Why we need Universal Background Checks

der wüstenfuchs · Dec 27, 2015

[video=youtube;fz6MOO0tdVQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz6MOO0tdVQ[/video]

The real question is how many more new threads are you going to make demanding the exact same (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*) laws?

Right is the way · Dec 27, 2015

Ronstar said: ↑

sounds like you could stomach such a law.
Click to expand...

Personally I could not stomach it at all.

Right is the way · Dec 27, 2015

Ronstar said: ↑

so you think convicted felons and folks wanted for murder, should be able to possess and buy a gun?
Click to expand...

Felons or prohibited from having guns and folks wanted for murder probably are not going to follow the law. I mean they murdered someone, do you really think a gun violation is their limit to crimes they are not willing to commit?

TOG 6 · Dec 27, 2015

Universal background checks cannot be enforced without universal registration.
The anti-gun loons seek universal registration
No one wonders why.

RiseAgainst · Dec 27, 2015

Damn you lefties. I wanted to save my money but since you guys have been on anti-2nd A crusade ive been forced lately to arm up.

Thanks a lot.

saspatz · Dec 27, 2015

EggKiller said: ↑

Then you might want to go to the states that already have background checks and registration and see what the stats are on legal firearms being used for crime.
Click to expand...

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/

Zorro · Dec 27, 2015

Ronstar said: ↑

Why we need Universal Background Checks
Click to expand...

I support that for folks seeking to enter the country from high risk areas seeking infiltrate terrorists.

OrlandoChuck · Dec 27, 2015

saspatz said: ↑

http://smartgunlaws.org/universal-gun-background-checks-policy-summary/
Click to expand...

If I present links to editorials by the NRA will you give any credibility to them?

saspatz · Dec 27, 2015

OrlandoChuck said: ↑

If I present links to editorials by the NRA will you give any credibility to them?
Click to expand...

If they cited their sources and the sources could be reviewed for context. Yes.

Ziplok · Dec 31, 2015

We need universal background checks because little 12 year old Johnny shouldn't be able to have a shotgun passed down from his grandfather.

EMTdaniel86 · Dec 31, 2015

Ronstar said: ↑

We need Universal Background Checks for all gun purchases.

why?

because today in most states, convicted criminals, illegal aliens and severally mentally ill can buy guns through private sales.

if you don't perform a background check, you have no idea if you are about to sell a gun to a nice guy or someone wanted for murder or raping a child.

No one, who cares about their country or the safety of our people, would sell a gun without doing a background check on the person they may sell a gun to.

I propose the following Universal Background Check system:

-all gun sales will require a background check.

-NICS checks will keep a record of the serial # of the gun, the name of the seller, and the date of the transaction.

ATF will perform random stings across the country, upon internet, newspaper, magazine private gun sellers.

this info will be accessable to police with a warrant, ordered by a judge whenever a gun is found used in a crime. If there is no record of a NICS check being performed for that gun, and the seller did not report the gun stolen, the seller will face jail time and a fine.

ATF will also perform random stings across the country, upon internet, newspaper, magazine private gun sellers.

The buyer will also face extra jail time and a fine, for having purchased a gun without getting a NICS check.

What is wrong with such a proposal?
Click to expand...

You are never going to be able to stop private gun sales. That isn't going to happen. You can't stop everyone from selling to a friend, family or anyone else. How are you going stop someone from going "I like your .45 I'll get you 500 for it" Sold no questions asked.

Xenamnes · Dec 31, 2015

The member BryanVa, a seasoned prosecuting attorney for the state of Virginia, has spoken extensively on this subject.

BryanVa said: ↑

My words were perhaps imprecise. I agree there are instances today where a private seller who would never intentionally sell to a felon can be duped by a criminal into selling him a gun because there is no background check requirement to test the veracity of the criminal’s statement “sure I am allowed to have a gun…” However, a universal background check will not prevent the “criminal” from obtaining a gun.

I would say don’t confuse “criminal conduct” with “criminal record.” There are all too many people today who have no “criminal record”—people who will go pass a background check to buy a gun—who will later engage in the “criminal conduct” of selling or giving that gun to a known felon for a profit, or as a favor, or for some other private motive. You yourself have acknowledged the near impossibility of disproving such an unscrupulous private seller’s claim: “I never sold him that gun. I have not looked at the gun in months, it must have been stolen.” If you push background checks into the secondary market, and make all lawful transfers from private sellers to another person go through a background check just like if the sale happened by a FFL dealer, then the unscrupulous private seller can still sell his gun under the table and later claim it was stolen.

