NYT: Questioning by Justices Suggest N.Y. Gun Law ‘Unlikely to Survive’

Concealed carry
Even the New York Times is suggesting the Empire State’s restrictive “may issue” gun control law on carry permits ,ay not survive Supreme Court scrutiny.

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Don’t break out the party favors just yet, but when the New York Times concurs with one of the nation’s leading gun-rights advocates that the U.S. Supreme Court is likely to strike down a gun control law in New York State, the odds they’re both right increases dramatically.

The high court heard oral arguments in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen—challenging the state’s requirement that applicants for a permit to carry a handgun in public must show “roper cause”—and in the aftermath, NY Times reporter Adam Liptak wrote, “A New York law that imposes strict limits on carrying guns outside the home seemed unlikely to survive its encounter with the Supreme Court, based on questioning from the justices on Wednesday.”

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation said likewise in a statement to the press, and in a related AmmoLand story that may be read here.

Former Washington State Attorney General Rob McKenna, speaking with Seattle’s KIRO radio Thursday, predicted the court may issue a narrow ruling that doesn’t throw the gates completely open, but doesn’t allow the 108-year-old New York law to survive. And Jonathan Turley, writing at Fox News in an Op-Ed, also expects New York’s restrictive law to be in trouble.

Writing at SCOTUSblog and Howe on the Court, Amy Howe observed, “…it seemed likely that New York’s 108-year-old handgun-licensing law is in jeopardy. But the justices’ eventual ruling might be a narrow one focused on the New York law (and others like it), saving broader questions on the right to carry a gun outside the home for later.”

Among McKenna’s observations was that carrying a pistol in a holster “probably doesn’t” constitute “brandishing.” This suggests that open carry in a peaceful manner by someone going about his/her routine business does not rise to the level of a criminal act.

But there is a lot more to be learned from the transcript of Wednesday’s hearing—which may be read here—and from coverage in the NY Times and at Fox News.

Liptak’s article in the Times focused on what attorney Paul Clement, representing NYSR&PA and two individual plaintiffs, said about prohibiting guns in “sensitive places.”

“New York is entitled to have laws that say that you can’t have weapons in sensitive places,” Clement told the justices.

However, in the transcript, Clement also said this, as quoted on Page 119: “In a country with the Second Amendment as a fundamental right, simply having more firearms cannot be a problem and can’t be a government interest just to put a cap on the — the number of firearms. And that just underscores how completely non-tailored this law is. It might be well-tailored to keeping the number of handguns down, but it’s not well-tailored to identifying people who pose a particular risk or anything else because it deprives a typical New Yorker of their right to carry for self-defense.”

A few sentences later, Clement added, “I want to say a quick word just about permitting. There may be limiting permitting in other contexts like parade permitting, but I’m not aware of any context whatsoever were, in order to get a permit, you have to show that you have a particularly good need to exercise your constitutional right. And I think that is the absolute central defect with New York’s regime here.”

Arguing in support of the restrictive New York law were New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood and Brian Fletcher, an attorney with the Biden Justice Department.

Under questioning by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Underwood did not seem to fare well. As noted by the NY Times, Underwood’s argument in favor of the current law hit some speed bumps.

When Underwood explained that permits are “more readily available in less populated areas,” Roberts fired right back.

“If the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow people to protect themselves,” Roberts observed, “that’s implicated when you’re in a high-crime area. It’s not implicated when you’re out in the woods.”

Underwood replied, “Well, I — I think it is implicated when you’re out in the woods. It’s just a different set of problems. I mean, you’re…”

At which point Roberts interrupted, “Yeah, deer.”

Underwood, according to the transcript, then attempted to finish her remark, “– you’re deserted there and you can’t — and law enforcement is not available to come to your aid if something does happen. But…”

And Roberts interrupted again, “Well, how many muggings take place in the forest?”

A moment later, Underwood was challenged by Alito regarding armed criminals on the subway. They have weapons, but under existing New York law, honest citizens are left unarmed. Underwood’s response could leave self-defense advocates astonished.

“The core right to self-defense,” she stated, “– as — as this Court said, doesn’t allow for all to be armed for all possible confrontations in all places.”

Possibly the best signal for which way the high court will travel came from Chief Justice Roberts, during an exchange with attorney Fletcher.

