Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

South Coralina Gun bill


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> South Coralina Gun bill Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 6:07:56 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline
BREAKING: South Carolina Bill proposes 5 years prison for public officials "of any jurisdiction" that attempt to require registration of "purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries" of the state. In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned. But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government. Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes. (click here to read the article now)
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 6:11:16 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
It will be interesting to see two normally aligned groups square off against each other- conservative Republicans and law enforcement.

Law enforcement wants to have control over weapons, and gun registration laws are a tool in that; Homeland Security wants to be able to track arms sales and shipments to spot potential terrorist activity.

I wonder what Big Daddy Dick Cheney will have to say on this.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 6:15:39 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
~groans

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 6:32:06 PM   
AnimusRex


Posts: 2165
Joined: 5/13/2006
Status: offline
Considers a signature line

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 6:41:49 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
The bill seems rather well thought out. It's about time the states started exercising their rights in such a way. I suggest that many states could use the same tactic to get rid of prohibitions and regulations on tobacco and marijuana, as those powers were not expressly given to the Feds. This will be alot of fun to watch.

quote:


A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-5-135 SO AS TO MAKE FINDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IN REGARD TO A PERSON'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, TO PROVIDE THAT NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL OF ANY JURISDICTION MAY REQUIRE REGISTRATION OF PURCHASERS OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THIS STATE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION WHICH IS A FELONY.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Chapter 5, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-5-135. (A) The General Assembly of the State of South Carolina finds:

(1) No authority was given to the United States to limit or restrict the right of the citizens of this State to keep and bear arms;

(2) The United States Congress and all federal agencies are further expressly prohibited from infringing upon the rights of the citizens of this State to keep and bear arms by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States which states:

'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.';

(3) The 90th United States Congress attempted to exceed its authority in violation of Article II of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution in purporting to pass the so-called 'gun registration bill' in the form of Public Law 90-168;

(4) Federal agents have flouted the United States Constitution and foresworn their oath to support this Constitution by requiring registration of the purchasers of firearms and ammunition, and these requirements violate the limits of authority placed upon the federal agents by the United States Constitution and are dangerous to the liberties of the people; and

(5) Article XIII, Section 1 of the Constitution of South Carolina, 1985, provides that all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five are members of the militia of the State of South Carolina, and the effectiveness of these members in suppressing civil disorder or resisting invasion is impeded by infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, by requiring registration of firearms and purchase of ammunition.

(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no public official of any jurisdiction may require registration of purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries of this State.

(C) Any person violating the provisions of this subsection (B) is guilty of a felony and upon conviction must be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding five years, or both.

(D) Any aggrieved party shall also have a private action against any person violating the provisions of subsection (B)."

SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.


----XX----



_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 8:43:19 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
The law is on its face unconstitutional and any attempt to get it enforced would result in a federal court order permanently restraining the state.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 9:07:29 PM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 11:18:00 PM   
StrangerThan


Posts: 1515
Joined: 4/25/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?


dk never thinks anything can or should stand against the federal government. There have always been people like that though.

They were called Torries at one point in history.

< Message edited by StrangerThan -- 2/5/2010 11:22:26 PM >


_____________________________


--'Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform' - Mark Twain

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 11:25:05 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?

It attempts to prevent the federal government from regulating interstate trade, the power that allows gun registration laws in the first place. Until South Carolina can prove that all the guns for sale in the state are manufactured in the state and are never taken across state lines then teh Federal laws are legal and enforceable no matter what the state thinks.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 11:37:15 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pahunkboy

BREAKING: South Carolina Bill proposes 5 years prison for public officials "of any jurisdiction" that attempt to require registration of "purchasers of firearms or ammunition within the boundaries" of the state. In short, nullification means this: The state is taking a position that a particular federal law is unconstitutional, and thus, the law in question is void and inoperative, or ‘non-effective,’ within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as that state is concerned. But nullification is much more than just mere rhetoric. To nullify a federal law in practice requires active resistance to it by the people and the state government. Guns, national ID cards, and weed might be just the early stages of a quickly growing movement to nullify other federal laws seen as outside the scope of their constitutionally-delegated powers. In states around the country this year, bills have been proposed to defy or nullify federal laws on health care, use of national guard troops overseas, legal tender laws, cap and trade, and even the process of collecting federal income taxes. (click here to read the article now)


gotta love it!

any regulations are unconstitutional!


