User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:19:24 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
18 USC 3 - Whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact. Except as otherwise expressly provided by any Act of Congress, an accessory after the fact shall be imprisoned not more than one-half the maximum term of imprisonment or (notwithstanding section 3571) fined not more than one-half the maximum fine prescribed for the punishment of the principal, or both; or if the principal is punishable by life imprisonment or death, the accessory shall be imprisoned not more than 15 years. The key to that entire law is the second word "KNOWING". The government would have to prove that a mayor KNEW a person was there illegally. As sanctuary cities do not ask, it might be difficult to prove. I think the way to go is cut off all federal funds. Mayors and other officials will all act tough right up u till the money stops. Then, they will quickly re-evaluate their priorities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:19:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So... you WANT the headline to read: "Trumps Brownshirts are rounding up the political opposition and tossing them in jail."? no... let's go with de-funding to start and see net gains can be had. No matter what he does, the headlines are going to say that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:23:59 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The key to that entire law is the second word "KNOWING". The government would have to prove that a mayor KNEW a person was there illegally. As sanctuary cities do not ask, it might be difficult to prove. I think the way to go is cut off all federal funds. Mayors and other officials will all act tough right up u till the money stops. Then, they will quickly re-evaluate their priorities. Sanctuary cities give them drivers licenses and /or ID cards, allow them to go to school, and even work. They are in databases. The KNOW they are there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:25:26 PM EDT
[#4]
This is easy put it in the Governor's box. Cut off all Funding to the state until they get their cities in line.
Arrest anyone (mayor or otherwise) harboring an illegal aliens in the City. Put those FEMA camps to good use use them as temporary detainment facilities until These illegals can be deported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:25:45 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup, I think I "got it" now.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"Aiding and abetting" and ignoring are to different things.  Now and act such as knowingly issuing drivers licenses to people who are clearly not US citizens is "Aiding and abetting" but that is not a mayor doing that, that is the state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:25:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All of those offenses require behavior targeted at a specific alien, not an entire class of them. Is that law, legal precedent or just an idea? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:26:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, it is starting to sink in now. I understand quite a bit more about this sort of thing. Thanks for the info guys. See, even an old rabid right winger can learn things sometimes!!  Like not buying health insurance is illegal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:27:50 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, what do I do with it now I got it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:28:37 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like not buying health insurance is illegal? That's why I became an accountant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:31:01 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sanctuary cities give them drivers licenses and /or ID cards, allow them to go to school, and even work. They are in databases. The KNOW they are there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The key to that entire law is the second word "KNOWING". The government would have to prove that a mayor KNEW a person was there illegally. As sanctuary cities do not ask, it might be difficult to prove. I think the way to go is cut off all federal funds. Mayors and other officials will all act tough right up u till the money stops. Then, they will quickly re-evaluate their priorities. Sanctuary cities give them drivers licenses and /or ID cards, allow them to go to school, and even work. They are in databases. The KNOW they are there. I agree that the mayors would reasonably know the illegals are there, but for a successful prosecution, they would need to actually name the illegal, and prove that the mayor KNEW that person was there. Giving a drivers license to an illegal would make it fairly easy to prove the DMV clerk knew, but proving the Mayor knew would be much more difficult. IIRC! This thread asked about prosecuting mayors, not minor DMV clerks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:32:06 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is easy put it in the Governor's box. Cut off all Funding to the state until they get their cities in line. Not possible. Multiple Supreme Court rulings say they can't "cut off all funding to the state". There are multiple examples of the federal government trying to use federal funding to coerce states, and each time the Supreme Court has strongly limited their ability to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:33:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Call me a dumbass? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OK, what do I do with it now I got it? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:33:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From the little I know of you I don't think dumbass is the right word as it would most likely be at the wrong end of the scale, smartass might be a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:35:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Federal agents arrested by sheriff. News at 11...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:35:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now you are the dumbass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From the little I know of you I don't think dumbass is the right word as it would most likely be at the wrong end of the scale, smartass might be a possibility.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:36:46 PM EDT
[#16]
They threatened cut off highway funds for years if you didn't make the speed Limit 55 There is always a way.
New laws can be passed through a republican controlled Congress and upheld by a Republican controlled Supreme Court if necessary. Does anyone want to get in a pissing match with POTUS? I don't think these mayors or Governors have the balls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:38:56 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep I've been told that I am certifiable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:39:39 PM EDT
[#18]
Interesting.
