Sotomayor being grilled on 2A - Page 4

Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

This is a discussion on Sotomayor being grilled on 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by wmhawth . What's the point in questioning them then? All of this lady's answers have been nothing but rambling doses of gobbeldygook. ...

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 109

Thread: Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,748

    You don't get it, it is a political game, theater, nothing more

    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    .

    What's the point in questioning them then? All of this lady's answers have been nothing but rambling doses of gobbeldygook. IMO she doesn't come accross as being very bright.
    You don't get it. It is a political game. Theater. Nothing more.

    Every nominee has behaved the same way with unresponsive answers.
    It doesn't matter if you are talking about Thomas, Scalia, Ginsburg.

    The act of consenting to a political appointment is at its heart a political not a legal act. The sides get drawn on the basis of politics, not true inquiry into legal issues. Everyone is in on the game except the public that might expect a truly deliberative process.

    A nominee can not answer the kind of definitive questions many would like answered; because the cases will come before the court in the future and if they take a prior position they will not be able to hear the case. Everyone in the Senate knows this.

    So we get idiotic questions about 2A, which can't be answered. We get questions about other contentious subjects which can't be answered, and we get political grand standing by both sides.

    It would probably be much better for all of us if these "hearings" took place behind closed doors and everyone was sworn to secrecy. Maybe some of the clowns on both sides would start to act responsibly when they don't have an audience to impress.


  2. #47
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,748

    Spelled out

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    I respectfully disagree. I think the authority (i.e. powers) granted to the Fed and States is pretty clear in the Constitution and BOR.
    They are if you take a look at the document as a whole. Things get less clear when you look at specific words and phases, and even more murky when you attempt to assess the meaning using conflicting historical records and conflicting statements by the founders.

    There is also 200 + years of innumerable rulings, which shift in significant ways what the legal meaning of things are. E.g., think of the recent eminent domain rulings involving New London CT. Few ordinary citizens would have interpreted things the way the supremes did.

    If any of this was actually clear, there would not be splits in the circuit courts and there would not be 5-4 votes, and charges of law making and activism.

    The entire issue of the application of the BOR and the full meaning of the 14th have been contentious since the very beginning of our country. If the issue were straight forward and simple, there would be no controversy. Similarly, if the delineation of power and authority between Uncle and the States were as clear cut as some would think, we wouldn't have the constant debate about these matters.

    There are many things in this world which appear at first blush to be utterly simple, but when looked into contain layer after layer after layer of deep complexity.

  3. #48
    Member Array imatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    311
    When she was asked about supporting the 2nd Amendment, she said "I understand that there are those that want to hold onto their firearms" or something almost identical to that.

    That statement could be taken multiple ways - and when taken with her previous comment that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms, it could be taken as... "I understand they want to keep them, but I will vote to take them anyway."

    When I saw the video of her making that comment, It just dripped of sarcasm.

  4. #49
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,748

    Ah, it isn't so simple

    Quote Originally Posted by imatt View Post
    When she was asked about supporting the 2nd Amendment, she said "I understand that there are those that want to hold onto their firearms" or something almost identical to that.

    That statement could be taken multiple ways - and when taken with her previous comment that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to own firearms, it could be taken as... "I understand they want to keep them, but I will vote to take them anyway."

    When I saw the video of her making that comment, It just dripped of sarcasm.
    As our participant SD has pointed out here over and over again, there is substantial controversy in many conservative quarters as to whether any or all of the BOR constrain the states. She ruled the way conservatives would rule-- or at least the way many arch conservatives and state's rights folks would rule. She might have taken a different path and done what the 9th circuit did, but she chose to stay close to the precedents which hold that 2A doesn't apply to the states.

    Conservatives can't have it both ways. You either have to agree with her decision, or hold that the 9th circuit court (hated by conservatives) was actually right.

    I love to watch the discomfort of conservatives when they want the SC to be a bunch of "activists" and incorporate 2A and the full BOR.

    That happens to be the correct position, but it is antithetical to what the hard line states rights-BOR applies only to Congress crowd preach.

  5. #50
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    I too disagree!! I am a vehement supporter of State's rights, as can be seen in my signature below and my responses in other threads regarding Federally mandated CCW reciprocity. If people want to live in state's where their RKBA is stripped from them, then so be it. As for me and mine we'll stay in AL and keep our guns and enjoy our Fundamental Rights!!


    I knew I wasn't completely alone in the fundamental understanding of our country and government.

    You were quite correct bringing up Barron v. Baltimore. That is the definitive opinion on the limits of the Federal government.

  6. #51
    Member Array UnklFungus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    441
    I haven't read all of the replies to this thread, and I could only watch a small portion of the "hearings". It isn't that she doesn't answer the question, she is purposefully evading them.

    From 01:20 to 01:55 that is the most evasive answer I have ever heard. She says in essence that she can do what she wants and the court rulings will be used to suit her.

    She is one of the biggest threats OUR country has.

    FROM GOA

    Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment
    -- Won't answer whether she believes there's a right to self-defense

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    Gun Owners of America

    Wednesday, July 15, 2009

    The U.S. Senate must vote NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor!

    In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.

    Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year.

    But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.

    But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.

    Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that addressed that issue.

    Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion. Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

    Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination? GOA mailed its members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago. Please make sure you have mailed those in. We need a multi-pronged offensive right now where our Senators are receiving snail mail, email and phone calls.

    And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee.

    Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious "concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed "concerns" are just meaningless.

    Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers.

    We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court! She is dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment rights.

    GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.

    She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live.

    -- Tim Macy, Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America

    ACTION: We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this nominee. Please contact your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

    Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below.

    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    Even though President Obama is extremely anti-gun, I still started with an open mind regarding his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But after her testimony these past two days, there is no way that she should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    When asked by Senator Tom Coburn if there was a right to self-defense, Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question." Sotomayor would not answer directly, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

    How can the Senate confirm a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the rights that are EXPLICITLY stated in the Bill of Rights?

    I also want you to know that Gun Owners of America will heavily score any vote related to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- whether it's a vote on cloture or final passage -- for its rating in 2010.

    Moreover, GOA is going to publish its rating so that millions of Americans can see how their Senators voted on this most important vote.

    GOA has told me that it considers the Sotomayor nomination to be one of the most significant gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate, as there has been no other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.
    “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”

    Patrick Henry
    Quote Originally Posted by UnklFungus
    If it is ok to disarm legal citizens to reduce crime, then doesn't it stand to disband the military to prevent war?

  7. #52
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    They are if you take a look at the document as a whole. Things get less clear when you look at specific words and phases, and even more murky when you attempt to assess the meaning using conflicting historical records and conflicting statements by the founders.
    I have no problem understanding each individual clause in the Constitution. Is it really that much of a problem for you? Can you provide examples where Madison, Hamilton or Jay had conflicting opinion about the Constitution after it was ratified?

    You must also understand that when many use the term 'Founders' they are lumping in anti-Federalists like Henry and Jefferson. They were political ENEMIES of the Constitution and though they helped us, their anarchal ideaology was soundly defeated.

    [QUOTE]There is also 200 + years of innumerable rulings, which shift in significant ways what the legal meaning of things are. E.g., think of the recent eminent domain rulings involving New London CT. Few ordinary citizens would have interpreted things the way the supremes did.[QUOTE]

    The Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction. It was a state issue. as it the right thing to do? Of course not. But the Court was not created to determine right and wrong or whether something is Constitutional or not; only to compare the facts with the law.

    If any of this was actually clear, there would not be splits in the circuit courts and there would not be 5-4 votes, and charges of law making and activism.
    It is very clear. If the people appointed to the courts would adhere to their oaths then none of these splits would exist. In fact, they wouldn't even hear but a fraction of the cases brought before them. They would be busy playing Free Cell, which would be a better use of their time.

