After all: Wilder's one-handgun-a-month ban may survive
It was part of L. Douglas Wilder's campaign platform, but two weeks ago it appeared that the former governor's 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month seemed headed for repeal. Wilder had always described the ban as a commonsense way to end Virginia's dubious reputation as the weak link in the interstate effort to keep handguns out of the hands of thugs. And Delegate David Toscano seemed to agree. But in a 61-37-1 repeal vote, the House of Delegates–- including Charlottesville-area Delegate Rob Bell–- moved the other way. The Washington Post inveighed against potential "mayhem," and along with a measure to allow guns in bars, Virginia was getting some national attention for such controversial measures. But in the Senate, according to a Post political blogger, the bill undoing the gun-a-month law now appears doomed to die in a special subcommittee.
61 comments
Guess what GoGoo... I've been here for 20 years and moved here from New Jersey so don't give me that Northernphobic crap. I love it here and will rationally debate for ALL of our rights..
Another rational argument for sure.
Engage your brain before your fingers.
Hollow boy, I don't know if you meant to but you get a 100 on the quiz.
While the pencilnecks fight over the issues, I'm stocking up.
The Framer's intention was to enable the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government, that's all, nothing more. There is no misinterpretation whatsoever... Review history and read The Amendment for what it is, not for what you'd like it to say.
The illegitimate rebellion by the poor, failed southern states was a pathetic experiment in states' rights. There is not a single law nor a single court ruling that proclaimed that south carolina or any other member of the United State of America may secede from the union.
South Carolina ratified the Constitution of the United States of America. Once she did that, she submitted to the Federal Authority enshrined in that document. End of story.
Andrew Jackson established the illegality of the nullification movement in South Carolina. Abraham Lincoln conquered South Carolina.
What part of this history are you not comprehending?
I think we need to repeal this one gun a month thing. I cannot afford to buy a gun every month. This law is bankrupting me.
HollowBoy,
I didn't call the NRA nuts. I said its been taken over by the extremist nuts at least vocally.
Yes, i agree the FFs meant is to defend ouselves against a tyrannical government, but it was a bit more than that. They recognized the sort of border problems we currently are having, and absolutely believed the private citizen had the right to protect their property and their town. The ability for the locals to defend themselves when the Fed could not or would not is a perfect example of what they meant.
Personally, I did not care for how the Minutemen portrayed themselves, but I do agree with their premise and right to organize.
Mertilator,
Yes, I do know one or two of those gun 'nuts' and one lived in this area for quite a while. i sort of chuckle, because one of these guys in brilliant, but his response to everyhing is
1) Run for the hills
2) Bar the doors
3) Get your guns out.
He's a good guy and dead honest and holds a good job, but he takes things a mite too far is all.
Go to gun shows sometime and you might surprise yourself about the intense ones you find.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/nocarry.png
I'm going way out here but this little quiz is for anyone who is really good at connecting the dots.
Can anyone tell me how gun control relates to cheap and widely used indonesian palm oil? (of course I mean the palm oil that is used in thousands of commercial products)
Mertilator,
"Tim McVeighs compared to responsible gun owners (and NRA members for that matter) is so small as to be insignificant, the press just gives them inordinate airtime because most of them are anti-gun and want to portray negative stereotypes of gun owners."
I'm sorry but " the media is picking on all us gun owners and distorting things for lib pinko commie UN loving anti-gun fanatics" dog ain't gonna hunt no more.
The NRA is very vocal and it is not run by the average gun owner like myself, it's run by the gun nuts. The NRA calls around asking for money so they can lobby Congress claiming lies like " The UN wants to take away your guns." I get the calls and run into decent but very ignorant older folks who then believe that nonsense.
It's time for responsible gun owners to take their Association back away from the extremists, and stop blaming the media. If we are all about personal responsibility then we should have trouble doing this, should we?
"actually tend to agree with them that father figure type bureaucracies like the UN do want to take guns away, when you look at the most liberal cities like Chicago and DC with the strictest gun laws,"
See, this is the problem, and why youa re part of it. The UN has nothing to do with either Chicago or DC's gun laws, or their crime problems. But it's not lost me why you picked those cities. Miami is a dangerous town and it ain't liberal.
I won't deny the global reach of the UN, that was what it was developed to be by countries like the US. One could easily argue that the UN has been a very convenient tool for spreading US and Western European pre-eminence through the world, not vice versa.
When I was a little boy the NRA was about kids doing a sport with their parents. Usually boys with their dads but girls were out there too, like my sister. That's the image they portrayed. Sport and family. Now it's about owning uzi's and hating anything that might have a blue donkey for a party tag.
It's really simple. It's time to take the image back from the gun nuts, and go back to what it was about- responsible gun ownership and a family activity.
Mertilator,
I would suggest to you that if the NRA spent time educating people and developing shooting ranges instead of being a political platform for the gun nuts, you might find the real anti-gun nuts have nowhere to go. I support the second amendment and I felt the overturn of the handgun ban in DC was right on, but I find the flakes feeling they need a large personal armory to be secure is a bit buts.
The irony is the flakes with the NRA as their sound platform spend more time spreading lies like the UN is out to get their guns, while voting for the very people who are taking away their constitutional rights day by day, handing their money to corporate thieves, and setting the laws so that corporate malfeasance is legal.
"Ken, the majority of the population in Virginia only being allowed to purchase one handgun per month is no big deal. The problem is the fact that law abiding gun owners don’t like being led around like a little puppy dog on a leash because a few criminals ruin it for EVERYBODY."
It's even worse, but in a more subtle devious way. By putting limits on things, you give the hint to the undecided that the law secretly disapproves of them, because if something was beneficial it would never be regulated in such a way. There are far more common sense ways of cracking down, for instance we could increase penalties on those convicted and making it less profitable to gunrun and allow certain sales only to residents who have lived X amount of time. But anti-gun nuts clearly want public sentiment to be turned against guns so they will eventually be outlawed, so they frame legislation in manners that will cause the most ostracism of gun owners instead of the ones that will inconvenience criminals the most. When your average citizen is more afraid of guns than crime is when criminals are going to thrive.
Well, okay--but we need some common sense restrictions. You can only buy one nuclear weapon a month. Also, although we can't make this mandatory, I think there should be some degree of community consensus before anybody blows up another community. Waynesboro, for instance. I have had my doubts about the usefulness of Waynesboro. But there may be those who are fond of it.
Why doesn't the Right to Bear Arms extend to explosives? They're much more effective. Nobody is going to stop a government tyranny standing on the sidewalk brandishing their Smith & Wesson six shooter. The government has tens of thousands of Glocks, and Heckler & Koch machine guns, and M-16s, and grenade launchers, and tanks and planes and aircraft carriers. Hardly a fair fight. But let us citizens walk around Washington DC wearing Undies of Mass Destruction--THAT'll give 'em something to worry about.
I am unafraid of any government restriction on guns. Anyone with a lick of sense can make a gun in about an hour.
Just look at we these 13th century animals are doing in Iraq and Afghanastan with roadside bombs.
I am a lot more afraid of the IRS the EPA and the zoning board than gun restrictions.
The "rebellion" was not illegal...Show me where it says in the constitution that states couldn't secede....
"Review history and read The Amendment for what it is, not for what you’d like it to say"
Sounds like you need to do that more than I do.
I was referring to the historical inaccuracies in his post. I argued the facts quite succinctly and cogently. Which "argument" of mine is "invalid"? The southern rebellion was illegal and put down by force. Do you dispute that?
If you want to debate gun control, show me the ONLY amendment in the bill of rights where the words "well regulated" appear.
Government regulation of gun ownership is enshrined in our Founding Document and, if you truly loved America, you would not try to destroy the right of the people to regulate the bearing of arms. The right of the people to well regulate is American!! If you don't love America, please leave it for those of us that do.
One more invalid argument, deciding to chastise someone's grammar and spelling rather than debate facts.
re:"I had a great history teacher that pretty much through the book out the window "
You mean the spelling book? It shows. The word is "threw" and is the past tense of the word "throw". My son learned that word in second grade. Someday you'll get there!
And the "tarrif"? I hadn't realized that Abraham Lincoln, whose election and inauguration precipitated the illegal rebellion of the failed southern states, ran on a platform against the "tarrif".
Perhaps this totally awesome "teacher" didn't educate you regarding Andrew Jackson's Nullification Proclamation? Had more southerner's been familiar with it, much bloodshed could have been averted.
As it was, the failed and illegal rebellion was ruthlessly and unconditionally put down. The south "seceded" alright. And it took over one hundred years for it to recover.
Please do ederkate us o' learned one.
daniel boone, Every southern state submitted to federal authority by ratifying the Constitution of the United States of America.
You cannot simply say, "I ignore the law so therefore the law doesn't apply to me". By submitting to federal authority and joining the united states, a state entered into a compact. Such a compact can only be broken by ignoring the law.
There is no part of such a rebellion that is NOT illegal. But so what? The rebellion of the colonies against Britain was also illegal, according to British law. The rebellion of the south was illegal according to federal law.
The difference is this: The colonies had justice on their side, the south did not.
I am sorry, but the majority of your post was in my opinion, degrading the aforementioned poster for his spelling and grammar. I do not dispute your history lesson and concur with our founding fathers enshrinement of gun ownership by the people... Which is in fact, the point of this debate. My apologies.
So they made a special subcommittee and stacked it with anti-gun liberals. Tyranny of the minority.
correction, buts=nuts
Well to be honest this law means nothing to me. I can buy 1000 guns tomorrow if I wish, and it would take me about a half hour of my time. This is just another law that is worthless, when was the last time a criminal obeyed the law?
I can go on to a hour long rant here, but I am just going to post a few examples then move on. First off my top pet peeve is "Gun Free Zones" if you never heard of this term, every school and most every shopping mall is one. This is where the establishment unarms every law abiding citizen for the criminal's courtesy. examples include the Springfield Mall, The Illinois mall, Virginia Tech and many other malls across the country, just Google the term above and see the thousands of results and not one of them is going to be something positive that's for sure.
Next I like to look at two cities one in 1983 mandated that every head of household purchase a gun and ammo. Kennesaw Ga a suburb of Atlanta, within a year of the law, crime dropped 50%, now it boasts the lowest crime rates in the entire state 27 years later.
Now let's head north to our nation's capital, Washington DC with the strictest laws in the nation.
In 2004 during the heat of the war, there were more gun related deaths per 100,000 in Washington, then in Baghdad Iraq.
quote: "ââ?¬Å?The law restricting people to one gun a month significantly dropped the flow of guns into DC. This is very well and undeniably documented.”
quote: "article about one gun a month that offers evidence of its benefit"
Still waiting. Show us the documentation about the District of Columbia. The article you linked to is about the guns flowing into New York decreasing. It was never true and still isn't. Bloomberg just needed somebody else to blame their crime problem on. Bloomberg is so anti-gun I am surprised that he even allows NYPD to carry firearms.
There are already hundreds of illegal "gun laws" on the books. All of the worst tyrants in history have risen to power through aggresive disarmament of the people.
The rebellion was not illegal.
THe North conquered the south and the south surrendered and had to ratify the 13th 14th and 15th amendments to be readmitted.
You cannot be readmitted unless you seceded.
Scalia... I can read.
It's broken down into two separate parts:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
You've left out the most important part:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let us be reminded of the times. A new government that has been subjected to the tyranny of England and declaring independence. Ensuring the people of this great new country would not be forced into the same oppressions, by their own governing body. That's what the second part, of the second amendment is about.
Here is the makeup of the special committee. You can't tell me it's not stacked.
Senator Toddy Puller (Democrat) - chairperson
Senator Henry Marsh (Democrat)
Senator Janet Howell (Democrat)
Senator Louise Lucas (Democrat)
Senator Frederick Quayle (Republican)
In other news:
The restaurant ban repeal (SB 334), guns in locked containers and compartments in vehicles (SB 408), CHP renewals through the mail (SB 3), and the right to an ore tenus hearing for first time CHP applicants who are turned down (SB 533) ARE ALL SAFE from this subcommittee and, unless the House somehow really fumbles the ball, should be heading to the Governor's desk in the near future.
Wow, this discussion is awesome! "Undies of mass destruction"?
Paul and GSOE and others are correct about the Second Amendment. Its not about hunting or protecting yourself from criminals. The Founders intended that people would be able to fight a tyrannical government , one that came to power and decided to toss out the rest of the Constitution.
Notice we haven't had any coups in this country?
I saw somewhere the statement that "No one can conquer Russia. Russia has too much land. No can conquer China.China has too many people. No one can conquer America. America has too many guns." And Japanese Admiral Yamamoto was said to have made a statement in World War II that it would be senseless to invade the mainland US." There'd be a rifle behand every blade of grass."
Wonder how it would have fared with the Taliban if every Afghani woman had had a gun and knew how to use it.
It seems to be that most gun control legislation only affects those who are not going to engage in criminal activity anyhow.
I really don't care for calling the NRA "gun nuts." Thats a lot like saying the ACLU is "First Amendment nuts."
Yeah, the problem exists that the biggest gun fanatics are raving wackos but the amount of Tim McVeighs compared to responsible gun owners (and NRA members for that matter) is so small as to be insignificant, the press just gives them inordinate airtime because most of them are anti-gun and want to portray negative stereotypes of gun owners. Most gun owners I know (I am not one) respect the hell out of guns and would prefer that all owners be trained, nothing is more dangerous than someone waving something that destructive with no idea how to use it.
I actually tend to agree with them that father figure type bureaucracies like the UN do want to take guns away, when you look at the most liberal cities like Chicago and DC with the strictest gun laws, the most crime per capita is there. Not because citizens aren't armed, of course, as most wouldn't own guns even if they were legal, but because there is a genuine feeling of submission that they can trust some nameless organization that doesn't care 2 bits for them to protect them and can't put 2 and 2 together to figure out why that's not working out. They fear guns, they fear individual responsibility, and do not benefit from the upside of either.
You make a good point that gun owners overlook other constitutional rights going away, and I agree with that. But that's a different discussion, and I guess theoretically as long as there's a 2nd amendment, all the other rights lost can be reclaimed, as was the original intent.
Ken, the majority of the population in Virginia only being allowed to purchase one handgun per month is no big deal. The problem is the fact that law abiding gun owners don't like being led around like a little puppy dog on a leash because a few criminals ruin it for EVERYBODY.
If a person buys 20 handguns, and 18 of them show up being used in crimes in other states, pick that person up and put him in jail for 10 years. Don't make laws to penalize the law abiding citizens because criminals do what they do.
To make this discussion even more awesome, there can be no such thing as gun control in this country anymore anyway. The streets are flooded with handguns. The FBI estimates that there are 200 million firearms in America right now. Other best guesses are around 350 million. Any criminal who wants a handgun will find one easily, with or without Virginia's stamp of approval.
-----------------------
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_guns_are_in_the_united_states_of_America
The FBI estimates that there are over 200 million privately-owned firearms in the US. If you add those owned by the military, law enforcement agencies and museums, there is probably about 1 gun per person in the country.
If you want to get a rough idea of how many guns there are out there just look at how many people you see out there then multiply by a factor of estimated ownership. The last best guess was about 350,000,000 total. That would be 1 weapon for every man woman and child. The average gun enthusiast owns several firearms which includes pistols, shotguns, and rifles of all makes and models. It is often estimated that about 1 in 4 people own any firearms and on average firearms owners own 4 guns each.
quote: "Violent crimes in DC 2600 to 1400”Š Granted not all of this is gun related or directly from Va, but regardless DC or New York, Va easy guns of the past contributed to illegal gun ownership..."
Pound Foolish, the law does not affect me. I am exempt from the "one handgun per month" law.
According to the FBI, violent crime is supposedly down nationwide. But it has nothing to do with the "one handgun per month" law in Virginia.
quote: "but no uzi for you...
Incorrect. Not only can a person own an UZI, they can purchase and possess a full automatic UZI in this country as long as they acquire it legally through BATF.
This actually brings up another point... lawmakers have no clue when it comes to drafting and passing laws. It wasn't long ago I could not purchase a Colt semi-automatic AR15. It was banned as one of those evil assault weapons. But, at the same time, I could purchase a Colt full automatic M-16. Where was the logic in the assault weapon ban that expired not long ago?
Cant say I could afford one gun purchase a month even, probably would have to be a dealer to do that.
I buy more than one box of ammo a month just because I think it's fun to go to the range. Also I believe prices are going to go up drastically in comming years and ammmo is a pretty good deal right now.
I worked at the Federal Cartridge company in Anoka, Minn. right about the time the Clinton administration proposed an increased tax on ammunition, we recieved very large incentive bonuses that year because sales were fantastic.
Obama caught hell for his comment about people who "cling to their firearms" but he was right on and not many politicians are ever that honest about that subject.
Gun control efforts are a bad idea in this country. Any time you even hint about it, sales go through the roof.
Relax Earl. Go brush your tooth. When you don't know how to have a rational argument you start sceamin' libral libral libral. Since you obviously have a computer why don't you pound another Bud and go research the committee members' voting records.
It's called incrementalism, and it's how Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Lenin, etc. all got control - step by step, the first steps being things that sound "reasonable". Then you are acclimated to that "reasonability" and the next step, which would have sounded unreasonable at first is now "reasonable" to those acclimated to the first step. Learn how Holocausts start before you foment one, please.
"It’s time for responsible gun owners to take their Association back away from the extremists, and stop blaming the media. If we are all about personal responsibility then we should have trouble doing this, should we?"
The point is that they're harping on a "threat" that doesn't exist. How many anti-government survivalist gun nuts do you actually know? This is a small town, everyone knows everyone, and I don't know a one. Do you?
"See, this is the problem, and why youa re part of it. The UN has nothing to do with either Chicago or DC’s gun laws, or their crime problems. But it’s not lost me why you picked those cities. Miami is a dangerous town and it ain’t liberal."
Who's trying to make a direct connection? It's the mentality that citizens should submit in every way to a higher authority, which starts with legislation penalizing those who want to exercise rights and put divides between them and others with no interest in exercising those rights. The whole "gun nuts are dangerous" lie has no bearing to reality, yet big government types and sensationalist media people still push it every chance they get. Which is why instead of a healthy respect for guns, most people in cities who have been conditioned to hear such drivel over and over have no interest in them even for proper means such as self defense.
Guns are a huge responsibility, there's absolutely no doubt about that. But instead of cultivating a healthy respect and fear for them, those who would have them taken away want to cultivate an instinctual panic and distrust in them. And that's what's so devious about legislation like this, it's a punitive measure for legal gun owners who statistically are much less likely to commit crimes than the rest of the population, for *no reason* except to make them seem like criminals.
I am a strict constructionist when it comes to the 2nd amendment. I fully support the right for us all to own muskets, which is what "arms" were when the amendment was written. I seriously doubt that the framers had modern handguns or automatic weapons in mind. If you disagree, I'd like to know whether you think the 2nd amendment applies to all modern arms, such as nuclear devices. Should every citizen have the right to own a nuclear bomb? If not, then why do you think the constitution guarantees the right to own assault rifles? Where do you draw the line?
OK. Hello, Angel Eyes.
I see where Starbucks, over the objections of the usual anti-gun crybabies, will -NOT- ban customers from either openly carrying firearms or carrying them concealed.
The score is now Starbucks 1, Crybabies 0
Gas Bag;
I just realized who you are!! Don't construe that the wrong way. I like your posts and generally agree. I too, am exempt from the one handgun rule, but long ago had all I needed.
There's a story about Khrushchev being asked by a reporter about the U.S. having enough nukes to destroy the USSR twice while they only had enough to destroy the U.S. once. He laughed and said something to the effect that destroying us once was quite enough and added "After all, we're not barbarians"
I can't see why any reasonable person needs more than 12 pistols a year.
That video must have been titled and uploaded by an anti-gun nut. It did not break the girl's wrist.
Some of you are so gullible!
http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/238307
Haven't you heard, the bad guys don't buy guns legally. Having a one gun a month limit is a joke and holding back a law biding citizen from purchasing the guns they want. thank you, JOe
I'm not sure I care one way or the other. Any person holding a Concealed Handgun Permit can buy more than one per handgun per month anyway. Cops and cop shoppes are exempt too.
The change I am watching closely to see if it passes or not is whether a person will be able to carry a concealed firearm into a restaurant with an ABC license. As the law is currently worded, I would have to take my coat off and display my firearm in plain view to go into an ABC licensed restaurant. This is more dangerous than having it concealed, IMHO. What in the world were the lawmakers thinking when they passed the current law? And as the law is currently worded, it gets the cops in big trouble when some anti-gun nut calls 911 and reports a man walking around with a gun in a restaurant. There's been quite a few lawsuits up in Northern Virginia when the cops arrive and falsely arrest people for openly displaying their firearms in ABC licensed restaurants.
The law restricting people to one gun a month significantly dropped the flow of guns into DC. This is very well and undeniably documented. It raised the price of black market guns which put them out of reach of many wannabe thugs who actually caused significant amounts of damage. Sophisticated gangsters seldom use their weapons and no amount of gun restrictions will stop them. The law is a fair compromise and turned out not to be a burden on law abiding citizens as claimed by the gun lobby.
For those who want to cite the 2nd amendment I simply refer to the line that says "well regulated". One gun a month falls under "well regulated" to me.
Obama Mamma spouted:
"Relax Earl. Go brush your tooth. When you don’t know how to have a rational argument you start sceamin’ libral libral libral. Since you obviously have a computer why don’t you pound another Bud and go research the committee members’ voting records."
Nice... One more northern liberal stereotypical comment, justifying their existence and cannot have a rational argument because of their closed minded views.
Oh Paul....sorry you are Northernphobic. Maybe you need a slave to turn on your Fux News for you so you can masturbate between the ears. Nothing will "come" of it though. Civil War is over, you lost, you were wrong, get over it, you're an embarrassment to the beautiful South. Repent to God.
GoGO,
We in the south call it The war between the states. Slavery was not the only reason it was fought. You may want to look at the tarrif issue that was going on. Sorry if that was left out of your history books. I had a great history teacher that pretty much through the book out the window when it came to that time period. Liberals wrote the books.
The only thing gun laws do is give a false sense of security. If you break in my house and I shoot you with a legally bought gun and you fall out of the house. I am charged with murder/manslaughter, and use of a fire arm in a felony. Even if you have a gun. Does that sound OK to you?
The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment to justify easy access to any and all firearms is one of the greatest scams ever foisted on the American public. A century of ignoring the "well-regulated militia" aspect of the amendment's language (the military component) has yielded the current widely held view that anybody with a trigger finger has a God-given right to any gun, anytime, anywhere, and for any purpose.
This was not the Framers' intention.
quote: "The law restricting people to one gun a month significantly dropped the flow of guns into DC. This is very well and undeniably documented."
Please show me the documentation.
New York claimed the same garbage.
It was never true and still isn't.
article about one gun a month that offers evidence of its benefit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR201002...
This one gun a month law is but an infringement on americans second amendment rights. The government wants you to believe this deters crime but does nothing but sanction law abidding americans. Does the government think this stops anyone from picking up a local bulletin board type of classified paper and buy a firearm from "John Doe" who is advertising there? You can go almost anywhere and anytime and buy a firearm from these classified publications with no paperwork. I guess you could call it the one gun a day plan. The crooks that the government tries to stop from buying too many firearms think this plan works best for them.
gas dog
suck on this awhile:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
Violent crimes in DC 2600 to 1400... Granted not all of this is gun related or directly from Va, but regardless DC or New York, Va easy guns of the past contributed to illegal gun ownership and the one gun a month was a good decision.
It harms no one or we would have had court challenges by now...
The 2nd amendment gives you the right to bear arms, so if you are a strict constituionalist then you are entiled to buy as many muzzle loaders and 1783 pistols as you want...
but no uzi for you...
This is why we need some restrictions on guns...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ad_1267468827
There WAS a thriving business of people buying guns in Va and selling them on the black market whether it was new york DC or richmond. This law helped a lot at very little inconvience to Va residents.
One gun a month is fair. If you are a collector then you can out it on hold and get it next month. It can be escrowed with an attorney.
No but I wonder where the bullet ended up since it appears to have been fired a little higher than it was initially aimed.
Can't argue with that
Sounds like "gun control" in Washington, DC isn't working. Are the criminals really that bull headed in DC? :)
Can anybody guess what this cop is saying?
Let me point you to the key words....
"Charles, depending on the circumstances, they might get cuffed and stuffed, but it wouldn't be without a *struggle*, if they committed an assault in my presence."
http://www.crownvic.us/forum/showpost.php?p=212712&postcount=134
Sorry, wrong thread. My bad!