|
|
|
It is currently Sat Apr 27, 2024 5:12 am
|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
| Author |
Message |
|
bigbad401
|
Post subject:  Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:02 am |
|
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:40 am
Posts: 6
Location: Anoka
|
Aquaholic wrote: Quote: Patricia, I also respect your position, though I believe it is wrong. I really would prefer you focus your energy on the criminals out there, instead of trying to make criminals out of those of us who have already proven otherwise.
I like the way you said that, very nice!
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
J. R.
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:38 pm |
|
| Senior Member |
 |
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:17 pm
Posts: 351
Location: west 'burbs
|
Opinion piece from the Strib 3/8/08
"easy to shoot people without consequences."
"We'd be returning to the days of the Wild West, when two gunmen could face off in the street and the winner could walk away without fear of consequences, under a claim of self-defense."
"cases of road rage to result in a shooting death"
" could allow rival gangs to shoot at one another with impunity"
"return to the days when shootouts were commonplace and few or no questions were asked of the last man standing"
That pretty much covers it. Right?
"James C. Backstrom is the Dakota County attorney and president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association."
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/16396336.html
James C. Backstrom: Self-defense proposal is too close to trigger
A proposed change to the law would make it too easy to shoot people without consequences.
By JAMES C. BACKSTROM
Last update: March 7, 2008 - 6:37 PM
The Legislature is considering a significant expansion of our law regarding the authorized use of deadly force. Not only is this expansion unnecessary, it would be harmful to efforts to prosecute dangerous criminals who commit violent crimes.
Under current law, Minnesota's citizens rightfully can protect themselves when confronted with danger and can justifiably take another's life to avert death or great bodily harm. However, our law properly requires that the response be reasonable and necessary given the gravity of the peril. Also, before exercising our right of self-defense, we must attempt to avoid the danger if reasonably possible (unless we are in our own home where a felony is being committed).
The proposed law would allow the use of deadly force to resist or prevent any reasonably perceived threat of substantial or great bodily harm or death in any location and when responding to a reasonably perceived felony or attempted felony in a person's dwelling or occupied vehicle. It eliminates the duty to retreat, authorizes meeting force with superior force, creates a presumption that the response is "reasonably perceived" whenever someone enters a dwelling or occupied vehicle by force or stealth, and expands the definition of "dwelling" to include decks, porches, fenced-in areas and tents.
Supporters see these changes as merely affording law-abiding citizens the right to stand their ground and protect themselves when confronted by dangerous criminals. In truth, this proposal greatly alters the standards associated with the legal authority to use deadly force and will have some significant unintended consequences.
This proposal creates a subjective standard of reasonableness rather than the objective standard in current law. The issue becomes what was in the mind of the person using deadly force, rather than how a reasonable person would react under the same circumstances.
Such a law would in essence allow people to shoot first and ask questions later whenever they believe they are exposed to harm, regardless of how a reasonable person would respond under the circumstances.
We'd be returning to the days of the Wild West, when two gunmen could face off in the street and the winner could walk away without fear of consequences, under a claim of self-defense. Such lawless frontier days should remain in our past. Do we really want cases of road rage to result in a shooting death, when the surviving party could have stepped on the gas and driven away?
This expansion of the right to use deadly force would apply equally to criminals as to law-abiding citizens. It would create viable self-defense claims in situations like bar fights. It could allow rival gangs to shoot at one another with impunity. With no duty to retreat, anyone could claim they were responding to a threat of serious harm and were therefore justified in killing a person.
Current Minnesota law concerning the right of self-defense and the justified use of deadly force adequately protects our law-abiding citizens. This proposal would unnecessarily expand the law and make it much more difficult to prosecute and convict people who commit crimes.
The taking of a life should be a last resort. It should not be encouraged as a first response unless the danger is reasonably apparent to us all. We should not return to the days when shootouts were commonplace and few or no questions were asked of the last man standing.
James C. Backstrom is the Dakota County attorney and president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.
