Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 169

Thread: house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    house votes overwhelmingly to repeal purchase permit/registration

    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    They'll be re subjecting hundreds of thousands of Michigan's non CPL holding pistol owners to the federal gun free school zones act. As in wanna walk with your pistol on public property near a school? Better use the PRK poor man's CCW method and carry unloaded and in a locked case. And believe me, we will have people getting charged. The oath violating trash that infests so many of Michigan's PD's will be beside themselves with joy if this goes through.

    Some people will inevitably say "but that's not for regular people just carrying!" Until you've had the misfortune I've had, of being a non CPL holder in a near hour long felony stop while the cops try to figure out how they can charge you, including going over the GFSZA with the prosecutor, maybe you won't get it. As for me, I think we're about to lose a very important protection.

    It's as though they're trying to clean house of every benefit we can find in the laws, and in turn give us nothing.
    Last edited by Michigander; 06-13-2012 at 07:50 PM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    They'll be re subjecting hundreds of thousands of Michigan's non CPL holding pistol owners to the federal gun free school zones act. As in wanna walk with your pistol on public property near a school? Better use the PRK poor man's CCW method and carry unloaded and in a locked case. And believe me, we will have people getting charged. The oath violating trash that infests so many of Michigan's PD's will be beside themselves with joy if this goes through.

    Some people will inevitably say "but that's not for regular people just carrying!" Until you've had the misfortune I've had, of being a non CPL holder in a near hour long felony stop while the cops try to figure out how they can charge you, including going over the GFSZA with the prosecutor, maybe you won't get it. As for me, I think we're about to lose a very important protection.

    It's as though they're trying to clean house of every benefit we can find in the laws, and in turn give us nothing.
    Ok, this has already been discussed at length, but can you show me 1 instance of what you predict that has happened in ALL the other states with no PP? I have not been able to find 1 person who was charged with a GFSZA violation as a stand alone crime. Why aren't people in Virginia, Kentucky, NC, and all the other states being charged? Your situation is very unfortunate, but having to ask the states permission to buy a weapon is a very bad thing and completely unacceptable imo.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  4. #4
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Yes it's been discussed at length, and it appears that it needs to be discussed more.

    We've had people charged where no violation of any law existed, and it was so blatant that the cops and the court couldn't even come up with a law to charge under, and yet they went ahead with court dates!

    And now the argument is that for the sake of freedom, we should criminalize actions that are currently legal, based on some strange trust with the government that they won't prosecute non CPL holders based on statistics? Seriously?

    Realistically, as it is now, if you want to not ask the states permission and risk prosecution, get an out of state carry permit, and don't register your guns. I's legal, with the exception of it being defined as illegal by Frank Kelly's opinion, now quite out out of date since it was written around the old may issue laws. If you're going to risk court anyway, that's a very solid option.
    Last edited by Michigander; 06-13-2012 at 09:18 PM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  5. #5
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    so the answer is no? you can't find one instance of that happening even though your first post said "And believe me, we will have people getting charged."

    not trying to be a jerk, but why should i believe you when you can't provide any evidence? can you see into the future? i'm not going to change your mind on this bill, and your not going to change mine, but i just don't understand how you can predict what's going to happen even though it never has. if MI citizens are in imminent danger from this change then why doesn't it happen in ANY of the other states?

    this package of bills eliminates PP and registration, and i hope it passes. if you feel compelled to still ask for gov't permission to buy a firearm and then let the gov't know exactly what you purchased i'm sure they would still very happily take your information i would like our laws to be similar to the rest of the country, no permission slip and registration.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  6. #6
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Ok, this has already been discussed at length, but can you show me 1 instance of what you predict that has happened in ALL the other states with no PP? I have not been able to find 1 person who was charged with a GFSZA violation as a stand alone crime. Why aren't people in Virginia, Kentucky, NC, and all the other states being charged? Your situation is very unfortunate, but having to ask the states permission to buy a weapon is a very bad thing and completely unacceptable imo.
    Your argument assumes that the feds would only charge you with a GFSZA violation. Usually, the largest number of charges possible are levied in the hope that one would stick.

    However, I can answer affirmatively that there was a sole charge of violating the GFSZA, and yes, the person was convicted. see: United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  7. #7
    Regular Member detroit_fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Monroe, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Your argument assumes that the feds would only charge you with a GFSZA violation. Usually, the largest number of charges possible are levied in the hope that one would stick.

    However, I can answer affirmatively that there was a sole charge of violating the GFSZA, and yes, the person was convicted. see: United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)
    Thanks for the case reference, so far i had not found 1. i still believe it is a better option to repeal PP, registration and GFSZA rather than keep PP and registration because of fear of a possible GFSZA violation. as i said, i'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just stating mine.
    If guns cause crime, all mine are defective- Ted Nugent

  8. #8
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    Thanks for the case reference, so far i had not found 1. i still believe it is a better option to repeal PP, registration and GFSZA rather than keep PP and registration because of fear of a possible GFSZA violation. as i said, i'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, just stating mine.
    Perhaps, unless you are the one being charged with a violation of the GFSZA. I do agree the chances are remote...but not impossible. BTW, if you purchase a firearm from a dealer, there already is de facto registration. I've seen cases where the Feds end up on someone's doorstep within hours of starting a trace through a dealer.
    Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating pistol registration. But arguing that it is a major leap forward in the advancement of gun rights if this passes is a crock. The only people I can see that get a win is an out-of-state resident (who didn't meet any exception) would be able to bring a pistol on their trip to Michigan. I have some indication from MSP that they did not enforce the licensing provision for these people if the pistol was in their place of sojourn; Heller ended that possibility.

    So, be excited that a supposedly PRO 2A group of individuals MAY pass some legislation that eliminates registration. YIPPEE!! (Sarcasm intended)

    I'm sure they will all use this as political propaganda that they did so much for the 2A in Michigan. Too bad that probably 80%+ of Michigan's gun owners will believe them.
    Last edited by DrTodd; 06-13-2012 at 10:28 PM.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Ezerharden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Erie, MI
    Posts
    744
    I tried reading the bill to find out the answer to this question but I don't speak Legal all that well. They are no longer going to register handguns if this passes as is, but what about guns already registered? I did see a section about destroying records but I could not clearly understand what records were being referred to as it referenced other sections.
    Last edited by Ezerharden; 06-14-2012 at 01:27 AM.
    Want to keep informed of Open Carry events in your area? Go to www.miopencarry.org/update

    I carry a gun because a Police Officer is too heavy.

    For Drama free gun rights discussion, see http://forums.michiganopencarry.org/

  10. #10
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    I'm so excited this passed the house! Hopefully it sails through the senate and Snyder signs it. 80+ years on the books, it's time this law is repealed.
    Rand Paul 2016

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by detroit_fan View Post
    so the answer is no? you can't find one instance of that happening even though your first post said "And believe me, we will have people getting charged."

    not trying to be a jerk, but why should i believe you when you can't provide any evidence? can you see into the future? i'm not going to change your mind on this bill, and your not going to change mine, but i just don't understand how you can predict what's going to happen even though it never has. if MI citizens are in imminent danger from this change then why doesn't it happen in ANY of the other states?

    this package of bills eliminates PP and registration, and i hope it passes. if you feel compelled to still ask for gov't permission to buy a firearm and then let the gov't know exactly what you purchased i'm sure they would still very happily take your information i would like our laws to be similar to the rest of the country, no permission slip and registration.

    They will go after me.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    I'm so excited this passed the house! Hopefully it sails through the senate and Snyder signs it. 80+ years on the books, it's time this law is repealed.
    Do you have a CPL?

  13. #13
    Regular Member Yooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Houghton County, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Do you have a CPL?
    Yes. I'd still be enthusiastic about it even if I didn't.
    Rand Paul 2016

  14. #14
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    Those who thought gun handling getting in and out of cars was excessive are in for a rude awakening when non CPL holders, to include everyone below 21, will have to start carrying a case and lock, and upon getting to a borderline of 1,000 feet from a school (which of course they will have no choice but to guestimate), will have to draw and unload their gun, then put it in a locked case to transport it across the "school zone". I suppose it may be difficult for someone to understand how bad this is unless they've experienced it.

    Even if you choose to violate a gun law, it causes an added unhealthy stress. If you choose to be an activist that breaks gun laws, you're essentially painting a target on your back that says arrest me. Poke around the PRK and Wisconsin forums for a look at how much this type of thing sucks.

    It's really not complicated, and I'm sure the legislators understand it. Progress in this regard would be eliminating the vehicle carry bans, "licensing" everyone for the purpose of the GFSZA so long as they are 18+ with no felonies. But instead they just want to look cool to the majority of the voters while they partially neuter activists.
    Last edited by Michigander; 06-14-2012 at 08:32 AM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  15. #15
    Regular Member WilDChilD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dewitt, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    288
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    They will go after me.
    You made the name for yourself. And I like your new sig line, your such a martyr.

  16. #16
    Regular Member WilDChilD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Dewitt, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    288
    Would the PP people have now for the handguns they own still be an exemption?

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321
    good question. i believe the new bill calls for the destruction of records, so probably not.

