Jump to content
Newtonian

Another Victim of Senseless NJ Laws

Recommended Posts

Nappen was on GFH radio this weekend discussing the case. I honestly feel bad for this lady. I know she broke the law but we all know its a bad law that's the real problem. Nappen said "its a discriminatory and sexist law" I like his argument. The Attorney General will be trying the case because Atlantic county doesn't have a prosecutor apparently. I don't know if she will get off but I hope Nappen wins it for her. The Judge will have his hands tied the mandatory minimum is 3years. The entire case will be up to our beloved AG. He already denied her the PTI option. I believe he intends to make an example out of this uninformed woman.

i think youre wrong 

 

Recognizing Allen’s remarkable facts, the Atlantic County New Jersey PTI Director agreed to accept Allen into the PTI program— however, the Atlantic County Prosecutor is refusing to allow it. The PTI program would allow Allen to avoid becoming a convicted felon and serving prison time.

The Atlantic County New Jersey Prosecutor would rather see Allen serve the mandatory three (3) years in State Prison, and is pushing the matter to trial.

 

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/njs-racist-sexist-gun-control-claims-yet-another-victim/#ixzz37XtAofd1 

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution 

Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think youre wrong

Recognizing Allen’s remarkable facts, the Atlantic County New Jersey PTI Director agreed to accept Allen into the PTI program— however, the Atlantic County Prosecutor is refusing to allow it. The PTI program would allow Allen to avoid becoming a convicted felon and serving prison time.

 

The Atlantic County New Jersey Prosecutor would rather see Allen serve the mandatory three (3) years in State Prison, and is pushing the matter to trial.

Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2014/07/njs-racist-sexist-gun-control-claims-yet-another-victim/#ixzz37XtAofd1

Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

I was just reiterating what Nappen said on GFH radio.

 

My only opinion was I agree with his angle. Not only should women be able to carry here but men also, provided they are not violent felons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can we maybe petition Christie to let her go, it worked with aiken

Aiken didn't serve much time, he's out of jail, and two of the three convictions were overturned, but as I understand it he still has a felony conviction (possession of hollow point ammo), and for some reason -- legal?? -- has not been able to visit his kids. Christie's reprieve was not a full pardon.  

 

I'm sure this woman is up on multiple charges too, probably the same ones as Aiken. And let's not forget the traffic ticket, the sentence for which is to be served consecutively with the ammo, handgun, and magazine charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been doing research again regarding the challenges to the 1966 FID law. I found a site that lets you look at the exact  legal text regarding the cases. it is called https://www.courtlistener.com/

 

There were three challenges with "Burton Vs. Sills". One in 1967, another one in 1968 and yet another one in 1968.  And the reason I am bringing up ancient history is because when I mentioned some of the NJ Supreme Court rulings  in that era I was shocked that the courts were allowed to rule that way.

 

One of the mods of another site which I posted to (who happens to be a lawyer) said that the reason the courts ruled that way was because until up until recently, the courts relied on "United States v. Cruikshank " which the court ruled that second amendment did NOT apply to the States and that 1876 ruling was consistent with the 1833 ruling "Barron v. Baltimore" that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. At the time (1967-1968) the NJ Supreme Court was bound by those rulings.

 

And from what I am reading, that after "McDonald v. Chicago" the NJ Supreme Court is bound by that and not "United States v. Cruikshank " . What am I talking about? The rulings in the "Burton vs. Sills" in 1967-1968 need to be revisited or thrown out because "United States v. Cruikshank " and "Barron v. Baltimore" are no longer precedent in the law. "McDonald v. Chicago" is now precedent.

 

Ergo the Sills 1966 FID law needs to thrown out in order to be consistent with "McDonald v. Chicago" because the prior ruling were based on finds that no longer take precedent. 

 

And what  does this have to do with the lady from Pennsylvania? I think Evan Nappen needs to look at this more closely. It might just help her case.

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

 

(Here is my original post on THR and the very interesting answer by one of the mods who happens to be a lawyer.)

 

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=756407

 

"Site for looking up Court Cases on Firearms as well as other cases

I found this while doing some more research on gun control in New Jersey. I found the three challenges to New Jersey's 1966 Firearms ID law in "Burton Vs Sills" 1967-1968-1968 Pt II.

The site is called "Court Listener" and you can search millions of opinions by case name, topic, or citation in over 349 Jurisdictions. Sponsored by the Non-Profit Free Law Project

https://www.courtlistener.com/


"
About CourtListener

CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions of legal opinions from federal and state courts. With CourtListener, lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public can research an important case, stay up to date with new opinions as they are filed, or do deep analysis using our raw data."


If anyone is interested in the three challenges to New Jersey's Controversial 1966 Firearms ID Card Law. Here are the following links.

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbve/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

https://www.courtlistener.com/njsuperctappdiv/dbA1/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

 

https://www.courtlistener.com/nj/8BEM/burton-v-sills/?q=Sills+act+NJ+&stat_Precedential=on&order_by=score+desc

A person asked (on another forum) how can NJ's law stand in light of the Supreme Court decision in 2010. I suggested that a constitutional lawyer might be best to put it into perspective.

If anyone is interested what the NJ Supreme Court had to say in regards of the 1966 FID Law...here are some excepts. Some of this might be an eye opener.


" The court can conceive of no matter more concerned with public safety, health and welfare of the State of New Jersey than that the indiscriminate purchase and *527 use of firearms, and the regulation thereof should be subject to the police power of the State."

"It is clear from all the foregoing authorities that the Second Amendment merely protects against unwarranted extensions of federal power and does not bar a state government from enacting regulations concerning the use and possession of arms"

"We are satisfied that this gun control law is a proper and reasonable exercise of the State's police powers........"

And this is how New Jersey views gun rights" "Inconvenience, delay and sensitive feelings are not adequate grounds for striking down this legislation and frustrating its good purposes."

"Our basic freedoms may be curtailed if sufficient reason exists therefor. Only in a very limited sense is a person free to do as he pleases in our modern American society. Regulation by the government is the price we pay for living in an organized community. "



" Reasonable gun control legislation is clearly within the police power of the State and must be accepted by the individual though it may impose a restraint or burden on him. On balance, the interests of the State are manifestly paramount, and while New Jersey's comprehensive efforts may not prove to be wholly successful until suitably joined by other jurisdictions, they will undoubtedly have advanced the public welfare by having led the way. "


So the above comments are from the New Jersey Supreme Court 1967-1968 in three separate decisions regarding "Burton Vs Sills" The challenge to the 1966 FID Law.

I was wondering what your comments are (if any) regarding to the ruling and the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court.

And hopefully you will find the link provided above useful in your researching of important laws regarding firearms as well as other cases."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Answer below)

 

 

"Those comments reflect the state of the law as of 1967-1968.

At that time, the controlling federal precedent was United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1876). The Court in Cruikshank held, among other things, that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. That was, at the time, consistent with the ruling in Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U. S. (7 Pet.) 243 (Supreme Court, 1833) to the effect that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. A New Jersey state court was bound by those United States Supreme Court rulings on the federal question.

It wasn't until later that SCOTUS began to apply, through the Fourteenth Amendment, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Right piecemeal to the States. And it wasn't until McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (Supreme Court, 2010) that the rights described by the Second Amendment were applied to the States.

Thank you for finding that site and sharing the URL. I've bookmarked it."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Any comments?

 

.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in for at least that if it means Nappen is a festering boil on the ass of the NJSC until they either die of sepsis or relent and give us back what was stolen from us in terms of our RIGHTS. $1000 is pissing in a bucket for me if it means I or my kids get to carry like Free Men at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone please forward that to Evan Nappen?

I would forward the link to your post in a PM to Anthony Colandro, he is in contact with Evan on a regular basis. His forum name is "Gunforhire" I believe. Best chance of getting it to him quickly. Or try emailing it to Nappen directly, his website is www.evannappen.com click on "contact us" and paste the post URL into the email.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ergo the Sills 1966 FID law needs to thrown out in order to be consistent with "McDonald v. Chicago" because the prior ruling were based on finds that no longer take precedent. 

 

<snip>

 

Any comments?

 

Sure. We need a case, and we need SCOTUS to hear it. They've ducked us so far. That is the problem. 

 

I have a feeling Pantano would have put the state in a pickle because of what you said which is why Rabner DIGed it once CC reappointed him. Nappen expanded the argument to challenge the whole scheme, not just right to carry.

 

Look at what is happening in DC with Palmer. They are just sitting on it, because they know they have to rule in our favor. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then, perhaps, that *is* part of the problem. :(  Perhaps, she honestly didn't know... although some things just seem so "intuitive."   At least she knew enough to be honest with the LEO and declare the concealed weapon. :dontknow:  Had she not, I'm thinking it would have gone much worse for her.

 

I took the "Multi-State" CCW course at the Quinton Sportsmen's club. I do recall that it was mentioned several times to "know the laws of all states where you intend to possess, own, rent, transport, carry, use etc. etc." any firearm.   We were shown examples of how to look up the laws on usacarry.com and hangunlaw.us.  If Philly is not requiring a training class with this level of detail, then it should. I would think they'd want to do that, so that someone like this lady could not bring legal action against the city for failure to prepare her adequately for the responsibilities of carrying her weapon so close to a state that has these restrictions.

 

No, the problem is NJ's anti-gun law(s).  If NJ recognized her CC permit (or Constitutional Rights) this and several discussions wouldn't be occurring.  This woman's life and the lives of her children are now being shredded because of NJ's law.

 

Evidently NJ's laws/way of thinking has indoctrinated you as it has many others.  Any unjust law should not stand.  This is a perfect example of an unjust law.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, the problem is NJ's anti-gun law(s).  If NJ recognized her CC permit (or Constitutional Rights) this and several discussions wouldn't be occurring.  This woman's life and the lives of her children are now being shredded because of NJ's law.

Be that as it may, the law is still the law until changed, and she should have known it before entering the state with a concealed weapon. Just because we feel (as I do, with you, in this case) a law is "unjust" does not excuse us from knowing it or obeying it, while it is in effect... or, be willing to pay the price for violating it, if you choose, because it is "unjust." I've worked way too hard for the CCWs and other permits I have, only to have them (and my liberty) wiped away at the stroke of a gavel. Sorry.. not gonna happen.

 

 

Evidently NJ's laws/way of thinking has indoctrinated you as it has many others.

Nothing / no one indoctrinates me... not even you!  As stated, I agree it's an unjust law. But let's be realistic here. What can any of us do to change these laws, given the numbers in NJ of both strong "anti-gun" people/politicians and the "majority," who either don't care or are "sheeples" and do what the MSM and the politicians giving them doll outs tell them to do... as well as even the "pro-2As/owners" that choose not to get involved, unless it affects them directly? I'd love to be able to wave a magic wand and make them all go away. But I don't have one of those. All I have is my one vote, and my one voice, and a few $$$ all of which I do use (I have already brought 3 people to the range that had not been there before, and all now wish to get training). But I also have a life to live and bills to pay, and I can't do that effectively if I'm in jail. As distasteful as it is to me, I will be learning these laws, and obeying them until changed, or until I'm no longer affected by them (i.e. moved away from NJ).  I'm thinking the latter will be much more attainable in my lifetime...

 

 

Any unjust law should not stand.  This is a perfect example of an unjust law.

Well, if you can offer a realistic/effective way to change it, I'm all for it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are saying she "should have known better" I think you are giving people too much credit.  Especially someone, as it appears to be with this young lady, who doesn't appear to be very educated about firearms.

 

From what little we know about her/this case:

 

1.  She was robbed TWICE before SOME BODY ELSE told her to get a gun and apply for Penn conceal carry permit.

 

2.  Penn doesn't require any class instruction to get a CC permit.  You fill out some paperwork and police do a background check.  It sounds like much less paperwork and of a process than applying for a FID/pistol permit her in NJ.

 

She doesn't sound like she had much, if any, background or knowledge of guns.  It wasn't even her idea to get the gun & permit, which she only had for about a week before this happened.  Did everyone on this board saying, "She should have known better." know every firearm rule right after they purchased their first gun?  Probabaly not (as this very board proves). 

 

If I had to guess I would say a concerned relative suggested it and prob even helped her pck out the gun. Should she have educated herself more.  Probably.  Is the punishment about to meted out to her proporpaniate to her infraction of the law.  Absolutely not.

 

 

 

HBecwithFn7,  said:

Well, if you can offer a realistic/effective way to change it, I'm all for it. :)

 

 

How about calling Chris Christie's office or at least emailing and asking him to intervene or at least asking him to tell the the Atlantic County Prosecutor who has denied her entry into the diversionary program that would allow her to avoid jail time to allow her that option?  I'll be doing just that tomorrow morning.

 

If enough people call/email perhaps it will get his attention.

 

As to what we can do?  Keep doing what were doing.  Joining the NRA, educating our friends and coworkers by talking to them or bringing them to the range.  Volunteer to be one fo their personal referals and help them with any questions they may have.  Correct people who give incorrect information (such as when I was told over a decade ago how it is impossiblle to own a gun in NJ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who are saying she "should have known better" I think you are giving people too much credit.  Especially someone, as it appears to be with this young lady, who doesn't appear to be very educated about firearms.

