Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Texas Lizard

Universal Background Check...

Recommended Posts

Once UBCs are in place, then law enforcement will need some way to determine that a person in possession of a weapon received that weapon through a transaction which included a background check. Therefore, the next logical step after requiring UBCs is to maintain a database of firearms transactions.

 

Owned a gun BEFORE UBC? Sure ya did, pardner. But that ownership will have to be documented, so that law enforcement can identify people who bought guns unlawfully AFTER UBC. Again -- back to a government database of registered gun owners.

 

But (as has already been established in law) CRIMINALS won't have to register their guns. Why? Because registering their guns would be self-incrimination; therefore a person who cannot legally own a gun cannot be prosecuted for not registering a gun they own, thanks to 5th amendment protections.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make UBC available to every gun owner without having to go through a FFL and I'll consider agreeing to it.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here I thought, Universal background checks were so we could travel intergalactically in the future, with our guns. I know I don't want my spaceship pulled over by space law enforcement before getting to my destination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

They also need to reign in this so-called media. The Press has always been contentious but in the past 40 years they have manipulated politics and society. Freedom of the Press does not mean freedom to destroy everything in the Constitution except the First Amendment. It’s time to start holding them accountable. 

 

A free press is part of that Dangerous Freedom Thomas Jefferson was willing to die for.  No matter how bad a free press is, any attempt to place restrictions on it is a guaranteed path to servitude.  If anyone is in doubt of this take a hard look at what happens in Europe and especially the UK. Great example is Tommy Robinson.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thor those that think UBCs are acceptable who is going to pay for them? What is a reasonable fee? Are you willing to to $50.00, $100, $200 for that false sense of security?  You all have already admitted that criminals don't obey the law how are UBC laws going to be any different.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

A free press is part of that Dangerous Freedom Thomas Jefferson was willing to die for.  No matter how bad a free press is, any attempt to place restrictions on it is a guaranteed path to servitude.  If anyone is in doubt of this take a hard look at what happens in Europe and especially the UK. Great example is Tommy Robinson.

I agree but when the press itself is corrupt there needs to be accountability. Now, going about getting that “accountability” is where the problem lies in regards to a “free press”. 

 

To me it’s like the old adage about free speech and yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. You can do it but there will or should be consequences. The same should be said of the press. The problem is proving a member or an organization in the press meant to cause problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

Make UBC available to every gun owner without having to go through a FFL and I'll consider agreeing to it.  

 

39 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Thor those that think UBCs are acceptable who is going to pay for them? What is a reasonable fee? Are you willing to to $50.00, $100, $200 for that false sense of security?  You all have already admitted that criminals don't obey the law how are UBC laws going to be any different.

 

 

 

One of the tactics to reduce gun ownership is to make them just too darn expensive to own.  Part of that is the elitist attitude of "It's ok for ME to own one, but, I don't want those unclean ruffians to be able to get one."  Only the rich should own guns.  Why isn't that considered racist?  After all, the possibility that someone might have to pay $5-$10 for an ID to vote is shouted down as racist.  Having to pay $50 to $100 for permission to buy a gun seems to be fine.  (I've heard it can be as high as $500 for permits, fingerprints and background checks in NYC.  That's non-refundable and before the NICS check at a dealer)

 

Angus

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Black Angus McPherson said:

 

 

One of the tactics to reduce gun ownership is to make them just too darn expensive to own.  Part of that is the elitist attitude of "It's ok for ME to own one, but, I don't want those unclean ruffians to be able to get one."  Only the rich should own guns.  Why isn't that considered racist?  After all, the possibility that someone might have to pay $5-$10 for an ID to vote is shouted down as racist.  Having to pay $50 to $100 for permission to buy a gun seems to be fine.  (I've heard it can be as high as $500 for permits, fingerprints and background checks in NYC.  That's non-refundable and before the NICS check at a dealer)

 

Angus

 Right on the money. Illinois just lost 50% of their FFLs.

 

Check this out.

 

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/new-illinois-gun-dealer-licensing-act-drives-over-50-of-ffls-out-of-business/

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

Is it really necessary to transfer ownership of guns held for deploying soldiers?

 

I can give my guns to any properly licensed fellow gun owner to hold pending my return; in MA (and many other states) , it's a "bailment", and title to the guns does not change hands- just bare possession.