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/5/2010 11:41:56 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?

It attempts to prevent the federal government from regulating interstate trade, the power that allows gun registration laws in the first place. Until South Carolina can prove that all the guns for sale in the state are manufactured in the state and are never taken across state lines then teh Federal laws are legal and enforceable no matter what the state thinks.


yeh cant have that now can we!!!!



Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay, as you can read in the Treaty, were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr.. Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown. In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4, the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty? I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free. When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown. (Footnote 3) Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire." All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:
    -CITE-
      26 USC Sec. 1491
    HEAD-
      Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax
-STATUTE-

      (1)the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
      (2)the sum of -
        (A)the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands of the transferor, plus
        (B)the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the transfer.
    -SOURCE-
      Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976,
      Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978,
      Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)
    -MISC1-

AMENDMENTS
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever appearing.   
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
    Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
    Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.'
A New War Declared Upon America A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded. (Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons. In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (Footnote 4). What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper. The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of 'A Country Defeated In Victory' go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players. Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.The following is the definition of tribute (tax).
    "A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677.
http://kanata.250free.com/crown1.htm




gotta love this you know.

The king never ceded commerce in the treaties and we had to pay all his war debts!

If we were such bad asses in the revolutionary war ya gotta ask why did the brits come back in 1812 and gurn down the white house and get rid of the original 13th amendment?

Really scared of us huh?  LOL

welcome to the desert of real.



_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 1:00:25 AM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?

It attempts to prevent the federal government from regulating interstate trade, the power that allows gun registration laws in the first place. Until South Carolina can prove that all the guns for sale in the state are manufactured in the state and are never taken across state lines then teh Federal laws are legal and enforceable no matter what the state thinks.

I would suggest that the SCOTUS ruling on parts of the Brady bill would support the constitutionality of this bill. As it only applies to acts occuring in their state and by officials in their state.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 1:09:10 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
The moral of the story is that every state needs to cozy up with the major gun manufacturers to open up shop in each of the 50 states.

Could be a lucrative business to get into given the mood of th country right now.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 1:17:15 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

So you don't think this law would stand up under the 10th?

How or where does it violate the constitution?

It attempts to prevent the federal government from regulating interstate trade, the power that allows gun registration laws in the first place. Until South Carolina can prove that all the guns for sale in the state are manufactured in the state and are never taken across state lines then teh Federal laws are legal and enforceable no matter what the state thinks.

I would suggest that the SCOTUS ruling on parts of the Brady bill would support the constitutionality of this bill. As it only applies to acts occuring in their state and by officials in their state.

Present precedent is that registration is not an impediment to the right to own a firearm. The D.C. v Heller ruling was quite explicit that registration laws were constitutional as well.
From D.C. v Heller majority opinion's syllabus:
quote:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Like I said the proposed SC law infringes on the federal government's granted power to regulate interstate trade and is therefore very obviously unconstitutional.

And to shoot down surrealone's ravings, as a matter of law it is never going to possible to disentangle any firearm from that power.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 2:16:41 AM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And to shoot down surrealone's ravings, as a matter of law it is never going to possible to disentangle any firearm from that power.


so the feds have jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce huh?

where does the constitution say that?


_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 7:07:03 AM   
thishereboi


Posts: 14463
Joined: 6/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

I wonder what Big Daddy Dick Cheney will have to say on this


I didn't notice any restrictions on shooting other hunters, so I doubt it will effect him.