Let me further explain what I see are the difficulties that exist regardless of whether we have universal background checks or not. All of this assumes that we recover the gun in the first place—for you can’t begin to trace a gun until you recover it. The vast majority of shooting incidents do not involve a “criminal” conveniently dropping his gun at the crime scene for us to trace. But assume we recover the gun (dropped at the scene and linked by DNA evidence to a shooter, or recovered in the shooter’s house during a search warrant raid). The first obstacle you encounter is the shooter’s right to remain silent. He will have no incentive to even acknowledge possessing the gun, much less telling you who he got it from—for to do so would incriminate him in the shooting.

Secondly, assume he did incriminate himself (yes, it happens) and he tells the police “I bought the gun out of the back of a car at a flea market from Mr. Smith for more than it was worth. Mr. Smith knew I was a felon and charged me a higher price.” The police go to Smith who says ”no the gun was stolen.” So say we put Mr. Smith on trial. Only two people know the truth of the matter—the shooter and Mr. Smith. You can’t call Mr. Smith as a witness—he has a right to remain silent, and would deny it even if you could call him as a witness. You can’t just use the statement of the shooter to the police—Mr. Smith has a 6th Amendment right to confront and cross examine his accuser. Therefore, the shooter is going to have to agree to testify. Set aside the witness credibility issue for a moment. The Shooter has no incentive to help you. Indeed, his help could harm him by incriminating him. You either have to offer him immunity from prosecution to force him to testify (and that would be immunity from not only having the gun but for any crime the gun he admits buying and having could be linked to—including our shooting); OR, you have to sweeten the deal enough for him to agree to testify. In effect, you have to offer a plea bargain to the devil to get him to testify against a worshiper. It’s just not something a responsible prosecutor would do absent an extraordinary reason for doing so.

Without the shooter’s co-operation, you are left with trying to talk a confession out of Mr. Smith, or trying some other avenue to find evidence to prove the transfer was not the result of theft. Listen, most straw purchase convictions involve either an outright confession (easy enough case) OR eyewitness/video—where the “criminal” goes to the store with his background check certifiable buddy, and where the criminal picks out and handles the gun, only to get the buddy to buy the gun for him OR a sting where LE gets word a guy is readily buying for criminals, and they pose as one to see if he will get them the gun.

It is extremely difficult to prosecute a straw man sale. Nothing about universal background checks will solve this issue. Nothing about a universal registration system could solve this issue.
Click to expand...

BryanVa said: ↑

Right, for those who are unwilling to sell to the unqualified purchaser. The problem is with those who are willing.

No I disagree. Every gun starts off with a lawful seller—a FFL dealer who must conduct a background check. Every person who buys the gun is a lawful purchaser—that is—he can pass a background check. But alas, Leonard Nimoy is dead, and we cannot mind meld with every purchaser to know what their intentions are when they leave the store with the gun. The straw purchaser who passes the background check will meet his felon buddy and provide him with the gun. This will happen regardless of whether you require him to go through a background check process on the person he provides the gun to. He will simply ignore the check requirement and sell/give/loan the gun to his friend. I completely disagree with the premise that a UBC requirement will cause a significant reduction in these under the table transactions because both parties already know they are engaging in an illicit transaction.

I disagree. Safe storage laws are not designed to prevent theft. They are designed to prevent accidental misuse. Trigger locks and the like will not prevent theft. What will deter theft would be a requirement of gun safes. But there are problems here. First, you have a “poll tax” issue, where you now price the exercise of a right beyond the reach of many citizens who cannot afford a gun safe. Second, safes cannot be constitutionally required for all guns because the safe dramatically reduces the ability of a homeowner to use the firearm for defense of themselves in their home (unless we also pass a law that requires all burglars to give a two minute warning to allow the owner to get his safe open and get his gun out before they come in). Mr. Smith can easily claim the gun that was “stolen” was the one he kept out of his safe and ready for use—“my primary home defense gun that I keep out of the safe and hidden where I can reach it quickly. I have not looked at it in a while and it must have been stolen.” I don’t see how you can draft a safe storage law that will prevent claims that a firearm was stolen.

Against the shooter, yes there is enough evidence. Against our straw purchaser, Mr. Smith, absolutely there is not enough evidence. All you have here is the fact that a gun previously owned and possessed by Mr. Smith has been found in the possession of Mr. Shooter. The fact that the gun is there is never enough. The crime is knowingly providing the gun to a felon/or to someone who told you they needed it to commit a crime/or even providing it without a background check. You still have to prove that Mr. Smith intentionally provided Mr. Shooter with the gun to convict him of any of these offenses. You have zero evidence that this happened beyond an inadmissible statement of Mr. Shooter and an admissible statement from Mr. Smith that it did not happen.

I’m not saying that it is. What I am saying is that the proponent of a new law which will place a burden on an individual right with the added bureaucracy, time lost, and hassle that it would create bears the burden of showing that a problem exists which is worthy of a law to solve it, that this law will solve the problem, and no less restrictive means exists to solve the problem. My first hang up is I don’t see how the law will solve the problem it is intended to address.

Only against the defendant who actually makes the statement. Mr. Shooter can make confession under oath, sworn to tell the truth before a judge, and on videotape for all I care. He can swear on his dead mother’s life that he bought the gun under the table from Mr. Smith. It still can never be used against Mr. Smith to show he lied about claiming the gun was stolen. Mr. Smith has a 6th. Amendment right to confront and cross-examine his accuser. Mr. Shooter will have to take the stand himself and be subject to cross-examination. That requires a deal with the devil.

That’s correct.

No that’s not my example. My example was mirroring an earlier one you cited. Mr. Shooter is confessing to his crimes, and claiming that he bought the gun from Mr. Smith. The illicit under the table seller “Mr. Smith” denies he ever sold the gun to Mr. Shooter. He says the gun must have been stolen. This is the scenario you have described as nearly incapable of being disproven. At trial Smith never has to say a word other than “I plead not guilty.” The prosecution will never use his statement against him because his statement is completely exculpatory.

Without some admission of guilt from Mr. Smith, and without another eyewitness to the transaction or video of it, then you have to make the choice of giving the devil his plea deal in the hope that a jury will believe him over Mr. Smith. Otherwise, your case is this: “Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Smith bought a handgun from FFL dealer last year. Last month, Mr. Shooter used that gun to commit a crime, and Mr. Shooter was a felon. Thank you that is all our evidence. We now ask that you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Smith first knew Mr. Shooter was a felon, and that he knowingly and intentionally provided him with that gun. Here is the jury instruction you must consider to guide you in your deliberations”:

“The defendant is presumed to be innocent. You should not assume the defendant is guilty because he has been indicted and is on trial. This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and is enough to require you to find the defendant not guilty unless and until the Commonwealth proves each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This does not require proof beyond all possible doubt, nor is the Commonwealth required to disprove every conceivable circumstance of innocence. However, suspicion or probability of guilt is not enough for a conviction.
There is no burden on the defendant to produce any evidence.
A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on your sound judgment after a full and impartial consideration of all the evidence in the case.”

Now how do you vote, when the government bears the burden of proof, and it offers zero proof that the gun was knowingly transferred, and zero proof that if it was transferred the defendant knew the other guy was prohibited from having the gun?

You can, of course, say that maybe there is an overzealous prosecutor out there who would charge this crime, and maybe he will have a judge who does not care and sleeps through the trial, and maybe there will be a defense attorney who is too inexperienced or too scared to put up any fight against this case, and maybe there will also be a jury full of people who will convict the defendant without any real evidence because of some unjustifiable motive (race, etc.). Yes, I suppose if we imagine it enough we can come up with a scenario where all these things fall in place and Mr. Smith gets convicted. But it is not a sound foundation to build a national policy on. It is not a sound idea to encourage prosecutions without evidence to support them. It is not a sound idea to encourage juries to convict because the guy must have done it even where the government cannot possibly prove it. For these reasons there is no prosecutor that I know who would charge Mr. Smith based upon what we have. Now he might hang onto the case, keep the investigation open, and hope to find some other evidence in the future that makes the case. But no prosecutor who takes his duty seriously would charge Mr. Smith based upon what we have now. Finally, all of this assumes that LE finds the gun in the first place—that the gun was not hidden or thrown into a river after the shooting.

And this is, unfortunately, how easy it can be to evade prosecution for a straw man sale, with or without a UBC requirement. I believe you have acknowledged how difficult this can be. I simply don’t see how a UBC requirement—even if coupled with a safe storage requirement—will solve this problem.
Click to expand...

BryanVa said: ↑

I’m not much of a source on percentages of where the firearms come from. In my experience they come from a variety of sources. Sometimes they are bought from an FFL dealer by a straw purchaser. Sometimes they are stolen. Sometimes they come from a private secondary market sale. Sometimes they are legitimately bought because the “criminal” has no convictions yet that disqualifies him from making the purchase. Sometimes they are borrowed (with and without permission) from family members.

Now if, for example, you provide a gun to someone you know is a felon then you are guilty of being an accessory to his possession as a felon and you can also be prosecuted. And if, for example, you know someone wants to commit a crime with a gun and you provide the gun then you are an accessory to the crimes he later commits with the gun and can be prosecuted. We may even be able to trace a recovered gun to you as the last known purchaser. But you have to consider the difficult reality of convicting someone—with a standard of proof being beyond a reasonable doubt—on a charge of knowingly providing a gun for use in a crime (or to a felon)….

If the proven last purchaser says “oh I haven’t looked at it in years, it must have been stolen out of my glove box without my knowledge—after all I never lock my car at home” (or “hey I had no idea he was a convicted felon and could not have a gun&#8221 then you have limited ways to disprove this. The only real way is for the “criminal” to confess he got his gun from the guy you are investigating (and that the provider knew he was going to commit a crime with it or could not have it). Even then, the “criminal’s” confession cannot be used against the gun provider unless the criminal himself testifies. That would require a deal with the devil—giving the murderer a plea deal to get him to testify against his girlfriend who bought him the gun, for example. That’s like giving the drug dealing kingpin a plea deal to testify against a user who bought from him. Absent the straw buyer or other provider confessing that he provided the gun it is almost impossible to prosecute them from providing the murderer the gun. In the end, knowing where the gun likely came from is of limited value to combatting violent crime.

Of far greater value to prosecution of a crime is evidence showing the firearm was actually possessed by the suspect of the violent crime—an eyewitness, police finding the gun on someone, touch DNA and/or fingerprints from a dropped gun, etc.

Now laws do exist to severely punish gun crime. For example, in my state selling crack cocaine can be punished by 5-40 years in prison. However, because the sentence is not mandatory, the average sentence in my state is 18 months of time actually to serve. That is a function of what judges do through my state. However, it is also a crime to have any firearm while you are dealing, and that crime carries a mandatory 5 year sentence which cannot be suspended. There are other mandatory sentence crimes as well. Possession of a gun by a convicted violent felon is a mandatory 5 year sentence. Using a firearm in any violent crime is an automatic 3 year sentence on top of what you get for the violent crime.

I have no problem with mandatory sentences for crimes committed with firearms because the RKBA is not impacted—there is no right to armed criminal violence. These statutes only punish those commit the crimes.

The better question you need to ask your local law enforcement leaders is “how are you enforcing these laws?” To hazard a guess, I would say that 90% of all criminal charges nationwide are resolved with a plea agreement. Now don’t get me wrong, there are legitimate needs for plea agreements (for example, say 3 guys conspire to buy a large amount of cocaine, and when they show up with the money the “dealers” rob them and murder two of them. Sometimes you have to make a deal with the surviving buyer over his attempted purchase charge to get him to co-operate as the eyewitness to who shot who). But in my opinion in too many jurisdictions plea deals are the norm, and too many times these deals avoid mandatory punishments.

Catch and release is fine—but only for fish.

In my experience there are only three things that deter crime: 1. What is the likelihood that I will be seriously injured or killed while attempting this crime, 2. Assuming I’m not seriously injured or killed, then what is the likelihood that I will get caught and arrested, and 3. If caught and arrested, what is the likelihood that I will receive a punishment greater than I am willing to accept.

If you are concerned about crime, then the first thing you should do is ask your local elected leaders what they are doing to catch criminals, and what they are doing with them once they have caught them.
Click to expand...

Ronstar · Jan 1, 2016

we need Universal Background checks to prevent the following people from buying a gun, through pricvate sales:

"Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.[14][15]

Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.

Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.

Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.

Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.

Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)

Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[16]

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.

OrlandoChuck · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

we need Universal Background checks to prevent the following people from buying a gun, through pricvate sales:

"Anyone who has been convicted in any court of a felony punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, excluding those crimes punishable by imprisonment related to the regulation of business practices, whose full civil rights have not been restored by the State in which the firearms disability was first imposed.[14][15]

Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.

Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substances.

Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution.

Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States or an alien admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. The exception is if the nonimmigrant is in possession of a valid hunting license issued by a US state and/or has been granted a waiver from the Attorney General.

Anyone who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.

Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his or her citizenship.

Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment.)

Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (Added in 1996, with the Lautenberg Amendment)[16]

A person who is under indictment or information for a crime (misdemeanor) punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding two years cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information, and if cleared or acquitted can receive firearms without restriction.
Click to expand...

Sounds good but can't be enforced without registration.

