Law officers Carry Bill


PDA






GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 12:28 AM
In late September, early November, President Bush signed into law the "Law Officers Carry Bill".

My basic understanding of this bill is that it allows current and retired law enforcment officers the right to carry consealed weapons accross all state lines.

Does anyone have the actual bill as it is written and could it be posted here.

I am sure there is a great deal to be discussed but the discussion would better serve us if the Bill was posted for all to view.

To date, my department has not posted any info in this regard.

If you enjoyed reading about "Law officers Carry Bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TheFederalistWeasel
December 7, 2004, 12:49 AM
HR 218

Your state should of sent down a ruling thru your AG's office as it is now Federal Law.

voilsb
December 7, 2004, 12:52 AM
This is what I could find:
H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.



SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.



SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.

voilsb
December 7, 2004, 12:59 AM
In other words, if you are currently a LEO and have your department ID with you, you can carry anywhere in any state so long as that state, or someone authorized by that state, has not said otherwise.

If you're retired, and have either a retiree dept. ID and annual qualification certificate, or if you've got an annual qual. cert. with your picture on it, the same rules as above apply.

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 01:05 AM
Now that was quick and quite a mouthful!
Thanks Voilsb.

Now I need to get re qualified to the state standards as a retiree.

voilsb
December 7, 2004, 01:35 AM
No problem. Too bad it doesn't apply to the rest of the citizenry. It'd be nice if it would at least allow for anyone who has qualified within the last year to the State's police standard to pack anywhere. I could do that in a heartbeat.

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 02:36 AM
I would agree that any person who has been issued a Consealed Carry permit by the state they reside in should be allowed to carry in other states who have a reciprocal agreement. If Maine allows a liscensed New Yorker to carry then NY should reciprocate and honor a Maine Liscense.

My problem with letting everyone have free rein is from my Weapons Training Officer Certification. I was the one in my jail who had to re qualify all employees every year. If an employee could not be safe and shoot 225 out of 300 on a standard police "Man" target then that employee lost his right to carry any department or personal weapons.
Many FAILED, most did not care and wanted nothing to do with guns and then there were the cowboys who wanted to be real gunslingers and would get someone hurt quick.
There was also a portion of the day set aside for discussion of the legal ramifications of the use of deadly physical force- when you had the right to shoot and when you did not. This was important because as Peace officers we had to have a firm understanding of the laws.
I guess I have to fault the various states and the requirements they have for issueing carry permits. In NY, where I am, you don't have to know anything about the law and you don't have to know how to shoot the gun you carry with any degree of accuracy. You do have to have a clean record and go thru alot of useless crap to get the permit but once issued, there is no training mandated at all.
If there ever was a way to standardize the required training throughout the country and everyone who was issued a carry permit had to pass a training course, I would agree that a carry permit is a carry permit anywhere in the country.
I lived for a short period in Kentucky and anyone could buy a hand gun at a yard sale or flea market as long as they had a valid drivers liscense. Actually, no one ever even asked to see mine.
I guess I have to agree that some regulation and some training should be standardized and made mandatory in all states but I don't expect my opinion to be popular here.
Here in NY it is alot easier to buy an illegal gun then it is to get it legally.
The purpose of the Bill was to put alot of trained law enforcment officers, who would normally not be packing outside their home state, in posession of guns to bolster homeland security. Great idea and a very nice addition to the rights we have but I am certain it will open a can of worms when the cowboys I refered to earlier get on vacation and try to be cops where they are not welcome or have half a load on. We have had NY Correction Officers flipping their badges and waving their guns at 70 MPH trying to pull speeders over. Fortunately the speeder was an FBI Agent who had enough time to handle this matter. Every department has them, and bad apples do spoil the crate.

OpenRoad
December 7, 2004, 03:00 AM
I was the one in my jail who had to re qualify all employees every year. If an employee could not be safe and shoot 225 out of 300 on a standard police "Man" target then that employee lost his right to carry any department or personal weapons.

I guess I would have failed. I shot half of the 10 round clip through the same hole during my CWP test. What did you do, use 50 different targets? :rolleyes:

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 03:57 AM
As long as the hole half your clip was shot thru was in a scoreing ring then you might pass.
I was an X man myself back when I could still see the front sight and we used the old S&W 4" Model 10 with fixed sights.
Don't know if you were being funny but I had a run of 18, 300 scores with 30 X's in a row. Basically all 30 rounds went thru the same hole. Now I need a scope :neener:

Steve in PA
December 7, 2004, 07:54 AM
"I guess I would have failed. I shot half of the 10 round clip through the same hole during my CWP test. What did you do, use 50 different targets?"

And at what distance did you shoot these 5 rounds, and under what conditions?? :rolleyes:

Dbl0Kevin
December 7, 2004, 09:09 AM
Is it just me, or does this smack terribly of double standards?

Yep. The world is full of double standards. You can either learn to work them to your advantage, work to change them, or complain about how they hold you back.

Personally I see HR218 as a nice stepping stone to broader CCW across the country in time. We can't expect to make gains in huge chunks. The anti's played their hand slowly over time and now the pendelum is starting to swing back in our direction....patience my good man patience. :)

El Tejon
December 7, 2004, 09:59 AM
Furious, don't think of it as a dual standard, think of it as the advanced guard of national ccw. :D

GAMALOT
December 7, 2004, 10:04 AM
Again I have to agree! If you are legal for CCW in the state you live in then why not in all of these "UNITED STATES"??????????????
I still believe the answer lies in the lack of standards and training.
If every state had requirements that must be met prior to issuance of a CCW liscense that insisted on training and some degree of personal refrence then and only then will the laws be equal.
Right here we can easily discuss where it is simple in some states to get a CCW while in others it is nearly impossible. It is also a requirement in many states that a candidate for CCW go thru a training class while in others there is no such requirement.
Some states allow convicted felons to have guns- or do not enforce the laws in this regard while others restrict this right forever.
In some states any YaHOO can buy a gun while in others one must meet strict requirements to do so.
I think the Pro Gun Lobby would serve us all much better if they worked for some standardization of the requirements.
Lets face a fact I have seen many, many times. If a LEO who is at the range durring annual requalification misses the target completely 8 out of 12 shots from the 7 yard line, this is not a guy I want dragging out a fully loaded Glock and comming to anothers defense while under real preassure.
How many times have we heard the story of the cop who had a shoot out in his own patrol car with a cuffed perp in the back seat, 19 shots fired- NO INJURIES REPORTED!
I have to go with the old school teachings, when the bullet leaves the gun-YOU OWN IT and are responsible for where it goes.

Henry Bowman
December 7, 2004, 10:38 AM
A few incompetents, whether LEO or otherwise, is no excuse to bar a basic right. In any event, I'll take the risks of freedom over the safety of the alternative. I believe that our Constitution require us all to do so.

Standing Wolf -- See anything in the Second Amendment about this?

voilsb
December 7, 2004, 08:32 PM
Yeah, what I was saying was that, if the regular guys (read: non-cops) should be allowed to carry just like the retired cops, provided they meet the same standard (qualify once per year).

El Tejon
December 7, 2004, 09:59 PM
GAMALOT, the qualifications for drivers' licenses vary from state to state but, oddly, there is a federal interstate compact that allows a NY license to be valid in Wyoming. Why the lack of concern over qualifications while I pilot a one ton weapon from state to state? :confused:

I do not understand the reference to felons? Federal law prohibits those convicted of most felonies to be disqualified from purchasing firearms, regardless of what state law says. That apply would apply still even when we get an interstate compact as to CCW licenses.

Treat CCWs as drivers' licenses. Simple and we are now OWED this as well as much, much more! :cool:

JPM70535
December 7, 2004, 11:49 PM
Since I am computer illiterate, I can't access the documents I have read concrning Florida's reaction to the question of how to deal with HR:218 or I would post them.If you go to Florida Dept of Agriculture, licensing section and follow the instructions you will get to a section compiled by FL. DOJ and FDLE. The way I interpret this is that Florida is going to take action to establish uniform standards which would allow Retired LEOs residing in Florida to meet the criteria.

If someone would post the info here I'm sure the resulting discourse will make interesting reading matter.

Thanks

JPM

Lone_Gunman
December 8, 2004, 12:22 AM
GAMALOT,

Are you saying training, certification, and licensing should be pre-requisite to bearing arms?

RealGun
December 8, 2004, 05:16 AM
Be careful what you buy into. My baseline is that CCW licensing is unconstitutional. The LEO privilege law is a bad one because it underlines that the poilce are a special class of citizen and makes the value judgment that only police should have guns. If you look closely, it relies on the assumption that police have training standards, so it also implies that only formal training and periodic requalification should allow one to carry a gun. Never mind the right of self defense or any freedom granted by the 2nd Amendment. If someone thinks there should be a law, they just pass it. And what do we do? We rejoice about how it is a stepping stone to a "privilege" to carry nationwide. PFFFFT!

GAMALOT
December 8, 2004, 10:17 AM
What I am saying is that training and certification and lisencing could make this argument a more passable one with the law makers.
There are a bunch of great point above and all or most have some validity but the fact is we are P'ing into the wind thinking it would ever be possible to get a CCW Nation wide without some restrictive measures.
I don't make the laws and neither do many of us but we will never see a nation wide CCW with out restrictions.
Just look at the diversity of posts in this thread!
I will always opt for safety when it comes to CCW. Comming from a strong back ground in weapons training and having seen first hand LEO's who are not particularly well trained, I must stand my ground.
What good will it be to have every one packing when a vast majority of them will not even take the time to learn and understand their weapons or the laws regarding the use of deadly physical force.
I don't advocate the loss of any rights! I do advocate the responsibility to enjoy your rights safely.

El Tejon
December 8, 2004, 12:46 PM
Gam, I think your argument would be more effective if we had stats of non-training states vs. trainng states. For example, is there a distinction between say Texas, which requires training, and Indiana, which does not require training?

Training merely to satisfy a statutory requirement is feckless. To make an impact we must change of the gun culture's perception that possession is competence.

If we start out with the notion that the government is allowed to set standards for exercising a right, then we are in trouble from the get go. Just my .02. It's nice to have you on board and on our side. Now let's start the drum beat for the legislation! :)

sturmruger
December 8, 2004, 12:52 PM
I am seriously considering becoming a reserve officer here in WI. Once I get my picture ID I will be authorized to carry anywhere in the country. To me that is worth the time and the trouble of becoming a part time LEO.

wmenorr67
December 8, 2004, 01:16 PM
I believe that Reserve officers do not fall into the ones able to carry under HR218. I maybe wrong but I believe that there maybe a section that states that the officer must be sworn and most Reserves are not.

voilsb
December 8, 2004, 10:27 PM
I posted the entire text of the law. The word "sworn" is not in it. Here are the specific criteria for being considered a "qualified LEO":
As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.In other words, if your department says you can carry a gun and make arrests, then you qualify. Sounds like Reserve Officers count, unless they can't carry guns or can't make arrests.

Firethorn
December 8, 2004, 10:49 PM
Next Step:

Military/CCW permit holders. Security guards. PI's. Honorably discharged military. Then anybody who can legally posses a firearm.

As for training, I'd put it in school right along with drivers' & sex ed.
Elementary: Eddie Eagle's don't touch, tell an adult, and air rifles.
Jr. High: .22's. Both rifle and pistol.
High School: High Power & Shotguns.

I know that many start earlier than this, but we're talking about public school here.

GAMALOT
December 8, 2004, 11:09 PM
EL, Great point and I wish I could site some stats but all my training was done while in the correction dept.
I can only speak from this experience and I must admit, the training was never enough and absolutely important. We must recognize that many employees took the job for the job and pay check and had no knowledge about guns. Because of the Peace Officer Status, all employees had to be proficient with the dept weapons.
I found it rather simple to teach a person who had zero experience with guns and rather difficult to teach those who thought they already knew it all.
I also found the majority of the un safe students were those who either owned guns or had been taught to shoot elsewhere.
This is all just my experience of 27 years Weapons training in the LEO theater.
Most of the guys and gals who are here on the HR are gun savy to varrying degrees and would never understand what I faced daily. I have been down range when a cowboy who "didn't know the AR 15 was laoded" sprayed hot lead all over the place. He was a big gun owner and the great white hunter and as unsafe as they come. We had an officer shoot his young son while he slept in his room. Another of the big hunters who was cleaning his guns and one had a round chambered, shot the boy thru the wall and in the leg.
HE had been trained by his Dad and was quite unreseptive during all his weapons training wanting only to shoot his score and get a free day at the range away from the jail.
I do not consider training to be a restriction of any kind even if it is mandatory. Here in NY, we already have tons of restrictions we must overcome to get a permit and purchase a hand gun. Many states have similar requirements so I am not advocating anything other then that we as gun owners should demand our fellow gun owners to learn the safe handeling and the laws so we can stay under the radar. No one ever mentions the many hours of safe target shooting and hunting we all enjoy but the minute one of us makes a stupid mistake it is all over the evening news and just serves as ammunition for the Anti gunners. I don't appreciate my rights comming under attack by the left because of these stupid mistakes. We all know to treat every gun as if it is loaded however we all need to be reminded every now and again.

OpenRoad
December 9, 2004, 05:13 AM
And at what distance did you shoot these 5 rounds, and under what conditions??

Ten yards offhand. Saw your remark and figured you must be a cop. Yup.. :p

El Tejon
December 9, 2004, 07:50 AM
Gam, amen about the necessity of training. I saw the same things when I was a LEO. In addition, I wholeheartedly agree that the most effective way to change is to affect the culture from inside, not outside. Internal controls are always more effective than external commands.