    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-5225.htm

    SEC. 2C. (1) THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE,

    THE SHERIFF OF EACH COUNTY, AND THE COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF OF POLICE

    OF EACH CITY, VILLAGE, AND TOWNSHIP POLICE DEPARTMENT SHALL DESTROY

    ALL RECORDS HELD BY OR UNDER THE CONTROL OF THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT

    OR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT THAT WERE RECEIVED, COMPILED, OR RETAINED

    UNDER SECTION 2, 2A, OR 11, OR UNDER FORMER SECTION 9, INCLUDING

    ALL COPIES OF THOSE RECORDS. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (2),

    THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE RECORDS SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN 6 MONTHS

    AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDATORY ACT THAT ADDED THIS



    SECTION.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  18. #18
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830
    http://www.legislature.mi.gov/docume...-HEBH-5499.pdf

    Note the SBS/SBR ban and transport restrictions they don't think need to be cleaned up.

    For the SBS/SBR restrictions, they merely opted to clarify that C&R's will no longer need to be registered as pistols. What pricks.


    1 Sec. 224b. (1) A person shall not manufacture, sell, offer for
    2 sale, or possess a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled
    3 rifle.
    4 (2) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony
    5 punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years or a fine of
    6 not more than $2,500.00, or both.
    7 (3) This section does not apply to the sale, offering for
    8 sale, or possession of a short-barreled rifle or a short-barreled
    9 shotgun which THAT the secretary of the treasury of the United
    10 States of America, or his or her delegate, under 26 USC, sections
    11 5801 through 5872, or 18 USC, sections 921 through 928 931, has
    12 found to be a curio, relic, antique, museum piece, or collector's
    13 item not likely to be used as a weapon. , but only if the person
    14 selling, offering for sale or possessing the firearm has also fully
    15 complied with section 2 or 2a of 1927 PA 372, MCL 28.422 and
    16 28.422a

    Edit to add- the line through the text used in the link to cross out certain portions of the text from the bill, it didn't transfer with the copy and paste, nor do I know how to do that effect. But it can be seen in the link.
    Last edited by Michigander; 06-14-2012 at 08:59 AM.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  19. #19
    Regular Member DanM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    West Bloomfield, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    1,937
    Quote Originally Posted by Michigander View Post
    As for me, I think we're about to lose a very important protection.
    Perhaps, and registration repeal may raise more GFSZA risk for non-CPLs, but I agree with registration repeal on the following grounds:

    No 2A infringement should be accepted because it is "protection" against violating another 2A infringement. While we must work tirelessly to dismantle state and federal infringements, for this particular case it looks like the state-level battle may be won first. We must seize this state victory if we can, and continue the federal battle without letting up. In fact, there are at least three arguments for securing the state-level victory (registration repeal) before the federal-level one (GFSZA repeal or modification to not harm lawful RKBA):

    1) The opportunity to win gun-rights victories of this magnitude are not frequent. Seize it!

    2) Resources no longer diverted to registration repeal. Devote them to increasing resources on GFSZA repeal or modification.

    3) Going with your argument: with registration repeal, GFSZA would then harm every law-abiding, non-CPL citizen exercising their RKBA completely lawfully otherwise within a broad area well beyond school property. If that doesn't push our federal legislators to reform GFSZA, it also smells like a strong constitutional challenge in state and federal courts!

    We must keep seizing ground and we must keep bringing the fight to new fronts!
    Last edited by DanM; 06-14-2012 at 09:11 AM.
    "The principle of self-defense, even involving weapons and bloodshed, has never been condemned, even by Gandhi . . ."--Dr. Martin Luther King Jr

    “He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.”--M. K. Gandhi

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." --M. K. Gandhi

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran smellslikemichigan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Troy, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,321

    no vote til fall

    I just spoke to a member of staff for Senator
    John Pappageorge MI 13th district. He said that he didn't see the bill on the agenda for the senate, so it will likely not be addressed until the fall session because summer recess starts in the next couple days. He didn't know 100% what the senator's vote would be, but he was fairly confident that based on Senator Pappageorge's gun voting record that he would likely vote FOR the bill.
    "If it ain't loaded and cocked it don't shoot." - Rooster Cogburn
    http://www.graystatemovie.com/

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I have been in contact with Rep Opsommer about another issue, and he told me that he was supporting HB 5225. I immediately sent him the following email.

    Thank you for your prompt attention in this issue.

    HB 5225 scares the heck out of me sir. I am solidly against the purchase permit and registration and would love to see this eliminated, however, it leaves most Michiganders open to federal prosecution for coming within the 1,000 foot gun free school zome. Currently, our license to purchase, posess and transport, ie. purchase permit meets the standard to provide exemption for this. There are 9 million people in the state, subtract 2 million persons under age 18, and you have 7 million people, there are 310,000 CPL holders who are exempt, leaving the other 6 million of us in a very very dangerous legal position. One cannot, under the current federal law, even have a gun in the car driving down the road without committing a felony. Since the Federal law says that "a person may not knowingly posses", it leaves the person in a guilty until proven innocent situation. Gun owners on the various forums are terrified of this law, and feel like we are getting the shaft.