 

We have UBCs here; even in a private sale.  Fine by me; let's me know that I'm selling to someone who can pass the NICS process; not perfect, but it should screen out most felons.  Personally, I think that there is very little that can be done to effectively screen the unbalanced folks who shoot up chruches and schools.  For those events, the best preventative is still a trained armed team in the building - the "good guys with guns".   I go through Courthouse metal detectors, manned by armed deputies and Federal marshals, several times a week; personally, I certainly value the lives of children as much as I do lawyers and Judges; I see no reason why the same security should not be at schools, and I dismiss the "traumatic for the children" argument as political hyperbole.  

 

LL

Transfer refers to possession, not ownership.

 

The latest UBC bill does allow transfers within the family without a background check.  It also has allowances for temporary transfers without a background check for self defense (like domestic abused in immediate fear for her life who can’t wait for the paperwork), hunting, target shooting while at the range.  All of these non family transfers are temporary with a specific time duration.  You could no longer just borrow a gun indefinitely or even loan a shotgun to a buddy for his kid to try for the trap season.  You could no longer use your concealed carry permit to qualify as a background check.  The previous bills did not allow for any of the above exemptions, so it is progress.  Several of the previous background check bills also included gun control measures, this bill strictly addresses transfers and background checks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Capt. R. Hugh Kidnme said:

Here I thought, Universal background checks were so we could travel intergalactically in the future, with our guns. I know I don't want my spaceship pulled over by space law enforcement before getting to my destination.

The question I have is where do they pull you over to...Nearest rock, comet or planet....

 

Texas Lizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something Y'all need to remember is these laws have nothing to do with guns or crime, it's all about control. They know criminals won't go through a UBC and they don't care, all they want to do is control the great unwashed masses(Us) so the can continue building their version of utopia.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the USAF forget to enter info  in a database on a shooter in Texas?

 

That's another thing these background check folks need to keep in mind. That UBC is only as good as the info that gets entered.

 

There are medical records that get coded incorrectly, and this will be no different.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, sassnetguy50 said:

Transfer refers to possession, not ownership.

 

The latest UBC bill does allow transfers within the family without a background check.  It also has allowances for temporary transfers without a background check for self defense (like domestic abused in immediate fear for her life who can’t wait for the paperwork), hunting, target shooting while at the range.  All of these non family transfers are temporary with a specific time duration.  You could no longer just borrow a gun indefinitely or even loan a shotgun to a buddy for his kid to try for the trap season.  You could no longer use your concealed carry permit to qualify as a background check.  The previous bills did not allow for any of the above exemptions, so it is progress.  Several of the previous background check bills also included gun control measures, this bill strictly addresses transfers and background checks.

 

That is not progress. That is the path to loosing your Second Amendment rights. And right after they take those the rest will soon follow.

 

Name ONE so called mass shooter in the past few years acquired their firearms legally without passing a background check.

 

The Sandy Hook shooter killed his mother to gain access to firearms so a UBC wouldn't have stopped him.

Edited by Sedalia Dave
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The biggest problem  with any of these proposed laws is that those pushing more gun control aren't acting in good faith - so it's like a lamb negotiating with a wolf - you know what the desired outcome for the wolf is - and it isn't about gun safety or "reasonable" gun control - it's about control and it's about elimination of all guns in private hands. 

 

We've seen it before - make it more and more difficult to own firearms - make them more costly (liability insurance, smart guns, taxes, license fees, training costs) - make more hoops to jump through (background checks, mental health screening requirements, licensing requirements, training requirements, waiting periods, permits to own, permits to carry, storage requirements, requirement for all transfers to go through FFL, define even loaning a gun to someone to shoot as a transfer) - put the gun industry and manufacturers out of business (liability lawsuits allowing gun manufacturers to be sued if one of their guns is misused in a crime, putting FFL's out of business though tighter federal licensing requirements and then separate state, county, city regulations for FFL's, putting impossible mandates on gun manufacturerers smart guns and microstamping, using federal banking oversight to pressure banks and lenders to not do business with gun manufacturers, using zoning laws to ban gun businesses) - banning certain types of so called evil guns using scary made up names (assault weapons, saturday night specials, high capacity guns/magazines, sniper rifles, 50 cal, automatic guns referencing semiautomatic firearms, unsafe guns mandating all types of safeties and drop tests - manual safety, drop test, magazine disconnect, chamber indicator) - not to mention all the NFA rules even on simple safety equipment like silencers. Then add in constant demonization of lawful gun owners, constant demonization of any and all gun rights and safety and training organizations, demonization of hunters and hunting, and demonization of shooting sports. And we've seen where registering guns leads - England and Australia - register your guns today and then tomorrow you can turn them in. 

