Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 140

Thread: Open Carry Encounter (Tacoma PD, at US. Dept. of Homeland Security Detention Center

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    125

    Open Carry Encounter (Tacoma PD, at US. Dept. of Homeland Security Detention Center

    In this video, I was documenting a small protest at the U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Southwest Detention Center, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, WA (10 MAR 2014) I was approached by Tacoma PD Officer D. Reda. This officer represented himself, his department, and law enforcement, as a whole, in a professional and positive light. He is the benchmark for what other officers should strive for.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-SNZydpaDg
    Last edited by RogueReflections; 03-11-2014 at 12:35 AM. Reason: Adding correct video

  2. #2
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Okay, Scott.

    Since the police came and talked to you, any outside observer would view that because you are carrying that the police SHOULD talk to you and as an extension everyone else who open carries.

    You also gave identified yourself, teaching the police that all of us open carriers should ID ourselves.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So, you don't think there should be any investigation of someone filming the entrance to a Federal facility? Stop out front the gate to Everett Naval Base or Whidbey Naval Base and start filming the gates and see what happens.

    Let me ask this - if someone was in front of your house taking a video of it, what would you do?
    1. Public filming is fine. Maybe he is gathering b-roll. Just because he has a gun doesn't mean there's anything nefarious going on. Suspicion is the error.
    2. Taxpayers don't pay for my home.

    Overall, compared to what we've seen on youtube, this is a far better interaction than, say, Temple PD.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Okay, Scott.

    Since the police came and talked to you, any outside observer would view that because you are carrying that the police SHOULD talk to you and as an extension everyone else who open carries.

    You also gave identified yourself, teaching the police that all of us open carriers should ID ourselves.
    Pardon sir, but but who are you to tell me what I SHOULD think? I'm an outside observer, I see he's carrying, I see the police officer made a consensual contact. As it happens, I think the police MAY talk to someone who's openly carrying, but any other citizen is free to do the very same.

    The contact was consensual, any observer on the street could have approached Scott, even an ice cream vendor could have come up to him to offer his wares. The officer made no implication that Scott was in any way required to remain nor to answer the officer's questions.

    What I glean is that 'some people called the police to report something' and since I don't think they called the officer directly, I imagine the calls went to central dispatching. When central dispatching contacts the officer to 'go there and do that' he has a responsibility to his employers to 'go there and do that' or face disciplinary action. His attitude made it clear that the officer had no suspicion of illegal conduct and that he didn't think he was investigating a crime. He can now report back to the employers who ordered him to 'go there and do that' that he did indeed go and contact the person who was the subject of the calls and that he found no hint of illegal conduct.

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Paraphrasing the cop at the 1:02 minute mark.

    "We got a call about you having a gun."

    So, the cop did his job and made contact. He did not ask for ID. Yet he "deduced" that the citizen was not breaking any laws before he approached. So, why approach.....cuz he was told to. Not a thug cop. Just a thug policy that does not permit that cop to observe the facts present to him at the time and then decide a appropriate course of action (don't make contact cuz there is no law breaking evident) based on those facts.

    All things considered, the citizenry is once again comforted that the cops will engage LACs when called upon to do so.

    Liberty is not advanced in my view.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,137

    positive encounter with Whatcom County Sherrif

    I had a similar incident a few days ago. I sometimes pick my Sweet Baboo at work, and sometimes I just show up to escort her home when we ride the motorcycles.
    Sunday afternoon was great for motorcycles. I rode down the street passing the jail and pulled into the jail parking lot. I parked behind Herselfs bike, got off and stretched. There was a WCS squad in the lot and a Sheriff behind the wheel. It took him about ten or fifteen minutes to get out of the vehicle. He opened the trunk and peeked around the lid to observe me. A minute later he started to mosey my way, about thirty or forty feet.
    "Are you open carrying Sir?" "Yes, I am" as I sat on my bike. "Do you do it often?" "Why Yes, every day, all day". "I wanted to ask, because I am out in the County most of the time and you see it quite a bit there. Have you had any problems in the City?" Only once, with a patrolmen who wanted to bully me. Not about the gun, he was just a bully." " Do you have a CPL?" "Yes, I have to in order to carry on my bike or in a car without unloading?

    The Sheriff NEVER asked to produce ID, was very polite and treated me as just another Citizen. We talked about how the unload/load regarding vehicles was dumb and should be changed for safety. We both admired Herselfs bike spoke a bit more and he moved on. Now I was sitting in HIS parking lot, armed, and just sitting, waiting. He may have had a duel purpose, but it seemed to be a very positive encounter. Not every LEO is an allen bass.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  7. #7
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    K. Now I heard it finally :-). I still don't have a problem with the interaction, though.
    OK.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran Running Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Corner of No and Where
    Posts
    431
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Paraphrasing the cop at the 1:02 minute mark.