Ronstar · Jan 1, 2016

OrlandoChuck said: ↑

Sounds good but can't be enforced without registration.
Click to expand...

sure it can.

OrlandoChuck · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

sure it can.
Click to expand...

You gonna keep me from handing my unregistered gun to my son?

Collateral Damage · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

We need Universal Background Checks for all gun purchases.

why?

because today in most states, convicted criminals, illegal aliens and severally mentally ill can buy guns through private sales.

if you don't perform a background check, you have no idea if you are about to sell a gun to a nice guy or someone wanted for murder or raping a child.

No one, who cares about their country or the safety of our people, would sell a gun without doing a background check on the person they may sell a gun to.

I propose the following Universal Background Check system:

-all gun sales will require a background check.

-NICS checks will keep a record of the serial # of the gun, the name of the seller, and the date of the transaction.

ATF will perform random stings across the country, upon internet, newspaper, magazine private gun sellers.

this info will be accessable to police with a warrant, ordered by a judge whenever a gun is found used in a crime. If there is no record of a NICS check being performed for that gun, and the seller did not report the gun stolen, the seller will face jail time and a fine.

ATF will also perform random stings across the country, upon internet, newspaper, magazine private gun sellers.

The buyer will also face extra jail time and a fine, for having purchased a gun without getting a NICS check.

What is wrong with such a proposal?
Click to expand...

Do you not think most everybody on this forum has figured out that you have a thing about gun ownership?

Criminals don't care about laws, or they wouldn't be criminals, would they?

Enacting additional requirments or laws will not stop criminals from obtaining guns.

Requiring legal gun owners to jump through additional hoops to own, carry and legally fire those guns is not going to stop criminals from committing crimes involving guns.

Get the gist?

Ronstar · Jan 1, 2016

OrlandoChuck said: ↑

You gonna keep me from handing my unregistered gun to my son?
Click to expand...

i respect your concerns.

but NO one should possess a firearm, without first going through a background check

OrlandoChuck · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

i respect your concerns.

but NO one should possess a firearm, without first going through a background check
Click to expand...

I understand your position, but as you can see, registration would be required.

Ronstar · Jan 1, 2016

OrlandoChuck said: ↑

I understand your position, but as you can see, registration would be required.
Click to expand...

no, it would not.

ATF will simply perform random stings on private sellers and at gun shows.

thats all

OrlandoChuck · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

no, it would not.

ATF will simply perform random stings on private sellers and at gun shows.

thats all
Click to expand...

That doesn't prevent me from giving my gun to my acquaintances. Transfers between criminals on the street are not curbed by random internet stings.

vman12 · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

no, it would not.

ATF will simply perform random stings on private sellers and at gun shows.

thats all
Click to expand...

They already do that at gun shows.

OrlandoChuck · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

no, it would not.

ATF will simply perform random stings on private sellers and at gun shows.

thats all
Click to expand...

The Vice President stated that the reason that there are almost no prosecutions of people that lie on the background check forms is because of limited resources of BATF. Where are the resources going to come from to do random internet sales stings? You have seen how many firearms sales we sights there are. To make an impact, there would have to be thousands of stings per day.

Ronstar · Jan 1, 2016

OrlandoChuck said: ↑

The Vice President stated that the reason that there are almost no prosecutions of people that lie on the background check forms is because of limited resources of BATF. Where are the resources going to come from to do random internet sales stings? You have seen how many firearms sales we sights there are. To make an impact, there would have to be thousands of stings per day.
Click to expand...

Obama will have to reallocate resources from other Justice Department programs

vman12 · Jan 1, 2016

Ronstar said: ↑

Obama will have to reallocate resources from other Justice Department programs
Click to expand...

Yeah lets pull them away from addressing 98% of the problem to deal with 2% of the problem. Great idea.

Log in or Sign up

Why we need Universal Background Checks

der wüstenfuchs Member

Right is the way Well-Known Member

Right is the way Well-Known Member

TOG 6 Well-Known Member

RiseAgainst Banned

saspatz Member Past Donor

Zorro Well-Known Member

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

saspatz Member Past Donor

Ziplok New Member

EMTdaniel86 Banned

Xenamnes Banned

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Why we need Universal Background Checks

der wüstenfuchs Member

Right is the way Well-Known Member

Right is the way Well-Known Member

TOG 6 Well-Known Member

RiseAgainst Banned

saspatz Member Past Donor

Zorro Well-Known Member

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

saspatz Member Past Donor

Ziplok New Member

EMTdaniel86 Banned

Xenamnes Banned

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

OrlandoChuck Well-Known Member

Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches