al Qaeda put it bluntly. “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms.... So what are you waiting for?”
It’s true, as critics claim, that the watch list is far from perfect. In 2014, the TSDB had 800,000 entries, of which 64,000 were on the no-fly list. One in 10 were Americans. The size of the list raises questions about quality. The system also lacks many ordinary due process safeguards. There is a redress process, but those who complain lack access to the full information — often highly classified — that put them on the list.
Do these problems mean that using the TSDB to screen gun buyers would violate the Bill of Rights? No more than using the list to screen travelers.
According to the Supreme Court, both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to travel are fundamental liberties. The right to travel is exercised far more frequently. While there were 23 million gun sales requiring a background check in 2015, there were almost 900 million travelers on domestic and international flights serving the United States in the same year.
Despite the burden the watch list imposes, federal judges have been unwilling to strike it down, recognizing the government’s national security interests as compelling. In March, a federal judge in Oregon upheld the government’s revised redress process, rejecting the latest challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.
While using the terrorist watch list to prevent gun sales would inconvenience those who may be on the list by mistake, there is no reason to fetishize the 2nd Amendment over other rights. The no-fly list causes inconvenience and hardship, but not even the ACLU thinks it should be abolished because it understands the need to keep terrorists from boarding airplanes. Preventing terrorists from buying weapons is just as necessary.
The man who sold Omar Mateen the weapons he used in the deadliest mass shooting in American history is Ed Henson, a former police officer who was working in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York includes many images of Henson’s fallen comrades in the NYPD. The museum also preserves the chilling videos of hijackers walking unmolested through airport checkpoints as they prepared to mount the deadliest terrorist attack in American history.
The terrorist watch list could prevent the next 9/11. It might also prevent the next mass shooting by a terrorist — if we allow Henson and others who sell guns to use it.
TIMOTHY EDGAR is a visiting fellow at Brown University. He served as the director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security Staff under President Obama. From 2006 to 2009, he was the deputy for civil liberties for the director of national intelligence, reviewing the terrorist watch list, among other programs.
We should close the ‘terror gap’ and stop fetishizing the 2nd Amendment.
By Timothy Edgar
OUR LAWS PREVENT many dangerous people from buying firearms or explosives — even if they have never been arrested or convicted of a crime. We bar habitual drug users, people under restraining orders for stalking and domestic violence, and dishonorably discharged veterans. Suspected terrorists, however, are allowed to buy as many guns as they want.
That makes no sense. When law enforcement and intelligence agencies say they have specific and credible information that a prospective gun buyer may be a terrorist, we should listen to them and block the sale. National security often requires hard choices. This is not one of them.
The FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, is perhaps the government’s most important information-sharing tool for preventing terrorist attacks. It was created by order of President Bush in 2003. Names of known or suspected terrorists might come from a police raid in Brussels, a terrorist safe house in Yemen, an NSA intercept or an FBI investigation. Agencies are required to share such intelligence by nominating suspects to the watch list.
At the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center, analysts vet the intelligence to see if it is specific enough to meet a standard of “reasonable suspicion.” If so, the suspect goes on the list. If there is a threat the suspect will carry out a violent attack, he is placed on the smaller no-fly list, a subset of the TSDB. The list is then shared with agency systems that screen travelers and with the FBI’s information system for state and local law enforcement.
How does a police officer on the beat know if she encounters a suspected terrorist? The TSDB is the answer. If an officer runs a check during a routine stop, she will be alerted of a hit and will be directed to call the FBI.
Because the background check system for firearms is the same as the one used by the police, it includes names from the TSDB. In the past decade, there have been thousands of matches. Because there was no other reason to bar the purchase, the vast majority of these sales were approved. We have no idea how many of these weapons have been used in crimes, terrorist or otherwise, in the United States or elsewhere.
In 2007, the Bush administration urged passage of a law giving the government authority to block suspected terrorists from buying guns. Congress rejected Bush’s sensible “terror gap” proposal, bowing to the National Rifle Assn. President Obama has fared no better. “Right now, people on the ‘no fly’ list can walk into a store and buy a gun,” he said after the San Bernardino attacks. “That is insane.”
Today’s terrorists have shifted from planning spectacular attacks involving airplanes. They prefer to radicalize followers on the Internet, encouraging easily planned carnage. We knew of this trend long before San Bernadino and Orlando. In a video in 2011, an American-born spokesman for Al Qaeda put it bluntly. “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms.... So what are you waiting for?”
It’s true, as critics claim, that the watch list is far from perfect. In 2014, the TSDB had 800,000 entries, of which 64,000 were on the no-fly list. One in 10 were Americans. The size of the list raises questions about quality. The system also lacks many ordinary due process safeguards. There is a redress process, but those who complain lack access to the full information — often highly classified — that put them on the list.
Do these problems mean that using the TSDB to screen gun buyers would violate the Bill of Rights? No more than using the list to screen travelers.
According to the Supreme Court, both the right to keep and bear arms and the right to travel are fundamental liberties. The right to travel is exercised far more frequently. While there were 23 million gun sales requiring a background check in 2015, there were almost 900 million travelers on domestic and international flights serving the United States in the same year.
Despite the burden the watch list imposes, federal judges have been unwilling to strike it down, recognizing the government’s national security interests as compelling. In March, a federal judge in Oregon upheld the government’s revised redress process, rejecting the latest challenge by the American Civil Liberties Union.
While using the terrorist watch list to prevent gun sales would inconvenience those who may be on the list by mistake, there is no reason to fetishize the 2nd Amendment over other rights. The no-fly list causes inconvenience and hardship, but not even the ACLU thinks it should be abolished because it understands the need to keep terrorists from boarding airplanes. Preventing terrorists from buying weapons is just as necessary.
The man who sold Omar Mateen the weapons he used in the deadliest mass shooting in American history is Ed Henson, a former police officer who was working in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11. The National September 11 Memorial Museum in New York includes many images of Henson’s fallen comrades in the NYPD. The museum also preserves the chilling videos of hijackers walking unmolested through airport checkpoints as they prepared to mount the deadliest terrorist attack in American history.
The terrorist watch list could prevent the next 9/11. It might also prevent the next mass shooting by a terrorist — if we allow Henson and others who sell guns to use it.
TIMOTHY EDGAR is a visiting fellow at Brown University. He served as the director of privacy and civil liberties for the White House National Security Staff under President Obama. From 2006 to 2009, he was the deputy for civil liberties for the director of national intelligence, reviewing the terrorist watch list, among other programs.
Jun 19, 2016 16:41:20 #
We should not blur the line between ‘suspect’ and ‘criminal.’
By Charles C.W. Cooke
IN THE UNITED STATES Senate on Wednesday, the Democratic Party took square aim at the 5th Amendment. Speaking in the wake of the abominable terror attack in Florida, Minority Leader Harry Reid told his colleagues that “there is no excuse for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns.” It is time, Reid said, to close the “terror loophole.”
Superficially, such a measure sounds welcome. There is, after all, virtually nobody in America who hopes to make it easy for terrorists to obtain firearms. And yet, once one focuses in on the key term in Reid’s sentence, “suspected,” all sorts of alarm bells should start to go off in one’s mind.
In free countries such as the United States, we insist that the government distinguish between those who are “suspected” of lawbreaking and those who have been arrested, charged, convicted, or — at the very least — named in a time-limited warrant that has been signed by a judge. We also demand that any restriction on an individual’s liberty is subject to the due process of law.
It is for this reason that we are happy to detain those who have been accused of, or charged with, a crime, but do not allow our authorities to arbitrarily imprison those they merely believe are worth watching. It is for this reason that we are comfortable with locking up or imposing penalties upon those who have been found guilty in a court of law, but refrain from doing either of those things on the basis of mere rumor or mistrust. And it is for this reason that we are prepared to inflict permanent restrictions on those who have been convicted of serious crimes, but insist that the innocent must enjoy their full complement of rights. By so callously blurring the line between “suspect” and “criminal,” Reid and company are undermining these principles.
And make no mistake: They are blurring those lines. When Reid and his accomplices argue that nobody on the “terror watch list” should be permitted to buy a gun, they are saying in effect that the government should have the power to deprive you of your enumerated constitutional rights purely by entering your name into a database.
This is unacceptable. Even if the “terror watch list” were t***sparent and well-regulated, there would be serious philosophical problems with such an arrangement. But for the government to propose using a system that is as opaque, as messy, and as downright bloated as is this one ... frankly, it beggars belief.
As of 2014, roughly 40% of the hundreds of thousands of people on the government’s terror watch list had “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” Worse still, those who find themselves ensnared are able to do pretty much nothing about their predicaments. As the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has put it, the setup is “arbitrary and capricious,” and represents an insult not only to the United States Constitution but to the Administrative Procedure Act as well.
In any other circumstance, the leadership of the Democratic Party would be waxing lyrical about America’s proud traditions. Were it, say, freedom of speech that was at stake, rather than the right to keep and bear arms, we would be seeing filibuster after filibuster in which the speaker praised the 5th Amendment and lionized the rule of law. But, alas, the topic is guns, and the Democratic leadership dislikes guns, and so the delicate, hard-won principles on which this country was so eloquently founded are to be discarded in a fit of pique.
And how. As the New York Times reported on Wednesday, the Democrats’ preferred reform would not only bar anybody who is currently on the list from buying guns, but would also restrict “anyone who had been on the list in the preceding five years.”
How is this even remotely acceptable? Put in plain English, advocates of the measure are attempting to usher in a legal regime within which the state cannot only pick and choose whom it wishes to punish without a trial, but within which those who have been falsely accused will continue to suffer for at least half a decade. Or, stated another way, to lose your 2nd Amendment rights you need not be suspected of anything, you need only to have been suspected of something at some point in the recent past.
Over the past six months or so, Americans have been bombarded with endless warnings about the Republican Party’s embarrassing nominee for president. If Donald Trump were to be elected, it has been said, the United States would be just one ugly terror attack away from the widespread destruction of rights, the undermining of the rule of law, and the establishment of secret, Muslim-laden lists that could be used at the whim of the executive. How peculiar it is that when the strike finally came, Trump’s critics lined up behind him.
CHARLES C.W. COOKE is editor of National Review Online.
By Charles C.W. Cooke
IN THE UNITED STATES Senate on Wednesday, the Democratic Party took square aim at the 5th Amendment. Speaking in the wake of the abominable terror attack in Florida, Minority Leader Harry Reid told his colleagues that “there is no excuse for allowing suspected terrorists to buy guns.” It is time, Reid said, to close the “terror loophole.”
Superficially, such a measure sounds welcome. There is, after all, virtually nobody in America who hopes to make it easy for terrorists to obtain firearms. And yet, once one focuses in on the key term in Reid’s sentence, “suspected,” all sorts of alarm bells should start to go off in one’s mind.
In free countries such as the United States, we insist that the government distinguish between those who are “suspected” of lawbreaking and those who have been arrested, charged, convicted, or — at the very least — named in a time-limited warrant that has been signed by a judge. We also demand that any restriction on an individual’s liberty is subject to the due process of law.
It is for this reason that we are happy to detain those who have been accused of, or charged with, a crime, but do not allow our authorities to arbitrarily imprison those they merely believe are worth watching. It is for this reason that we are comfortable with locking up or imposing penalties upon those who have been found guilty in a court of law, but refrain from doing either of those things on the basis of mere rumor or mistrust. And it is for this reason that we are prepared to inflict permanent restrictions on those who have been convicted of serious crimes, but insist that the innocent must enjoy their full complement of rights. By so callously blurring the line between “suspect” and “criminal,” Reid and company are undermining these principles.
And make no mistake: They are blurring those lines. When Reid and his accomplices argue that nobody on the “terror watch list” should be permitted to buy a gun, they are saying in effect that the government should have the power to deprive you of your enumerated constitutional rights purely by entering your name into a database.
This is unacceptable. Even if the “terror watch list” were t***sparent and well-regulated, there would be serious philosophical problems with such an arrangement. But for the government to propose using a system that is as opaque, as messy, and as downright bloated as is this one ... frankly, it beggars belief.
As of 2014, roughly 40% of the hundreds of thousands of people on the government’s terror watch list had “no recognized terrorist group affiliation.” Worse still, those who find themselves ensnared are able to do pretty much nothing about their predicaments. As the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon has put it, the setup is “arbitrary and capricious,” and represents an insult not only to the United States Constitution but to the Administrative Procedure Act as well.
In any other circumstance, the leadership of the Democratic Party would be waxing lyrical about America’s proud traditions. Were it, say, freedom of speech that was at stake, rather than the right to keep and bear arms, we would be seeing filibuster after filibuster in which the speaker praised the 5th Amendment and lionized the rule of law. But, alas, the topic is guns, and the Democratic leadership dislikes guns, and so the delicate, hard-won principles on which this country was so eloquently founded are to be discarded in a fit of pique.
And how. As the New York Times reported on Wednesday, the Democrats’ preferred reform would not only bar anybody who is currently on the list from buying guns, but would also restrict “anyone who had been on the list in the preceding five years.”
How is this even remotely acceptable? Put in plain English, advocates of the measure are attempting to usher in a legal regime within which the state cannot only pick and choose whom it wishes to punish without a trial, but within which those who have been falsely accused will continue to suffer for at least half a decade. Or, stated another way, to lose your 2nd Amendment rights you need not be suspected of anything, you need only to have been suspected of something at some point in the recent past.
Over the past six months or so, Americans have been bombarded with endless warnings about the Republican Party’s embarrassing nominee for president. If Donald Trump were to be elected, it has been said, the United States would be just one ugly terror attack away from the widespread destruction of rights, the undermining of the rule of law, and the establishment of secret, Muslim-laden lists that could be used at the whim of the executive. How peculiar it is that when the strike finally came, Trump’s critics lined up behind him.
CHARLES C.W. COOKE is editor of National Review Online.
Jun 19, 2016 16:43:49 #
robmull
Loc: florida
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
California’s restrictions fit America’s long histo... (show quote)
Pro-Sharia, disarm America alert!!! Pro-Sharia, disarm America alert!!!
Jun 19, 2016 16:59:48 #
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
We should not blur the line between ‘suspect’ and ... (show quote)
I can see the cork has finally popped out of your bottle of sanity and the juices of what's left of your life are flowing aimlessly in every direction.
Jun 19, 2016 17:13:53 #
Hemiman wrote:
I can see the cork has finally popped out of your bottle of sanity and the juices of what's left of your life are flowing aimlessly in every direction.
So is that your contribution to the topic?
Jun 19, 2016 17:25:09 #
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
So is that your contribution to the topic?
Yup.
Jun 19, 2016 17:27:30 #
Hemiman wrote:
Yup.
I can only imagine what your life consists of and what is left of it based on your posts......
Jun 19, 2016 17:30:15 #
A Democrat In 2016 wrote:
I can only imagine what your life consists of and what is left of it based on your posts......
Run,run for your lives Demo is black,er back.
Jun 19, 2016 17:34:55 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.