    "We got a call about you having a gun."

    So, the cop did his job and made contact. He did not ask for ID. Yet he "deduced" that the citizen was not breaking any laws before he approached. So, why approach.....cuz he was told to. Not a thug cop. Just a thug policy that does not permit that cop to observe the facts present to him at the time and then decide a appropriate course of action (don't make contact cuz there is no law breaking evident) based on those facts.

    All things considered, the citizenry is once again comforted that the cops will engage LACs when called upon to do so.

    Liberty is not advanced in my view.
    Thing is, if the cop hadn't made any contact, thereby advancing liberty, we never would have known. In fact, it might be happening much more frequently than we realize. I see these kinds of encounters, where contact is made but in a casual, non-offensive way, as advances, in civility if nothing else.
    When rights are outlawed only outlaws will have rights.

    Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. - Hanlon's Razor

    No American citizen should be willing to accept a government that uses its power against its own people. - Catherine Engelbrecht

  9. #9
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    "Are you open carrying Sir?" "Yes, I am" as I sat on my bike. "Do you do it often?" "Why Yes, every day, all day". "I wanted to ask, because I am out in the County most of the time and you see it quite a bit there. Have you had any problems in the City?" Only once, with a patrolmen who wanted to bully me. Not about the gun, he was just a bully." "Do you have a CPL?" "Yes, I have to in order to carry on my bike or in a car without unloading?
    That's one of those questions that can be taken two ways, depending upon circumstances.
    On the one hand, it could be an investigatory question that the officer wants to have proven that an illegal situation doesn't exist (or he's gonna take somebody to jail.)
    or,
    it could be an inquiry to make sure the person he's talking to understands the circumstances to something legally. As the officer was satisfied with the answer and didn't request further proof, I'm going with the latter interpretation.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate BB62's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,887
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    ...He may have had a duel purpose, but it seemed to be a very positive encounter...
    I doubt it. He may have had a dual purpose, though.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie View Post
    He may have had a duel purpose, but it seemed to be a very positive encounter.
    Quote Originally Posted by BB62 View Post
    I doubt it. He may have had a dual purpose, though.
    Yeah, those duels happen in the other Washington, on another lawn.

  12. #12
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Running Wolf View Post
    Thing is, if the cop hadn't made any contact, thereby advancing liberty, we never would have known. In fact, it might be happening much more frequently than we realize. I see these kinds of encounters, where contact is made but in a casual, non-offensive way, as advances, in civility if nothing else.
    Civility does not always equate to liberty, The cop did his job and was minimally invasive.....I stress, invasive. No matter how you slice it, the cop was put in a no win situation. Bad encounter, no matter how cordial is appeared to be.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Civility does not always equate to liberty, The cop did his job and was minimally invasive.....I stress, invasive. No matter how you slice it, the cop was put in a no win situation. Bad encounter, no matter how cordial is appeared to be.
    Thank you.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLCDR View Post
    So, you don't think there should be any investigation of someone filming the entrance to a Federal facility? Stop out front the gate to Everett Naval Base or Whidbey Naval Base and start filming the gates and see what happens. I don't see a single thing wrong with the encounter. And, "I'm Scott" is identifying yourself? Really?!?

    If there was someone filming the entrance to a Naval base, I would be disappointed if they were not approached and checked out.

    Not all police officers are the enemy of freedom and the Constitution.

    Let me ask this - if someone was in front of your house taking a video of it, what would you do?


    Is it unlawful to film the entrance to a federal facility?

    Is it unlawful to film the front of my house?

    Simply put nothing should happen if some one is filming the entrance to a federal facility or my home from the street since they are visible to the public from a public area.
    Throw me to the wolves and I will come back leading the pack.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Hayes View Post
    Is it unlawful to film the entrance to a federal facility?

    Is it unlawful to film the front of my house?

    Simply put nothing should happen if some one is filming the entrance to a federal facility or my home from the street since they are visible to the public from a public area.
    Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

    Difference between your house and a facility is no one cares about your house to blow it up or try to infiltrate to do damage.

    I'm pretty sure I can see inside your house with binoculars. Is that cool? Since its "public". What about your back yard? Sure you have a fence, but I can get a plane or a ladder. Would that be ok to take photos of your family hanging out by the pool?
    I sincerely hope your answers are no and that you would confront or call the cops on said person watching your house.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  16. #16
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".
    Pretty sure federal courthouses aren't among those 'facilities', maybe you know one that is illegal to film, or are you just speculatin'?