_________________
For English, press 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:39 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
|
Another anti-gunner who values the welfare of criminals over the welfare of potential victims. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lowlife
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:02 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 9
Location: SE Mn
|
|
I wish to thank all who went before me as without your assistance this plagerism would not have been possible.
To Senator Ann Lynch
Hello Ann,
I asked your aid to remember this bill when it came up. I doubt it will
even get out of committee but it deserves a chance. I'm tired of the
criminals getting laws passed for them. Who should be protected, someone
who was committing a felony, or someone who was protecting themself from
having felonious acts perpetrated upon.
Permit holders have proven themselves to be very responsible and law
abiding. Which is a far cry from what the media and antis were predicting.
With that in mind, I ask that you support pro-gun legislation that
protects law abiding citizens from unfair prosecution and civil lawsuits
that could arise from the defensive use of firearms. It is bad enough
having to deal with the horror of shooting someone. It is worse to think
that they may also be criminally charged by an anti-gun, politically
motivated prosecutor and also face civil lawsuits from the criminals or
their families. The cost of defending yourself in these instances is
astronomical. Don’t think this cannot happen, because it already has. That
is why I ask that you support “Castle Doctrine” legislation. This is not
“shoot first” legislation and the sky is not going to fall when it is
enacted, as the anti-gunners want us to believe. This legislation merely
prevents law abiding citizens from further victimization. It is time to
stop protecting criminals!
The purpose of Castle Doctrine is to remove any ambiguous interpretations
that prosecutors can make with regard to the actions taken by the victim
in protecting himself from a criminal. It also gives notice to would-be
burglars, rapists and other criminals that it is the resident or homeowner
who has the support of the law.
Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly
enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause
death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of
force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you
have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and
try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight
back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably
believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself
or others.
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be
prosecuted for using such force.
This bill also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims
for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
I also ask that you support an amendment to the state constitution
protecting our right to keep and bear arms.
Our rights should not be subject to political correctness or societal
prejudices.
Banning guns doesn’t solve the problem, as has once again been proven at
Northern Illinois University, another supposed "gun-free" zone somehow
made into a killing field. Law abiding citizens should be allowed to
protect themselves with lethal force if necessary, and should further be
protected by legislation. This would allow Minnesotans to take greater
responsibility for their own safety.
If you have never shot before I extend a hand to show you the sport. We
are not the blood lusting, slack jawed,yocals the media wants you think we
are. Permit holders are for the most part an intelligent, law abiding,
consciencious group of people.
Crees car will be available for parades this summer if the need may arise
Thanks for listening Ann
Jay Kachelski
_________________
"Better to remain silent and thought a fool , than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johninminnesota
|
Post subject: Castle Doctrine hearing Thursday March 13th at 12:30PM Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:03 pm |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 am
Posts: 146
|
Time to get involved - see email sent out below (quoted), and if you can, show up at the state capitol - Thursday March 13th at 12:30 PM with your support sign. The author of this bill (Rep Tony Cornish) needs a show of support to get this bill moving.