GAMALOT
December 9, 2004, 11:32 AM
What we all have to keep in mind about the question of CCW nation wide is that the restrictions already exist. The vast majority of us simply cannot carry outside of their resident state.
Weather or not Cops can is not at issue so please don't blame one groups Rights being restored for the lack of anothers.
Since the restrictions already exist, why not try to figure out how to present the best argument to get them lifted for us all.
Those of you who are angry that cops got it and you did not or think cops don't deserve it are just fighting against yourselves.
The only way to ever get these restrictions lifted for us all is to show where we all are as well or better trained then the LEOs. Not at all impossible!
The only reason the LEOs where able to get the restrictions lifted is because they got together and showed where they were trained and could be an asset.
So what are you going to do besides belly ache about it. Remember, the right is already restricted! I am just tossing out some ideas of ways I think we might have a chance on getting them lifted.
Not to rub this in but I am a retired LEO so all I have to do is get myself requalified annualy and I am good to go. I am just trying to agree with the total lifting of the restrictions for us all and discuss some options for getting it done.
Don't think for one minute that HR 218 did not fight a hard won battle without great resistance. You should all support this and get to work on the next step.

RealGun
December 9, 2004, 12:19 PM
The only way to ever get these restrictions lifted for us all is to show where we all are as well or better trained then the LEOs. Not at all impossible! -GAMALOT

Grrrr! HR218 is unconstitutional. Now you want me to go hat in hand, mother may I, volunteering that the 2A only applies if I am granted the privilege as a suitably trained gun owner, that training judgment left to regulatory discretion.

You know, the last thing I want to read here is a condescending lecture from a cop. I don't engage in LEO bashing threads, but I can see why some people get edgy about the subject. I will grant you that you mean well, but this approach of being here to save us all is not going to fly. :(

El Tejon
December 9, 2004, 02:51 PM
Real, I believe Gam is speaking politically. I disagree with him as a matter of politics.

What is need politically is for gun owners to beat the drum, write letters, and wake up the NRA from their hunting season slumber. We won the election for the Republicans, time to cash in some "political capital" (since that phrase seems to be all the rage in D.C. recently). ;)

Risasi
December 9, 2004, 03:13 PM
No Tejon,

What you need is every gun owner to strap on his hogleg and excercise his second amendment rights. And if everyone did it all on the same day who is to stop them? I'm not saying march or anything like that. Just wear your gun going about your normal activities. Let's run some numbers. We have about 1,200 officers in our city. WIth a metro population of 750,000, who I am guessing has roughly 150,000 adult males. Conservative Red State. 75% own guns, and you get maybe 10% of them to do it. You've got what 10,000 people walking around packing. Do it open. Not even the Guard could respond to this. Heck half the guys packing are probably in the Guard. Okay, my math is fuzzy, but I hope you get my point.

Don't forget the Bill of Rights does not grant us our rights. It merely identifies the rights of EVERY MAN. Not just Americans. All a government can do is SUPRESS our rights. Not take them away. I have no problem with even a mexican carrying a defensive weapon on him in our country. But I sure as heck would love to see every adult male between the ages of 17-45 to carry. An armed society is truly a polite society. Okay, maybe we weed each other out for the first couple years. :D

flatrock
December 9, 2004, 03:35 PM
In other words, if you are currently a LEO and have your department ID with you, you can carry anywhere in any state so long as that state, or someone authorized by that state, has not said otherwise.

If you're retired, and have either a retiree dept. ID and annual qualification certificate, or if you've got an annual qual. cert. with your picture on it, the same rules as above apply.

Unfortunately there are always police chiefs that are intent on not following the intent of the law.

There are a number of places where it's been made department policy that an officer may not use their department ID to carry in other states.

One of our local police departments is refusing to issue any form of ID to retierees who qualify under this law. Their claim is that they are concerned about liability if a retired officer is involved in a shooting.

If it were a state law, at least we have a state AG who doesn't let away with playing such games, however it's not his job to uphold federal law, so the officers are out of luck unless they want to sue and try their chances in federal court.

Andrew Rothman
December 9, 2004, 07:18 PM
One of our local police departments is refusing to issue any form of ID to retierees who qualify under this law. Their claim is that they are concerned about liability if a retired officer is involved in a shooting.

The way I read the law, if the retired cop still has his old photo ID, he can simply take the state test at his own expense, satisfying the requirement below:

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; (that's the old ID) and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm. (and that's the state qual.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Law officers Carry Bill" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!