    As to the legality of photographing the inside of someone's house, it depends on if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that part of the house. Photographing, even with a high power lens someone at their dinner table, legal, in their bath? no bueno.

    So, let's say someone does call da coppers and they show up and begin asking questions. The photographer refuses to answer. What's their next step, the "it all depends on the totality of the circumstances" card?
    Are we going to 'move the goalposts' in order to manufacture circumstances that weren't apparent in your original post?
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 03-11-2014 at 11:55 PM.

  17. #17
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

    Difference between your house and a facility is no one cares about your house to blow it up or try to infiltrate to do damage.

    I'm pretty sure I can see inside your house with binoculars. Is that cool? Since its "public". What about your back yard? Sure you have a fence, but I can get a plane or a ladder. Would that be ok to take photos of your family hanging out by the pool?
    I sincerely hope your answers are no and that you would confront or call the cops on said person watching your house.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Cite.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  18. #18
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I said it before and I will say it again, if several armed citizens approached an officer just check what he's doing how would the officer feel?

    And "civilians" are not constitutionally restricted.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 03-11-2014 at 11:54 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    125

    I identified myself?

    You also gave identified yourself, teaching the police that all of us open carriers should ID ourselves.[/QUOTE]

    I did not "identify" myself. I gave my first name (which I did not need to do) but made sure to give my Rogue Reflections name. I did this so the officer could find the video (or anyone else who might be wanting to find out who originally posted the video.) When people post videos online, others try to steal them, and say they are the original poster. Live Leak simply takes videos other people have shot, puts their own watermark on it, and passes it off as their own. With me stating Scott, with Rogue Reflections, I am in no way identifying myself. I know better than to do that.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, United States
    Posts
    125

    Good or Bad.....

    I posted this video, in part, to show not all police are willing to violate the rights of citizens who are acting peacefully, and in a legal manner. There are TONS of those videos already. If I see a law enforcement officer doing that, you can be sure I will be filming and posting. I post encounters, whether positive or negative. With regards to filming the Homeland Security Detention Facility: as a photographer (and open carrier) it is my duty and responsibility to keep on top of all local, state and federal laws. You can be sure I am well aware of what I am legally able to do and not do. One of the last videos I did (30 MAY 2013 time frame) I was drawn on by a USCBP officer, while at the Port. What would have been an incident that only myself and the 10 officers on scene witnessed, turned into a video series where a few hundred thousand people have seen. I watch the watchers. They watch us, why not do the same. Many of the positive changes that are happening to law enforcement, on all levels, are directly due to the fact that videos of them surface. It is not longer "their" word against "ours." I don't even like the "us and them" mentality. I just want to remain a free citizen in a free country.
    - Rogue Reflections -

  21. #21
    Regular Member Alpine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Mercer Island
    Posts
    661
    I enjoy your videos. Keep up the photography.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    Pretty sure it is depending on the "facility".

    Difference between your house and a facility is no one cares about your house to blow it up or try to infiltrate to do damage.

    I'm pretty sure I can see inside your house with binoculars. Is that cool? Since its "public". What about your back yard? Sure you have a fence, but I can get a plane or a ladder. Would that be ok to take photos of your family hanging out by the pool?
    I sincerely hope your answers are no and that you would confront or call the cops on said person watching your house.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    Court cases abound on the "seeing" into a home. You walk around necked in your house, with the curtains/shades open, expect to be seen if someone is looking.

    I don't call the cops on folks snapping a photo of my house.

    If they are going to some extra lengths to see into my home, I approach and engage them in conversation. I ask invasive questions, take their photo, record their voice. I follow them to their vehicle. For some unknown reason folks who like to snap photos of my house don't come back. I repeat the process for any of my neighbors homes on my street. Snap a photo from the street, free country. there ain't no law that say I can engage you in a "consensual" manner.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by RogueReflections View Post
    In this video, I was documenting a small protest at the U.S. Dept. Of Homeland Security, Southwest Detention Center, Port of Tacoma, Tacoma, WA (10 MAR 2014) I was approached by Tacoma PD Officer D. Reda. This officer represented himself, his department, and law enforcement, as a whole, in a professional and positive light. He is the benchmark for what other officers should strive for.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-SNZydpaDg
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    Pretty sure federal courthouses aren't among those 'facilities', maybe you know one that is illegal to film, or are you just speculatin'?

    As to the legality of photographing the inside of someone's house, it depends on if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that part of the house. Photographing, even with a high power lens someone at their dinner table, legal, in their bath? no bueno.

    So, let's say someone does call da coppers and they show up and begin asking questions. The photographer refuses to answer. What's their next step, the "it all depends on the totality of the circumstances" card?
    Are we going to 'move the goalposts' in order to manufacture circumstances that weren't apparent in your original post?
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Cite.
    It says he was at a US homeland security "detention center". I personally don't know what that is. Is that a holding facility for illegals? For terrorists? Is it a court house?

    I can cite 18USC 795 - photographing and sketching defense installations.

    Says clearly need installation commander to approve any photographing of the base.

    Again... I said it depends on the installation. I have no idea if this place falls under that category. I was pretty sure there was something saying you can't just walk up to an installation and take photos or video.

    Also I'm sure there's case law and local regs and a million other things determining what facilities you can photograph.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Bothell
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Primus View Post
    It says he was at a US homeland security "detention center". I personally don't know what that is. Is that a holding facility for illegals? For terrorists? Is it a court house?

    I can cite 18USC 795 - photographing and sketching defense installations.

    Says clearly need installation commander to approve any photographing of the base.

    Again... I said it depends on the installation. I have no idea if this place falls under that category. I was pretty sure there was something saying you can't just walk up to an installation and take photos or video.

    Also I'm sure there's case law and local regs and a million other things determining what facilities you can photograph.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    I refer you to:
    §102-74.420 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....3.22.3.335.12)

    §102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes?

    Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in or on Federal property may take photographs of—
    (a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
    (b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying agency concerned; and
    (c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes.
    Recent (2010) court case: http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/..._10.18.10.pdf: (emphasis added)
    FPS will provide a written instruction to its officers and employees engaged in law enforcement, stating that for federal courthouses under the protective jurisdiction of FPS, there are currently no general security regulations prohibiting exterior photography by individuals from publicly accessible spaces, absent a written local rule, regulation, or order. The instruction will also inform FPS officers and employees of the public's general right to photograph the exterior of federal courthouses from publicly accessible spaces. Counsel for defendants will provide written notice to counsel for plaintiff upon issuance of such a written instruction.
    [Kicker]
    3. Nothing in this agreement precludes FPS or the United States, or any department, agency, agent, officer, or employee of the United States (collectively, the "Government") or any
    law-enforcement officer from taking any legally permissible law-enforcement action, including but not limited to approaching any individual taking photographs and asking for the voluntary
    provision of information such as the purpose of taking the photographs or the identity of the individual, or taking lawful steps to ascertain whether unlawful activity, or reconnaissance for the
    purpose of a terrorist or unlawful act, is being undertaken.
    Furthermore,
    Since Musumeci had been charged with violating a regulation that applied to all federal property, not just courthouses, the NYCLU hold the position that the settlement in effect covers photography [of] all federal buildings.
    And last little bit- If you're going to cite a code/law, get it right and not selectively pull out the part that supports your viewpoint. The USC clearly states (emphasis added):

    Whenever, in the interests of national defense, the President defines certain vital military and naval installations or equipment as requiring protection against the general dissemination of information relative thereto, it shall be unlawful to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map, or graphical representation of such vital military and naval installations or equipment without first obtaining permission of the commanding officer of the military or naval post, camp, or station, or naval vessels, military and naval aircraft, and any separate military or naval command concerned, or higher authority, and promptly submitting the product obtained to such commanding officer or higher authority for censorship or such other action as he may deem necessary.
    (b) Whoever violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    4,216
    Quote Originally Posted by mikeyb View Post
    I refer you to:
    §102-74.420 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx....3.22.3.335.12)

    Recent (2010) court case: http://www.nyclu.org/files/releases/..._10.18.10.pdf: (emphasis added)


    Furthermore,

    And last little bit- If you're going to cite a code/law, get it right and not selectively pull out the part that supports your viewpoint. The USC clearly states (emphasis added):
    First, that's great you cited a bunch of stuff about courthouses. Was this a court house? I asked that multiple times and no one answered.

    Second, it says entrances to building and public space.. I would submit that the gated security entrance to a facilities would be different then a front door to a building.

    Third, everything you cited specifically says unless there is a rule or regulation that says otherwise. Do we know if this facility has said rules?

    Finally, I've said at least three times that it depends on the facility. Do we know if this facility is declared vital interest by the president or whoever? Probably not right. So this is just peeing in the wind.

    My point was DEPENDING on the facility (4th time) you can't just walk up and photograph it. If this is indeed a protected court house then so be it he's clearly good to go (if no other regulation or rule saying he can't). If its some other kind of "facility" then he may have been in the wrong.

    I was asked for a cite and provided it.

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
    "The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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