    Just because the l;likelihood of prosecution is light, doesnt mean that this law should be passed as is. IF a person is prosecuted for crossing some imaginary line for an illusion of "safety", the punishment is sending an innocent prison, destroying their life and family, and the loss of their rights for life! Unless a provision is made to protect our citizens from the gun free school zone, I cannot support this law, and beg you to stand against it as well. PLEASE read this to every legislator before this goes too far so that they can understand what they are actually voting for.

    Honestly, the way the gun laws are in the state make me want to leave altogether, this would certainly be the last straw. I am putting up with this state now, because of finances and my family, but truthfully, I want to move to a free state. It is better to try to raise my daughter from Kentucky, than from prison. At least I could drive 6 hours a couple times a year to see her.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by WilDChilD View Post
    You made the name for yourself.
    Does that make it right? You should know better.

    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    Perhaps, and registration repeal may raise more GFSZA risk for non-CPLs, but I agree with registration repeal on the following grounds:

    No 2A infringement should be accepted because it is "protection" against violating another 2A infringement. While we must work tirelessly to dismantle state and federal infringements, for this particular case it looks like the state-level battle may be won first. We must seize this state victory if we can, and continue the federal battle without letting up. In fact, there are at least three arguments for securing the state-level victory (registration repeal) before the federal-level one (GFSZA repeal or modification to not harm lawful RKBA):

    1) The opportunity to win gun-rights victories of this magnitude are not frequent. Seize it!

    2) Resources no longer diverted to registration repeal. Devote them to increasing resources on GFSZA repeal or modification.

    3) Going with your argument: with registration repeal, GFSZA would then harm every law-abiding, non-CPL citizen exercising their RKBA completely lawfully otherwise within a broad area well beyond school property. If that doesn't push our federal legislators to reform GFSZA, it also smells like a strong constitutional challenge in state and federal courts!

    We must keep seizing ground and we must keep bringing the fight to new fronts!
    No.
    As i pointed out in the letter to Mr. Opsommer, There is no excuse for opening up millions of people to federal prosecution in order to repeal a couple of pieces of paper, that affect a distinct and vast minority, that have thus far, done little to no harm to anyone.

    There is a time and a place, and a right and wrong way to do anything. In this case, we are getting the cart in front of the horse.
    Last edited by stainless1911; 06-14-2012 at 09:44 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902
    Quote Originally Posted by DanM View Post
    Perhaps, and registration repeal may raise more GFSZA risk for non-CPLs, but I agree with registration repeal on the following grounds:

    No 2A infringement should be accepted because it is "protection" against violating another 2A infringement. While we must work tirelessly to dismantle state and federal infringements, for this particular case it looks like the state-level battle may be won first. We must seize this state victory if we can, and continue the federal battle without letting up. In fact, there are at least three arguments for securing the state-level victory (registration repeal) before the federal-level one (GFSZA repeal or modification to not harm lawful RKBA):

    1) The opportunity to win gun-rights victories of this magnitude are not frequent. Seize it!

    2) Resources no longer diverted to registration repeal. Devote them to increasing resources on GFSZA repeal or modification.

    3) Going with your argument: with registration repeal, GFSZA would then harm every law-abiding, non-CPL citizen exercising their RKBA completely lawfully otherwise within a broad area well beyond school property. If that doesn't push our federal legislators to reform GFSZA, it also smells like a strong constitutional challenge in state and federal courts!

    We must keep seizing ground and we must keep bringing the fight to new fronts!
    While what you say makes sense. You must realize that gun owners are generally their own worst enemy. Look at how they helped bury SB59, now they don't want this.

    It's funny how the same people who didn't want SB 59 because they demanded constitution carry are now demanding that their permission slips be kept on the books for purchasing handguns.

    It probably won't pass the senate anyway. It would normally have a decent chance; however, with people calling their senators to kill the bill because of the GFSZ law, don't worry, it will die.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Repeal of the registration and purchase permits are a "violates my principals" type of an issue. the GFSZ puts innocents into prison.

    Which is worse?

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Yooper View Post
    Yes. I'd still be enthusiastic about it even if I didn't.

    I WANT to support this bill, I really do, but I can't.

    Perhaps you dont have such a minefield of GFSZ in the U.P., I really don't know, but down here in S.E. Lower Peninsula, travel is next to impossible without committing a felony. I'm sure if you were down here without a CPL, you would feel as many of us do.


    If this law had an exemption from the GFSZ, would be jumping for joy! I might even go borrow one of my daughters pom-poms.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •