Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Chicago motion to dismiss gun law case denied - More Backlash To Come

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 02:06 PM
Original message
Chicago motion to dismiss gun law case denied - More Backlash To Come
Chicago tried to "get cute" (per the judge) and changed it's gun range laws again, the same day they lost the Ezell case. They moved for a motion to dismiss the entire case since they "changed" their laws and basically stall the review process for a few more months and get another judge that might be more "Daley friendly".

The judge said "no" ... probably because saying "no fuckin way" wouldn't be dignified in court proceedings.

<snip>

In Ezell - Chicago's New Range Ordinance Doesn't Moot Case

Another win for Rhonda Ezell and the team of Alan Gura and David Sigale.

Full text here: http://ia600507.us.archive.org/1/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475/gov.uscourts.ilnd.246475.122.0.pdf

In a decision released today, Judge Virginia Kendall said that despite the rewriting of the Chicago Gun Range Ordinance, it doesn't moot the case and denied the City of Chicago's motion to dismiss the case.
Though the Court cannot conclude that the new ordinance is the same as the old without further litigation, as the Supreme Court did in Northeastern Florida, it is consistent with that case not to dismiss the instant litigation as moot and instead to let the parties litigate the issue of whether the new ordinance is a de facto ban on firing ranges or so burdensome as to infringe on Chicagoan’s Second Amendment rights.

Moreover, as a practical matter, Ezell is either going to: (1) challenge the constitutionality of these restrictions by filing an amended complaint as part of this case; or (2) file a new case attacking the same restrictions. The Court sees no upside in making the parties start over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.
She then set Friday, September 30th as the deadline for the parties to submit an agreed proposed injunction order or separate proposed injunction orders if they cannot agree. The plaintiffs have until October 15th to submit an amended complaint which her attorneys have indicated they will doing. Finally, she set a status hearing for October 26th.

<snip>
Refresh | +14 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. You'd think by now...
...Chicago would learn.

How many more cases are necessary? How many judges have to tell the city it is being "too cute by half"? How many millions of taxpayer dollars need to be wasted before the city accepts that it is not going to win?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Well, Rahm isn't as totally batshit crazy as Daley about this
At some point he's going to look at the legal bills he's running up on this and call it quits and try to bail out with "something" to save face. Property values continue to fall but property taxes are going up about 3.5% this year. The state income tax went up 67% last year and now thy are doubling all the tolls on the tollroads. That's not going to be popular with anyone. It's hard to claim that a multi-failed lawsuit is worth hundreds of thousands, if not millions of more tax $ to indulge a former mayor's deranged obsession when you're closing police stations to save money.

He's struggling to minimize the cuts to services now and is even telling the aldercritters they are losing some of their perks.

I really think that at some point Rahm's going to quietly reach an agreement to just allow the shooting ranges and actually start the permit process and let the case quietly drop.

In the meantime the separate concealed carry cases against the state are moving along as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
jeepnstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. He'll rid himself of this issue...
just as quickly and quietly as he can. Rahm Emanuel is a very pragmatic kind of politician. He has plenty of cover on this issue. All he has to do is throw up his arms and say "It's Dick Heller's fault." and go on his merry way. Considering the financial shape that Chicago is in right now I can't see him eager to spend money on litigation. This is Daley's fight, not Emanuel's. There are always institutional forces in play and Chicago is a bastion of gun control so it won't happen instantly but it will happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-11 04:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
46. Gunners willing to break a city financially to open the gun pipeline further. Jeeeez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-11 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #46
47. No, citizens willing to fight a corrupt city hall
I'm betting that any one of the plaintiffs has put more of their own money and time behind this suit than you have behind more gun control or than your buddy Daley put any of his own money behind it.

Once the voters realize what their elected officials are wasting money on, they replace them.

See how that works in a Democracy?

Don't like what they are doing? Replace them.

That's why we have a Congress, many Governors and most (as in 49 out of 50) state legistlatures that support 2nd amendment rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
friendly_iconoclast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-11 09:59 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. Don't you have some reasearch you should be doing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 03:06 PM
Response to Original message
2. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
X_Digger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. How long will Chicago get by saying 'fuck you' to the constitution
and federal courts?

Church-bell sized brass balls, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
-..__... Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
5. "This town needs an enema".
Edited on Thu Sep-29-11 06:33 PM by -..__...
I'm thinking a $1,000,000 per day fine for each day Shitcago plays their silly mind fuck games should set them in order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
6. Please don't cheer every little procedural "victory" the corporate gun lobby achieves.

I won't cheer Chicago standing up for what is best for a civilized society in the 21st century, particularly a populated area.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
The backlash cometh.

The King certainly won't be happy about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
one-eyed fat man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. You got some balls!
Using "civilized" and "Chicago" in the same sentence!

Chicago hasn't come one iota closer to being civilized since the day in 1924 Al Capone threw the Mayor down the steps of City Hall right in full view of the Mayor's security detail.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-11 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. "corporate gun lobby"?
Perhaps you can point to the gun corporations that were plaintifs or funders in this legal action.

P.S. You'll find them right next to the laser sniper sights.