Quote: Friends, neighbors, A hearing on the "castle doctrine" bill is scheduled at the state capitol this Thursday March 13th at 12:30 pm - Room 10 of the State Office Building, the big brick building across from the State Capitol. Many other states have already adopted this legislation because they understood the need and usefulness of giving law abiding citizens the right to defend themselves against violent criminals. Representative Tony Cornish, author of the bill, says he needs some citizens to attend this hearing so there is a show of support. Those who oppose it are going to be there showing their opposition. We are coordinating a caravan to the capitol to show support. If you can make it please email me and let's make use of the car pooling lanes we've paid so much for. Here is a link to the house file: http://wdoc.house.leg.state.mn.us/leg/LS85/HF0498.0.pdfSometimes called the "Shoot First" bill, this legislation is opposed by people who are afraid to have citizens defending themselves. They mistakenly think that it will turn our cities and state into the wild west - just as they thought the Minnesota Personal Protection Act (permit to carry a pistol) would. The fact is, nothing like that has or will happen. Law abiding citizens are least likely to use violence, and in cases where they could, it means that a criminal is about to do "substantial bodily harm"! As it stands, before a citizen can use lethal force they must determine that their life is in jeopardy or that they risk "great bodily harm" - as opposed to "substantial bodily harm"... you tell me the difference? Existing laws don't protect the citizen from being arrested, hauled off in handcuffs, and booked for a crime (like discharge of a firearm in city limits...). The new law requires an initial investigation to determine if the citizen was acting in self defense before the citizen is arrested. Existing laws do nothing to protect citizens from civil litigation by the perpetrator or their family, and most unjust, from prosecution by a District Attorney without just cause. In any event, as it stands, a citizen is required to hire an attorney and defend themselves from the outset, leaving their ultimate fate in the hands of a jury who may or may not understand the logistics of a violent encounter - the split second decisions, the distance a person can travel in under 2 seconds, and the harrowing fear that grips most people when they are in such a situation (all brought on by a violent criminal who doesn't care about your life or well being). From: National Center For Policy Analysis: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/Despite some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, mostly at the state and local levels, there is little evidence that any but the most weakly motivated citizens have been discouraged from gun ownership. And there is no evidence that these gun control laws have made a dent in the crime rate. Over the years, police and other experts have changed their recommendations about how to deal with criminals. In the early and middle 1970s, they advised cooperating with robbers and rapists to minimize chances of personal injury. Today, some who gave that advice tacitly admit that it was misguided. They now urge resistance in selected instances, especially for rape victims. Studies show that robbery and rape victims who resist with a gun are only half as likely to suffer injuries as those who put up no defense. I urge you to get involved in this process. If you can't make the hearing, please notify the legislators below via email or telephone to support this bill and get it approved by the house and senate so we can protect ourselves wherever we may be. SEND THIS EMAIL TO ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS SO THEY CAN CHIME IN! Chair: Joe Mullery DFL 367 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Minneapolis Bigham - DFL rep.karla.bigham@house.mn 529 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Cottage Grove Newport St. Paul Park South St. Paul Cornish - R rep.tony.cornish@house.mn 281 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Amboy Bricelyn Delavan Eagle Lake Easton Frost Garden City Good Thunder Janesville Kiester Lake Crystal Madison Lake Mapleton MN Lake New Richland Pemberton St. Clair Vernon Center Waldorf Walters Wells DeLaForest - R rep.chris.delaforest@house.mn 323 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Ham Lake Andover Emmer - R rep.tom.emmer@house.mn 261 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Delano Albertville Waverly Rockford St. Michael Otsego Montrose Hilstrom - DFL rep.debra.hilstrom@house.mn 379 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Brooklyn Park Brooklyn Center Holberg - R rep.maryliz.holberg@house.mn 303 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Burnsville Lakeville Johnson - DFL rep.sheldon.johnson@house.mn 549 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Saint Paul Kalin - DFL rep.jeremy.kalin@house.mn 579 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Harris Center Wyoming Taylors Falls Chisago Lindstrom Shafer Stacy Rush North Branch Kohls - R rep.paul.kohls@house.mn 313 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Watertown Waconia Belle Plaine Cologne Chaska Carver Hamburg New Germany Norwood Young America Mayer Victoria Kranz - DFL rep.scott.kranz@house.mn 411 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Blaine Lesch- DFL rep.john.lesch@house.mn 537 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul Lillie - DFL rep.leon.lillie@house.mn 353 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 North St. Paul Maplewood Olin - DFL rep.dave.olin@house.mn 593 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Grygla Holt Halma Humboldt Hallock Middle River Donaldson Karlstad Lake Bronson Lancaster Kennedy Strandquist St. Vincent Roseau Roosevelt Greenbush Badger Thief River Falls Strathcona Warroad Newfolden Paymar - DFL rep.michael.paymar@house.mn 543 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul Sailer - DFL rep.brita.sailer@house.mn 577 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Shevlin Park Rapids Goodridge Kelliher Gully Trail Blackduck Funkley Leonard Gonvick Solway Tenstrike Clearbrook Bagley Turtle River Wilton Simon - DFL rep.steve.simon@house.mn 375 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Louis Park Hopkins Smith - R rep.steve.smith@house.mn 253 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Medina Minnetrista Maple Plain Independence Mound Loretto Plymouth Spring Park St. Bonifacius Westrom - R rep.torrey.westrom@house.mn 277 State Office Building 100 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd St. Paul, MN 55155 Alberta Alexandria Ashby Barrett Brandon Chokio Donnelly Elbow Lake Erdahl Evansville Forada Garfield Hancock Herman Hoffman Homes City Leaf Valley Township Kensington Melby Millerville Morris Norcross Wendell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ttousi
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:51 pm |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 11:20 am
Posts: 3311
Location: St. Paul, MN.
