* 10:25 am - The US Supreme Court has decided not to hear arguments of an appellate decision upholding New York’s restrictive concealed carry law. From the SCOTUS Blog…
The denial of review in Kachalsky, et al., v. Cacace, et al. (docket 12-845) was the latest in a series of denials of attempts to get the Justices to explore the reach of the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing a Second Amendment right to have a gun for personal self-defense. That decision, though, was limited to a right to have a gun ready to shoot inside one’s own home.
In the Heller decision, the Court emphasized that the personal right it was recognizing for the first time was not an “absolute” right, and that gun ownership could be subjected to “reasonable” regulations. It provided some examples, such as having a gun in a sensitive public place, but that list was not intended to be complete. That has left it to Congress and to state legislatures to decide whether they want to impose new forms of gun control. […]
There is now such a clear split among federal appeals courts on whether constitutional gun rights extend beyond the home, and yet that was not sufficient to draw the Court back into the center of the controversy in the new case from New York. The new case sought to test the constitutionality of limiting a citizen’s right to a license to carry a concealed gun in public to those who can show they have a “proper cause” for their belief that they need a gun for self-defense away from home.
Essentially, the Court’s decision allows New York’s quite restrictive concealed carry laws to stand as-is. That could strengthen the hands of gun control advocates here, who have bitterly disputed the Chicago federal appellate court ruling that Illinois’ blanket prohibition on concealed carry was unconstitutional. At minimum, gun control groups say, any new state law ought to be pretty darned restrictive. Gun rights advocates had hoped that the Supremes would take the NY case and toss out that state’s law.
I’m assuming the pressure will also increase on Attorney General Lisa Madigan to appeal the appellate court’s ruling that gives Illinois until June 9th to revamp state law.
*** UPDATE *** Washington Times…
Alan Gura, counsel for the [New York] plaintiffs — five residents who had applied for a “full-carry license” — disagreed.
“The only thing worse than explicitly refusing to enforce an enumerated constitutional right would be to declare a right ‘fundamental’ while standing aside as lower courts render it worthless,” Mr. Gura wrote in a reply brief on March 26. “Few outcomes could promote as much cynicism about our legal system.”
The other way of looking at this is that the US Supreme Court hasn’t yet decided that concealed carry truly is a “fundamental right.”
So far, no response from ISRA.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 10:39 am:
Given the split circuits, I’m surprised there weren’t four votes for cert. Those five Heller votes must not have been able to come together.
Apparently, the Supremes are comfortable with strict controls, “may issue” and home rule.
- Fed up - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 10:43 am:
Other cases are working their way towards the supremes. The court is going to have to deceide this sooner or later.
- RonOglesby - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 10:54 am:
It will give some from the Chicago side some hope to get a “may issue” but I doubt it will make Lisa want to appeal.
Again, its one thing to say you have rules on who can carry in public and a process to apply for and be granted a license. Its another to create a blanket ban on carry for anyone without a badge. You aren’t there making a balancing argument at all since you immediately deny the use of arms to women with protective orders, those in high risk, etc.
With all that said, if there were the votes to pass May Issue… they would have already done it.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 10:57 am:
–The court is going to have to deceide this sooner or later.–
You’d think so. But not even four justices wanted to take a shot at rolling back New York’s laws. And, as of today, the Supremes have not declared an explicit constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home.
- ZC - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:01 am:
My theory is the libs on the court are happy to let restrictive laws stand, and the conservatives on the court aren’t sure just how far swing justice Anthony Kennedy will go. So getting four votes to accept cases might be a challenge, if the different factions on the Court are being strategic.
- Logic not emotion - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:16 am:
ZC might be on target. Another possibility is that there is another case making its way to them that they’d prefer to rule upon.
- RonOglesby - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:18 am:
@Word
—And, as of today, the Supremes have not declared an explicit constitutional right to carry a gun outside the home.—
They also (as of today) not stated that there is no such right. SCOTUS loves blanket cases. Show them a BAN or something obviously arbitrary this may have been different. And this is just one of many CCW cases working through the system.
No one said you have a right to write/create a blog for a long time. That didnt mean you didnt have that right. You had it, and if a gov infringed on it then it goes to court.
I would be more interested in the California cases where entire counties deny all CCW permits as policy. That is much different than simply having to state a reason and may get a permit.
- liberty4all - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:24 am:
SCOTUS is aware of what cases are on the horizon. Probably just waiting for the right case. It’s only a matter of time. May also be waiting to see what unconstitutional goat rodeo the Feds come up with before they take a case.
- Amalia - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:25 am:
they let the law stand, why not create an Illinois law that is the same?
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:44 am:
That cannot possibly be true.
I keep reading here from the pro-gun extremists how the 2nd Amendment is so important and how Heller is so clear.
Can it be possible that the pro-gun extremists do not read Heller like the Supreme Court reads Heller?
No way.
There must be a mistake.
I look forward to the corrected version of the story.
- bored now - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:47 am:
i think anyone who predicts that the scotus will *have* to do anything hasn’t really been paying attention to the highest court under chief justice roberts…
- RNUG - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:55 am:
SCOTUS is waiting for Lisa’s appeal … and I’m only half-joking.
- John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:56 am:
Appeal, Lisa, Appeal!
- Carl Nyberg - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 11:56 am:
The Roberts Court creating a problem and then not dealing with it…
The Roberts Court will go down in history on three short lists.
1. Bad legal rulings
2. Judicial activism
3. Simple cowardice
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:06 pm:
I think the problem the Supreme Court was facing is that the New York allowed for concealed carry in a restricted fashion. Illinois by comparison barred concealed carry in its entirety.
Thus, there is really not much of a “conflict” between circuits for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up at the moment.
- Louis G. Atsaves - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:07 pm:
Sorry, the Anonymous posting at 12:06 PM comes from me.
- Rod - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:10 pm:
Ok so let’s just pass a concealed carry law that allows home rule units to issue permits based on demonstration of “proper cause” for their belief that they need a gun for self-defense away from home.
Being a Chicago resident I am totally confident the City of Chicago will effectively determine that very few if any citizens who are not law enforcement officers or security officers will have proper cause for a concealed carry permit.
Assuming this is the case eventually the Chicago standard for denial will be over turned. At any rate lets get on with this.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:14 pm:
Amalia
The problem for the May-issue crowd is they do not
have the votes. If anything this makes it more likely nothing will pass here in il.
- RonOglesby - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:24 pm:
Doesnt matter. As I said, they dont have the votes for may issue, or it would have been law already.
- Amalia - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:27 pm:
@Mason Born, perhaps today’s non action action will sway minds.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:32 pm:
===they dont have the votes for may issue, or it would have been law already. ===
May issue requires just a simple majority. Shall issue will likely require a three-fifths. Neither side has demonstrated that they have the votes as of yet.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:34 pm:
–If anything this makes it more likely nothing will pass here in il.–
Then you end up with home rule, in the best-care scenario for conceal-carry proponents. Which is what “may issue” would be, anyway.
–SCOTUS loves blanket cases. Show them a BAN or something obviously arbitrary this may have been different.–
My Supreme Court crystal ball is broken, so I have no idea why they do what they do.
But the New York law effectively prohibits conceal carry in a city of more than 8 million, which seems like a king-size blanket to me.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:36 pm:
===Then you end up with home rule, in the best-care scenario for conceal-carry proponents. Which is what “may issue” would be, anyway.===
Exactly.
- Demoralized - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:53 pm:
Somebody should tell Mr. Gura that nobody has “enumerated” a Constitutional right to concealed carry yet. I get so tired of the gun rights people saying that gun control attempt violate an “enumerated” right. I have nothing against guns and think most restrictions are probably bad but I get so tired of this “enumerated right” nonsense.
- downsta te commissioner - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
This has to hurt us….
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 12:57 pm:
Amalia
The problem as i see it is there is a majority of republicans and Downstate Democrats who will oppose anything other than shall-issue. As to whether their minds were changed it is possible but doubtful. As a side note part of the Toomey Manchin bill would make a nationwide reciprocity so a permit issued from Kentucky or MO would be instantly valid here in IL.
Rich and Word
So what you see as happening is the UUW goes away June 9th and then Chicago etc. all pass their versions of a UUW? Just curious not judging but that does appear to be a pretty chaotic outcome for everyone in the state.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:02 pm:
The whole “fundamental right” discussion is a big distraction.
Courts have routinely upheld restrictions even though a right is “fundamental.”
It would be helpful to the discussion if the pro-gun crowd would take the discussion away from the irrelevant.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:06 pm:
M B, chaotic would be one way to look at it.