 

And don't forget politicians and individuals who propose laws and don't even understand how firearms work or function, what the current laws already exist, and who read the 2nd Amendment such that the words - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" have no meaning what-so-ever, because evidently the 2nd Amendment is just a guarantee that the government can have guns. 

 

 

Edited by Raylan
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 said:

I did a quick DuckDuck Walk, looking for any reasonably reliable anaysis of whether UBC legislation could have or likely will help prevent mass shootings.  TIME says it hasn't and probably won't; so does CNN.  I can't find any source, other than politicians and political advocacy groups, that claims that it has or will.   Feel good proposal, I think.

 

Someone above suggested that going to your LGS to run a UBC creates a record of the transaction.  Is this an accessible record?  I thought that Federal law made records of sales inaccessible unless the government is actually investigating a crime?

 

LL

 

 

 Even if the Federal government is obeying the law, that doesn't mean the states don't have their own list of who owns guns.

 

In CT, the State Police do the background check using their own database and every sale requires an authorization number.  The State Police do have a list of what guns a person owns, however the lists are not always 100% accurate.   Anecdotal accounts suggests that guns go on the list, but aren't always removed from the list if the gun is sold, especially if it was a private sale prior to CT requiring ALL transfers go through a background check.  Currently private sales are still allowed, but the seller is required to fill out the state paperwork and get an authorization number from the CT State Police.

 

Additionally we have to fill out a DPS-3-C and both the state police and the police department of the town you reside in gets a copy of the DPS-3-C on all purchases.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 1:53 PM, bgavin said:

A crazy ex-wife can file an "I'm Afraid" complaint without proof, and the cops will come and empty your gun safe.

That's exactly what happened to me 6 years ago. I had just been divorced for a year and living in my own place minding my own business and not bothering the ex, just getting on with life. One evening at dinner time 3 cops knocked on my door with an "I'm Afraid" complaint because she remembered I owned guns, and just wanted to hassle me. Long story short they confiscated all my guns and I had to go to court to get them back. The judge asked the ex if I had ever threatened her life either with or without my guns and she said "No, never". The judge ruled that I should get my guns back that day, which I did. But I lost a days wages for missing work and for 2 weeks (took that long for my case to go to court) I had no guns for my own personal protection. Just to satisfy her need to hassle me for no real reason.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Arizona Ranger Captain said:

That's exactly what happened to me 6 years ago. I had just been divorced for a year and living in my own place minding my own business and not bothering the ex, just getting on with life. One evening at dinner time 3 cops knocked on my door with an "I'm Afraid" complaint because she remembered I owned guns, and just wanted to hassle me. Long story short they confiscated all my guns and I had to go to court to get them back. The judge asked the ex if I had ever threatened her life either with or without my guns and she said "No, never". The judge ruled that I should get my guns back that day, which I did. But I lost a days wages for missing work and for 2 weeks (took that long for my case to go to court) I had no guns for my own personal protection. Just to satisfy her need to hassle me for no real reason.

Man that sucks. Sorry that happened to you. Just imagine how much worse it’ll be with the red flag rule. Neighbor doesn’t like you?  Red flag.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This red flag business will not end well for many, many people.

 

But that is part of their plan, is it not?

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how long it will be after implementation before there is retaliation against someone for a false Red Flag report?

I wonder how many politicians will stand and say “That person is dead or injured because of me.”?

 

I am betting none.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here in Ohio we can sell a gun to anyone as long as they are an Ohio resident. At a gun show a few years ago I sold a Taurus 9mm, that I won at a gun raffle at one of our local gun clubs. A year later I got a call from an ATF agent. At first I thought it was a scam but I found out he was legit and asked me about the Taurus 9mm. It was found in Kentucky on an illegal immigrant from Mexico who used it in a holdup. I told him I sold it at a gun show and all we're required to do is see proof of residency. I told him the guy showed me his current driver's license. The agent told me I should have wrote down the guy's name and address. I said, "I'm sorry sir but in Ohio we are NOT required to do that. He said that for my own protection I should. Who is going to give me their address at a gun show? I wouldn't!!! I no longer will sell a gun at a gun show unless it's to a dealer or someone I know.

 

Edited by Rye Miles #13621
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

I no longer will sell a gun at a gun show unless it's to a dealer or someone I know.

 

 

Same here. Years ago when I was a teenager my Dad bought some guns off of a guy that he knew. One was some off brand .38 Special revolver. I don’t recall the details. Anyway, my Dad got pulled over for speeding and the police found the gun. It turned out the gun had been bought and registered to a guy in Pittsburgh. The gun had been stolen and thought to have been used in a holdup where someone was killed. 

The police confiscated the gun. It was tested and it turned out it was not used to kill the person during the holdup. My Dad was charged with receiving a stolen handgun but since he turned over evidence as to where he got the gun his charges were dropped.

 

This is why I always go through an FFL.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Here in Ohio we can sell a gun to anyone as long as they are an Ohio resident. At a gun show a few years ago I sold a Taurus 9mm, that I won at a gun raffle at one of our local gun clubs. A year later I got a call from an ATF agent. At first I thought it was a scam but I found out he was legit and asked me about the Taurus 9mm. It was found in Kentucky on an illegal immigrant from Mexico who used it in a holdup. I told him I sold it at a gun show and all we're required to do is see proof of residency. I told him the guy showed me his current driver's license. The agent told me I should have wrote down the guy's name and address. I said, "I'm sorry sir but in Ohio we are NOT required to do that. He said that for my own protection I should. Who is going to give me their address at a gun show? I wouldn't!!! I no longer will sell a gun at a gun show unless it's to a dealer or someone I know.

 

 

Thing is you have no idea if the person you sold it to was the same person that used it in a crime or if it changed hands 50 times between you and the crime.

Selling a firearm is no different than selling anything else. If you sold your neighbor a hammer or hunting knife at a yard sale and he used it to kill his wife would you quit selling hammers or hunting knifes?  Consider that hammers and knifes are more likely to be used to kill someone than a firearm.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

 

Thing is you have no idea if the person you sold it to was the same person that used it in a crime or if it changed hands 50 times between you and the crime.

Selling a firearm is no different than selling anything else. If you sold your neighbor a hammer or hunting knife at a yard sale and he used it to kill his wife would you quit selling hammers or hunting knifes?  Consider that hammers and knifes are more likely to be used to kill someone than a firearm.

 

Yeah, but...

 

Hammers aren't vilified and held in contempt by politicians. 

 

Hammers don't have serial numbers or 4473s linking them to a purchaser for a Gov't agency to track down.

 

Hammers don't use copkillingghostbulletsfrominfinutyclipswiththebayonetlugscareyflashhiderinfullysemiautomaticmode either.

 

 

Edited by Dantankerous
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not in favor of UBC's but I personally will be more careful. I have no problem with selling guns to another cowboy shooter at a shoot, although that gun can be stolen and used in a crime. I assume that if it was the cowboy shooter would tell the LEO's that it was stolen, plus I would know the name of the person at the shoot. At a gun show you don't know these people from Adam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/16/2019 at 4:53 PM, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

I know that for my part I will not sell a gun to someone unless the deal goes through an FFL, even when I have lived in places where I didn’t need to do so for precisely the reason Loophole Larue cited.

 

 

 

1.  It is my policy to sell only to persons I personally know.

2.  I sold a rifle by email.  I thought I knew the person so I said "Sold".  Then I realized that the SASS Alias was actual an apprivated alias from the Cowpoke I thought I was selling to.  I received copy of his Driver's License and a copy of the FFL of the Dealer I would send the firearm to.  Then I got on line and verified the FFL actual existed and the shipping address.

3.  Isn't unAmerican to sell firearms form our personal collections?  :D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 3:34 AM, Ozark Huckleberry said:

Once UBCs are in place, then law enforcement will need some way to determine that a person in possession of a weapon received that weapon through a transaction which included a background check. Therefore, the next logical step after requiring UBCs is to maintain a database of firearms transactions.

 

Owned a gun BEFORE UBC? Sure ya did, pardner. But that ownership will have to be documented, so that law enforcement can identify people who bought guns unlawfully AFTER UBC. Again -- back to a government database of registered gun owners.

 

Here in WA there's no way to track UBC's. About the only way they could tell is if you're not the original owner who filled out the FFL paperwork, but the firearm didn't exist prior to the UBC law taking effect. Anything made before then... it's your word against theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

Here in WA there's no way to track UBC's. About the only way they could tell is if you're not the original owner who filled out the FFL paperwork, but the firearm didn't exist prior to the UBC law taking effect. Anything made before then... it's your word against theirs.

Those are the points I was getting to. 

 

If a UBC law is enacted, it is only a small step to claim a need to close the enforcement ‘loophole’ created by not having a record of weapons transferred through background checks, or who owned what guns before background checks were created. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 11:17 PM, Arizona Ranger Captain said:

That's exactly what happened to me 6 years ago. I had just been divorced for a year and living in my own place minding my own business and not bothering the ex, just getting on with life. One evening at dinner time 3 cops knocked on my door with an "I'm Afraid" complaint because she remembered I owned guns, and just wanted to hassle me. Long story short they confiscated all my guns and I had to go to court to get them back. The judge asked the ex if I had ever threatened her life either with or without my guns and she said "No, never". The judge ruled that I should get my guns back that day, which I did. But I lost a days wages for missing work and for 2 weeks (took that long for my case to go to court) I had no guns for my own personal protection. Just to satisfy her need to hassle me for no real reason.

Why did you LET them???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 2:47 PM, Sedalia Dave said:

 

That is not progress. That is the path to loosing your Second Amendment rights. And right after they take those the rest will soon follow.

 

Name ONE so called mass shooter in the past few years acquired their firearms legally without passing a background check.

 

The Sandy Hook shooter killed his mother to gain access to firearms so a UBC wouldn't have stopped him.

  It is progress for the democrats in getting closer to a passable bill.  I am not in support of the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/17/2019 at 11:17 PM, Arizona Ranger Captain said:

That's exactly what happened to me 6 years ago. I had just been divorced for a year and living in my own place minding my own business and not bothering the ex, just getting on with life. One evening at dinner time 3 cops knocked on my door with an "I'm Afraid" complaint because she remembered I owned guns, and just wanted to hassle me. Long story short they confiscated all my guns and I had to go to court to get them back. The judge asked the ex if I had ever threatened her life either with or without my guns and she said "No, never". The judge ruled that I should get my guns back that day, which I did. But I lost a days wages for missing work and for 2 weeks (took that long for my case to go to court) I had no guns for my own personal protection. Just to satisfy her need to hassle me for no real reason.

Was it just like in the media, a tarp on the driveway and throw everything in a pile?  Or do they individually case and tag every item?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ozark Huckleberry said:

Those are the points I was getting to. 

 

If a UBC law is enacted, it is only a small step to claim a need to close the enforcement ‘loophole’ created by not having a record of weapons transferred through background checks, or who owned what guns before background checks were created. 

 

Exactly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sixgun Sheridan said:

 

Here in WA there's no way to track UBC's. About the only way they could tell is if you're not the original owner who filled out the FFL paperwork, but the firearm didn't exist prior to the UBC law taking effect. Anything made before then... it's your word against theirs.

 

As of 1 July 2019 when you comply with Washington States UBC law for pistols and semi-auto long guns you have to provide all the information on this form.

https://www.dol.wa.gov/forms/652001.pdf

So for every transfer conducted on or after 1 July 2019 the state now has everything it needs to create a database of firearms and who owns them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tell Sackett SASS 18436 said:

Why did you LET them???


What are you really going to do when cop(s) come to your door with a court order to confiscate your guns?


• Shoot the Cop
• Explain the 2nd Amendment
• Refuse Entry on 2nd Amendment grounds
• Stand by helplessly


#1 your rectum will be married to your cell mate for eternity
#2 will get you cuffed and placed in the police cruiser
#3 will get you beaten up, cuffed, and placed in the cruiser
#4 you watch them ransack and confiscate your gun safe


Law enforcement and the courts will systematically destroy you if you refuse to surrender your guns.


Which of your neighbors and friends will bring weapons and stand by you?  Which of them is willing to be financially destroyed, made destitute and homeless by the courts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bgavin said:


What are you really going to do when cop(s) come to your door with a court order to confiscate your guns?


• Shoot the Cop
• Explain the 2nd Amendment
• Refuse Entry on 2nd Amendment grounds
• Stand by helplessly


#1 your rectum will be married to your cell mate for eternity
#2 will get you cuffed and placed in the police cruiser
#3 will get you beaten up, cuffed, and placed in the cruiser
#4 you watch them ransack and confiscate your gun safe


Law enforcement and the courts will systematically destroy you if you refuse to surrender your guns.


Which of your neighbors and friends will bring weapons and stand by you?  Which of them is willing to be financially destroyed, made destitute and homeless by the courts?

 

Our county sheriff has said his department will not enforce the Red Flag Law.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many LEOs are former military.
Their oath of service did not end when they left the service.
Kudos to your sheriff for remembering his oath.

On the flip side, Ruby Ridge and Waco are proof there is a segment of LEOs willing to kill women and children.
I fully expect them to ignore the Constitution and their oath to protect it.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.