Jesus fucking wept....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #6
10.  You could sound more ignorant, but you would have to work on it.
Have you disposed of your firearms yet? Do it in the name of a more "civilized" environment.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #10
13. Ignorance is...
...the absence of knowledge.

Stupidity is when you are aware of the facts and choose to disregard them.

Guess which one he is demonstrating?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
badtoworse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
39. +1 Great descriptionof a truly ridiculous post!
I'm filing this away for future use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. What corporate gun lobby?
Chicago is "standing up" for the deprivation of civil rights under color of law in the face of the Supreme Court and the US Constitution.

They are so completely in the wrong it isn't even funny.

Hoyt, when you have a judge saying things like "too cute by half" to the city of Chicago, its pretty clear cut that the city is wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #6
14. That's "funny" - "what is best for a civilized society"
I'm assuming you haven't tracked Chicago's record of students killed in or near schools, or the number of gang shootings every year. Enough that they have a chart that tracks trends on a quarterly basis in the police department. All of this in a city that has provided your utopia of gun control.

No concealed carry, no "assault" weapons, no magazines over 10 rounds, no legal ownership of any handguns - even in your own home. Rifles and shotguns must be registered every year and a fee paid to keep them in your home. We even had incidents of forced confiscation by Daley's CAGE unit (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement). You'd love living here.

So how many cities and states that allow concealed carry with major urban areas actually have to keep track of their dead students in the media?

Or are you going to be as stupid as Daley is and blame Indiana for all the gun violence in the city?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. "you going to be as stupid as Daley is " I don't know, maybe,
YA HE IS GOING TO DO IT!!! We now have our very own "Daley Supporter"

Congratulations Hoyt, you have made it to the top of your class!!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. If society was civilized we wouldn't need guns
Maybe if people spent more time deriding criminals than they do trying to disarm honest citizens the honest citizens would feel the need to arm themselves against undisturbed criminals.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Vigilantism is not civilized, but seems popular here. Nor is arming up to shoot your neighbor when

times get rough. But, that seems popular among gunners as well.

Apparently Chicago thinks they have a case. I do too because I don't believe federal troops are going to enforce the Supreme Court decision (which is not as final as you gun scholars think or want to believe)and allow more guns in the streets. God bless reason.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DonP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. SCOTUS decision is "Not as final" - WTF does that mean?
Do you think they'll change their mind next week, when they re-open this years sessions?

Maybe issue an "Oops, we didn't really mean McDonald and Heller, we were just kidding around judgement"?

Or do you honestly think that if the President gets to appoint a liberal judge to replace one of the conservatives on the court that they will immediately start looking for another test case to reverse themselves?

While you're at it, perhaps you can explain why you equate allowing the law abiding to protect their home as equivalent to "vigilantism". That's what we're talking about in Chicago, not concealed carry or "guns in the streets" ... yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. Even if....
a single gun-hating judge were appointed, there is still the simple fact that the ruling on it being an individual right was unanimous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. Vigilantism is hunting down a presumed criminal after the fact of the crime
Stopping someone in the midst of the crime is self-defense. Would you seriously call a woman who scratched an attacker's eyes with her fingernails a "vigilante?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #19
21.  I do truly believe that he would. After all, according to some Canadians here
there is no harm committed in a rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Nuclear Unicorn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Well, I did say "attacker" so as to not specifically confine the subject to rape
However, I hope what you're saying is hyperbole.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. I have seen the same posts from "the canadian"
and she indeed says there is no injury done in a rape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 08:14 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. Nope I would not call a woman a vigilante in that case. In fact, I think woman are better toters.

Men go friggin crazy with guns and some buy one or more for every situation they can dream up. They practice in front of mirrors drawing; they shoot silhouette targets; they push for more guns in public; they dream up all kinds of things that can happen requiring a gun or two; many dream of being a cowboy; some try to intimidate with their guns; some sell guns to private parties without background checks and don't care who buys it; many sleep with em; some have said plainly they would shoot an unarmed teenager leaving the scene of breaking into an unoccupied care and maybe stealing a buck or two; etc.

Women usually put a gun in their purse and unless some asshole gets out of line, aren't likely to pull it. They typically don't obsess over the things or drool over every new apparatus designed to kill more people with less effort.

If that were where we are with respect to guns in public, I wouldn't be too concerned. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is with most here and it's even worse with the right wingers that see guns as a means to political intimidation.

Carry on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
rl6214 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. WOW, you hit every one of your talking points
The Shtick is in full force tonight:

Practice in front of mirrors drawing: Still waiting on the photo of that

Shoot silhouette targets

A gun or two

Dream of being a Cowboy: Is that a Dallas Cowboy or the old time cowboy that only exists in the movies because in real life cowboys didn't ride around with a sidearem acting like Wyatt Earp

Intimidating with guns

Selling guns to private parties without background checks

Sleep with them

Now, your homework for tonight is to find on the interweb, a citation for each and every one of those. And you can't say you just dreamed them up in your head.

OK, hurry up and get started before you mom says you have to turn off the computer and go to bed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. Earth to Hoyt...
:banghead:

I don't know what type of people you hang out with, but I have never seen or heard of other ADULT gun owners using a mirror to practice a quick draw.

I do have to admit that I used to do that, though - when I got a pair of "Fanner 50" cap pistols for my sixth birthday. However, when I given a .22 rifle later, all my toy guns were taken away so I wouldn't confuse playing with toys and using real guns.

I know we're not supposed to talk bad about other posters, but your posts tend to sound rather trollish. If that is not your intention, I apologize. However, it would help if you actually included facts and wrote in a less biased tone.

Just sayin'...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-11 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #25
41. You still haven't defined what is wrong with "silhouette targets".
I would enjoy reading that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-11 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
42. 14+ hours and no answer to my question.
I'm starting to suspect there won't be one... because there isn't one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-11 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #42
43.  His answer is forming in his mind, and soon he will squat and show it to the world. n/t
Edited on Sun Oct-02-11 06:28 PM by oneshooter
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SteveM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Better check the difference between "vigilantism" and self-defence. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Oh good lord...
Self defense is not vigilantism.

Chicago thinks they have a case because they're delusional. The Gun Control Reality Distortion Field is very strong in that city.

Will federal troops enforce the decision? At this rate, they very well might. However, it is likely to be unnecessary as the people of Chicago may do so first.

Yes Hoyt, the decision by the USSC is final, short of an amendment to the Constitution - and that ain't gonna happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. You ought to read the decision, actually read it not listen to the NRA and ghosts of C Heston.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. I have read it
in great detail. I made a hard-copy of the entire transcript and pored over it until my eyes started hurting. It's been awhile, so I refreshed my memory from one of my Favorites links.

I was especially struck by the duplicitous nature of Justices Stevens dissent. Justice Stevens came up with three different definitions of what the term "the people" meant in the first, second and fourth amendments. He also made an argument that a preamble can be used to clarify a statute if the main body of that statute is ambiguous. Here is the footnote from his dissent:

The sources the Court cites simply do not support the proposition that some “logical connection” between the two clauses is all that is required. The Dwarris treatise, for example, merely explains that “he general purview of a statute is not . . . necessarily to be restrained by any words introductory to the enacting clauses.” F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (emphasis added). The treatise proceeds to caution that “the preamble cannot control the enacting part of a statute, which is expressed in clear and unambiguous terms, yet, if any doubt arise on the words of the enacting part, the
preamble may be resorted to, to explain it.” Id., at 269. Sutherland makes the same point. Explaining that “in the United States preambles are not as important as they are in England,” the treatise notes that in the United States “the settled principle of law is that the preamble cannot control the enacting part of the statute in cases where the enacting part is expressed in clear, unambiguous terms.” the Sutherland on Statutory Construction §47.04, p. 146 (rev. 5th ed. 1992)(emphasis added). Surely not even the Court believes that the Amendment’s operative provision, which, though only 14 words in length, takes the Court the better part of 18 pages to parse, is perfectly “clear and unambiguous.”


So the trick is to say that the phrase "the people" doesn't really mean the people, then call the whole main body ambiguous because the majority took so long to explain exactly what the meaning was, and then FINALLY you can use the preamble to declare the amendment only applies to militias. What part of " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is ambiguous? Attempting to limit it to militas is a much more ambiguous line of reasoning.

I'm sorry, but that is sophomoric reasoning driven by a desperate attempt to justify a specious argument. If I were a judge, I would be ashamed to be associated with drivel like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 11:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Now there's an objective review. Did the Court say Chicago had to allow guns willy nilly?

Don't think so. The "willy nillyistness" you guys promote ain't there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 12:06 AM
Response to Reply #33
34. You still haven't read it, have you?
The Chicago ordinance is a "de facto" ban, which was specifically addressed as being unconstitutional.

I suggest you get off your keister (or sit on it in front of your computer), put on reading glasses, and go to the following link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

After you are done, then come on back and talk to me.

I'll be happy to debate anyone who provides a reasoned, rational argument. However, I'll lift a virtual leg on crappy illogical screeds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Hoyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. Has Chicago said, "go ahead, bring your guns to the city." Nope, why is that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:46 AM
Response to Reply #35
36. Still haven't read it yet?
Your posts have become exceedingly trollish. When you have a point, or even a simple coherent argument, let me know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Hoyt does not believe in letting facts and evidence get in the way....
of his righteous moral eliteism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
We_Have_A_Problem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-11 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #29
44. I have read it
Can you say the same?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
oneshooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-11 09:07 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. He can't. But he heard the names, and they sounded important. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PavePusher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-11 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
40. Please, cite this endorsement of "vigiliantism" you accuse some of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
gravity556 Donating Member (576 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #6
37. Yes, Chicago stands as a completely safe city,
wherein there's no chance of violent crime occurring to someone who wanders into the wrong neighborhood. Those silly gang wars are just kids having fun, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tejas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
28. Absolutely appalling waste of taxpayers money.
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tortoise1956 Donating Member (403 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-11 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I agree completely
Edited on Fri Sep-30-11 11:46 PM by tortoise1956
The city of Chicago should have never wasted taxpayer money trying to defend this blatantly unconstitutional statute.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Guns Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC