7th Circuit Overturns Gun Ruling
Another bad ruling.
Steve Skoien, 30, was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence in 2006 - it was his second domestic battery conviction - and sentenced to probation. In 2007, probation agents learned Skoien had obtained a gun deer license. They went by his house and found a shotgun in his pickup truck. He admitted he’d used the gun to shoot a deer that morning. The carcass was in his garage.
A federal grand jury indicted Skoien for violation of a 1996 federal law, often referred to as the Lautenberg Amendment, that prohibits anyone convicted of domestic violence from ever possessing guns for any reason. Skoien entered a conditional guilty plea, was sentenced to two years in prison and appealed.
Last fall, a three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit overturned his conviction. The opinion was written by Judge Diane Sykes of Milwaukee, who said that before the government can infringe on an enumerated right like keeping a gun, prosecutors needed to show a stronger connection between the lifetime gun ban and the goal of reducing domestic gun violence. That ruling freed Skoien and sent the case back to the trial court.
Federal prosecutors, however, asked that the case be reconsidered by all 11 7th Circuit Appeals Court judges, or “en banc.” It was re-argued in May. Skoien’s attorney again argued that lifetime prohibition on gun ownership over a misdemeanor violated Skoien’s Second Amendment rights, as highlighted in the 2008 U.S. Supreme court ruling that struck down Washington D.C.‘s ban on handguns.
Last week the court came out the other way - except for Sykes, who wrote an 18-page dissent.
Writing for the majority, Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook noted that that case, known as Heller, did allow for certain restrictions on the right to possess guns, and that if nonviolent felons can be banned from having guns, perpetrators of domestic violence certainly can.
In her biting dissent, Sykes accused her colleagues of making the government’s case for prosecutors, of misconstruing both Heller,of overstating what colonists thought about gun restrictions in state constitutions in 1791, and more.
Sykes reaches the same conclusion she did in November: The case should be sent back to the trial court, where prosecutors should meet their own burden of showing that the Lautenberg Amendment survives an intermediate level of scrutiny about its constitutionality in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest views on the Second Amendment.
Like it or not, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the constitution. Although it is subject to some regulation, as all rights are, there is an extremely high burden for abridging that right. Conviction on a misdemeanor does not meet that burden.
An analysis of female domestic homicides (a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative) showed that prior domestic violence in the household made a woman 14.6 times more likely, and having one or more guns in the home made a woman 7.2 times more likely, to be the victim of such a homicide.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/domviofs.htm
Firearms accounted for half of all domestic violence homicides.
Link here: http://store.wcadv.org/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=WCADV&Category_Code=PUBL-COMP
In this case, the makeup of the courts might well mean that the Sykes view eventually prevails. And that just means that more women will die. This is the price far too many people in this country are willing to pay.
Posted by Michael Mathias on July 18, 2010 at 1530 hrs
Another thought: So-called gun rights advocates used to say, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” The view in this case seems to be that the outlaws should have guns.
Posted by Michael Mathias on July 18, 2010 at 1600 hrs
Lautenberg is a travesty. If the crime is serious enough to warrant taking away someone’s 2A rights for life, it should at least have to be a felony.
I once had the “honor” of explaining to a client that he was going to lose his right to possess a firearm for life because he threw a cell phone at his wife.
Although well intentioned, the law doesn’t adequately consider that in almost any domestic dispute, it’s very easy to get a misdemeanor act of domestic violence. And in my experience, the husband gets tagged far more often than the wife (of course), even if they’re equally at fault.
Posted by Jed on July 18, 2010 at 1626 hrs
Yep—open season on wives after this one’s struck down.
Posted by Michael Mathias on July 18, 2010 at 1727 hrs
That’s a pretty sexist view of domestic violence, Mike.
Posted by Owen on July 18, 2010 at 1806 hrs
Mathias, you are a moron when you say it will be open season on women. Only a complete idiot would make such a statement.
I am not a gun nut- I think there should be reasonable restrictions and this is not one of them.
For instance, a person slaps another person and they get arrested and convicted of a misdeamor- now that means a person can never own a gun, even if there are no other convictions arrest on the person’s record.
But you can be convicted of disorderly conduct for being in a bar fight and you can still own a gun. This ruling and law makes no sense.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 1831 hrs
When families engage in domestic violence, the children and wives are the ones most likely to suffer severe harm.
The feds pass a lot of stupid “piling on” laws with no regard for severity. Their “you cannot qualify for school loans if you ever were caught with a roach” is a classic of such idiocy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 1925 hrs
Conviction on a misdemeanor does not meet that burden
Apparently those who went to law school and have been chosen to serve as judges don’t agree with your amateur opinion on the matter. C’est la vie.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 2147 hrs
The right to vote is protected in the constitution, too. Why aren’t you outraged that they are so cavalier about taking that away?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 2232 hrs
Misdemeanor sounds like a pretty low bar for losing your gun rights. Although in domestic violence cases - I might make an exception.
Too many guys slapping around woman out there - and it usually escalates. Yes Owen there are cases of woman who beat their husbands, but that is the exception - they can lose their gun rights too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 2233 hrs
What’s stopping the wife beater from learning how to hunt with a bow-n-arrow? Would that be permitted in his situation, or is he barred from owning all forms of weaponry?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 18, 2010 at 2324 hrs
Too many guys slapping around woman out there
And
(a woman murdered by a spouse, intimate acquaintance, or close relative)
Both interesting.
Perhaps you’d like to quantify “too many”? Is that more than one, or less than 200?
And Mike, I find it very interesting that VPC had to conflate ‘spouse, intimate acquaintance, and close relative’ to come up with its numbers.
What’s the number just for SPOUSES?
Posted by dad29 on July 19, 2010 at 0707 hrs
Dad—go look it up. Of course, your reputation of disregarding these issues precedes you…
Posted by Michael Mathias on July 19, 2010 at 0711 hrs
The punishment should fit the crime. A lifetime revocation of your right to own a gun is excessive and unusual punishment for a misdemeanor violation that caused no lasting harm.
If only we could get a bit of reason and common sense on the issue…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0809 hrs
I agree with ASOL.
If someone has the disposition to kill their spouse they are just as likely to do it with a pipe wrench as a gun. On the other hand, domestic violence charges have become the default for police contact involving spouses, and the notion of restricting a persons CONSTITUTIONAL right for throwing a cell phone in a fit of rage is disgusting, and just as reactionary and brutal as denying student loans (which can only now be obtained through the government) to a kid charged with possession of marijuana.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0914 hrs
The penalty is way out of line- life time is a long time. As someone who has seen domestic abuse in family members, and friends, it is a SERIOUS situation and the threat of being shot by ones “significant other” is a real fear that deserves society to take action, but “lifetime” is onerous and needs to be overturned.
I would support a specific time period for the prohibition, say five years or something that accounts for changes in maturity and relationships.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0920 hrs
define “lasting harm”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 0959 hrs
Post 3 by Jed has good information of the effect of the Lautenberg law. Domestic violence is wrong and bad and we all agree a partner that beats the stuffing out of the other must be punished.
But, in divorce, some allegations of violence are not real as it gets down to power and emotional pay back. The divorce judge may issue the charge without hearing the other side of the story and even a temp. order can take away gun rights. By taking away a Constitutional right for life, the possibly false or trivial allegation has too harsh effect. Many men didn’t contest the charge and ended up with the misdemeanor even before Lautenberg was passed.
Justice D. Sykes said the case should be remanded for the court to do an intermediate review of the government’s logic for this taking of a Constitutional right. Most Constitutional review has a stronger, strict review, so she was taking a middle step. The en banc 7th Circuit affirmed the law without any level of review which is Constitutionally suspect and may get reversed by the Supreme court.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1007 hrs
By simply taking note of who is for and against this issue tells you why a “lifetime” ban is excessive. The Liberals, as usual, are for restricting rights even if the charges are false, whereas the Conservatives lean toward proving the charges, and then punishing the perpetrators accordingly.
Liberal philosophy = always take away rights no matter the circumstances, proof or not.
Conservative philosophy = make sure the punishment is in accordance with the crime.Funny how Liberals always want to free lifelong convicted criminals from prison, while trying to make criminals of people who are victims of unsubstantiated, and in many cases fabricated charges. And you wonder why people don’t take you seriously? HA! Don’t take anything into consideration, if the woman says she was abused, that’s all that matters. Liberals believe it’s a woman’s right to manipulate, and push her partner to the breaking point. Actions have reactions, and both are guilty to some degree, but it’s usually the guy who ends up paying, and Liberals have no problem with that. Again, Liberals prove themselves to be the liberty stealing idiots they are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1046 hrs
Right, Scott, and, in the service of preserving an 18th Century anachronism, conservatives are only too happy to strip what would otherwise be called a “tool of law enforcement.”
Again, given the nature of the courts these days, my guess is this goes down on appeal. The consequences will be more women and children getting shot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1058 hrs
Right, Scott, and, in the service of preserving an 18th Century anachronism, conservatives are only too happy to strip what would otherwise be called a “tool of law enforcement.”
Again, given the nature of the courts these days, my guess is this goes down on appeal. The consequences will be more women and children getting shot.
Seriously…
You don’t think that people predisposed to killing their wives or children are going to do it regardless of whether they have access to a gun or not?
People kill people.
The evidence proving that banning guns does not prevent gun violence is insurmountable, and yet you so staunchly stand by what can only be described as a stupid philosophy.
“Stuck on stupid.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1104 hrs
Furthermore, how is the right to keep and bear arms… AKA the right to defend yourself… an anachronism? Please, do tell.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1105 hrs
Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study. In addition, abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.
Facts here: http://www.endabuse.org/userfiles/file/Children_and_Families/Guns.pdf
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1119 hrs
Yes, the way the Liberals have managed to pack the bench (Doyle, Wisconsin) I’m sure you are correct about this being overturned, and as such just reiterates what I posted.
Ah, Esta Soler, founder and president of FVPF (Family Violence Prevention Fund) is a San Fransisco Liberal, and by association is dedicated to the progressive movement intent on stealing citizen’s liberties and freedoms. Hardly a person that could be remotely considered unbiased, but that isn’t what the Liberal agenda is about is it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1216 hrs
Even though more folks die by drunk drivers than die by domestic abuse, we don’t permanently remove someone’s drivers license. But if you throw a cellphone at your spouse, you permantently remove their constitutional right to firearms ownership? In a case that I was present for, a wife gave her husband a depressed skull fracture via a swat with a frying pan. Should she be permanetly barred from possessing all cooking equipment?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1235 hrs
JtF:
Should she be permanently barred from possessing all cooking equipment?
No, but she should have been tried, and imprisoned for assault with intent to kill, or at the very least assault with a deadly weapon.
For a lot of women the intended use of the prying pan is beyond their ability, and when they’re informed of this they believe it’s their right to give it a secondary purpose.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1252 hrs
Further,k what makes domestic abuse so special? Does any other misdemeanor rise to the level of confiscation of property and abdication of rights? The guy who threatened folks with a billy club at a polling place will have his right to have a billy club back intime to threaten folks in 2012. A guy who injures his wife as a result of driving while intoxicated will still be able to drive a car after a period of revocation. But if he, while drunk, so much as puts a scratch on her arm during an argument, he will have all of his firearms confiscated and he will be permanently barred from future firearms ownership.
At the risk of giving attorneys more to do, I’d much rather see any banning of firearms a separate required action where the state would have to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the man, or woman (woman do batter their husbands, too), has a high liklihood of using a firearm against their spouse.
A man or woman who has a commendable marriage of many years and is a respected member of the community should not have his or her 2A rights permanently stripped from them based upon a one-time incident that may never reoccur
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1253 hrs
FRYING pan
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1254 hrs
Scott, she was tried and convicted and did some time. Her husband said that it was not her first time beating him. She had a terrible temper and he never knew what triggered it. She also had him conviced that she’d clean him out financially if he tried to divorce her. As I understand it, the marriage was ended. Don’t know anymore than that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1256 hrs
Jim, I’m glad to hear she got “something” for her attack, but I’m still willing to bet her husband would have gotten worse had he defended himself adequately. The madness these Liberals are able to wreaking upon American society seems to have no bounds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1303 hrs
Ever watch COPS? You’ll often see a man or woman arrested merely because the person grabbed another during the argument and left bruises or abraisions on the person’s arm. Now, is that enough to cause an abrupt lifetime removal of the right to gun ownership? It really seems that the purpose of this law has become more about removing someone’s gun ownership right and less about protecting a spouse from serious harm.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1305 hrs
Mike, that might be the weakest and most questionable set of facts I’ve seen since the John Edwards denials. If that’s the meat of your opinions, then it explains much.
So, let me get this straight. Man “A” drives drunk (his 3rd offense) and crashes his car into house, breaking his wife’s (the passengers) legs and injuring three kids in the house. He did so after a fistfight in the bar… having left without paying for his drinks. Police discover that he is in possession of 1/2 ounce of marijuana and a crack pipe. The man is also high on prescription Vicadin. His car is not registered and the man has no drivers license.
Man “B” has a clean record. Not even a speeding ticket. He is a pillar in his community. He has a fight with his wife and storms out of the house to take a walk. On his way out the door, he pushes his way past his wife causing her to fall and slightly bruise her forearm.
Man A can own guns. Man B can’t.
Yeah… that makes sense.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1318 hrs
Son of Liberty (if that’s your real name): I’m convinced. We should ban convicted drunk drivers from owning guns as well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1329 hrs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1359 hrs
Jim, note MM’s post #33. That is exactly what it’s about. ANY reason is a “good” reason, as long as the end result is the dissolution of our right to own and bear arms. A disarmed populace is an easily controlled populace which is the goal. The Liberals have made their plan perfectly clear, make no mistakes as to that which they wish to achieve. They are not benevolent by any stretch of the imagination, they are neo-Bolsheviks who’s abuse of power, and reign of terror would stun Stalin. These people are a pure and simple danger to the American way of life they are determined to destroy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1429 hrs
Like banning something from a group of people means they will respect that ban? How’s that been working out the last couple of hundred years?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1448 hrs
Like banning something from a group of people means they will respect that ban? How’s that been working out the last couple of hundred years?
Terry, that’s very true. I once knew a guy who hunted for years. All types of hunting. It was only after a number of years that he told me that he had once been in prison for car theft. Never been pardoned and, to my knowledge, he never asked to be pardoned. He lived a peaceable life and was a productive member of society. Only he illegally owned guns and he hunted.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1529 hrs
It’s been said by many lawyers that the only reason men don’t have a DV charge against them is that their spouse never called the PD.
It takes little or nothing to have a charge brought against you, and a lot of legal fees to get it dismissed. Smartest thing in this state was taking in both parties in a DV situation.
Makes everyone step back and get off the trigger.
And as to owning firearms? I’ve access to a full machine shop, screw regulations, if I want one, I can have one built faster than MM can log on and make another smart-ass posting.
Murph
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 1529 hrs
Facts here
Gee, Mike. Not ONE breakdown denoting wife or “live-in screw.”
There is a difference, except in the alleged minds of the utterly discredited HGC crowd.
Liberal philosophy = always take away rights no matter the circumstances, proof or not.
Conservative philosophy = make sure the punishment is in accordance with the crime.ScottIC’s right. The Conservative methodology involves thought, reflection, and judgment. All elements which are beyond the Liberal’s mental capacity.
Posted by dad29 on July 19, 2010 at 1940 hrs
Dad—So, it’s okay to shoot the live-in girlfriends?
I have said before and I’ll say it again: Own all the guns you want. It’s, apparently, your prerogative. But once guns are in your home, your children, your spouses, your friends, and you all run an elevated risk of getting killed.
It’s not a risk I’m willing to take.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 2049 hrs
But once guns are in your home, your children, your spouses, your friends, and you all run an elevated risk of getting killed.
Maybe in your home, but not in mine. Don’t project your insecurities onto the rest of us.
Posted by Jed on July 19, 2010 at 2111 hrs
MM:
But once guns are in your home, your children, your spouses, your friends, and you all run an elevated risk of getting killed.
Does that hold true for all tools? Like once you have a drill in your house you stand an elevated risk of drilling a hole into your head? Or because Rosie O’Donnell has spoons in her house she has an elevated risk of getting so fat she’ll have a heart attack? Learn to use these things properly and your fear of them will fade. You firearmphobes are a pathetic lot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 2204 hrs
But once guns are in your home, your children, your spouses, your friends, and you all run an elevated risk of getting killed.
Actually, quite the opposite. I know that no one in my home will shoot another family member because we have all been trained in the proper care and handling of firearms. Everyone in my home is safer because of it… though I can’t say the same for would-be intruders.
All your liberal blather has got me to thinking though. Perhaps we should mandate firearms safety courses for people like you, Mike. You seem terrified of guns and that fear could lead to the misuse of a weapon through pure ignorance. Yes… I think mandatory firearms courses for non-owners are in order. Then we could all live without the fear that you might accidentally shoot someone.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 19, 2010 at 2333 hrs
It’s not a risk I’m willing to take.
Just because it is a risk you are not willing to take does not mean you have the right to not allow others to take that ‘risk’. But as the others have pointed out, the risk is only present with the ignorant.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1021 hrs
Please.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=accidental+shooting+child
And, as I have said before, I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away. However, my children will never be in a house with a gun. And I do ask.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1032 hrs
Children have a tendency to do the complete opposite of that which their parents do. It would be a shame for you to refuse to go to your child’s home should he, or she decide to take advantage of their 2A right.
NEVER is a long time
You really should seek help to overcome your fear of inanimate objects. You have more to fear from a strange dog.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1052 hrs
However, my children will never be in a house with a gun. And I do ask.
I suspect that your children, having had no proper instruction on firearm safety or the proper use of guns, are probably the ones most at risk of being killed by accident… even after they grow up. Hiding your head in the sand and trying to create an imaginary world free of guns for your kids is certainly not in their best interests. Eventually, reality sets in.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1156 hrs
Reality: Jealous boyfriends kills former lover
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296114/Jealous-boyfriend-guns-ex-lover-street-turns-gun-himself.html?ito=feeds-newsxmlReality: Toddler paralyzes father with his service revolver
http://www.contracostatimes.com/california/ci_15533025?nclick_check=1Reality: Toddler shot by stolen gun
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/24180497/detail.htmlReality: Toddler shot by brother
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Toddler-Killed-by-Brother-in-Tragic-Gun-Accident—98199254.htmlReality: War on police fought with assault weapons
http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/20100720_A_Daily_News_editorial.html
I am well aware of reality, thank you.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1221 hrs
I am well aware of reality, thank you.
Are you? Really? Do you allow your kids into homes that have a pool? The CDC says that your kids are twelve times as likely to die from accidental drowning as from firearms. Pools are out to, right?
How about homes that have household cleaners and poisons? Of course they can’t ride a bike or go into a non-sprinkler protected home either. Walking on the street nope, can’t do that… and certainly not riding in a car (that’s 30 times more dangerous).
All those things are (I’m sure) forbidden to your kids as well because you know the facts and are aware of reality… all those things have a significantly higher rate of accidental death than firearms.
That is what you are doing, isn’t it Mike?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 1415 hrs
Son—do you have an example of someone using a pool to shoot a pregnant woman in the back? No? I wonder if anyone’s tried to do that with a gun?
Oh: http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12844510
Reality.
Pools are not used to wreak havoc and violence.
Guns are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1158 hrs
Ah, I thought we were talking about the accidental discharge of a firearm… but clearly that is a small danger compared to the others I mentioned so a subject change is in order.
So the new reason you don’t allow your kids into a home with guns is that the gun might be used to commit a crime? Do you allow them into homes with bats, knives, or bow and arrow?
You can Bing plenty of links for assaults and murders in the home using those weapons if you like. You can even find a few that used a pool.
http://www.wjhg.com/home/headlines/15857267.html
http://www.komonews.com/news/7884577.html
I suspect your kids don’t get out much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1233 hrs
Your suspicions are wrong.
Pool+Murder=1,179 returns. (Most of which have phrases such as “pool of blood.”
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Pool+murder
Gun+Murder=5,192
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=gun+murder
These arguments always become an intellectual cul de sac. This one is no exception
I don’t begrudge your right to own guns. I hope you don’t begrudge my right to stay away from them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1322 hrs
Stay away all you like… it’s your right to be afraid of guns. It’s also your right to publish false data and wild theories. It’s my right to refute them.
It was you who said that your kids are not allowed in homes with guns. I’ve simply pointed out that you are a one issue guy when it comes to safety, and that there are many things in other people homes that are FAR more dangerous than guns. Fear them all you like… just do so armed with the real facts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1333 hrs
Total Entries: 19997
Total Comments: 134019
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 06:25 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 10:54 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 132
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 11:11 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).