|
better late than never.................
my version
(ETA...shamelessly cut and pasted from here and there and then a little fill in and blending)
Quote: Dear Rep. Johnson,
I am a longtime resident of 67B and have been following the “castle doctrine” HF 498/SF446 put forth by Rep. Cornish.
I would like share my thoughts with you and also would like to know your position on this.
I support the Castle Doctrine Bill and urge you to support it as well. Rather than be prosecuted for using lethal force in response to a threat on one’s life, law abiding citizens have a right to defend themselves. I believe that you, as my representative in government, have a responsibility to objectively view and hopefully support this legislation.
Before the passage of the MCPPA in 2003, anti-gun groups said that there would be widespread bloodshed by permit holders. As you are no doubt aware, this has not happened. No blood in the streets etc. Permit holders have proven themselves to be very responsible and law abiding. Most would rather retreat and save themselves from the horror of shooting someone and the resulting consequences.
As I understand it the purpose of Castle Doctrine is to remove any ambiguous interpretations that prosecutors can make with regard to the actions taken by the victim
in protecting himself from a criminal. It also gives notice to would-be burglars, rapists and other criminals that it is the resident/homeowner/citizen that has the support of the law. This is not about guns but about the right to self defense.
With that in mind, I ask that you support this legislation that protects law abiding citizens from unfair prosecution and civil lawsuits that could arise from the defensive use of any type of force. This is not “shoot first” legislation and the sky is not going to fall when it is enacted, as the anti-gunners want us to believe. This legislation merely prevents law abiding citizens from further victimization. It is time to stop protecting criminals!
I would appreciate knowing your position.
Thank You,
me
_________________
http://is.gd/37LKr
Last edited by ttousi on Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aquaholic
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:03 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 10:49 am
Posts: 687
Location: South Minneapolis (Nokomis East)
|
|
VERY nice Tom.
_________________
I smoke. Thanks for holding your breath.
"Build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life." ~ unknown
Never been tazered. (yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGoodDay
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:33 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 666
Location: St Cloud
|
|
A little late getting in this. Why are we trying to reduce the standard from great bodily harm to substantial bodily harm? While it is good from a legal defense of a DGU perspective, that is a low standard, in my opinion, from a practical perspective. What is this a solution to?
_________________
Try not. Do or do not, but do not try. - Yoda
Never give up. Never, never, never. - Churchill
Stand on the shoulders of your giant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lenny7
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:40 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 1060
Location: Savage, MN
|
AGoodDay wrote: A little late getting in this. Why are we trying to reduce the standard from great bodily harm to substantial bodily harm? While it is good from a legal defense of a DGU perspective, that is a low standard, in my opinion, from a practical perspective. What is this a solution to? That's a good question. In the split second you have to decide your actions, you can't pause to figure out if what you fear is about to happen would be reasonably considered great bodily harm or just substantial bodily harm? How would you determine which is reasonable to expect the moment the bad guy is coming at you.
You have a split second to decide. The jury will have all the time they need.
That's my take on it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:47 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
 |
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
|
Lenny7 wrote: AGoodDay wrote: A little late getting in this. Why are we trying to reduce the standard from great bodily harm to substantial bodily harm? While it is good from a legal defense of a DGU perspective, that is a low standard, in my opinion, from a practical perspective. What is this a solution to? That's a good question. In the split second you have to decide your actions, you can't pause to figure out if what you fear is about to happen would be reasonably considered great bodily harm or just substantial bodily harm? How would you determine which is reasonable to expect the moment the bad guy is coming at you. You have a split second to decide. The jury will have all the time they need. That's my take on it anyway. Amen. I don't want my 120 pound wife to have to sit there thinking "Is the person who is attacking me with his bare hands large and strong enough to possibly cause me the legal definition of 'Great Bodily Harm', or will it be merely 'Substantial Bodily Harm' in the eyes of the jury?"
