Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Supreme Court reviews gun law for domestic violence offenders (Lautenberg Amendment)
yahoo ^ | Jan 16, 2014

Posted on 01/16/2014 3:55:19 PM PST by Red Steel

Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court heard arguments as it struggles to determine whether domestic violence offenders could be barred from possessing a firearm even if they have only committed minor offenses.

The high court's nine justices took up the case of James Castleman, who argues that his domestic assault conviction in Tennessee for intentionally or knowingly causing "bodily injury" to the mother of his child did not prohibit him under federal law from owning a gun.

Investigators later learned that he was illegally trafficking guns, and Castleman was charged with violating a ban on gun possession for people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. ...

"If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

"Do you have to have a special rule for if I punch my wife in the nose?

"Any physical action that hurts somebody is violence, isn't it?"

Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: "How about pinching or biting, hair pulling, shoving, grabbing, hitting, slapping... Would they in all situations be violence?"

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; US: New Jersey; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; banglist; jamescastleman; lautenberg; newjersey; scotus; soniasotomayor; tennessee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

1 posted on 01/16/2014 3:55:21 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Thanks for posting this.


2 posted on 01/16/2014 3:58:35 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

These justices are charlatans. They know how they’re voting. They ask questions to appear impartial. Except for Thomas, who I hold in the highest esteem. :-)


3 posted on 01/16/2014 3:58:59 PM PST by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

How did they get around this for the millions of law enforcement and military?


4 posted on 01/16/2014 4:00:13 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

SCOTUS ping.


5 posted on 01/16/2014 4:02:42 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

I’ve heard that it cost a lot of cops their jobs.


6 posted on 01/16/2014 4:06:41 PM PST by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

My hope for the just (and Constitutional) outcome is slim.


7 posted on 01/16/2014 4:10:09 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: "How about pinching or biting, hair pulling, shoving, grabbing, hitting, slapping... Would they in all situations be violence?"

I'm gonna go with a "no" on some of those, but if the Wide Latina request a demo, she's on her own.

8 posted on 01/16/2014 4:11:29 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
On the off chance the Supreme RubberStamp knocks down this bogus infringement, 2A may still have a chance.

     but don't hold yer breath

9 posted on 01/16/2014 4:12:31 PM PST by tomkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“No. 12–1371. United States v. James Alvin Castleman.
Certiorari to the C. A. 6th Circuit.
For petitioner: Melissa Arbus Sherry, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
For respondent: Charles A. Rothfeld, Washington, D. C.
(1 hour for argument.)”


10 posted on 01/16/2014 4:18:09 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
How did they get around this for the millions of law enforcement and military?

They didn't. The law was retroactive and people lost their careers because of it.

Seems the only person it didn't apply to was Sean Penn.

11 posted on 01/16/2014 4:18:55 PM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1371_2cp3.pdf


12 posted on 01/16/2014 4:20:07 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: andyk

Thomas is the only one of them who is worth his weight. What that man had to go through in his confirmation hearings was a travesty. I have never seen some much pure, unadulterated hate for one man in all my life. It was the 1950-60s type dimocrats against a black person in those hearings. All the dims slipped back into their old days mode to attack him.


13 posted on 01/16/2014 4:25:45 PM PST by RetiredArmy (I am proud to be a Christian and follower of my Lord Jesus Christ. Time is short for U to know Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Oral arguments linked at post 12.


14 posted on 01/16/2014 4:26:24 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Drew68; gundog

I remember the noise and early examples of problems for cops and perhaps military, but I had the impression that it died out and that government people were still carrying/owning guns after domestic issues.


15 posted on 01/16/2014 4:27:56 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Sean Penn was. Don’t know of any specific cases of cops or military.


16 posted on 01/16/2014 4:42:28 PM PST by gundog (Help us, Nairobi-Wan Kenobi...you're our only hope.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I thought United States v. Hayes desided the misdemeanor was sufficient.

Can someone tell me what’s different here?


17 posted on 01/16/2014 4:51:28 PM PST by mrsmith (Dumb sluts: Lifeblood of the Media, Backbone of the Democrat Party!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Great. Another opportunity for the political hacks in black muumuus to decide what the Constitution says this week.


18 posted on 01/16/2014 4:53:25 PM PST by RKBA Democrat (Having some small say in who gets to hold the whip doesn't make you any less a slave.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

They didn’t...it was retroactive, and it cost many cops their jobs. My opinion is it is just a backdoor way of increasing the numbers of people that can’t own firearms...


19 posted on 01/16/2014 4:59:12 PM PST by bike800
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

...The People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...”


20 posted on 01/16/2014 5:00:45 PM PST by faithhopecharity (C)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bike800
They didn’t...it was retroactive, and it cost many cops their jobs

Then it's unconstitutional on at least two fronts, ex post fact and infringement.

21 posted on 01/16/2014 5:17:35 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism" Vladimir Lenin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

This is another law where you are guilty until proven innocent. Just like orders of protection.

Wifey gets pissed at you during a divorce and you are finished. Look at your neighbor cross eyed and he files an OOP on you and the cops are at your door to take your guns and your neighbor doesn’t even have to show up in court. DUI, guns taken away.

Then try and get your guns back from the police.


22 posted on 01/16/2014 5:21:27 PM PST by headstamp 2 (What would Scooby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All
The only reason that the Founding States didn't include the power to regulate arms in the 1st Amendment's list of powers prohited to Congress, imo, is that the Founding States had already delegated to Congress the power to raise and support an army, which reasonably includes the power to legislatively address military firearms issues. The Militia Acts of 1792 are evidence of this.

But federal military gun issues aside, regulating guns for ordinary citizens is a 10th Amendment protected power, imo, such power now limited by 2nd Amendment applied to states via 14th Amendment.

In fact, since Congress has 14A power only to make laws which strengthen constitutionally enumerated rights, including 2A protected gun rights, Congress is arguably limited to making gun laws for ordinary citizens which strengthen their gun rights.

On the other hand, since federal gun laws are not an issue in this case, it's actually up to voters to spur their state lawmakers to make gun laws which reasonably limit gun rights with respect to the example of this case. Letting the Supreme Court decide this case just gives activist justices an opportunity to unconstitutonally expand federal government powers imo.

In fact, I find it disturbing that federal gun laws for ordinary citizens seem to have appeared in the books during the FDR era when socialist FDR and corrupt Congress blatantly ignored the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.

23 posted on 01/16/2014 5:43:14 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

They’ve been able to skirt the ex post facto because it’s “not a punishment” (punishING though it may be). It’s supposedly a public safety thing and past convictions are just used as a gauge to predict future behavior and prevent future criminality.


24 posted on 01/16/2014 6:39:07 PM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; Defender2; ...

Active Duty ping.


25 posted on 01/16/2014 8:10:59 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
While you can't always tell what the 'justices' are really thinking by just the questions they ask during oral arguments, it looks like the court is going to rule against the defendant in this case. You'll find the transcript of the arguments here. I think that it is interesting that the 2nd amendment didn't come up at all. Doesn't seem to be a part of this case at all. Weird.
26 posted on 01/16/2014 8:41:09 PM PST by zeugma (Is it evil of me to teach my bird to say "here kitty, kitty"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
On the other hand, since federal gun laws are not an issue in this case, it's actually up to voters to spur their state lawmakers to make gun laws which reasonably limit gun rights with respect to the example of this case. Letting the Supreme Court decide this case just gives activist justices an opportunity to unconstitutonally expand federal government powers imo.

It is a federal law which is at issue in this case, which is why it's before SCOTUS. The statute is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), which makes it a federal crime to possess a gun if you were previously convicted (in state or federal court) of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” Different states define "domestic violence" differently, so the issue before SCOTUS is what state crimes qualify-- only those involving serious physical harm, or those involving less serious kinds of force.

The Court is not considering a constitutional question in this case, but only an issue of interpreting what Congress meant (which means that Congress could clarify the statute if it doesn't agree with what the Court decides).

27 posted on 01/16/2014 9:00:35 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; All
It is a federal law which is at issue in this case, ....

Mea culpa. Thank you for the clarification and the additional information.

Please indicate which constitutional clause expressly delegates to Congress the specific power to regulate firearms for ordinary citizens. There are no such clauses imo.

Again, the 14th Amendment only gives Congress the power to strengthen constitutionally enumerated privileges and immunities, including the 2nd Amendment.

28 posted on 01/16/2014 9:20:56 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Domestic violence, that thing the state can bring charges against anyone on behalf of anyone even if no one has made a complaint.

What convenience for the nanny state agenda to hold others to standards the state itself would never follow...


29 posted on 01/16/2014 9:46:29 PM PST by lavaroise (A well regulated gun being necessary to the state, the rights of the militia shall not be infringed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Oh, it causes quite the hassle for military folks. Quick way for a military spouse to win at divorce.

Claim, or threaten to claim, hubby smacked her around. Not only do you get civilian law enforcement breathing down your throat, but military authorities. And, they remove your access to firearms if there's a protection order against you.

And, the neatest trick of all (sarcasm) is you can be charged for the same incident in civilian courts AND military court - even if you were found not guilty in the civilian court the military side can still find something to go after you for. Oh yeah, and it doesn't count as double jeopardy.

30 posted on 01/16/2014 9:48:51 PM PST by Repeat Offender (What good are conservative principles if we don't stand by them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Repeat Offender

So it is still going on, it is some of the most amazing legislation to ever happen here.


31 posted on 01/16/2014 10:05:17 PM PST by ansel12 (Ben Bradlee -- JFK told me that "he was all for people's solving their problems by abortion".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

They took an expectedly polluted case, when they should have heard the Emerson case instead (which they refused). People with restraining orders against them (no conviction required—only an allegation) are also subject to the mandatory 5-year federal prison sentence if found in possession of firearms.

Granted, there shouldn’t be any such law that violates the Second Amendment for only one kind of misdemeanor. And yes, the polluted case. They found a real bad guy to base their wrongful decisions on, when there are many with no priors who committed lesser misdeeds.


32 posted on 01/17/2014 9:13:14 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: headstamp 2

Hence I don’t keep more than 1 or 2 in the same location.


33 posted on 01/17/2014 9:18:30 AM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Ooops, bad example. LOL You would think "shall not be infringed" is SCOTUS' strict limitation, but the door was opened to overturning the 2nd Amendment long ago.

34 posted on 01/17/2014 9:23:06 AM PST by CivilWarBrewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: "How about pinching or biting, hair pulling, shoving, grabbing, hitting, slapping... Would they in all situations be violence?"

Um... I think context plays a lot into making that determination as a quick perusal of some of the more licentious corners of the Internet would appear to show...

35 posted on 01/17/2014 9:27:48 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

“Domestic violence” is the liberal feminazi-inspired definition for what happens when a man hears a woman insult his income, manhood, parents, occupation, or all of the above one too many times and gives her a “shut up” slap that wouldn’t even kill a wasp. Or when he HITS HER BACK.

It’s also what a few men - who would have otherwise never harmed a fly - have committed in a minute of desperation when they’ve discovered that their wife is about to file a “no-fault divorce” *spit* and walk off with half his income, at least one car, the kids, the house, and most of his worldly possessions, and he will have absolutely no recourse...before he attempts to flee with his children and whatever he can grab. Few of them even make it out of their home state unless they live next to a border line.


36 posted on 01/17/2014 9:28:43 AM PST by EternalHope13
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RetiredArmy
Thomas is the only one of them who is worth his weight. What that man had to go through in his confirmation hearings was a travesty. I have never seen some much pure, unadulterated hate for one man in all my life. It was the 1950-60s type dimocrats against a black person in those hearings. All the dims slipped back into their old days mode to attack him.

Thomas got hell precisely BECAUSE he's a good and honorable man. Can't have people like that in positions of power over the federal government.

37 posted on 01/17/2014 9:32:00 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

The law exempts law enforcement, by the way, in that service weapons are exempt unless specifically prohibited by a local court restraining order.

Another aside: the law is part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act)—quite a feminist political push in the ‘90s. Possession of ammunition is also illegal for affected individuals.


38 posted on 01/17/2014 9:45:21 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

Web page of a feminist author on legal issues regarding law enforcement. It shows a peek or two at the kind of advocacy behind the law.

http://www.dwetendorf.com/Legal_GunLaw.htm


39 posted on 01/17/2014 9:53:39 AM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
"If I punch somebody in the nose, is that violence?" asked Justice Antonin Scalia.

Headline next week from the Brady bunch...

"Boxers, MMA pros, and all martial arts enthusiasts now banned from owning guns..."

40 posted on 01/17/2014 10:49:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
The People’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....especially on mere accusations.
41 posted on 01/17/2014 12:13:20 PM PST by Red in Blue PA (When Injustice becomes Law, Resistance Becomes Duty.-Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bike800
it was retroactive,

That's what got me. Retroactive? As in ex post facto?

That'd be like coming back to someone who got a parking ticket 20 years afterwards and demanding more money because the fines went up. (only a lot worse)

42 posted on 01/17/2014 1:57:20 PM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

The REAL crime is that anyone with only a petty misdemeanor record can be barred from gun possession. I would rule that the Lautenberg amendment UNconstitutional!


43 posted on 01/17/2014 2:36:07 PM PST by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2harddrive

Take some consolation in the fact that Lautenberg is worm bait right now.

This can be overturned. If now, another time.

And he’ll STILL be worm bait.


44 posted on 01/17/2014 2:40:48 PM PST by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

45 posted on 01/17/2014 5:13:14 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel
This provision is part of Hillary's VAWA "revenge against divorced husbands" law that penalized divorced men and felonized them ex post facto in many cases.

A husband who owns firearms becomes an instant federal felon if he is placed under a restraining order by a divorce court (which is almost a routine action). Ownership ipso facto is a felony.

This was the root of the federal Emerson case .... which Slick and Beast seized on to establish case law for VAWA (at the expense of an innocent man who'd been acquitted of state assault and firearms charges in the incident in question).

46 posted on 01/17/2014 5:35:35 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Please indicate which constitutional clause expressly delegates to Congress the specific power to regulate firearms for ordinary citizens. There are no such clauses imo.

I agree with you that there is no such clause, but SCOTUS does not agree with us; they think, per this decision, that the power to regulate gun possession by felons comes from the Commerce Clause. (No, I'm not kidding, but I wish I were.)

47 posted on 01/17/2014 9:00:43 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; All
...they think, per this decision, that the power to regulate gun possession by felons comes from the Commerce Clause.

I love it! =^)

The first thing that I looked at on Scarborough v. United States was the year that the case was decided. All bets are off since it was decided in 1977, in the post-FDR era of unchecked judicial activism.

More specifically, regardless what liberal and conservative activist justices want everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, consider that Thomas Jefferson, using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," had officially clarified that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes.” –Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.

But who cares what Jefferson said about the Commerce Clause? After all, only Supreme Court justices can properly interpret the Constitution, right? So consider what the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall had indicated about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. (emphases added)” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

Oops! The idea that only Supreme Court justices can properly interpret the Constitution evidently doesn't hold water. Note that before FDR had “nuked” the Court with activist justices, the Supreme Court had officially clarified that ordinary folks like you and me can properly interpret it too.

"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." --United States v. Sprague, 1931.

The Supreme Court owes citizens an explanation concerning its constitutionally indefensible interpretation of the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers imo, particularly with respect to its misguided decision in Wickard v. Filburn, not that it actually has a reasonable explanation for its interpretation.

Are we having fun yet?

48 posted on 01/18/2014 11:05:19 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
'The idea that only Supreme Court justices can properly interpret the Constitution evidently doesn't hold water. Note that before FDR had “nuked” the Court with activist justices, the Supreme Court had officially clarified that ordinary folks like you and me can properly interpret it too.
"3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition." --United States v. Sprague, 1931.

No offense but you need a better example regarding FDR & SCOTUS as he wasn't POTUS in 1931. His time in office was 1933 to 1945. Also, his plan to pack and expand SCOTUS with leftist justices to fifteen from nine, wasn't announced until 1937, February 5, 1937 to be exact. But this blatant power grab by FDR was too much even for democrats in Congress and it went nowhere, thank God.

49 posted on 01/19/2014 9:01:07 AM PST by Condor51 (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Condor51; All
No offense but you need a better example regarding FDR & SCOTUS as he wasn't POTUS in 1931.

Thank you for your concern about the order of events, but I believe that I have stated the order of events correctly.

I wasn't around at the time, but the PC idea of Supreme Court infallibility with respect to interpreting the Constitution probably became prevalent after FDR's activist majority justices wrongly widened the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers from the bench with their decision in Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. This was more than ten years after United States v. Sprague was decided, Constitution-respecting justices noting the relatively simple language of the Constitution in the Sprague opinion.

50 posted on 01/19/2014 12:03:59 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson