GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-07-2011, 13:47   #126
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
...
Your speed limit comparison is bogus. My KS permit gives me permission to operate a motor vehicle on public streets and the condition of my KS DL says I must obey the posted speed limits for the road on which I travel. My KS permit doesn't instruct me to only obey KS speed limits, it says I have to drive according to the sign that right in front of my face no matter what state I am in.

Exactly, because the STATES argreed to reciprocate on this privilege.

My KS permit does the same. It says when I carry my weapon in another state, I have to obey the carry laws in the other state, not the KS laws. And I'm happy to do that. But apparently NY won't let me obey the NY carry laws because they won't even let me carry in the first place.

This is their privilege at this time, like it or not. Get KS to accept NY permit.

That's like NY not letting me drive on NY streets with a KS license claiming driving is a privilege only extended to residents. But we all know that's bogus and while I understand the states together decided to agree on DLs, they HAD to agree else the Fed gvt would have decided it for them. Just like this carry law is eventually going to play out.

Really, the feds threatened the states to do something that they could have taken control over? Do you actually believe that?

NY requires a front license plate. KS does not. When I go to NY in my KS car, I do not have to follow that law meaning a NY trooper cannot write me a ticket for no front license plate on my POV. Technically the law says all NY registered vehicles must show 2 plates but it's an example where visitors do not have to abide by the same rules as the residents just in case you continue to think their turf, their rules.

Is your vehicle registered in NY? Again, the states got together to agree on this...the feds did not write a law forcing this issue.

NY: Change your rules and allow my KS permit to act like a NY permit when I am in NY. I get that you will never understand why but that's irrelevant at this point. Change the rule yourself or have the Federal gvt change it for you. Bottom line.
See the common thread here.....THE STATES AGREED together! The FEDS didn't mandate it!

It's not that I don't understand, its that fact I do understand. This is a bigger picture than you carrying in NY. Unfortunately, many only see the short view. And as it stands, IIRC, even with this law, it would probably not allow you to carry in NYC because they don't allow it (or have their own permit) and the state says it is ok. Since NYC is not bound by the state laws for CCW, this law may not effect NYC.

A privilege is a privilege. The states have that control, like it or not. The feds do not need to be involved in the privileges governed by the states, especially this one.

It all boils down to this being a 2A issue. The states need to do this, not the feds under the CC. If the feds want to make this a better law, run it under the 2A.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 17:22   #127
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
You said "Really, the feds threatened the states to do something that they could have taken control over? Do you actually believe that?"

My answer: "The DL agreement is not totally comprehensive but it is good enough to keep the Federal govt out of the business."

I believe if NY decides tomorrow that they will no longer accept a NJ DL valid for operating a motor vehicle on NY streets, the Federal gvt will immediately pass an emergency order that will override NY state law and protect NJ drivers who find themselves behind the wheel while driving from NJ to CT. I'll let you do the research to figure out how and why that could happen. My point was states don't want this kind of Federal legislation so they do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

If you want, I can name a bunch of other state misses (including your so-called privileges) that have caused the Fed gvt to step in? I'll start with CCW permits. For those of us who know how to wield it, interstate commerce is a powerful weapon.

Again just so I am clear, the state agreed so the fed gvt didn't have to mandate anything.

When the states don't agree, you'll find the fed gvt trying to mandate when it's in the best interest of all citizens.

Last edited by kensteele; 12-07-2011 at 17:24..
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 17:26   #128
EAJuggalo
Senior Member
 
EAJuggalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,984
Send a message via AIM to EAJuggalo Send a message via Yahoo to EAJuggalo


Quote:
Originally Posted by xmanhockey7 View Post
One of my concerns about carry in a state like Cali, NY, NJ, etc. is the GFSZs.
There is an exception for carrying written into the GFSZ act.

Red, it takes 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential Veto.
__________________
People killed by:
MN permit holders 3
MPLS Light Rail 9
Updated 3-22-13
EAJuggalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2011, 17:41   #129
xmanhockey7
Senior Member
 
xmanhockey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAJuggalo View Post
There is an exception for carrying written into the GFSZ act.

Red, it takes 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential Veto.
Yes and the only exemption for someone who is carry, who is not an ON DUTY LEO is if:
Quote:
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of
the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law
enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
Unless you have a permit from the state which you are in and to get that permit you underwent a background check from law enforcement in the state which the school zone is located.
xmanhockey7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 06:43   #130
EAJuggalo
Senior Member
 
EAJuggalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,984
Send a message via AIM to EAJuggalo Send a message via Yahoo to EAJuggalo


And HR 822 requires states and political subdivisions. Like NYC. To accept out of state permits the same as an unrestricted license in that state or political subdivision. It's the same as me carrying in any state other than Minnesota or Pennsylvania, by your reading of the law I would not be covered from the GFSZA, which I am as long as I'm carrying legally.
__________________
People killed by:
MN permit holders 3
MPLS Light Rail 9
Updated 3-22-13
EAJuggalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 08:29   #131
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
You said "Really, the feds threatened the states to do something that they could have taken control over? Do you actually believe that?"

My answer: "The DL agreement is not totally comprehensive but it is good enough to keep the Federal govt out of the business."

I believe if NY decides tomorrow that they will no longer accept a NJ DL valid for operating a motor vehicle on NY streets, the Federal gvt will immediately pass an emergency order that will override NY state law and protect NJ drivers who find themselves behind the wheel while driving from NJ to CT. I'll let you do the research to figure out how and why that could happen. My point was states don't want this kind of Federal legislation so they do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

If you want, I can name a bunch of other state misses (including your so-called privileges) that have caused the Fed gvt to step in? I'll start with CCW permits. For those of us who know how to wield it, interstate commerce is a powerful weapon.

Again just so I am clear, the state agreed so the fed gvt didn't have to mandate anything.

When the states don't agree, you'll find the fed gvt trying to mandate when it's in the best interest of all citizens.
I don't know where you have this idea the Feds step in everytime when the states don't agree on a reciprocity. Since you champion this concept for the DL, please provide some relaible information that shows the feds threatened the states to come to an agree or we will step in. I know you have this opinion they did this, but would you please back it wth credible info? Please? This isn't attack, but an attempt to understand your reasoning behind this.

So, based upon your argument, my hunting permit here in MO should be honored in KS. This is a privilege the states govern, but based upon your theory, the feds should step in and make a national law, under the CC, to allow me to hunt in KS or any other state because I have a hunting license in MO.

This is the problem with the CC. One can just about justify anything under it. Therefore, if the feds want to regulate CCW, regulate it under the 2A where it should be.

Unfortunately, you and I will disagree on this topic. Your thoughts of having more fed government involvement are diametrically opposed to mine. If the feds want to jump into the waters with more gun legislation, let them do it under the 2A, not the catch all CC. The states should still work this out....they've made significant gains in the last 6-10 years. Give them time.




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 08:30   #132
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAJuggalo View Post
And HR 822 requires states and political subdivisions. Like NYC. To accept out of state permits the same as an unrestricted license in that state or political subdivision. It's the same as me carrying in any state other than Minnesota or Pennsylvania, by your reading of the law I would not be covered from the GFSZA, which I am as long as I'm carrying legally.
Good catch. The summary I read was not the official transcript.



red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 08:45   #133
xmanhockey7
Senior Member
 
xmanhockey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 1,320
That is what the law says. I literally quoted it. Here is a link to the text of the law http://www.gunlaws.com/Gun_Free_School_Zones_Act.pdf

Quote:
(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm that has moved in or that otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.
(B) Subparagraph (A) shalldoes not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
(ii) if the individual possessing the firearm is licensed to do so by the State in which the school zone is located or a political subdivision of the State, and the law of the State or political subdivision requires that, before an individual obtains such a license, the law enforcement authorities of the State or political subdivision verify that the individual is qualified under law to receive the license;
(iii) whichthat is— (I) not loaded; and (II) in a locked container, or a locked firearms rack
whichthat is on a motor vehicle;
(iv) by an individual for use in a program approved by a
school in the school zone;
(v) by an individual in accordance with a contract entered
into between a school in the school zone and the
individual or an employer of the individual;
(vi) by a law enforcement officer acting in his or her
official capacity; or
(vii) that is unloaded and is possessed by an individual
while traversing school premises for the purpose of gaining access to public or private lands open to hunting, if the entry on school premises is authorized by school authorities.
A letter written to the ATF regarding carrying out of state within 1,000 feet of a school. http://www.handgunlaw.us/documents/batf_school_zone.pdf
xmanhockey7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 11:55   #134
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
I don't know where you have this idea the Feds step in everytime when the states don't agree on a reciprocity.
Negative, I do not believe the Feds should jump in everytime when states don't agree on reciprocity. I believe the Feds should jump in when the states don't agree on reciprocity and recognition AND the disagreement adversely affects you and I, in certain areas of our lives.

For example, driving across the country, seeking accomodation in a hotel, carrying and transporting firearms, freedom of expression in terms of your clothing, car bumper stickers, etc, currency, marriages...and so on. If I live a state where red shirts are ok, I need protection when I cross the state line into a state where red shirts are not ok. I don't need permission to wear a red shirt, I just need to be protected from being arrested for wearing one. If I can drive with NRA bumper stickers in KS, I need protection from being stopped and harassed in MO counties that outlaw the NRA. If I am allowed to defend myself in KS and stop someone from hurting me, I need to be able to do the same when I visit CA or NY. I should not have to go somewhere within this country that outlaws self-protection. If some of these "privileges" are licensed and I have a license, my license needs to come with me as I travel. The Federal govt will protect me as I peacefully travel across this country and take my rights and privileges with me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
Since you champion this concept for the DL, please provide some relaible information that shows the feds threatened the states to come to an agree or we will step in. I know you have this opinion they did this, but would you please back it wth credible info? Please? This isn't attack, but an attempt to understand your reasoning behind this.
I never said threatened, not sure what you mean by that term. But almost all states find the commerce clause to be "threatening." Either way, this isn't the topic of the thread but if you do a little research....if you were around sometime late last century you would be more familiar with this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
So, based upon your argument, my hunting permit here in MO should be honored in KS. This is a privilege the states govern, but based upon your theory, the feds should step in and make a national law, under the CC, to allow me to hunt in KS or any other state because I have a hunting license in MO.
No this isn't my argument. No way is one state's license supposed to be valid in all 50 states. Just because you have a license to practice law in KS doesn't mean MO should let you practice law there. Just because you have a library card in Johnson County KS doesn't mean you should be able to check out books in Jackson County MO. Just because you can hunt on KS lands doesn't mean you should be able to hunt on MO lands. Practicing law and checking out library books and hunting are not rights or even associated with any privileges that you have everywhere you go.

As I said in an earlier thread, some privileges are specific to residents. Since nobody has the right to hunt, you can't expect to be able to hunt everywhere in this country. Maybe MO only wants residents to hunt there, ok that fine. Hunting is an exercise, an event, a sport, you can easily avoid hunting in another state and therefore avoid any sanctions associated with your actions. Tell me how I am supposed to avoid protecting myself so as to not violate another state's law? Tell me what am I supposed to do with my weapon when I move my home across the country as I peacefully travel and visit and spend money all over my country? Tell me why my permit in KS is not at least as good as the permits they issue in NY? Again, I need to Fed gvt in limited cases where I become a felony or are subjected to harsh penalties when I engage in a lawful activity at home that is just as lawful in the other state except it isn't just because the state says so (permit denial). If carrying concealed is unlawful for everyone in the state, then it is unlawful for me, too....permit or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
This is the problem with the CC. One can just about justify anything under it.
Agreed. If all the food disappeared on the earth and only animals would be left to hunt which you must eat to survive, all state restrictions on hunting across state lines would probably go away if the states didn't come up with some sort of plan for everyone. Look, it is perfectly fine the way it is today. States accomodate the citizens of this country else the Fed govt will accomodate for you. Perhaps you should look into some of the "history" behind this so you can get a sense of balance why this is so needed. I agree it's not obvious but it is important. However, I cannot always explain the overreach.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 14:41   #135
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
[snip]...
I never said threatened, not sure what you mean by that term. But almost all states find the commerce clause to be "threatening." Either way, this isn't the topic of the thread but if you do a little research....if you were around sometime late last century you would be more familiar with this.

Quote:
But we all know that's bogus and while I understand the states together decided to agree on DLs, they HAD to agree else the Fed gvt would have decided it for them. Just like this carry law is eventually going to play out.
Nope, you didn't use the word 'threating', however your statement would allow one to make that conclusion. But once again, you can't substantiate this behavior; it's just your opinion; which I disagree with.

[snip]....
As I said in an earlier thread, some privileges are specific to residents. Since nobody has the right to hunt, you can't expect to be able to hunt everywhere in this country. Maybe MO only wants residents to hunt there, ok that fine. Hunting is an exercise, an event, a sport, you can easily avoid hunting in another state and therefore avoid any sanctions associated with your actions. Tell me how I am supposed to avoid protecting myself so as to not violate another state's law? Tell me what am I supposed to do with my weapon when I move my home across the country as I peacefully travel and visit and spend money all over my country? Tell me why my permit in KS is not at least as good as the permits they issue in NY? Again, I need to Fed gvt in limited cases where I become a felony or are subjected to harsh penalties when I engage in a lawful activity at home that is just as lawful in the other state except it isn't just because the state says so (permit denial). If carrying concealed is unlawful for everyone in the state, then it is unlawful for me, too....permit or not.

I can buy a permit and never go out to hunt. CCW is the same, you can get one, but never use it.

Its unlawful because they don't want you to play (CCW) on their turf; only their folks play CCW on their turf. It is their turf. What is legal on your turf, may not be legal on their turf. They can do with it what they want; even if you don't like it. Since they are not violating any laws (which I think they are, but legally as of now, they are not) they can do that.

[snip]....
Agreed. If all the food disappeared on the earth and only animals would be left to hunt which you must eat to survive, all state restrictions on hunting across state lines would probably go away if the states didn't come up with some sort of plan for everyone. Look, it is perfectly fine the way it is today. States accomodate the citizens of this country else the Fed govt will accomodate for you. Perhaps you should look into some of the "history" behind this so you can get a sense of balance why this is so needed. I agree it's not obvious but it is important. However, I cannot always explain the overreach.

Your straw arguement on food is not relevant.

Since you seem to be the knowlege keeper, feel free to edjucate me on this hisotry you speak of.
Once again, it appears, you are saying you have a right to conceal and carry to protect yourself in other states that have CCW for their people or subjects. NO you don't have that RIGHT. You have a 'privilege' to CCW in other states, if they so choose to allow you. There is a difference. CCW needs to be a right; legislating it through the CC does not help. If you subject it to the CC, it NOW is regulated and isn't considered a right. I believe CCW should be a right; however, it is only a privilege at this point.

We both agree on one thing.....CCW should be a right to protect ourselves, wherever, as we travel in the US; however, it appears you want it now, under the commerce clause; I want it through the states or under the 2A. Regulating it under the 2A provides a more difficultly for politicians to screw with; however, if it is just 'regulated' under the CC; it's open to revision under every congress to amend, which they can and do every year. The CC should be used very narrowly; it isn't, it's being used very broadly....example....Obamacare.

OBTW, hunting is a privilege, check with your state's regulatory unit.




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 17:53   #136
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
^In light of today's incident, my right to self-protection follows me everywhere I go whether it's NY or VA and I'm not going to let any state stand in my way. The reason why we cannot carry in NY today is because people like you support the state's power to stop us even though the Fed gvt is working hard to allow it. You are so scared of something, I don't know, that you won't even accept the ability to carry out of state because of "techincal" reasons or whatever "categorical" reasons you claim....all at the same time you are forgetting that people have to go unarmed and defenseless because of it. While you sit back and analyse this on paper, honest people are having to deal with the realities of this stupidity in real life. I live right on the state line and if MO didn't recognise my KS license, I would be screwed.

It would be different if it's just one place like downtown Chicago or a small town in suburban Los Angeles or a liberal county in Florida banning carry, places that may not affect the larger population. However, we're talking about entire swaths of the country with a patchwork of laws and very harsh stiff penalties for even small violations and with all the crime abound and the massive amount of people traveling and the states not making [good enough] progress fast enough (in fact, some states are revoking agreements), something has to be done....and it will be done by the Fed gvt.

You made this particular statement that irks me "You have a 'privilege' to CCW in other states, if they so choose to allow you." The only reason today why a state is not allowing it is because some people are lining up to keep it in force and make sure the states have the power to keep on [dis]allowing it...for bogus reasons, what do you call it, states rights or 2a or whatever. If the right people come together (and it's possible they will), "if they so choose to allow you" will disappear literally overnight. Using all the existing laws on the books with no changes to the Constitution, all of a sudden a state has no choice but to "allow it." Imagine that. It could happen. But it WON'T because you simply don't want it to happen and you are doing everything you can to see that it doesn't happen using all the tricks in your book to squash it. I hope you know who you are teaming up with. Sad.
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 18:05   #137
EAJuggalo
Senior Member
 
EAJuggalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 1,984
Send a message via AIM to EAJuggalo Send a message via Yahoo to EAJuggalo


I had not ever seen that letter from the ATF previously. I spoke to an Indiana State Trooper about it and what he told me was that in order to be charged with it in Indiana you would have to be arrested and charged in federal court with another crime.
__________________
People killed by:
MN permit holders 3
MPLS Light Rail 9
Updated 3-22-13
EAJuggalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 18:10   #138
xmanhockey7
Senior Member
 
xmanhockey7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAJuggalo View Post
I had not ever seen that letter from the ATF previously. I spoke to an Indiana State Trooper about it and what he told me was that in order to be charged with it in Indiana you would have to be arrested and charged in federal court with another crime.
Well first off never take legal advice from a cop. It is not uncommon for them to be wrong. Legally they can get you just on the GFSZ charge. But really if you're in a state like Indiana they're not going to give you any trouble if you're from out of state. Really to be charged you're probably going to be charged by a federal LEO (ATF, FBI, etc).

We had someone OCing in Michigan while on school property watching 4th of July fireworks get written up by a local LEO for open carrying on school the premises of a school, being within 1,000 feet of a school, and being in violation of the concealed carry law by open carrying. He was not violating any of the following and never even had to show up for court.
xmanhockey7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 19:49   #139
redbaron007
Lifetime Membership
A Nice Prick
 
redbaron007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Southwest Missouri
Posts: 6,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by kensteele View Post
^In light of today's incident, my right to self-protection follows me everywhere I go whether it's NY or VA and I'm not going to let any state stand in my way. The reason why we cannot carry in NY today is because people like you support the state's power to stop us even though the Fed gvt is working hard to allow it. You are so scared of something, I don't know, that you won't even accept the ability to carry out of state because of "techincal" reasons or whatever "categorical" reasons you claim....all at the same time you are forgetting that people have to go unarmed and defenseless because of it. While you sit back and analyse this on paper, honest people are having to deal with the realities of this stupidity in real life. I live right on the state line and if MO didn't recognise my KS license, I would be screwed.

It would be different if it's just one place like downtown Chicago or a small town in suburban Los Angeles or a liberal county in Florida banning carry, places that may not affect the larger population. However, we're talking about entire swaths of the country with a patchwork of laws and very harsh stiff penalties for even small violations and with all the crime abound and the massive amount of people traveling and the states not making [good enough] progress fast enough (in fact, some states are revoking agreements), something has to be done....and it will be done by the Fed gvt.

You made this particular statement that irks me "You have a 'privilege' to CCW in other states, if they so choose to allow you." The only reason today why a state is not allowing it is because some people are lining up to keep it in force and make sure the states have the power to keep on [dis]allowing it...for bogus reasons, what do you call it, states rights or 2a or whatever. If the right people come together (and it's possible they will), "if they so choose to allow you" will disappear literally overnight. Using all the existing laws on the books with no changes to the Constitution, all of a sudden a state has no choice but to "allow it." Imagine that. It could happen. But it WON'T because you simply don't want it to happen and you are doing everything you can to see that it doesn't happen using all the tricks in your book to squash it. I hope you know who you are teaming up with. Sad.
Blame me for it! That's original and thought provoking. It's said when someone has to blame others for their lot in life. Why settle for second best when the best is achievable?


Good Luck my friend on your pursuits!




red
__________________
TopGun *357sig* Club - #2632


R.I.P. Cajunator® ~ R.I.P. Mullah (aka El Ron)
R.I.P. GioaJack ~ R.I.P. Okie
redbaron007 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2011, 21:55   #140
kensteele
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Leawood, KS
Posts: 7,866
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbaron007 View Post
Blame me for it! That's original and thought provoking. It's said when someone has to blame others for their lot in life. Why settle for second best when the best is achievable?


Good Luck my friend on your pursuits!




red
Well, I just hope the bill passes the senate and if it does, obama will sign it. This isn't the first time so if not this time, maybe the next time. Good luck to you too!
kensteele is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:05.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 960
305 Members
655 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42