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lenny7
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 10:52 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 1060
Location: Savage, MN
|
mrokern wrote: Amen. I don't want my 120 pound wife to have to sit there thinking "Is the person who is attacking me with his bare hands large and strong enough to possibly cause me the legal definition of 'Great Bodily Harm', or will it be merely 'Substantial Bodily Harm' in the eyes of the jury?" Besides, we should be giving the victim the benefit of the doubt, not the bad guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGoodDay
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:04 pm |
|
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 1:06 pm
Posts: 666
Location: St Cloud
|
|
At the same time, if the person is large enough to break your nose and you think they might (my ex-girlfriend who was 100 pounds soaking wet could do this easily), that's substantial bodily harm. All you have to justify is that you thought they would break your nose? We already take into consideration disparity of force... though I am keeping in mind the problem with a bunch of uninvolved people making a decision on that.
_________________
Try not. Do or do not, but do not try. - Yoda
Never give up. Never, never, never. - Churchill
Stand on the shoulders of your giant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mrokern
|
Post subject: Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:37 pm |
|
| Longtime Regular |
|
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 9:40 pm
Posts: 2264
Location: Eden Prairie
|
Lenny7 wrote: Besides, we should be giving the victim the benefit of the doubt, not the bad guy. I have to agree wholeheartedly with this.
Since we are in hypothetical world with the broken bones...
Man grabs woman by the arm and says, "Come with me or I'll snap your arm like a twig." Woman shoots.
Prosecutor says, "Only stated threat was that of substantial bodily harm."
Bull. He wanted to take her to a secondary crime scene, and we all know it.
I'm not saying our laws are perfect. Consider that right now someone threatening to burn my cheek with a cigarette could be considered a threat of "great bodily harm", since a permanent disfigurement on my face would qualify. Is someone poking a Camel at me going to cause me to draw? Of course not.
If I have to decide who gets more of the deck stacked in their favor, I'll never choose the offender.
-Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sigman
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 5:08 am |
|
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:20 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Racine, MN
|
|
I think the main thing is to put the balance in the favor of the victim. We have to quit feeling sorry for the damn criminals. I would rather see a criminal shot than seeing a victim harmed. Who knows for sure how badly the victim is going to be hurt before the attack. If a criminal is in attack mode, he deserves to be in as much peril as the victim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johninminnesota
|
Post subject: Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2008 6:35 am |
|
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 8:49 am
Posts: 146
|
AGoodDay wrote: At the same time, if the person is large enough to break your nose and you think they might (my ex-girlfriend who was 100 pounds soaking wet could do this easily), that's substantial bodily harm. All you have to justify is that you thought they would break your nose? We already take into consideration disparity of force... though I am keeping in mind the problem with a bunch of uninvolved people making a decision on that. After someone says "STOP OR I WILL SHOOT YOU", I believe they have a right to keep their nose in the unbroken state. Regardless of the rest of the scene, if someone is intent on hurting me or my family, I believe a fair warning is in order, then they've earned themselves a lesson in why you shouldn't victimize people.
Read this book: "Inside the Criminal Mind" by Stanton E. Samenow, Ph. D. "...criminals think differently", and by legistlating against logic and reason we are TOTALLY missing the issue. Criminals don't follow the laws - hell, how many KNOW the laws? I don't and I do my best to stay abreast of them. Citing a legal statute to an attacker before the crime occurs will be about as effective as growling at a mother grizzly protecting her cubs. There ain't a lot of logic going around in their minds. They aren't stupid per se, but they are ego driven and not giving one flying #$#% about your feelings, or well being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.
All times are UTC - 6 hours
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 45 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|