Based on the plain language of the statute you can certainly see the argument. Perhaps it might boil down to what "offender" means. In other words in the case of the mayors they are making it easier for an entire class of offenders to escape immigration (by telling local LEOs don't even ask about legal status). I think a court might look at the legislative history of it to see if this was ever contemplated when they wrote the law. Did they mean an entire class of offender? That could mean any time the mayor takes an action that makes federal law harder to enforce it would be "aiding" - that goes against federalism. FWIW |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:41:31 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the mayors would reasonably know the illegals are there, but for a successful prosecution, they would need to actually name the illegal, and prove that the mayor KNEW that person was there. Giving a drivers license to an illegal would make it fairly easy to prove the DMV clerk knew, but proving the Mayor knew would be much more difficult. IIRC! This thread asked about prosecuting mayors, not minor DMV clerks. Easy Peasy. Just arrest the mayor and city council members when they approve funds for undocumented immigrant housing, food or legal assistance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:42:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure local and state authorities are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. It if they knowingly harbor illegals and refuse to cooperate with the Feds, aren't they breaking federal law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:44:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They can't make their own immigration laws. They can legalize marijuana, for instance, but that doesn't affect whether a federal crime is still being committed, even within that state. Despite any local or state laws that "legalize" marijuana, it is still a controlled substance under Federal law (Controlled Substances Act). Just because Obama's AG told the DEA not to prosecute, it is still a Federal crime - see Gonzalez v. Raich. Policy changes. 18 U.S. Code § 1071 - Concealing person from arrest |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:46:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because there is no legally defined penalty for being a sanctuary city. The only thing they can do is withhold federal grant funds because, as a condition of receiving the grant funds, the recipient must certify that they are in compliance with all federal laws. I would say that there's is. Not necessarily for being a sanctuary city in and of itself, but for knowingly violating federal law and obstructing federal law enforcement from carrying out their sworn duties. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:48:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simply refusing to enforce federal law is not "harboring illegal aliens," no matter how much you wish it to be so. The mayors themselves have committed no crime. That doesn't mean that they will be without consequences. WhT about when local authorities release an illegal so that ICE cannot come get them? That sounds like a form of obstruction to me |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:49:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They threatened cut off highway funds for years if you didn't make the speed Limit 55 There is always a way. The 1987, 1997, and 2012 Supreme Court decisions make that not possible again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:50:29 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The funny and ironic thing is that the recent Obama v. Arizona immigration case decision sets legal precedent that helps Trump. When it come to immigration, the Feds rule supreme. Live by the book, die by the book fuckers. Yup. As they say- "Elections have consequences"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:51:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It if they knowingly harbor illegals and refuse to cooperate with the Feds, aren't they breaking federal law? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pretty sure local and state authorities are under no obligation to enforce federal laws. It if they knowingly harbor illegals and refuse to cooperate with the Feds, aren't they breaking federal law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:52:25 PM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:53:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
WhT about when local authorities release an illegal so that ICE cannot come get them? That sounds like a form of obstruction to me Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Simply refusing to enforce federal law is not "harboring illegal aliens," no matter how much you wish it to be so. The mayors themselves have committed no crime. That doesn't mean that they will be without consequences. WhT about when local authorities release an illegal so that ICE cannot come get them? That sounds like a form of obstruction to me |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:55:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What crime have they committed? I think there's a lower court decision saying that the local cops don't have to enforce federal law but I'd have to look for it Local police may not have to enforce Federal law but they can't break it. From the Congressional Research Service. Where politicians are telling local law enforcement not to cooperate with Federal law enforcement on immigration detainers, etc. the politicians are in violation of Federal law (IMHO). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:56:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He does penguin rape porn. Right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What crime have they committed? I think there's a lower court decision saying that the local cops don't have to enforce federal law but I'd have to look for it seriously? YOu can think of no laws violated by knowingly harboring illegal aliens? What do you do for a living? Right?  Fur seals sexually assault king penguins |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:56:20 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not even close. Choosing to not act to assist the government is not "aiding and abetting". You have no duty to assist the government absent a law that imposes a duty. Accomplice liability requires an act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:57:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What crime have they committed? I think there's a lower court decision saying that the local cops don't have to enforce federal law but I'd have to look for it Supreme Court opinions. Commandeering. Something about violence against women's act from the 1990s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 12:59:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simple, he can't. The president has no authority to arrest people. Unless he did a citizens arrest and that would really make hippies heads pop.  The nation's top law enforcement official reports directly to the president.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:00:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You'll know being here illegally is a misdemeanor, right? I want to kick em all out but immigration is administrative law, not criminal. what about when they have a fake ID? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:02:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a law that says Mayors must turn over illegals? So what law are they actually breaking when there is not? If you kid is a druggie, are you going to get arrested for not turning them in? Yes, you can be (at least under Federal law if it is a felony - misprision of a felony) but probably won't be. But you can have all your property (house and car) seized - an example. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:08:52 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simply refusing to enforce federal law is not "harboring illegal aliens," no matter how much you wish it to be so. The mayors themselves have committed no crime. That doesn't mean that they will be without consequences. I think the active conspiracy to not cooperate with Federal immigration laws while saying you are doing to protect undocumented (illegal immigrants) as the mayors of LA, SF and Chicago have done is much more than "refusing to enforce Federal law". Once someone opens their mouth and says "I refuse to obey a Federal law that applies to me because I want to protect little Juan here" they have established they are harboring people they know are criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:11:42 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the states can "legalize" marijuana (even though it is still against Federal Law) , Guess Federal Law doesn't apply to any States within the so called "United States of America" Does that mean that Texas could just say "Screw N.F.A. - Machine Guns for anybody who wants one!!!"...
Oh Please Oh Please OH PLEASE!!!! When several states did that the Obama DOJ said they would crush them. Machineguns = bad evil and against Holy Federal Law; marijuana = ignore the Holy Federal Law wonderful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:19:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If by "ok" you mean "legal," yes. The feds cannot commandeer state officials and force them to enforce federal law. At its core it's a states' rights issue. Everybody likes states' rights until it's time to do some states' rights shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What if guy a like Emanuel had a list of 100,000 people in Shitago who illegally owned brand new machine guns and refused to tell the Feds who those people were? It's ok for him to do that? If by "ok" you mean "legal," yes. The feds cannot commandeer state officials and force them to enforce federal law. At its core it's a states' rights issue. Everybody likes states' rights until it's time to do some states' rights shit. Actually Emmanuel would be committing misprision of a felony - a Federal crime (18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony) Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, §?330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.) "Having knowledge". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:23:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isn't it due to the fact that each state is a sovereign body, and they can make their own rules? The most he can do is cut federal funding to their states. But I'm no civics teacher, so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:26:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the active conspiracy to not cooperate with Federal immigration laws while saying you are doing to protect undocumented (illegal immigrants) as the mayors of LA, SF and Chicago have done is much more than "refusing to enforce Federal law". Once someone opens their mouth and says "I refuse to obey a Federal law that applies to me because I want to protect little Juan here" they have established they are harboring people they know are criminals. Exactly A.W.D. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:28:37 PM EDT
[#41]
The favorite saying of our company commander in boot was "Order and Discipline Will Prevail!" Aahhh, it will be glorious to have order and discipline again!
If nothing else, these mayor's are committing dereliction of duty, they took an oath to uphold the laws as set forth, so unless there is a city ordnance that says they are to not pursue or detain and deport people not legal to be there, they are not upholding their oath of office. So, whatever recourse there is against an elected official for failing to perform their duties as sworn by them to do, then that is the action to take. At least the state AG should be pursuing these mayors I would imagine. When one of these "protected" undocumented persons commits an illegal act against a lawful citizen, the governing official that did not perform his/her duty of detaining/deporting that person should also be held accountable for the crime as an accomplice IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:32:58 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was a 1997 case on gun rights, with the decision written by Justice Scalia. "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." In the 1987 South Dakota v. Dole decision, the Supreme Court upheld that restrictions may be placed on federal grants but they must be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds". So Trump can't cut say highway funding over immigration. In the 2012 Obamacare case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that withholding Medicaid funds from states that did not cooperate was "coercion," and thus unconstitutional. So again, Trump can't try to coerce states by withholding unrelated funds. There really isn't much Trump can do about sanctuary cities. Time and again, the federal government has tried to force states and local governments to do something, and time and time again the Supreme Court has limited the federal governments ability to do so. And they certainly aren't going to go around arresting mayors and governors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
That was a 1997 case on gun rights, with the decision written by Justice Scalia. "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." In the 1987 South Dakota v. Dole decision, the Supreme Court upheld that restrictions may be placed on federal grants but they must be "reasonably related to the expenditure of funds". So Trump can't cut say highway funding over immigration. In the 2012 Obamacare case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that withholding Medicaid funds from states that did not cooperate was "coercion," and thus unconstitutional. So again, Trump can't try to coerce states by withholding unrelated funds. There really isn't much Trump can do about sanctuary cities. Time and again, the federal government has tried to force states and local governments to do something, and time and time again the Supreme Court has limited the federal governments ability to do so. And they certainly aren't going to go around arresting mayors and governors. There is a difference between compelling cities to follow Federal law and compelling "States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program". In Printz v. United States the actions of the Federal Government (the Brady Bill) required local law enforcement to conduct the required background checks. The majority held: We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments. It would also have an effect upon the second element: the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself. The Constitution does not leave to speculation who is to administer the laws enacted by Congress; the President, it says, "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," Art. II, §3, personally and through officers whom he appoints (save for such inferior officers as Congress may authorize to be appointed by the "Courts of Law" or by "the Heads of Departments" who with other presidential appointees), Art. II, §2. The Brady Act effectively transfers this responsibility to thousands of CLEOs in the 50 States, who are left to implement the program without meaningful Presidential control (if indeed meaningful Presidential control is possible without the power to appoint and remove). The insistence of the Framers upon unity in the Federal Executive—to insure both vigor and accountability—is well known. See The Federalist No. 70 (A. Hamilton); 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 495 (M. Jensen ed. 1976) (statement of James Wilson); see also Calabresi & Prakash, The President's Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale L. J. 541 (1994). That unity would be shattered, and the power of the President would be subject to reduction, if Congress could act as effectively without the President as with him, by simply requiring state officers to execute its laws. This is different than local politicians actively conspiring to prevent their local law enforcement from reporting Federal crimes (immigration violations) to Federal authorities. To put it in the same realm as Printz, we'd have to see majors say "let the crook buy the gun anyway". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:34:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is that law, legal precedent or just an idea? The language of the actual statute makes it clear that it's referring to an individual alien, not a class of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:35:04 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slippery slope here. What if mayors or governors told Obama to shove it on Gun control, and Obama sent in the feds to enforce gun measures? Some states did (Firearms Freedom Act) and he told them he would. He didn't on weed, because the Choompster loves him some weed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:36:13 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Simply refusing to enforce federal law is not "harboring illegal aliens," no matter how much you wish it to be so. The mayors themselves have committed no crime. That doesn't mean that they will be without consequences. But when they stepped over that line and declared they would harbor them.....to me, id vote guilty if i was on that jury, because it is basically an invite.....its an active decision, not just a priorotization of work that ignores illegals to redirect resources to a different issue(s).... There is an intent to prevent deportation of people who are supposed to be deported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:41:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that the mayors would reasonably know the illegals are there, but for a successful prosecution, they would need to actually name the illegal, and prove that the mayor KNEW that person was there. Giving a drivers license to an illegal would make it fairly easy to prove the DMV clerk knew, but proving the Mayor knew would be much more difficult. IIRC! This thread asked about prosecuting mayors, not minor DMV clerks. There is no way that there are no documents that detail where that decision came from, that whoever started, participated, or voted on whatever policy that provides DLs to illegals...........dont exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:41:57 PM EDT
[#47]
The US Constitution. Something about state's rights. The only thing the state's are doing is refusing to cooperate by honoring federal immigration detainers or refusing to work with ICE by notifying them when they have a suspected alien in their jail. Or allowing ICE agents inside their jails to conduct interviews of their inmates solely for the purpose of identifying aliens who may be in violation of their status. Congress would have to make some laws requiring them to cooperate with federal authorities and probably confer more legal weight to immigration detainers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:46:14 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? I could see it if they werent openly delcaring their cities as sanctuary cities....just happening to have high numbers of illegals. But when they stepped over that line and declared they would harbor them.....to me, id vote guilty if i was on that jury, because it is basically an invite.....its an active decision, not just a priorotization of work that ignores illegals to redirect resources to a different issue(s).... There is an intent to prevent deportation of people who are supposed to be deported. Words have meanings, especially in law. You could pass a statute making what they do illegal, but under current law, it is not. You'd have a better chance prosecuting CLEOs like the San Francisco Sheriff who let Katie Steinle's killer out, since their actions were with respect to particular individuals, rather than an entire class of people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:46:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually Emmanuel would be committing misprision of a felony - a Federal crime (18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony) "Having knowledge". No, you need an affirmative act in addition to the non-reporting; the law states 'conceals AND does not make known'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2017 1:48:16 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sanctuary cities give them drivers licenses and /or ID cards, allow them to go to school, and even work. They are in databases. The KNOW they are there. Didn't DeBlazio deliberately destroy existing databases of illegals? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