- Fan - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:09 pm:
If the state (Illinois) wants to provide the ultate Nanniness and ban all concealed carry fine. As long as I can sue the State for damages if I’m ever a victim of a crime outside my home. You dont want a lawful citizen to be able to defend themselves, then the state should have to cough up any financial damages.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
Fan, if you think you need a gun just to leave your home, you probably shouldn’t have a gun.
People who are too terrified to leave do not do well under actual threat.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
By the way, I do find it funny that the same people who claim to have lawsuits want to sue whenever they feel the slightest twinge.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:15 pm:
Rich
What would you call it? Especially when the citizens in Home Rule Cities appeal to the same Fed circuit as the last time.
How do you keep it from turning into McDonald part deux? Don’t get me wrong i am not saying you are wrong i just think it fraught with unintended consequences.
To be honest i am beginning to wonder if a Statewide shall issue Open Carry & a local May Issue Concealed might make sense.
Provides for the Bear language of the 2nd as well as tighter scrutiny for the privledge of concealing a weapon.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:17 pm:
–So what you see as happening is the UUW goes away June 9th and then Chicago etc. all pass their versions of a UUW? Just curious not judging but that does appear to be a pretty chaotic outcome for everyone in the state.–
Beats me what will happen. Federal judges operate in a different world.
I’m not one who has bought into the idea that current Illinois would become null and void after June 9 barring a new law. Nothing works like clockwork in courts. If nothing else, there would be hearings, blah, blah, blah.
I suspect the Supremes will have to weigh in conceal-carry. I was surprised they didn’t take this one. Maybe Scalia persuaded three others to wait for the Illinois case so he could stick it to Posner personally (they don’t like each other).
What if Illinois doesn’t appeal?
I think we’re just getting started with federal gun cases in courts. It has been a pretty sleepy area of constitutional law for a long time.
But as of today, four justices on the Supreme Court did not want to be bothered with weighing in on New York’s very strict conceal carry law.
- Todd - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:18 pm:
We have been hearing for some time that the Court has tired of Mr.Gura. But his cases were filed first so they are working their way through the system first.
This simply says the court was not interested in deciding this case for whatever reason. There are at least 6 more working their way through.
Regardless of the denial of cert, Illinois is still under the order of the 7h Circuit Court of appeals and this does not change that.
And the other side does not have 60 votes for a non-preemptive may issue bill it won’t pass. I would love to see them try
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:27 pm:
–We have been hearing for some time that the Court has tired of Mr.Gura.–
You’re wired into the thoughts of The Nine? Tell us more.
- Fan - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:27 pm:
Harold - And I get a kick out of people tell me what’s best for me. No, can’t have that soda, that’s too large. Ummm, nope to the French fries, too much salt. Yep, you need to get up an exercise. Your thinking of being the Supreme Being just doesn’t sit that well with Independant thinkers. I also like the way you pass judgement and tell me my thinking is wrong.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:29 pm:
Word
So what do u see happening June 9th? I was of the understanding that there was agreement on that repercusion. After all i seem to remember Rich reporting that the House Democrats had legal analysis and briefings to that effect. I agree with Rich that if there is no UUW then Home rule cities will enact some sort of restrictions. My worry is that what ever comes out of it will be so chaotic that the end result will be even worse than now.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:32 pm:
Fan,
That soda thing? From a NY Republican.
Further, whether you drink a soda impacts you.
Whether you have a gun impacts the rest of us.
There are some strong reasons to back conceal carry, but your whining posts are not helping the cause.
And yes, I am passing judgment. The First Amendment says I have that right.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:34 pm:
===My worry is that what ever comes out of it will be so chaotic that the end result will be even worse than now. ===
Then you’d better get the NRA and the ISRA to the table.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:38 pm:
===I would love to see them try ===
They don’t have to, Todd. Chicago can write its own version.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:43 pm:
Rich
==Then you’d better get the NRA and the ISRA to the table.===
Really that isn’t the problem the NRA and ISRA have been at the table for years. The problem is MJM and cohorts do not believe in bargaining in good faith. It is MJM and his compatriots who needs to come to the table instead of attempting to dictate.
AS for the end result while i fear it will be total and abject chaos the Madigan chicago model of only the connected and polls is worse than either option.
- Fan - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:44 pm:
Can’t help yourself, stating someone is whinie when the don’t agree with you. Here is something for you to ponder. In tha last three years, how many lawful CCW people were involved in an unlawful shooting? 10, 20… 100. There are every day, some one either preventing or stopping a crim with a firearms. Some estimates that it is a very large number. Now, I know, that you know, that all Illinois citizens need to be watched by the State, that they can do very little for themselves. How come all this chaos does not happen in other states? Is Illinois the only inferior populace in the country? Don’t bother answering, I already Know what you will say.
I think it would be a hoot that those over in the silver some, so he’ll bent on restricting the crap out of us, totally drop the ball, then we revert to Constitutional Carry. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
===totally drop the ball, then we revert to Constitutional Carry. Wouldn’t that be a hoot? ===
Won’t happen everywhere. Home rule units could write their own ordinances.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:46 pm:
Harold
Just FYI Bloomberg has been a Independent since ‘07.
Just curious how my having a weapon impacts you or anyone else?
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:47 pm:
===It is MJM and his compatriots who needs to come to the table===
Why?
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:50 pm:
“Just curious how my having a weapon impacts you or anyone else?”
Because it increases the chances that I will get shot.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:51 pm:
–So what do u see happening June 9th?–
I don’t know. I think there are a lot of cards to be played still.
Given Posner’s ridicule of the Heller decision in the press (he writes a lot in the press for a sitting judge), I thought his appeals court ruling applying it was a provocation to his nemesis, Scalia.
It was always a riverboat gamble to get the federal courts involved. The Supremes can come down hard, one way or the other. And once they take it out of the states’ hands, it’s gone…
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
Rich
===Why?===
Why does NRA or ISRA? I assume we are talking about negotiations right? Then if both sides do not come to the table in good faith there will be no agreement. The Gun Guys were trying to pound out a bill for years and have negotiated a bill with schools etc. Now Madigan wants to start all over and dictate. So if anyone needs to come to the table it isn’t the ones who are already there.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:59 pm:
Harold
You may not know this but a gun cannot shoot anyone unless a human pulls the trigger. Have you never left the state of IL? I guarantee that you have been close to a concealed weapon in some other state. A Honest gun owner carrying doesn’t put you in risk. Relax unless you are a criminal CCW won’t mean didlty to you.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 1:59 pm:
One thing is absolutely clear from this — the NRA’s position is significantly weaker today than it was a week ago. The ISRA has been a fringe player for a while, and they remain a fringe group.
Illinois is now free to use NY’s statute as a model. That model is far more restrictive than what likely would have passed in Illinois.
Judge Posner is very likely to consider the S.Ct’s actions when he considers any bill that gets passed in Illinois.
Todd needs to muzzle some of the extremists on his side, and the ISRA needs to back the heck off and let Todd do his thing. If the gun people continue to push the extremes, they are going to lose.
- Rich Miller - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
===The Gun Guys were trying to pound out a bill for years and have negotiated a bill with schools etc. Now Madigan wants to start all over and dictate.===
The general rule of thumb in the House is you don’t have an agreement until MJM decides. So you haven’t really started negotiating.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:02 pm:
Harold
So what you are saying is that the NRA should fold a winning hand because someone else lost. If you want to talk about extremists then look at Kotowski and Acevedo.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:03 pm:
Mason,
Tell that to the guy in the infield in Texas over the weekend. Unless that place allowed guns, he would still be alive.
You can talk about whether restrictions are good or bad, but the idea that more guns does not equate with more risk is simply ridiculous.
Some risk is acceptable. Other risks are not.
But is undeniable that more guns means more risk.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:05 pm:
Rich
Wow and dictator MJM has done so well for IL. But i digress If the only bill we get is what MJM wants then i will take the Chaos of the Constitutional Carry.
- HaroldVK - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:05 pm:
Mason,
You need to realize that it is no longer a winning hand.
The Supreme Court has said that the NY law is not worth reviewing.
Most of us thought it was toast.
The Court told us otherwise.
The bargaining position has now changed.
That’s simply reality.
- benji - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:13 pm:
But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower. A woman who is being stalked or has obtained a protective order against a violent ex-husband is more vulnerable to being attacked while walking to or from her home than when inside. She has a stronger self-defense claim to be allowed to carry a gun in public than the resident of a fancy apartment building (complete with doorman) has a claim to sleep with a loaded gun under her mattress.
Chicago will need to be very careful when they rewrite their own version, considering Judge Posner specifically had the unarmed Chicagoan in mind when he wrote his opinion.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:14 pm:
Harold
Think you are off a bit on your calculations as of June 9th there is no UUW at least on a state level. Kotowski, Acevedo, and company do not have the votes for a NY style law. Position is no different then it was Friday. but we will see what happens. As it stands now either 2 things will occur 1 the most likely June 9th comes Constitutional Carry and some Chaos or LM appeals.
- Curmudgeon - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:19 pm:
Lisa has until May 22 to file a cert petition with the US Supremes. She would have to get a stay of the 7th Circuit opinion or it would be too late.
- Formerly Known As... - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:22 pm:
Perhaps the issue will be ripe when Illinois passes their new law and the inevitable court challenge works its way to them.
- Ahoy! - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:26 pm:
–So far, no response from ISRA.–
I”m sure it will be something like putting an armed guard on every corner.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:30 pm:
–Really that isn’t the problem the NRA and ISRA have been at the table for years. The problem is MJM and cohorts do not believe in bargaining in good faith. It is MJM and his compatriots who needs to come to the table instead of attempting to dictate.–
Phelps bills have gone to the floor. They’ve garnered majorities, but not large enough to overcome a veto or trump home rule.
The lobbyists can count. All these “victories” have garnered nothing but more fundraising appeals from the NRA and ISRA.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 2:40 pm:
Word
That’s the point Phelps bill has majorities while they did not have the votes to overturn homerule the last few times it was brought up. Those Majorities however can stop a NY style law. I am more convinced daily that we are all going to see the results of missing the June 9th deadline.
- Todd - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 3:14 pm:
Yes Rich, the city could pass a chicago carry law under home rule. However, its only a municipal ordiance, not a felony, not even a misdemeanor. So what are they going to do toss 10,000 people in the cook county jail that is already at capacity?
Maybe miss shepard gets arrested under rahms new ordinance and takes it back to the judge in her case?
The fact is that the hodge podge of laws by the gun hatering types in chicago and oak park will force it back to court, and remember that posner chided the 2nd district over their review of Heller.
It was a denial of a cert petition, not a ruling. Now the black caucus should be very concerened about who has “proper reasons” to get a permit.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 3:16 pm:
I think what has been lost here is that if Phelps bill passes it will be the most restrictive shall issue bill in the Country. This bill is not extreme by any stretch. School restrictions are in there. Training is in there (stiffest in the Nation. Locals have clear means to object as well as a clear path for redress. Private Property owners are protected. This really comes down to the Home Rule issue which is a major point obviously.
The extremes are on the other side with this one.
- wordslinger - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 3:26 pm:
–The extremes are on the other side with this one.–
Today, the extremes are in Boston.
- Mason born - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 4:12 pm:
Word
With you there. Let us pray for those injured and their families. As well as a prayer for swift justice. I need to go spend some time with my kids especially after that.
- Anonymous - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 5:38 pm:
SCOTUS may be waiting until several more states adopt statues concerning concealed carry permits before revisiting the 2nd Amendment. Sometimes, the court likes to survey the law around the country before adopting its position. I would not read too much into this denial of a petition for a writ certiorari just yet.
- Just The Way It Is One - Monday, Apr 15, 13 @ 6:55 pm:
…And given the Empire State’s ultra-restrictive approach to the right, this ruling is a GARGANTUAN victory for Pat Quinn, Rahm Emanuel, Chicago’s Police Chief and others towing the same line. Now, those on the other side will have a difficult time “shooting down” their arguments (no pun intended–well, sort of)!
- Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 8:16 am:
I see Todd’s comment above about the Black caucus as a sad attempt at injecting race into the story.
- HaroldVK - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 8:56 am:
Amalia,
Todd is right on certain issues and wrong on others.
When it comes to local control, he’s absolutely right. Local control is wrong on so many levels. It injects needless confusion. It becomes extremely difficult to enforce. By nature, the laws become weaker.
When it comes to concern about the potential racial impact of racial control, he’s absolutely right.
He’s not injecting race. He’s noting a very unfortunate but strong possibility.
Do you really trust some sheriffs to do decide, without any bias, who should get to carry?
- Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 9:42 am:
@HaroldVK, yes, I do, particularly in Cook County where that Black Caucus resides. come on.
- HaroldVK - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 9:47 am:
Amalia, you trust local officials more than I do.
By the way, Sheriff Arpaio would like to congratulate you on the position you’ve taken. You two see eye to eye on that one.
- Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 16, 13 @ 9:35 pm:
@HaroldVK, what, the right wingers don’t like Arpaio?