Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I now have serious reservations about "red flag" laws

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trung Si
    replied
    ERPO laws are only in blue States, and they are welcome to them, (let's all tattle on our neighbors)God Bless Texas, because it ain't happening here!

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    And I see it as violating the 4th Amendment, as there is no evidence presented that would rise to the level of Probable Cause for a judicial official to issue a Search Warrant.

    Cambronne sees things through the courtroom legal perspective, I see through the 'street' legal perspective. Under both perspectives, we are finding serious constitutional deficiencies with this law, and through the Supremacy Clause, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and no law can be made that supercedes the Constitution. That is why, when it comes to 2nd Amendment stuff (simply because it's the most challenged Amendment, no one challenges the 13th), the only two possible routes are a Supreme Court Ruling that 'interprets' something in a particular way, or following the Amendment process to repeal the 2nd....a la Prohibition. The Supreme Court has made case law allowing laws such as the NFA to exist, but on the flip side has restricted the scope of those laws rather severely depending on the year.

    What we have in this case is the FBI used a law which has not yet been fought on the SCOTUS level. This law allowed them to circumvent the extensive and consistently interpreted protections of the 4th Amendment and effect a search and seizure of property. This law also denied this man not only his 2nd Amendment Rights and his 4th Amendment Rights, but also his 5th and 14th Amendment rights. It pays a little ex post facto lip service to the 14th Amendment, by having a hearing well after the seizure, which is rather bare faced as being a hearing where the man having his property seized must prove his innocence in order to receive it back.

    Contrast this with the procedure for an Involuntary Commitment, including seizure of firearms, I'll use the NC procedure, which I have been well versed in for the past 10 years.

    --I identify someone who appears to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others. My investigation determines that they need a mental health evaluation and they will not or cannot get that voluntarily.

    --IF and ONLY IF there is an exigency, I may physically detain them. If there is not, then I won't....Typically I'll have an officer 'stand by' with them in place while I do the process.

    --I, or an immediate family member, go before the Magistrate, and under oath provide oaths, affirmations, or exhibits showing that this subject is or apparently is mentally ill AND a danger to themselves or others. Just being mentally ill is insufficient, I MUST show WHY they are dangerous. If I am unable to prove this to the Magistrate's satisfaction, the person is immediately released OR the standby officer is immediately told to clear.

    --IF and ONLY IF the Magistrate finds that I have satisfied the proper burden of proof at this early stage, he will issue an Involuntary Commitment Order. With that in hand, I may place them in custody and compel them to go to the nearest 24hr mental health facility (typically the Emergency Room's on-duty Psych). This order is only good for 24 hours, so if I cannot find them for some reason in that 24hrs I must prove again why at this new time they are still mentally ill AND dangerous.

    --Presuming an IVC has been issued and served, upon service I'm allowed to seize any firearms or other dangerous or deadly weapons on or about their person or that I see in plain view that belong to them. If I want to go further I'll need either consent or a search warrant.

    --I take them to the ED. IF and ONLY IF the psychiatrist that evaluates them decides that they do in fact need mental health treatment and that they will not or cannot obtain that on their own and that they are in fact a danger to themselves or others, the psychiatrist will admit them as an involuntary patient....otherwise they are immediately released.

    --They are admitted as a patient. They will have a hearing within 1 week and every week thereafter before a judge where the psychiatrist must show why they must remain under the Involuntary Commitment. If the psychiatrist is unable to satisfy the judge, they are immediately released.

    --IF someone (typically family or DSS) petitions the courts that this person is Incompetent to discharge their own affairs due to their mental illness, then there will be a hearing. At this hearing, it must be proven to a judge that they are indeed mentally incapable and/or dangerous and incompetent.

    --Remember those weapons I could seize all the way back at the IVC being issued by the magistrate? If at any one of these intervening points the courts do not decide in favor of this person being competent, I must return those weapons to them without undue delay. So in order to seize a weapon under the IVC statutes, I must show before 3 judges and a psychiatrist that this person is indeed Mentally Ill and a Danger to Themselves or Others. The presumption is always that their rights are whole and asserted.