    The entire issue of the application of the BOR and the full meaning of the 14th have been contentious since the very beginning of our country. If the issue were straight forward and simple, there would be no controversy.
    Not since the beginning of the country, but four score and twelve years after. The meaning is not contentious as the many opinions of the Court have demonstrated. From Cruikshank to Presser to Adamson and from Taney to Waite, to Reed, to Frankfurter, the meaning of the Fourteenth is clear. I suggest you review the Charles Fairman Stanford Law Review article. It explains it all nicely and is the seminal work on the subject.

    It was ACTIVIST judges that mangled the meaning of Constitution and that is what we need to continue to explain to the American people. It is not hard to understand.

    Similarly, if the delineation of power and authority between Uncle and the States were as clear cut as some would think, we wouldn't have the constant debate about these matters.
    Have you ever read the Tenth Amendment? What do you think of that one?

    There are many things in this world which appear at first blush to be utterly simple, but when looked into contain layer after layer after layer of deep complexity.
    The Constitution is not one of them. It was designed to be a simple blueprint for a Republian Federal government and functioned exactly as planned for over 150 years. And then the liberals took power...

  8. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    [QUOTE=Hopyard;1223124You don't get it. It is a political game. Theater. Nothing more.[/QUOTE]

    Absolutely and unequically wrong. The consent of the Senate is a well designed process to prevent the Executive from nominating unqualified people. Rather than sheer conjecture as to the prupose, Hamilton lays it out very well in Federalist 76. I provide an excerpt:

    The truth of the principles here advanced seems to have been felt by the most intelligent of those who have found fault with the provision made, in this respect, by the convention. They contend that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the appointments under the federal government. But it is easy to show, that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination, which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.

    But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.

    To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

    It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

    To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venalty in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience
    A nominee can not answer the kind of definitive questions many would like answered; because the cases will come before the court in the future and if they take a prior position they will not be able to hear the case. Everyone in the Senate knows this.
    Nonsense. ANY type of case may come defore the jusitices. That does not grant an ability to refrain from anweing questions. It does strike at the heart of the intergrity of any potential appoinment.

    So we get idiotic questions about 2A, which can't be answered. We get questions about other contentious subjects which can't be answered, and we get political grand standing by both sides.
    The ONLY thing that should at issue is not her specific stance on a variety of issues but whether she understands the role of Judiciary in a Constitutional context and if she has the ability to fulfill her oath. To paraphrase retsup's signature, 'That she cannot do.'

    It would probably be much better for all of us if these "hearings" took place behind closed doors and everyone was sworn to secrecy. Maybe some of the clowns on both sides would start to act responsibly when they don't have an audience to impress.
    Liberals Congressmen are the biggest source of divulging national secrets than any other organization in our history. That said, I agree completely that these hearings should not be public.

    CSPAN has been the biggest affront to our nation than any single media outlet. Get the cameras OUT of Congress.

  9. #54
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,748

    Actually, you do

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I have no problem understanding each individual clause in the Constitution. .
    Actually sir, you do. And you repeatedly have demonstrated that here with your writings.

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,748

    SD, you should be supporting her

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post

    The ONLY thing that should at issue is not her specific stance on a variety of issues but whether she understands the role of Judiciary in a Constitutional context and if she has the ability to fulfill her oath. .
    If you really believe what you preach here, you should be supporting her. She was on your side of the 2A incorporation debate. She stuck with the antiquated obscene 19th century precedents used to deny people rights, and kept 2A from being a constraint on the states; allowed them to continue to violate 2 A rights---- precisely as you have been preaching should be the case here for hundreds of posts.

    You must be feeling a great deal of personal conflict knowing that you are opposing someone who ruled on 2A precisely as you would have, and for the same reason.

    The old saying applies. Be careful what you wish for.

  11. #56
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    If you really believe what you preach here, you should be supporting her. She was on your side of the 2A incorporation debate. She stuck with the antiquated obscene 19th century precedents used to deny people rights, and kept 2A from being a constraint on the states; allowed them to continue to violate 2 A rights---- precisely as you have been preaching should be the case here for hundreds of posts.

    You must be feeling a great deal of personal conflict knowing that you are opposing someone who ruled on 2A precisely as you would have, and for the same reason.

    The old saying applies. Be careful what you wish for.
    No conflict at all. I don't support Sotomayor as if that makes any difference. I don't oppose her either. IT IS NOT A PUBLIC DEBATE.

    Her stance on 2A is only an excuse to promote an anti-gun agenda and has nothing to do with states' rights or the correct reading of the Constitution. While she shuffled and jived, the obvious answer is that we have, as individuals, a right to keep and bear arms and the Federal government is prohibited from infringing on that right. Further, the Federal government cannot infringe on states' right specifically because of the Tenth Amendment. It really is that easy.

    I doubt she would support the Constitutonal view of the First and Fifth Amendment, which also do not apply to the states.

    The fact of the matter, and you would know that if you read Federalist 76, is that the Executive's ultimate appointment should be assured barring a disqualifying flaw. Hamilton eloquently stated why that should be the case. In fact, I have read that the other choices, after Sotomayor, would be FAR worse to liberty, freedom, our way of life, and the Constitution.

    Elections do have consequences and the libertarians are the real cause of the current malaise. Libertarians are as much a threat to our liberty and our Constitution as liberals. However, they do it in stealth mode. Worse, they don't even underestand the damage they cause. It is rather amusing to read how distraught they are over the nomination and ultimate seating of a 'wise Latina.'

  12. #57
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Actually sir, you do. And you repeatedly have demonstrated that here with your writings.
    Examples please?

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array DaveH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW Virginia
    Posts
    5,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    You don't get it. It is a political game. Theater. Nothing more.

    Every nominee has behaved the same way with unresponsive answers.
    It doesn't matter if you are talking about Thomas, Scalia, Ginsburg.

    The act of consenting to a political appointment is at its heart a political not a legal act. The sides get drawn on the basis of politics, not true inquiry into legal issues. Everyone is in on the game except the public that might expect a truly deliberative process.

    A nominee can not answer the kind of definitive questions many would like answered; because the cases will come before the court in the future and if they take a prior position they will not be able to hear the case. Everyone in the Senate knows this.

    So we get idiotic questions about 2A, which can't be answered. We get questions about other contentious subjects which can't be answered, and we get political grand standing by both sides.

    It would probably be much better for all of us if these "hearings" took place behind closed doors and everyone was sworn to secrecy. Maybe some of the clowns on both sides would start to act responsibly when they don't have an audience to impress.
    ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑

    --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- --------------------
    Μολὼν λαβέ

    I'm just one root in a grassroots organization. No one should assume that I speak for the VCDL.

    I am neither an attorney-at-law nor I do play one on television or on the internet. No one should assumes my opinion is legal advice.

    Veni, Vidi, Velcro

  14. #59
    Distinguished Member
    Array SleepingZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    ne
    Posts
    1,737
    Quote Originally Posted by TerriLi View Post
    If 2A does not cover the states, then you might as well kiss the rest of the amendments good bye. Which means no more pleading the fifth, or right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, or anything else that perseveres your freedoms. Constitutional law applies to the USA, it sets the laws basis, without it well imagine a world of warlords and fiefdoms. If part of it doesn't apply, then one can argue none of it applies. Thats a slippery slope I do not want to see.

    So as to Sotomayor, she is unfit for the position do to this stance she has taken.
    Why is it so very simple for us to see and understand this.

    Z
    An ounce of lead is worth 200lbs of cop.

  15. #60
    Member Array light's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    winston-salem, NC
    Posts
    93

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Millions Of Gun Owners Reject Sotomayor
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 8th, 2009, 07:22 PM
  2. Analysis of Sotomayor and 2A issues
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 08:42 AM
  3. Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: June 1st, 2009, 11:14 PM
  4. More About Sotomayor on Gun Control
    By CPTMO in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 09:35 AM
  5. Grilled out for the first time this year today...
    By TN_Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 05:41 PM