< Message edited by thishereboi -- 2/6/2010 7:08:19 AM >


_____________________________

"Sweetie, you're wasting your gum" .. Albert


This here is the boi formerly known as orfunboi


(in reply to AnimusRex)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 7:18:04 AM   
Arpig


Posts: 9930
Joined: 1/3/2006
From: Increasingly further from reality
Status: offline
quote:

Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way!
Actually it wasn't McArthur who did the negotiating, and yes the Japanese did dictate the terms of surrender - the Emperor stays, those were their conditions.
quote:

If we were such bad asses in the revolutionary war ya gotta ask why did the brits come back in 1812 and gurn down the white house and get rid of the original 13th amendment?

Ummm, maybe because you guys decided to try conquer Canada while Britain was occupied in a major European war

_____________________________

Big man! Pig Man!
Ha Ha...Charade you are!


Why do they leave out the letter b on "Garage Sale" signs?

CM's #1 All-Time Also-Ran


(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 7:40:04 AM   
DomImus


Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
The moral of the story is that every state needs to cozy up with the major gun manufacturers to open up shop in each of the 50 states.
Could be a lucrative business to get into given the mood of the country right now.


Perhaps it would create some jobs instead of just redistributing them to other areas. Sounds like a good vehicle for some of that stimulus cash although I doubt PrezBo would see it that way.






_____________________________

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." Sidney J. harris

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: South Carolina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 8:10:43 AM   
cuckoldmepls


Posts: 855
Joined: 11/29/2007
Status: offline
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This means that 90% of the laws and agencies Congress has created are unconstitutional. Even the National Park System is unconstitutional  since 90% of the visitors are locals. This is one of the primary reasons we are $10 trillion in debt. Technically, even Social Security is unconstitutional since it is a federal program, but it wouldn't be if it were a state program.

Montana already decided they were going to circumvent unconstitutional gun laws as well, by manufacturing them in state. This way they don't fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause which is their supposed justification for taking over everything.

Since Juan McAmnesty during the campaign failed to explain the dangers of electing a socialist, liberal President who would appoint liberal, racist supreme court judges, the states are scrambling to minimize the damage done to the Constitution. The only way to do that is to exercise their 10th amendment rights, and as a last resort secede from the union.

Ask yourself why liberals like big government? It's very simple. With one omnipotent federal government, they don't have to worry about imposing their liberal agenda state by state. They also know that most states are reluctant to give up federal money, and will sometimes capitulate. This won't happen on gun laws though, I can promise you that.

As far as the theory goes that this new uprising puts conservatives at odds with the local police. This is true. Tough S*@% for the police. They are already the largest gang in America, and if they are afraid of getting shot at once in a while, then they shouldn't have joined the gang.

http://babelishere.webs.com/guncontrol.html


(in reply to DomImus)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: South Coralina Gun bill - 2/6/2010 8:18:14 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
And to shoot down surrealone's ravings, as a matter of law it is never going to possible to disentangle any firearm from that power.


so the feds have jurisdiction to regulate intrastate commerce huh?

where does the constitution say that?


The feds have the power to regulate interstate trade and various and sundry SCOTUS rulings have made clear that power is very broad and that the standard of proof that the trade involved is strictly intrastate is actual proof that the trade never crosses state lines.

If SC were to ban the sale of all guns not manufactured in the state, unconstitutional on its face as it would be in violation of the feds power to regulate interstate commerce, and some way was found to guarantee that no gun made in SC ever crossed the border, a foolproof method of causing the gun to blow up if taken across the state line, then you might be able to win a SCOTUS case on the law above. However since that is both legaly and physically impossible the SC law is and will remain unconstitutional.

Really guys what's the burden of filling out a form to buy a gun. I've done it for all of mine and it simply wasn't a big deal.

(in reply to Real0ne)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> South Coralina Gun bill Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109