    That's what we call due process of law and an adversarial justice system. Not this crap where a mere accusation can be upheld without evidence, and the person subject to this accusation must have a hearing where there is no presumption that the accuser is in fact Wrong. Would you stand for all of your ability to freely express your opinion to be removed from you based upon an accusation without due process?

    Last edited by TacCovert4; 26 Oct 19, 19:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    Current laws provide exceptions about behaviors which are NOT considered constitutionally protected. And this applies even to the Bill of Rights. Your second sentence in bold also indicates that you are actually more interested in discussing what the law SHOULD be.

    The fact you mentioned does not indicate that there is something unconstitutional in this case. Initial seizure of property in civil forfeiture is based on nothing other than a suspicion that a large amount of cash is perhaps related to an illegal activity. There is no requirement to be charged with a crime. As I said, there are exceptions even under the current laws and in many different areas. You are welcome to argue that the laws should not give that much power to the state, but as I said if you want to have such discussion, then all subjects should be reevaluated including the currently accepted limitations of the second amendment which can include also a talk about the right or not to have 1000 weapons while you are a member of an extremist organization.

    So,my point about the cache was not part of my comments about the current law.You confuse the two types of conversations I mentioned. One of them is about the rights the government and the people have under the current laws and the second is about what the laws should be based on what people think is reasonable and constitutional.

    You are always amused with me but this does not change the obvious fact that you try to claim that you know the current law better than the judge who applied it in this case.
    Your post demonstrates a lack of understanding of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments, Other than that, I'm sure you're spot on.

    And I'm sorry, but the 1st amendment protects membership in "extremist" groups like Nazis.
    And Nazis can own guns. (2ndA) and in order to lose the right to own a gun, there must be "due process of law". (5th and 14th).

    I never said I knew the ERPO law better, I said it probably violated the constitution.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post

    Current laws, cannot provide "exceptions" to constitutional protections.
    "Current law" is subordinate to the constitution. Laws to not supersede it.
    The fact that there is a law, doesn't mean it is constitutional.

    The fact remains the initial seizure was based upon an "accusation", not a "violation". You didn't challenge that this time, so I will assume you concede the point.

    There is no law against my having a "cache" of weapons. It is legal for me to own 1500 weapons.
    The 2nd Amendment doesn't expire once you obtain a certain number of guns.

    So, we know the guy didn't violate any laws and wasn't charged with violating any, but his guns were still taken. Civil forfeiture cases still require a crime. Like the finding of illegal drugs in a car. The government cannot take a car because it might be involved in drug trade.

    Since you don't understand the laws I'm talking about, I guess I'm a little amused that you are also telling me what legal arguments I should be making.
    Maybe you could refute my legal points and then maybe I will think about different legal arguments.
    He has not been determined to be part of a conspiracy in any way. So I am not sure of your point about terror groups.
    Current laws provide exceptions about behaviors which are NOT considered constitutionally protected. And this applies even to the Bill of Rights. Your second sentence in bold also indicates that you are actually more interested in discussing what the law SHOULD be.

    The fact you mentioned does not indicate that there is something unconstitutional in this case. Initial seizure of property in civil forfeiture is based on nothing other than a suspicion that a large amount of cash is perhaps related to an illegal activity. There is no requirement to be charged with a crime. As I said, there are exceptions even under the current laws and in many different areas. You are welcome to argue that the laws should not give that much power to the state, but as I said if you want to have such discussion, then all subjects should be reevaluated including the currently accepted limitations of the second amendment which can include also a talk about the right or not to have 1000 weapons while you are a member of an extremist organization.

    So,my point about the cache was not part of my comments about the current law.You confuse the two types of conversations I mentioned. One of them is about the rights the government and the people have under the current laws and the second is about what the laws should be based on what people think is reasonable and constitutional.

    You are always amused with me but this does not change the obvious fact that you try to claim that you know the current law better than the judge who applied it in this case.
    Last edited by pamak; 26 Oct 19, 17:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I think you do not understand my point which is that the current law provides exceptions to the rules regarding how one is deprived of property or other rights. This is just one of these cases, among others where people can be deprived of basic rights without even being charged as a result of the Patriot Act or Civil Forfeiture. So, the argument from a legal perspective you want to make is not about what the law is right now but what the law should be. I have no problem with challenging the rationale of existing laws but I want to have this clearly stated because if one wants to talk in such terms, he opens many new legal issues related to what the laws should be. For example, in such discussion one can start challenging the way in which current laws regulate the determination of certain groups as terrorists which in turn affects the rights of any person who is linked to such groups. Or we can have a discussion of different limits that should apply to the 2nd amendment right. For example, Creating a weapon's cache should not be treated as a necessary requirement for exercising your second amendment rights.
    Current laws, cannot provide "exceptions" to constitutional protections.
    "Current law" is subordinate to the constitution. Laws to not supersede it.
    The fact that there is a law, doesn't mean it is constitutional.

    The fact remains the initial seizure was based upon an "accusation", not a "violation". You didn't challenge that this time, so I will assume you concede the point.

    There is no law against my having a "cache" of weapons. It is legal for me to own 1500 weapons.
    The 2nd Amendment doesn't expire once you obtain a certain number of guns.

    So, we know the guy didn't violate any laws and wasn't charged with violating any, but his guns were still taken. Civil forfeiture cases still require a crime. Like the finding of illegal drugs in a car. The government cannot take a car because it might be involved in drug trade.

    Since you don't understand the laws I'm talking about, I guess I'm a little amused that you are also telling me what legal arguments I should be making.
    Maybe you could refute my legal points and then maybe I will think about different legal arguments.
    He has not been determined to be part of a conspiracy in any way. So I am not sure of your point about terror groups.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

    Not to be pendantic, but what constitutes a "cache"? 5 guns, 10, 20, 50, 1500? Would you present evidence of intent to prepare them for an act of war or terrorism, or would you require the owner to prove that it's a 'collection'? Personal views on the 2nd Amendment are legion, mine are rather 'libertarian'.

    Now, as for your first sentence. Yes, exceptions are provided. Those exceptions are narrowly defined, and the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent in maintaining narrow definitions over the years. And those exceptions do not remove the protection of the 14th Amendment, they merely grant a very short term 'benefit of the doubt' to the State for immediate public safety reasons when it is not reasonably possible to provide due process protections.

    The Argument Cambronne is making, as a jurist, is that based upon the information provided, it appears that this gentleman would have appellate rights against this case, as one might argue that his rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments were violated unconstitutionally. I agree with Cambronne in this, as it appears the FBI was alleging actionable evidence of a violent criminal act being planned, prepared, conspired, and physically about to immediately occur......and yet they took no action with reference to these violations of law. Based upon the assertions that appear to be made, there should have been an accompanying criminal charge, which there was not.

    Plus, if the FBI was investigating what would be an act of terrorism being planned, prepared, and conspired, they had a much more legally sound route to take. Get a Search Warrant, a no knock one even, for evidence of that criminal activity and enterprise....and raid away. That they used such an obtuse route to seize his weapons makes me think that based upon my training and experience they did not have even probable cause level evidence of any criminal activity, and instead had mere unfounded accusations, opinions, and assertions without evidence.
    Well, part of the discussion is also the definition of what constitutes a cache and what is considered as a necessary requirement by the law (or the Constitution's interpretation) to exercise the second amendment right. We do know that even the second amendment is not without bounds and that certain types of weapons are off limits. So, why should not be a similar logic of restrictions with respect to the number of weapons?

    I do not know the details of the law to have a strong opinion about this case. I simply pointed that Cambronne's argument that there was not a hearing or a charge and a conviction in this case is not enough of evidence to make this gun confiscation illegal or unconstitutional. Obviously the judge had a different opinion than you and Cambronne.

    I think the issue with terrorism goes back to what I said in the previous post regarding how current regulations are used to declare domestic organizations as being terrorist or not. I recall I read somewhere an article from a former FBI official explaining the problem but I have to search for the article.Of course, it is obvious that as in all cases, there will be some balancing of an individual's first amendment right of speech (which is always present in cases of domestic organizations) with the public interest of safety.

    I will try to see if I can find the article I mentioned before..

    P.S. I d not think that the examples I mentioned (Patriot Act, Civil Forfeiture) have provisions that only "grant a very short term 'benefit of the doubt' to the State for immediate public safety"
    Last edited by pamak; 26 Oct 19, 16:47.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    I think you do not understand my point which is that the current law provides exceptions to the rules regarding how one is deprived of property or other rights. This is just one of these cases, among others where people can be deprived of basic rights without even being charged as a result of the Patriot Act or Civil Forfeiture. So, the argument from a legal perspective you want to make is not about what the law is right now but what the law should be. I have no problem with challenging the rationale of existing laws but I want to have this clearly stated because if one wants to talk in such terms, he opens many new legal issues related to what the laws should be. For example, in such discussion one can start challenging the way in which current laws regulate the determination of certain groups as terrorists which in turn affects the rights of any person who is linked to such groups. Or we can have a discussion of different limits that should apply to the 2nd amendment right. For example, Creating a weapon's cache should not be treated as a necessary requirement for exercising your second amendment rights.
    Not to be pendantic, but what constitutes a "cache"? 5 guns, 10, 20, 50, 1500? Would you present evidence of intent to prepare them for an act of war or terrorism, or would you require the owner to prove that it's a 'collection'? Personal views on the 2nd Amendment are legion, mine are rather 'libertarian'.

    Now, as for your first sentence. Yes, exceptions are provided. Those exceptions are narrowly defined, and the Supreme Court has been remarkably consistent in maintaining narrow definitions over the years. And those exceptions do not remove the protection of the 14th Amendment, they merely grant a very short term 'benefit of the doubt' to the State for immediate public safety reasons when it is not reasonably possible to provide due process protections.

    The Argument Cambronne is making, as a jurist, is that based upon the information provided, it appears that this gentleman would have appellate rights against this case, as one might argue that his rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments were violated unconstitutionally. I agree with Cambronne in this, as it appears the FBI was alleging actionable evidence of a violent criminal act being planned, prepared, conspired, and physically about to immediately occur......and yet they took no action with reference to these violations of law. Based upon the assertions that appear to be made, there should have been an accompanying criminal charge, which there was not.

    Plus, if the FBI was investigating what would be an act of terrorism being planned, prepared, and conspired, they had a much more legally sound route to take. Get a Search Warrant, a no knock one even, for evidence of that criminal activity and enterprise....and raid away. That they used such an obtuse route to seize his weapons makes me think that based upon my training and experience they did not have even probable cause level evidence of any criminal activity, and instead had mere unfounded accusations, opinions, and assertions without evidence.

    Leave a comment:


  • pamak
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    Clearly you don’t get my point.
    I can’t really blame you because none of the articles I looked at addressed the point in any way.

    The action was the result of an accusation. That is how things like ERPOs work and presumably did in this case. Unfortunately, since none of the media types who reported on this understand the thing they are reporting on, they don’t mention it.

    Regardless, the FBI sought the ERPO. An order such as that is obtained “ex parte” meaning the defendant is not told about it. The FBI went to a judge and presented its side of the story and its side only. Based on the accusations and conclusions of the FBI the judge granted the request to seize the guy’s guns. The guy only found out about the hearing after it took place and when the cops came to take his guns. Due process typically requires people be told of hearings about taking their stuff a way, but that doesn’t happen in ERPOs.

    There was no crime. If there was a crime, they would have charged him with that, but they didn’t charge him.
    The FBI says it prevented a massacre by doing this, but still didn’t charge the guy with a crime. If the hate group he is associated with was planning a massacre, then I don’t understand why there are no charges of a criminal conspiracy to commit a “massacre”.

    The guy didn’t violate any law. If he had, they would have charged him with that.
    The FBI accused him of thinking about doing something, and the judge granted the ERPO without ever giving the guy a chance to tell his side.

    What isn’t clear is whether there was a subsequent hearing. One article noted that the guy will get his guns back in one year. Since a typical ERPO lasts only 2 weeks, that suggests there was a subsequent hearing, but only after the guy’s guns had been seized.

    I suspect that If the guy actually appeared at the subsequent hearing he represented himself

    I agree that there was a law that permitted the ERPO, but that doesn’t mean that his constitutional rights were protected in any way. The initial order was entered against him without him knowing anything about it or being able to defend himself against it and resulted in the seizure of his property. There are lots of constitutional issues involved there.
    I doubt the State even gave him a public defender if he couldn’t afford his own lawyer.
    I think you do not understand my point which is that the current law provides exceptions to the rules regarding how one is deprived of property or other rights. This is just one of these cases, among others where people can be deprived of basic rights without even being charged as a result of the Patriot Act or Civil Forfeiture. So, the argument from a legal perspective you want to make is not about what the law is right now but what the law should be. I have no problem with challenging the rationale of existing laws but I want to have this clearly stated because if one wants to talk in such terms, he opens many new legal issues related to what the laws should be. For example, in such discussion one can start challenging the way in which current laws regulate the determination of certain groups as terrorists which in turn affects the rights of any person who is linked to such groups. Or we can have a discussion of different limits that should apply to the 2nd amendment right. For example, Creating a weapon's cache should not be treated as a necessary requirement for exercising your second amendment rights.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

    The justification in this case was the FBI using proof of a negative coupled to a Pygmalion. That is they claimed they were stopping a "massacre." Well, the only way they could prove this is if he were on his way to the massacre or had actually committed a massacre. Right now, their claim is based on a combination of what might be and wishful thinking.

    Don't expect the ACLU to come riding to this guy's defense. Everybody hates a Nazi, so he won't get a fair shake or help fighting the Feds.

    Just remember, when the Jews were being rounded up, the Nazis were acting within the law. When some Communist / Socialist / Maoist state is imprisoning the opposition or even shooting them, they're acting within the law. Their law. This is the same thing. Being "legal" doesn't make it just or right.
    Actually, the ACLU loves Nazi's. It's law abiding Americans they can't stand.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Perhaps we should all go back to the basics of the Fourth Amendment.

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...law-30183.html

    OK, now that we have read and understand the laws pertaining to this matter. What were the violations that justified the seizure of weapons in this case?
    The justification in this case was the FBI using proof of a negative coupled to a Pygmalion. That is they claimed they were stopping a "massacre." Well, the only way they could prove this is if he were on his way to the massacre or had actually committed a massacre. Right now, their claim is based on a combination of what might be and wishful thinking.

    Don't expect the ACLU to come riding to this guy's defense. Everybody hates a Nazi, so he won't get a fair shake or help fighting the Feds.

    Just remember, when the Jews were being rounded up, the Nazis were acting within the law. When some Communist / Socialist / Maoist state is imprisoning the opposition or even shooting them, they're acting within the law. Their law. This is the same thing. Being "legal" doesn't make it just or right.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

    Which is my primary issue with these Red Flag laws. They are prima facie violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They require only an amorphous accusation, not a finding of Probable Cause and the issuance of a Search Warrant. And they do not provide for due process of law for the 'accused'.

    As I said earlier in this thread, there are already means in place to take weapons from dangerous people. Red Flag laws are nothing more than a feel good pile of bull$hit that can and will result in abuse, misuse, and the death or injuring of people who have not committed a violation of law, merely because someone had an opinion or wanted to maliciously use the law....or used the law to push their own political views or agendas against their opposition.
    What I find amusing is the fact that the media reports and those here who support this action keep referencing association with bad groups and what a potential threat he was and ignoring the fact that the guns that we are told are creating a threat of a massacre will be given back to him in one year.

    Will he be cured of impure thoughts by then?
    You are right, it is feel good BS.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post

    Which is my primary issue with these Red Flag laws. They are prima facie violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They require only an amorphous accusation, not a finding of Probable Cause and the issuance of a Search Warrant. And they do not provide for due process of law for the 'accused'.
    When the politics are "right," erstwhile "liberals" suddenly have no problem gutting centuries' worth of legal custom.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    Perhaps we should all go back to the basics of the Fourth Amendment.

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...law-30183.html

    OK, now that we have read and understand the laws pertaining to this matter. What were the violations that justified the seizure of weapons in this case?
    Which is my primary issue with these Red Flag laws. They are prima facie violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. They require only an amorphous accusation, not a finding of Probable Cause and the issuance of a Search Warrant. And they do not provide for due process of law for the 'accused'.

    As I said earlier in this thread, there are already means in place to take weapons from dangerous people. Red Flag laws are nothing more than a feel good pile of bull$hit that can and will result in abuse, misuse, and the death or injuring of people who have not committed a violation of law, merely because someone had an opinion or wanted to maliciously use the law....or used the law to push their own political views or agendas against their opposition.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    Perhaps we should all go back to the basics of the Fourth Amendment.

    https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...law-30183.html

    OK, now that we have read and understand the laws pertaining to this matter. What were the violations that justified the seizure of weapons in this case?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    The action was not the result of just some accusation. It was a result of a court decision which in turn used laws that are still considered constitutional and which provide exceptions such as...

    https://law.justia.com/constitution/...ess-civil.html

    In “rare and extraordinary situations,” where summary action is necessary to prevent imminent harm to the public, and the private interest infringed is reasonably deemed to be of less importance, government can take action with no notice and no opportunity to defend, subject to a later full hearing.892 Examples are seizure of contaminated foods or drugs or other such commodities to protect the consumer...


    Clearly you don’t get my point.
    I can’t really blame you because none of the articles I looked at addressed the point in any way.

    The action was the result of an accusation. That is how things like ERPOs work and presumably did in this case. Unfortunately, since none of the media types who reported on this understand the thing they are reporting on, they don’t mention it.

    Regardless, the FBI sought the ERPO. An order such as that is obtained “ex parte” meaning the defendant is not told about it. The FBI went to a judge and presented its side of the story and its side only. Based on the accusations and conclusions of the FBI the judge granted the request to seize the guy’s guns. The guy only found out about the hearing after it took place and when the cops came to take his guns. Due process typically requires people be told of hearings about taking their stuff a way, but that doesn’t happen in ERPOs.

    There was no crime. If there was a crime, they would have charged him with that, but they didn’t charge him.
    The FBI says it prevented a massacre by doing this, but still didn’t charge the guy with a crime. If the hate group he is associated with was planning a massacre, then I don’t understand why there are no charges of a criminal conspiracy to commit a “massacre”.

    The guy didn’t violate any law. If he had, they would have charged him with that.
    The FBI accused him of thinking about doing something, and the judge granted the ERPO without ever giving the guy a chance to tell his side.

    What isn’t clear is whether there was a subsequent hearing. One article noted that the guy will get his guns back in one year. Since a typical ERPO lasts only 2 weeks, that suggests there was a subsequent hearing, but only after the guy’s guns had been seized.

    I suspect that If the guy actually appeared at the subsequent hearing he represented himself

    I agree that there was a law that permitted the ERPO, but that doesn’t mean that his constitutional rights were protected in any way. The initial order was entered against him without him knowing anything about it or being able to defend himself against it and resulted in the seizure of his property. There are lots of constitutional issues involved there.
    I doubt the State even gave him a public defender if he couldn’t afford his own lawyer.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

  • asterix
    New York AG to sue the NRA
    by asterix
    New York Attorney General Letitia James launches lawsuit against the National Rifle Association alleging financial discrepancies:

    https...
    Today, 05:46
  • casanova
    Emanuel Macron
    by casanova
    The French president Emmanuel Macron visited Beirut, Libanon. He watched the devastation in the city, caused by the Amoniumnitrat explosion....
    Today, 01:27
  • casanova
    Beirut
    by casanova
    A awful, dedoerate situation for the population in Beirut, Libanon. A Amoniumnitrat-explosion was the cause of the catastrophe....
    Yesterday, 23:35
Working...
X