Then she shouldn't be allowed to possess any guns, much less carry them concealed. I realize that sounds very cold, considering her history as a victim, and her upstanding citizenship, but there's much more at stake here. Every time a gun owner screws up, it affects us all. It gets plastered all over the MSM, and adds a whole lot more fuel to the anti's fire. They start even more talk of gun control. Is it right? Absolutely not. But it's the way it goes around here. I truly believe in the RKBA, and the right to carry where I need to for self defense or other reasons. But with that right comes responsibility... including following all the rules... if only to prevent the anti's from claiming that we don't, and that more "control" is needed as a result. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Did I (or Do I) know every law I should to be able to possess and/or carry my guns in all the places where I can legally? Absolutely not. But I know enough of the law to stay out of trouble. I know how I need to store my guns in my house, or wherever I have them legally, or I never have them there. I know how to transport them, both in my state and "interstate" under FOPA. And, I know enough not to possess/carry them where I don't yet know the law. It's pretty intuitive, really. To be totally honest, even though I have CCW permits in 3 states, I don't carry in any of them, because I don't yet consider myself sufficiently trained to do so. I need a lot more training, not only in CCW laws of the states where I might carry but, more fundamentally, in things like "use of deadly force" laws (when/where can I draw/shoot etc.), I'll get there, but until that day...

 

 

If I had to guess I would say a concerned relative suggested it and prob even helped her pck out the gun. Should she have educated herself more.  Probably.  Is the punishment about to meted out to her proporpaniate to her infraction of the law.  Absolutely not.

Now, on this, we absolutely agree. The potential punishment does *not* fit the crime, in this case. And I'm wondering what the bug is up the AG's six over her (i.e that he refuses to offer PTI). I think the AG is making a huge mistake in making her "the example." A single mom... a "model citizen" etc. etc.??? She'll become a martyr, and the AG will look like an idiot. :facepalm:

 

HBecwithFn7,  said:

Well, if you can offer a realistic/effective way to change it, I'm all for it. :)

 

How about calling Chris Christie's office or at least emailing and asking him to intervene...

Done. 

 

As to what we can do?  Keep doing what were doing.  Joining the NRA, educating our friends and coworkers by talking to them or bringing them to the range.  Volunteer to be one fo their personal referals and help them with any questions they may have.  Correct people who give incorrect information (such as when I was told over a decade ago how it is impossiblle to own a gun in NJ).

Got ya covered on all of this. But, as I say, "realistic/effective." Eventually, this may work, but I doubt it will happen in NJ in what's left of my lifetime. So whatever life I have left will be in a place where I have the most "realistic/effective" freedom, ASAP.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in for at least that if it means Nappen is a festering boil on the ass of the NJSC until they either die of sepsis or relent and give us back what was stolen from us in terms of our RIGHTS. $1000 is pissing in a bucket for me if it means I or my kids get to carry like Free Men at some point.

I in for a $1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then she shouldn't be allowed to possess any guns, much less carry them concealed. 

 

Wow. What other Constitutionally protected right do we allow such onerous and ridiculous limitations to be put on it.

 

If our corrupt and oppressive gov't was actually limited by the Constitution the way the Founders intended, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

I don't think anyone would put up with the same restrictions and limitations and requirements put on their right to exercise  the practice of their religion or their speech.

 

Do you?

 

I guess if they did, you would think someone shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind or practice said religion if the gov't unconstitutionally limited or restricted it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. What other Constitutionally protected right do we allow such onerous and ridiculous limitations to be put on it.

 

If our corrupt and oppressive gov't was actually limited by the Constitution the way the Founders intended, this wouldn't be an issue.

 

I don't think anyone would put up with the same restrictions and limitations and requirements put on their right to exercise  the practice of their religion or their speech.

 

Do you?

 

I guess if they did, you would think someone shouldn't be allowed to speak their mind or practice said religion if the gov't unconstitutionally limited or restricted it?

 

So, since it is a "constitutional right," would you favor anyone being able to possess, use, carry concealed, etc. any weapon with no training at all? Would you allow your children said access to weapons without any training or supervision?  Or allow them to be around other children that possess weapons without proper training?

 

Freedom of Speech and Religion can't "accidentally" get innocent people dead... not directly, anyway.  It's not like I'd get up in public one day and say "Religion 'X' sucks," and then get struck by a bolt of lightning and die instantly! OTOH, A weapon, in the hands of the untrained, unknowing individual can get innocent people dead, a whole lot faster and more directly than free Speech and/or Religion.

 

Of course, the RKBA is a constitutional right.  But that doesn't mean it shouldn't come without "responsibilities..."  personal, If, no other.  Free speech is a constitutional right, but there are consequences for yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. I believe those intent on exercising their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms (like myself, BTW) should take the "personal" responsibility to be trained on their use, and to keep them safe from those who are not trained in them or aren't yet old enough to possess them, or cannot due to being a "prohibited" person.  And no one should possess those weapons unless/until they are old enough, and trained enough...  I don't think that unfairly denies or abridges that constitutional right one iota. I'm not saying they can't *ever* possess/use weapons,etc., I'm just saying, "get the proper training for them," and "agree to take personal responsibility for them."  And, in the case in re: this thread, it also means "knowing all the laws you need to know." Unjust or not, they're still laws that are currently in effect until they are changed and, until changed, we either must obey them, or be willing to accept the consequences for disobeying them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I think people who aren't mentally ill or have a criminal history should be able to possess a firearm without training.

 

I think they should get some training, but don't think it should be mandatory.

 

As far as children, it don't believe it applies to children. Stupid people do leave loaded firearms around when children are present and they should be held responsible for any incidents that occur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Freedom of Speech and Religion can't "accidentally" get innocent people dead... not directly, anyway.

 

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/herbert-catherine-schaible_n_3138001.html

 

This wouldn't be "accidental" or "fast/direct."    This would be a pondered, conscious decision on the part of the parents to exercise their religion and accept the risk/consequences of doing so.  Like I say.... just because it's a "constitutional right" doesn't mean it shouldn't come without "responsibilities."

 

FTR, I freely admit I'm not a practitioner of any variety of "faith healing."  I believe too strongly in the power of medicine and science. That said, I would certainly support any "adult's" right to practice it, if that's their choice. The more pertinent question is, do parents have the right to make that choice on their children's behalf? Does any child's "right to life" supersede parental rights in re: how the child is raised? I also admit I'm not a parent, either, but I would more than likely lean towards the child's right to life as the greater priority here. Among our "constitutional rights" is the very fundamental right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hard to do when your parents make a decision for you that gets you dead, religious or otherwise.

 

But again, this isn't denying/abridging anyone the right to free speech or religion.  This is allowing the free exercise of it, but accepting the societal consequences of doing so, should something go wrong (i.e. fall out for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This wouldn't be "accidental" or "fast/direct."    This would be a pondered, conscious decision on the part of the parents to exercise their religion and accept the risk/consequences of doing so.  Like I say.... just because it's a "constitutional right" doesn't mean it shouldn't come without "responsibilities."

 

FTR, I freely admit I'm not a practitioner of any variety of "faith healing."  I believe too strongly in the power of medicine and science. That said, I would certainly support any "adult's" right to practice it, if that's their choice. The more pertinent question is, do parent's have the right to make that choice on their children's behalf? Does any child's "right to life" supersede parental rights in re: how the child is raised? I also admit I'm not a parent, either, but I would more than likely lean towards the child's right to life as the greater priority here. Among our "constitutional rights" is the very fundamental right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Hard to do when your parents make a decision for you that gets you dead, religious or otherwise.

 

But again, this isn't denying/abridging anyone the right to free speech or religion.  This is allowing the free exercise of it, but accepting the societal consequences of doing so, should something go wrong (i.e. fall out for yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater).

 

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

 

Seriously though, the children, in my opinion, should be covered under the "promote the general Welfare" phrase in the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html), hence their parents being brought up on charges.  If their religion included human sacrifice of their children, then We the People have an inherent human right as responsible members of society to intervene.  I don't care if someone wants to worship the great spaghetti monster in the sky, just do it responsibly and don't push it on me.  (See what I did there with the inherent human right and responsible member of society issues?  If the 2A was treated like the 1A, we'd not have to worry about things like CCW, let alone crime as everyone would just leave each other alone.)

 

Minor point, but the unalienable Rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness are in The Declaration of Independence, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html), not the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html).

 

Becoming a parent changes everything.  It's not for the weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor point, but the unalienable Rights of life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness are in The Declaration of Independence, (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html), not the Constitution (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html).

Quite correct, and I do stand corrected. :) You could also cover children under the "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our 'posterity'... " clause.

 

Becoming a parent changes everything.  It's not for the weak.

No, it is not. From the moment the kid pops out, "it's on..." (actually, a little before that). And it doesn't stop until they're self-sufficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of us from NJ (and likes) are too brainwashed by "way of life" that we don't think twice about rubbing it on rest of the country.

 

If you are good to vote, participate in democratic process, elect Govt, pay taxes and roam the country as free man, then you are good to go with 2A. No exceptions, No restrictions. 

 

Restrictions on 2A should come with "strict  scrutiny" , on case-by-case, as a last resort only. It cannot be "proactive" and "thought crime" based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...