“If you’re asserting a claim to confront the witnesses against you under the Constitution,” Roberts observed, “you don’t have to say I’ve got a special reason, this is why I think it’s important to my defense. The Constitution gives you that right. And if someone’s going to take it away from you, they have to justify it. You don’t have to say when you’re looking for a permit to speak on a street corner or whatever that, you know, your speech is particularly important. So why do you have to show in this case, convince somebody, that you’re entitled to exercise your Second Amendment right?”

A few moments later, the chief justice stated, “I mean, you would — regardless of what the right is, it would be surprising to have it depend upon a permit system. You can say that the right is limited in a particular way, just as First Amendment rights are limited, but the idea that you need a license to exercise the right, I think, is unusual in the context of the Bill of Rights.”

A ruling in the New York case likely will not be handed down until late June, when the court traditionally issues its most controversial decisions. A ruling nullifying New York’s gun control law in the middle of the campaign season for the upcoming 2022 Midterm elections would be nothing short of earth shaking, with the tremors being felt especially on Capitol Hill and in the legislatures of not only New York, but New Jersey, Maryland, California and at least four other states with similar restrictions.

RELATED:


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Subscribe
Notify of
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
john
john(@johnwestside4545)
29 days ago

Law and order can not begin to those 545 elected in Washington abide by the constitution. While lower court judges make rulings to pander to the political party that sat them on the bench justice without bias is impossible. There will not be any local or federal government law enforcement agencies collecting firearms as it is unconstitutional . The United Nations and this administration working together will be the problem.As we have seen around the world in democracies there will be a simple request that all firearms need to be turned in. Those in washington ever deem all firearms as… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago
Reply to  john

“There will not be any local or federal government law enforcement agencies collecting firearms as it is unconstitutional.”

Do you think all existing federal and state laws regarding firearms are constitutional?

Do you think adherence to the Constitution is what is holding back politicians from banning broad categories of semiautomatic rifles?

Do you think most state and local LE agencies would refrain from cooperating with federal LE agencies to selectively enforce such a law on specific individuals for specific reasons?

KK
KK(@kuetsayahoo-com)
29 days ago

I’ve been waiting a lifetime – I’ll believe it when I see it happen.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago

How many patriots were making excuses for the redcoats?

DDS
DDS(@dds)
29 days ago

Oh, I really like that. That’s a good point.

If guns were as tightly regulated in the colonies, and then in the early states, as New York claims they were, and as they are in New York today, there would be documentation, right?

How come no one has come up with any of it? That poser Michael Beslisle never even thought to fake any.

Good one!

Last edited 29 days ago by DDS
Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago
Reply to  DDS

New York used to require every able bodied male to have a rifle, 24 rounds, powder, a satchel, etc, to be used if and when called up to defend the area.

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago

Exactly. Americans need to make civil disobedience the national pastime.

We will not comply with infringements on liberty nor our enumerated rights.

We will not ask permission to exercise our rights.

Not a single person will ever be hurt or made a victim by Americans exercising our enumerated rights and refusing to bow to infringements. Our civil “disobedience” causes no one harm, and demonstrates the state is overstepping by leaps and bounds.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

When are LEOs going to make not following orders a national pastime?

KK
KK(@kuetsayahoo-com)
29 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Never

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago
Reply to  KK

I believe you are right.

There is no law so unjust, so heinous, so totalitarian that the majority of LEOs won’t enforce it.

Who are the redcoats?

Laddyboy
Laddyboy(@laddyboy)
29 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

I agree. However, do not try to practice what you speak in Maryland (the FREE STATE). ESPECIALLY when DemoKKKrats are in control of “our” government!
As has been stated by DemoKKKrats in back rooms: RULES FOR THEE BUT NOT FOR ME!!!

Divino Vocamen
Divino Vocamen(@divino-vocamen)
1 month ago

The Ninth Amendment says “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people ” . So if the government may not “deny or disparage ” rights inherent in the People but not set out in the Constitution, how can they “deny or disparage ” any of the rights that are enumerated ?

HLB
HLB(@hlb482gmail-com)
1 month ago
Reply to  Divino Vocamen

I have started to read the hearing transcript. Things such as post constitutional history (violations of the Constitution since it was ratified) are cited as reasons that the Constitution can be ignored. This is wrong in two respects. One is that the “deny or disparage” elements have a perfect right to change the wording of the Constitution through the amendment process, but they have not. Two is that basic rights can not be denied or disparaged in any event, which is probably why they have not affected a change through method One. The good news is that, since these rights… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago
Reply to  HLB

Both of you have great points. The state has violated the Constitution incrementally, more each year, building on prior illegal acts. These post Constitutional violations do not create a precedent of acceptable behavior, merely a precedent of criminal conduct not yet struck down. That society has let them commit crimes Against We the People does not mean the state has the authority, merely that we have suffered their crimes rather than enforcing our rights.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen(@ansel-hazen)
29 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

And the Founding Fathers spoke to that as well.
They told us to “find new guards for our future security.”

DDS
DDS(@dds)
29 days ago
Reply to  Divino Vocamen

Oh, that’s an easy one. After all, the Constitution of the United States is just a bunch of words on parchment. It has just as much power over the government supposedly authorized by it as we insist upon. Long story short, the various governments can do pretty much whatever we allow them to do.

And we’ve never been really good at telling them “No!”, have we?

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy(@reen-mtn-boy)
29 days ago
Reply to  DDS

Reminds me of Mr/Dr. Franklins remark “a Republic if you can keep it” and We The People have done a rather lousy job of keeping it.

Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman(@henry_bowman)
1 month ago

This is an enumerated Right we’re talking about here, so the standard ought to be strict scrutiny. After all, the plain text of 2A states explicitly, “…Shall NOT be infringed.” This is unambiguous.

How SCOTUS rules, though, is anyone’s guess. I expect bought-and-paid-for Justices like John Roberts to throw in language that abridges our Rights, even if the case is a win. In this way, it leaves a loophole for gun-ban radicals to attack our Rights and for anti-gun politicians to amend infringing laws so as to keep as much tyranny in place as possible.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill(@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  Henry Bowman

Yes, it all depends upon what level of scrutiny that they rationalize.

HLB
HLB(@hlb482gmail-com)
1 month ago
Reply to  Henry Bowman

Levels of scrutiny are something that people who want to restrict rights invented. They invented it so they could get their way. Their way is not my way. I already have my way which is recognized by the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Therefore I refuse to bend to levels of scrutiny.

HLB

Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman(@henry_bowman)
29 days ago
Reply to  HLB

Well said! …Live Free or Die. It’s not just a motto, it’s a way of life!

Finnky
Finnky(@finnks)
29 days ago
Reply to  Henry Bowman

In accepting the case SCOTUS rewrote the question, reducing it to whether NY rejecting two plaintiffs carry licenses was constitutional. As a rule, their ruling it restricted to the question before them. That suggests that at best they will require ‘shall issue’, without limiting requirements, terms or conditions. On the other hand Roberts seems to be questioning licensing itself. Given his preference for narrow rulings it’s unlikely – but questions almost indicate that they could rule licensure itself unconstitutional. My guess he is doing so to justify ‘shall issue’ ruling with tight limits on licensing requirements, costs, hoops, etc. Ruling… Read more »

Norm
Norm(@nglitz)
1 month ago

Roberts still uses the “The Constitution gives you that right.” line. He hasn’t quite figured out that we have that right independent of the Constitution. The BOR defends our rights against government interference.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Norm

YEAH! The carry permitting process in NY isn’t SO bad, is it?

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Norm

The patriotic older generations were reasonable when they said applying for a pistol permit only requires:

  • Two pictures
  • Four character references
  • Fingerprints
  • $150

Then the sheriff (a hero and frequently a veteran – many times a Marine!) gets to decide if you are responsible enough to exercise your rights without government interference.

Process for the most “conservative” county in NY:

https://www.wyomingco.net/DocumentCenter/View/189/How-to-apply-for-a-Wyoming-County-Pistol-permit-PDF?bidId=

LilHuck
LilHuck(@dmaria)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

That so called conservative county voted yes for the Pelosi Socialist bill to ruin our lives that much more and called it infrastructure

Last edited 1 month ago by LilHuck
JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  LilHuck

Hey man, I didn’t say it was a conservative county, I said it was the most conservative county in NY.

The tallest midget isn’t tall.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill(@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I don’t think that you can pin this on the older generation. I think that it was the legislature and governor at the time. We don’t know their ages or motives.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

And what generation were they? NY gun control has been around a long time.

I don’t judge people based on their birthdate, or where they were born, or where their daddy was born, or whether or not they received a paycheck from the DOD.

I’m merely pointing out the hyprocrisy of people who do.

I think you already knew that to be the case.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill(@wild-bill)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

I do not know. You would have to research who all was involved.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but you seem to judge on those basis or maybe you are just following someone’s lead.
No, I don’t your writing seems to suggest otherwise.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I think you’re being disingenuous again. The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911. People born after 1964 had nothing to do with it. My writing just points out the hypocrisy of: Some elderly people who think the erosion of rights and the march towards socialism/totalitarianism is due to young people; and Some military/ex-military people who do their best to create division. I’m mocking them. It would be better if elderly and young people worked together. Making broad accusations based on birthdates is not helpful. It would be better if military people and non-military people worked together. Saying people who didn’t… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Wild Bill,

Not many mild days left here. I’m going out to enjoy the rest of this one.

If you have a minute, read the above post and the comments in this thread:

https://www.ammoland.com/2021/10/new-leak-shows-atf-forming-four-new-branches/#axzz7BStBobtT

Have a nice day.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Norm

Norm has explained before that the NY pistol permit process (outside of NYC) is not so bad.

As he wrote above, he understands government interference.

Henry Bowman
Henry Bowman(@henry_bowman)
1 month ago
Reply to  Norm

The ‘Watering the Liberty Tree’ quote is from Jefferson, not Washington. Jefferson said that a little revolution now and then is a good thing.
[Pardon my wild paraphrasing!]

swmft
swmft(@swmft)
1 month ago

just having my morning cup o brandon fu k joe biden ,@Green Mtn. ,@Boy,,

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago
Reply to  swmft

I am ready.

AP
AP(@ap)
1 month ago

The Constitution gives you that right.” This is why Roberts is so flaky. The Constitution ENUMERATES that right, and all others. It doesn’t GIVE any rights.

Green Mtn. Boy
Green Mtn. Boy(@reen-mtn-boy)
1 month ago

Questioning by Justices Suggest N.Y. Gun Law ‘Unlikely to Survive’

Well No Schit,all gun control laws are un Constitutional,SCOTUS just isn’t there yet.

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
1 month ago

Getting rid of the “good enough reason to be granted your right” isnt enough.

Everyone can carry, now, per the Constitution. Open or concealed. SCOTUS must order all states to kill every permit and licensing scheme. We will not ask permission to exercise our rights.

Last edited 1 month ago by Arizona
Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Everyone can carry, now, per the Constitution.”

How many “gun free” zones were there in 1789-92?

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Yeah, but the Constitution.

We have the Consitution . . . and veterans.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Yes, carry everywhere.

LEOs are heroes. They will not arrest you.

Travel to Chicago, Los Angeles (we even have some LA LEO hereos who post here regularly), New York, Boston, Newark – you’re good to go. Carry at the schools at the courthouses, and at the city halls. You won’t be convicted of a felony.

Go to small town Alabama and walk up to the first Bubba you see with his gut hanging over his belt and give him some nutrition and exercise advice.

LEOs are heroes. They are on your side.

Please provide a report after your travels.

Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

LOL, GO FOR IT, WILL!!!

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Comrade, you need to trust government employees.

We need more government employees.

They need better health care, better pensions, and a bigger veteran discount at NAPA Auto Parts, and two free cups of coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts on Veterans’ Day.

You see, civilians are the problem.

It’s all so clear now.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

And more veteran parking spots at the grocery store!

hippybiker
hippybiker(@hippy-biker)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

You’re 100% correct! The Boot Lickers would have you believe all LEOs are hero’s. The old saw goes…” If they ever succeed in disarming the American people, who do you think will be knocking on and then breaking down your door?” It doesn’t take a ‘Rocket Scientist’ to figure that out.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  hippybiker

Life is much easier if you just accept that:

  • Government is good;
  • Bigger government is better;
  • Veterans (especially Marines!) in government are good;
  • LEOs (state, county, city/town) are good;
  • LEOs who are veterans are really good (they are warfighters who know how to break down doors); and
  • Civilians exist only to feed government.

It all came to me on the 5th of November.

Do you remember the 5th of November?

Bubba
Bubba(@2abubba)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

“Gunpowder, Treason and Plot”
400 years later:
“Let’s go Brandon”

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Life is so easy now. Will was right – I was “wrong about everything.” We need to increase the size of the military. Only people who are serving or who have served should be allowed to vote. Military service must be a requirement for being a LEO. Military service must be a requirement for public office. Corporate executives should be required, by law, to mow the lawns of veterans. We need to increase the tax rates on everyone who hasn’t served. All veterans should be deputized – we could have an armed government employee on every corner and in every… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Response on hold (probably too long).

Short answer: Will was right – I was wrong about everything!!

It’s all so liberating.

Deputize all veterans – an armed government employee on every street corner!!!!!

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

Well aren’t you a disappointment. You basically announce that you do and will continue to kneel before the state, and follow every order of the “crown”.

No, LEO’s are certainly not heroes just by virtue of being LEO’s. And while vets have put everything on the line, we aren’t heroes just for being vets.

Your comments of late indicate you are inebriated, your account is hacked or you are just being a contrary jackass.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

Contrary jackass. We have dozens of government employees and ex-government employees here who say you overstate the number of bad LEOs – that your estimate of 50% is way too high. Neanderthal75 says that 10 to 15% of LEOs are bad. Bubba (former LAPD) says the number is less than 1%. If they are right – that there are only a “few bad apples,” then you can do exactly what you indicate: carry now. Who is going to arrest you? There is a certain percent of nurses, business people, and students who work/go to school in Chicago who don’t carry… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago
Reply to  JSNMGC

If those nurses and students and others in LA, Chicago and elsewhere keep acting out of fear then they will continue to lose freedoms. The state cannot hang us all, the phrase goes. The more who challenge these illegal statutes, in person and via protest, legal challenges, etc, the more difficult the state will find to intimidate people into compliance. If they choose not to stand up for their rights, however, they will continue to lose more. My state now respects our rights. There is still work to do, abolishing gun free freefire victim zones and such, but we are… Read more »

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

Uh huh. How many times have you fought the Chicago Police Department? You really should show everyone exaclty how it’s done. You go to Chicago – walk into a hospital and, in front of a Marine veteran-now-Chicago cop, announce (loudly) “I have a gun and I’m standing up for my rights. You can’t disarm me because the Constitution says I can carry this firearm.” Here’s what’s going to happen: That heroic veteran is going to call for backup on his radio; A dozen cops will be there in less than four minutes; Another dozen will be on the way; You… Read more »

Last edited 29 days ago by JSNMGC
Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen(@ansel-hazen)
29 days ago
Reply to  Arizona

I vote all three but the sarcasm is truth.

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
29 days ago
Reply to  Ansel Hazen

The truth is: good people have been murdered, raped, and robbed because they were afraid the Chicago Police would ruin their lives by enforcing gun control laws. Before one of the King’s men says something about they made poor choices – the odds are much higher that a cop will ruin their lives than a criminal. Yes, that means a small percentage were victims of non-cop criminals. What the King’s men won’t say is that the cops (many of whom are veterans) are enforcing unconstitutional laws. The King’s men will not say where they draw the line: Enforcing all the… Read more »

Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago
Reply to  Arizona

Serious question about “Constitutional Carry”: How many “gun free” zones were there in 1789-92 when the Constitution & 2A were adopted?

Crickets Chirping…

Arizona
Arizona(@arizona)
29 days ago
Reply to  Russn8r

Pretty sure they were armed when they signed the declaration. Even in states like mine we still have more work to do, from abolishing freefire zones at schools and such, to bringing back hunter ed classes, etc.

Russn8r
Russn8r(@russn8r)
1 month ago

Sure. It’s all Roberts. How about the 3 new ‘Federalist’ Society ‘Justices’ who voted for the coup last year, 2 of whom just voted to let Maine force lethal injections on healthcare workers, with no religious exemption. Why do you give them a pass?

Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Finnky
Finnky(@finnks)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Workman

I think the ruling will go our way, BUT Roberts will write the opinion and tailor as narrow as he can. Plaintiffs made it clear the are not objecting to licensing scheme, just to “just cause” requirement. Both sides speak of “sensitive places” and how reasonable restrictions therein are. In the end I don’t the victory will be rather limited.
Great analysis by lawyer on YouTube channel “four box diner”.

hippybiker
hippybiker(@hippy-biker)
1 month ago
Reply to  Dave Workman

Dave. I listened to the hearing and I’ll tell you what. All of the Justices had that idiotic excuse for public servant from New York on the proverbial ropes! I feel even the Liberals on the court could see thru her ‘ Bull Scat!’

Bubba
Bubba(@2abubba)
1 month ago
Reply to  hippybiker

Sentence nah!

-one word.

“Unalienable!”

JSNMGC
JSNMGC(@jsnmgc)
1 month ago
Reply to  Bubba

[Snort]

YEAH!!! The LAPD understand that concept!!!

Heroes!