Try botac.com and e-bay. Botac runs some specials from time to time.

Keith

--- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, "DMurray" <damurray@...> wrote:
>
> I'm looking a good place to buy some 5.11 shorts.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Donald
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

LA Police Gear usually runs some kind of sale, buy two get one, free
shipping etc.

http://www.lapolicegear.com/5tash1.html

Gary


On 3/10/07, DMurray <damurray@...> wrote:
>
>   I'm looking a good place to buy some 5.11 shorts.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Donald
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Todd - The National Guard wasn't created until (going from memory -
at my age, a dangerous thing) around 1880.  Militias existed back
into the 1600s and were raised from citizens through the Civil War,
and are what was formally called the National Guard later.  Unless
this law was heavily amended to change the wording, my guess is that
the law as written is a 20th century one, and was amended to include
women in the 1970s-80s.

The point about the contradiction between the militia law ages and
the ages for legal purchase (and in some states possession) of
handguns is a good one; we could go off on a tangent concerning that,
but I ain't gonna start. 8-)

Chuck

--- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, Todd Louis Green <todd@...> wrote:
>
> Chuck -- That's an interesting question.  In general, laws passed
> shortly after the ratification of the Constitution have been taken
as
> persuasive (but not controlling) precedent.  I don't know when 10
USC
> 311 was passed.  Thanks to John W. for the link, by the way.
>
> However, the I think relying on 10 USC 311 is dangerous for two
> reasons.  First, it is tacitly giving into the Antis approach that
> the 2nd Amendment only matters in terms of a "militia" as opposed
to
> being the personal right that we all know it to be.  Second, 10
USC
> 311 could be taken as precedent that Congress *can* determine who
is
> and isn't qualified to be considered part of the militia;
therefore,
> a Congress that wanted to limit the Second Amendment in terms of
the
> "militia clause" would simply say the militia consists of the
Armed
> Forces and be done with it (and us).
>
> It's worth noting, for instance, that 10 USC 311(a) states that
any
> able bodied male SEVENTEEN years of age or older is part of the
> militia.  Federal law prevents anyone under EIGHTEEN from
purchasing
> a firearm or ammunition, and anyone under TWENTY-ONE from
purchasing
> a handgun or handgun ammo.  (that's 17 USC 922 I want to say, but
I
> could be wrong)  So you could clearly argue that Congressional
intent
> was *not* to create a RKBA in 10 USC 311 because some people
covered
> by 10 USC 311(a) are specifically prohibited from purchasing guns
&
> ammunition.
>
>
>
> --
> Todd Louis Green
> todd@...
>

I'm looking a good place to buy some 5.11 shorts.

Any suggestions?

Donald

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chuck -- That's an interesting question.  In general, laws passed
shortly after the ratification of the Constitution have been taken as
persuasive (but not controlling) precedent.  I don't know when 10 USC
311 was passed.  Thanks to John W. for the link, by the way.

However, the I think relying on 10 USC 311 is dangerous for two
reasons.  First, it is tacitly giving into the Antis approach that
the 2nd Amendment only matters in terms of a "militia" as opposed to
being the personal right that we all know it to be.  Second, 10 USC
311 could be taken as precedent that Congress *can* determine who is
and isn't qualified to be considered part of the militia; therefore,
a Congress that wanted to limit the Second Amendment in terms of the
"militia clause" would simply say the militia consists of the Armed
Forces and be done with it (and us).

It's worth noting, for instance, that 10 USC 311(a) states that any
able bodied male SEVENTEEN years of age or older is part of the
militia.  Federal law prevents anyone under EIGHTEEN from purchasing
a firearm or ammunition, and anyone under TWENTY-ONE from purchasing
a handgun or handgun ammo.  (that's 17 USC 922 I want to say, but I
could be wrong)  So you could clearly argue that Congressional intent
was *not* to create a RKBA in 10 USC 311 because some people covered
by 10 USC 311(a) are specifically prohibited from purchasing guns &
ammunition.



--
Todd Louis Green
todd@...

Chuck, you are correct.  The section in question is 10 USC Sec. 311.  (USC =
United States Code, which is the Federal code of laws.)  You can find it at
http://tinyurl.com/2yxnty.   Of particular interest is (2), which deals with
the unorganized militia.   It reads, in part:

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes


-STATUTE-


       (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied


     males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section

     313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a

     declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States


     and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the


     National Guard.


       (b) The classes of the militia are -


         (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard


       and the Naval Militia; and


         (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of


       the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the


       Naval Militia.


The National Guard wasn't formed until many years after the Second Amendment
was incorporated in the Bill of Rights as a limitation on government power.

John W in SC




----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Edwards" <cfedwards@...>
To: <IDPA@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 8:43 PM
Subject: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC


> Todd - Under 10 USC something, there are two sections that talk about
> the militia - one section addresses the organized militia, generally
> understood to be the National Guard, and the other the unorganized
> militia, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) all other able-bodied men
> between 18 and 45 years old.  Since this obviously (at least as
> codified) came after the Bill of Rights and the state constitutions
> of the original 13 states, what impact might this have on this issue
> in terms of the discussion of the Founders' intent?
>
> Regards,
>
> Chuck
>

Todd - Under 10 USC something, there are two sections that talk about
the militia - one section addresses the organized militia, generally
understood to be the National Guard, and the other the unorganized
militia, which is (correct me if I'm wrong) all other able-bodied men
between 18 and 45 years old.  Since this obviously (at least as
codified) came after the Bill of Rights and the state constitutions
of the original 13 states, what impact might this have on this issue
in terms of the discussion of the Founders' intent?

Regards,

Chuck

--- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, Todd Louis Green <todd@...> wrote:
>
> Keep in mind, though, that the Founding Fathers also *never*
intended
> the Second Amendment to limit a State's rights to regulate
firearms.
> The Bill of Rights (up until the early 20th century) never applied
to
> state laws and state courts.  Further prove of this is evidenced
by
> the fact that almost all of the original 13 states had their own
RKBA
> in their State Constitutions.
>
>
> --
> Todd Louis Green
> todd@...
>
>
> On 10-Mar-07, at 10-Mar-07 5:58 PM, Terry Riley wrote:
>
> > That is EXACTLY correct, John, and the best, most concise
wording
> > I've ever seen on the subject.
> >
> > Terry Riley
> >
> >
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: John Warsaw
> >   To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
> >   Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:22 PM
> >   Subject: Re: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC
> >
> >
> >   At the time our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment
there
> > was no
> >   organized militia, national guard or whatever. The
term "militia"
> > referred
> >   to all free men who were expected to have their own weapons
for
> > mutual
> >   protection and security. The term has absolutely nothing to do
> > with any
> >   organized military unit. We can discuss modern theories of
race,
> > gender and
> >   age, but there is still an irregular militia under Federal law.
> >
> >   John W in SC
>

Keep in mind, though, that the Founding Fathers also *never* intended
the Second Amendment to limit a State's rights to regulate firearms.
The Bill of Rights (up until the early 20th century) never applied to
state laws and state courts.  Further prove of this is evidenced by
the fact that almost all of the original 13 states had their own RKBA
in their State Constitutions.


--
Todd Louis Green
todd@...


On 10-Mar-07, at 10-Mar-07 5:58 PM, Terry Riley wrote:

> That is EXACTLY correct, John, and the best, most concise wording
> I've ever seen on the subject.
>
> Terry Riley
>
>
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: John Warsaw
>   To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:22 PM
>   Subject: Re: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC
>
>
>   At the time our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment there
> was no
>   organized militia, national guard or whatever. The term "militia"
> referred
>   to all free men who were expected to have their own weapons for
> mutual
>   protection and security. The term has absolutely nothing to do
> with any
>   organized military unit. We can discuss modern theories of race,
> gender and
>   age, but there is still an irregular militia under Federal law.
>
>   John W in SC

That is EXACTLY correct, John, and the best, most concise wording I've ever seen
on the subject.

Terry Riley


   ----- Original Message -----
   From: John Warsaw
   To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:22 PM
   Subject: Re: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC


   At the time our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment there was no
   organized militia, national guard or whatever. The term "militia" referred
   to all free men who were expected to have their own weapons for mutual
   protection and security. The term has absolutely nothing to do with any
   organized military unit. We can discuss modern theories of race, gender and
   age, but there is still an irregular militia under Federal law.

   John W in SC
   Recent Activity
     a..  1New Members
   Visit Your Group
   Boxing Greats
   Who's the best?

   Share and vote

   on Bix.com

   Health Zone
   Look your best!

   Groups to help you

   look & feel great.

   Yahoo! News
   Sports News

   Get up to the

   minute sports news
   .


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Not at all.  SCOTUS has ruled consistently that other rights
enumerated in the Bill of Rights can be limited in terms of "time,
place, and manner" so long as those limitations are "reasonable."  So
simply stating that the Second Amendment means that states cannot
outright ban guns does not necessarily mean that the very strict laws
in states like CA, MA, MD, and NY are in violation, too.

--
Todd Louis Green
todd@...


> SCOTUS will ALSO consider that IF they deed the circuit's decision
> correct,
> they have UNdone most of the gun laws in the US. i'm not at all
> certain
> they will want to do that, however just the cause...

At the time our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment there was no
organized militia, national guard or whatever.  The term "militia" referred
to all free men who were expected to have their own weapons for mutual
protection and security.  The term has absolutely nothing to do with any
organized military unit.  We can discuss modern theories of race, gender and
age, but there is still an irregular militia under Federal law.

John W in SC




----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Ruby" <sruby27511@...>
To: <IDPA@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: RE: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC


>A central issue was whether the ability to bear arms
> only related to individuals that had signed up to
> serve in the militia.
>
<snip>

you OBVIOUSLY didnt hear limbaugh discuss it...

I think he went on for 20 - 30 min on it... could be wrong we had a local host
pick it up and talk aobut it for three hours. So I may be confused.. but I know
he did discuss it pretty well.


-------------- Original message --------------
From: Scott Ruby <sruby27511@...>
A central issue was whether the ability to bear arms
only related to individuals that had signed up to
serve in the militia.

Among other things, DC argued that the phrase "keep
and bear Arms" should be read as purely military
language and indicates a civic rather than individual
guarantee. Happy to see that the Court of Appeals did
not agree.

I look forward to reading the opinion - a quick scan
shows that there is discussion on what happened in
drafts of the constitution....

The media, including Rush, need to boil this down to
quick sound bites.... they will underplay the depth
of the discussion and detail to which the court looked
at the issue.

--- Oscar Dean <odean@...> wrote:

> It's hard for me to comprehend that the learned
> "magnificent 9" would decide
> that the use of the words "the people" in one
> section of the amendments
> meant something different when they were used in
> another section. Any thing
> can happen. Since they are the, be all/end all,
> decision makers we really
> have no other legal authority to turn to for a
> decision.
>
> o.
>
> _____
>
> From: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:IDPA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> larrys1911@...
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:42 AM
> To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment
> upheld in DC
>
> I didnt read any of this but I did listen to what
> Limbaugh said about it on
> the radio.
>
> Basically they found "the right of the People to
> keep and bear arms, shall
> not be infringed"
> to mean PEOPLE, as in population, as in you and
> I...as in individuals.
> I dispised english class, but that statement seem so
> simple.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups
> email.
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4It09A/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/soUolB/TM
>
----------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Discussions should remain at least semi-civilized
> and IDPA-relevant at all times. To unsubscribe send
> a blank e-mail to IDPA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

"With MS, putting one foot in front of the other isn't always easy. This is why
we walk." For my daughter and for those who are fighting a similar battle. For
more information:
http://main.nationalmssociety.org/site/TR?pg=personal&JServSessionIdr001=h4gs196\
cr1.app8b&fr_id=2700&px=3052488

__________________________________________________________
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

A central issue was whether the ability to bear arms
only related to individuals that had signed up to
serve in the militia.

Among other things, DC argued that the phrase "keep
and bear Arms" should be read as purely military
language and indicates a civic rather than individual
guarantee.  Happy to see that the Court of Appeals did
not agree.

I look forward to reading the opinion - a quick scan
shows that there is discussion on what happened in
drafts of the constitution....

The media, including Rush, need to boil this down to
quick sound bites....  they will underplay the depth
of the discussion and detail to which the court looked
at the issue.

--- Oscar Dean <odean@...> wrote:

> It's hard for me to comprehend that the learned
> "magnificent 9" would decide
> that the use of the words "the people" in one
> section of the amendments
> meant something different when they were used in
> another section.  Any thing
> can happen.  Since they are the, be all/end all,
> decision makers we really
> have no other legal authority to turn to for a
> decision.
>
>    o.
>
>   _____
>
> From: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:IDPA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
> larrys1911@...
> Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:42 AM
> To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment
> upheld in DC
>
> I didnt read any of this but I did listen to what
> Limbaugh said about it on
> the radio.
>
> Basically they found "the right of the People to
> keep and bear arms, shall
> not be infringed"
> to mean PEOPLE, as in population, as in you and
> I...as in individuals.
> I dispised english class, but that statement seem so
> simple.
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups
> email.
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/4It09A/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/soUolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Discussions should remain at least semi-civilized
> and IDPA-relevant at all times.  To unsubscribe send
> a blank e-mail to IDPA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>


"With MS, putting one foot in front of the other isn't always easy.  This is why
we walk." For my daughter and for those who are fighting a similar battle. For
more information:
  
http://main.nationalmssociety.org/site/TR?pg=personal&JServSessionIdr001=h4gs196\
cr1.app8b&fr_id=2700&px=3052488




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love
(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list.
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265

At 13:17 03/10/2007 -0500, Oscar Dean wrote:
>It's hard for me to comprehend that the learned "magnificent 9" would decide
>that the use of the words "the people" in one section of the amendments
>meant something different when they were used in another section. Any thing
>can happen. Since they are the, be all/end all, decision makers we really
>have no other legal authority to turn to for a decision.

SCOTUS will ALSO consider that IF they deed the circuit's decision correct,
they have UNdone most of the gun laws in the US. i'm not at all certain
they will want to do that, however just the cause...

this is a dangerous time for us, and it could go either way....
S

Scott Estes    sestes@...
Stare. It is the way to educate your eye.
Stare, pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. - Walker Evans

It's hard for me to comprehend that the learned "magnificent 9" would decide
that the use of the words "the people" in one section of the amendments
meant something different when they were used in another section.  Any thing
can happen.  Since they are the, be all/end all, decision makers we really
have no other legal authority to turn to for a decision.

    o.

   _____

From: IDPA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:IDPA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
larrys1911@...
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 9:42 AM
To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [IDPA] Re: Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC

I didnt read any of this but I did listen to what Limbaugh said about it on
the radio.

Basically they found "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall
not be infringed"
to mean PEOPLE, as in population, as in you and I...as in individuals.
I dispised english class, but that statement seem so simple.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I didnt read any of this but I did listen to what Limbaugh said about it on the
radio.

Basically they found "the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not
be infringed"
to mean PEOPLE, as in population, as in you and I...as in individuals.
I dispised english class, but that statement seem so simple.

As to best case.... Best case would be for this to end up in Supreme Court and
be upheld.
ONCE AND FOR ALL.

Its interesting how as our society improves and life improves and the average
person has More and MORE and MOOOOORE stuff, and more and more free time, our
liberties seem to be more and more under attack.






-------------- Original message --------------
From: "batf666" <batf666@...>
I hope your all right about this..Like I said in another gun forum it
could go the other way also. I keep saying I do not trust this
SCOTYS. After some of their rulings like Eminent Domain I am afraid
they will hold the Anti's view on gun control.
If they find Militia is the words and no INDIVIDULA right we are all
screwed. Still I keep a positive look on this and we shall see. It is
going to take some time to get there.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I hope your all right about this..Like I said in another gun forum it
could go the other way also. I keep saying I do not trust this
SCOTYS. After some of their rulings like Eminent Domain I am afraid
they will hold the Anti's view on gun control.
If they find Militia is the words and no INDIVIDULA right we are all
screwed. Still I keep a positive look on this and we shall see. It is
going to take some time to get there.

--- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, "Oscar Dean" <odean@...> wrote:
>
> Now, if the Supreme Court will just follow suit gun owners will be
in good...

Yes, but it'll be a while before it gets there. The current ruling was
only a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals. The most likely next
step is for DC (the city) to request a hearing in front the full 12 or
14 judge court.

From our point of view, probably the ideal result would be for the
full court to affirm the three-judge panel's ruling, and for the
Supreme Court to refuse to accept an appeal.

-- jwp

Yay, finally, one for the good (read: little) guys! Thanks for
posting that link.  I would have missed this as I tend to avoid the
evening news because of its obvious bias. I consider myself as a
mostly liberal Democrat, but also a Constitutionalist.  It has
bothered me for a long time that the Second Amendment has too often
been interpreted wrongly.  Now I can share some good news with other
gun toting liberals and conservatives.  You made my day.  Thanks
again.

Amanda


--- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, Todd Louis Green <todd@...> wrote:
>
> Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban
> 2-1 ruling says Second Amendment is not limited to `militia' needs
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
>
>
> --
> Todd Louis Green
> todd@...
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Now, if the Supreme Court will just follow suit gun owners will be in good
shape and can breathe a little easier but "still" not drop their guard.

      o.

-----Original Message-----
From: IDPA@yahoogroups.com [mailto:IDPA@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Todd
Louis Green
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 3:52 PM
To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [IDPA] Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC

Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban
2-1 ruling says Second Amendment is not limited to 'militia' needs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/


--
Todd Louis Green
todd@...

I only had a few seconds to scan the opinion but it
includes a fascinating history of the militia - I
printed a copy and plan to read it as a historical
account.  Down load your own copy of this 75 page
opinion at
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf



--- Andrew Colglazier <andrewcolglazier@...>
wrote:

> Saw that.  Amazing!
>
> Andy
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Todd Louis Green" <todd@...>
> To: <IDPA@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:51 PM
> Subject: [IDPA] Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld
> in DC
>
>
> Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban
> 2-1 ruling says Second Amendment is not limited to
> 'militia' needs
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
>
>
> --
> Todd Louis Green
> todd@...
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
> Discussions should remain at least semi-civilized
> and IDPA-relevant at all
> times.  To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to
> IDPA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> Yahoo! Groups gets a make over. See the new email
> design.
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/hOt0.A/lOaOAA/yQLSAA/soUolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Discussions should remain at least semi-civilized
> and IDPA-relevant at all times.  To unsubscribe send
> a blank e-mail to IDPA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>



"With MS, putting one foot in front of the other isn't always easy.  This is why
we walk." For my daughter and for those who are fighting a similar battle. For
more information:
  
http://main.nationalmssociety.org/site/TR?pg=personal&JServSessionIdr001=h4gs196\
cr1.app8b&fr_id=2700&px=3052488




________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

Saw that.  Amazing!

Andy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Louis Green" <todd@...>
To: <IDPA@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 2:51 PM
Subject: [IDPA] Unbelievable: 2nd Amendment upheld in DC


Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban
2-1 ruling says Second Amendment is not limited to 'militia' needs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/


--
Todd Louis Green
todd@...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Discussions should remain at least semi-civilized and IDPA-relevant at all
times.  To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to
IDPA-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.
Yahoo! Groups Links

Federal court overturns D.C. handgun ban
2-1 ruling says Second Amendment is not limited to ‘militia’ needs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/


--
Todd Louis Green
todd@...




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Knifeworks is good!  I've ordered from them several times and they are quick and
dependable.

Andy

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: John Warsaw
   To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:27 PM
   Subject: Re: [IDPA] Knives


   I've bought from http://www.knifeworks.com/. They sent what I ordered
   reasonably quickly, and the prices were good. My current favorite for edc
   is the Camillus "Heat", which is a Darrel Ralph assisted opening design.
   You can see them at
   http://www.knifeworks.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=827. They
   carry tip down, but the clip can be switched for right or left side carry.

   John W in SC





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

check out www.jtknives.com

Email Joe, tell him that I sent you.

Tom Faggione

Visit our website:
www.tboneweb.com
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Larry G P
   To: IDPA@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 1:16 PM
   Subject: [IDPA] Knives


   Who has an online source for pocket knives..

   Nothing specific just looking for a couple low dollar knives
   Spyderco, Kershaw type stuff..

   thanks

   LP





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've bought from http://www.knifeworks.com/.  They sent what I ordered
reasonably quickly, and the prices were good.  My current favorite for edc
is the Camillus "Heat", which is a Darrel Ralph assisted opening design.
You can see them at
http://www.knifeworks.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=827.  They
carry tip down, but the clip can be switched for right or left side carry.

John W in SC

Who has an online source for pocket knives..

Nothing specific just looking for a couple low dollar knives
Spyderco, Kershaw type stuff..

thanks

LP

wat's up ppl..im looking for the right person to hungout....and have some fun
time....if u think ur the one then hit me up:
http://hometown.aol.com/sexybrenda3010/index.htm

For those interested in voting often, you will need to delete the
"cookie" that the website puts on your computer, if you have
cookies active.
-Roger

--- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, "rlewis51" <rlewis51@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks,that link worked.
>  I have voted and added it to my "favorites" so that
> I can visit again... maybe make it a daily habit... or hourly.
> -Roger
> --- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, "Protect Freedom" <freeidaho@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In IDPA@yahoogroups.com, "rlewis51" <rlewis51@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I got a "page not found" error from their server.
> > > Not sure if that means it's been removed or there was a problem
> > > with the link
> > > -Roger
> >
> > Roger,
> > I have been voting on and off all day.  Just voted.  Maybe the
> link I
> > posted got word wrapped by yahoo.
> >
> > Here it is again,
> > http://www.bradynetwork.org/site/PageServer?
> > pagename=SRV_2007GeneralLegislativePrioritiesSurvey
> >
> > kr
> >
>